Capitalism + Garments = ?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_cinepro
_Emeritus
Posts: 4502
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm

Capitalism + Garments = ?

Post by _cinepro »

_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Capitalism + Garments = ?

Post by _The Nehor »

I was under the impression that most garments were made within the family during that time period. It's still an option now but discouraged in most areas of the Church.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_Danna

Re: Capitalism + Garments = ?

Post by _Danna »

oh crickey!

Image
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Capitalism + Garments = ?

Post by _harmony »

boys and girls? Boys and Girls!?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_solomarineris
_Emeritus
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:51 am

Re: Capitalism + Garments = ?

Post by _solomarineris »

The Nehor wrote:I was under the impression that most garments were made within the family during that time period. It's still an option now but discouraged in most areas of the Church.

Do you wear a temple garment?
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Capitalism + Garments = ?

Post by _harmony »

solomarineris wrote:
The Nehor wrote:I was under the impression that most garments were made within the family during that time period. It's still an option now but discouraged in most areas of the Church.

Do you wear a temple garment?


Too personal. And a given, to boot. Geez, solo.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_The Nehor
_Emeritus
Posts: 11832
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:05 am

Re: Capitalism + Garments = ?

Post by _The Nehor »

solomarineris wrote:
The Nehor wrote:I was under the impression that most garments were made within the family during that time period. It's still an option now but discouraged in most areas of the Church.

Do you wear a temple garment?


This has what to do with this exactly?
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
_JoetheClerk
_Emeritus
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 2:11 am

Re: Capitalism + Garments = ?

Post by _JoetheClerk »

"This has what to do with this exactly?"
If your picture is close to accurate it has to do with whether they come in 'expedition tent' sizes.

One problem with garments is that if you go into the church store to buy them and they have to order your all cotton garments, they refuse to take cash. Must be a credit card only. For an outfit that preaches fiscal responsibility it makes little sense to force people to have a credit card just to buy magic undies. The idiots didn't want to take an Out of State Check(even with our Temple Recommend) and refused to take cash. One patron overheard the screwy rule and our loudly escalating discussion, stepped in and paid for them with his credit card and we gave him cash.

Stupidest people on the planet Earth, those idiots in Utah.

It is easy to see why BYU frosh wear a T-shirt upside down so the girls will feel the 'line' of the 'garment' on the leg on the date and the guys get further with the foolish RM-seeking babes.

Maybe one biggie for White Shirts is that it is easier to see the smile line from Garments through thin white cloth. Can't see it from decent colored shirts as easily.
Post Reply