See ya....again!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_krose
_Emeritus
Posts: 2555
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:18 pm

Post by _krose »

beastie wrote:I think liz is referring to the little "talk" the temple matron has with first timers. I was told to never let the garments touch the floor, not to wear them to the doctor (maybe they tell people that more in the mission field where it's like the doc isn't LDS), to step into them with my right foot first, and to wash them with respect and care. I never would throw them in the wash with other clothes due to those instructions. One of my companions and I discussed some of these rules on my mission, and she hadn't been told the same thing in CA. She scoffed at the "right foot first" like it was a silly superstition. Imagine. ;)

Other than cutting the marks off and burning them, I never heard of any of those. Right foot first? Wow, that does sound weird. Reminds me of the people who slap their kids' left hand if they reach for the sacrament with it.

Maybe the ladies are given different instructions governing modesty (wouldn't surprise me), because I never ran into a missionary or college roomie who was hesitant about parading around in his 'g-shirt' in the presence of other guys or family. (Of course, at that time they were all one piece, so 'shirt' is not really accurate.)
_ludwigm
_Emeritus
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:07 am

Post by _ludwigm »

beastie wrote:I was also told to cut out the markings and burn them. Then the garmies could be used as regular rags.


as far as I know, in the army&navy where private underwear is not permitted, they should use pinned-on or sewed-on marks.
According to this, only the markings count. Not the material, not the fashion (color, length, neck-line). The (masonic) markings only.

Then, why shouldn't one use other fashions with the proper marks?
( e.g. http://www.knickerpicker.com/dressing-room.asp )

Generally, I don't comment sex threads.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

Blixa wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote:
Blixa wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote:
Blixa wrote:Yes but all this is beside the point---I need an in real life ignore button. Lil' help?


It has been mentioned several times...no dice says the administration.


You mean they actually have the power to let me render people invisible In Real Life and they are holding out? Curses!!


I don't know if they have the power or not...but an ignore option has been brought up several times and the admins thing it's anti-free speech, free expression.


Man did my joke ever fall flat. I meant not on the board, in REAL LIFE...oh never mind.


I got it, Blixa. ;)

And, if it makes you feel better, I wish I had an ignore button I could use in real life, too. LOL
_krose
_Emeritus
Posts: 2555
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:18 pm

Post by _krose »

ludwigm wrote:as far as I know, in the army&navy where private underwear is not permitted, they should use pinned-on or sewed-on marks.
According to this, only the markings count. Not the material, not the fashion (color, length, neck-line). The (masonic) markings only.

When my brother went to Vietnam, he dyed all his garms green (so he wouldn't get his butt shot off, he said). That was the compromise the church made at the time. So the US Army had no rule against private undies, at least in the 70s. I don't know about now.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Bryan Inks
_Emeritus
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:03 pm

Post by _Bryan Inks »

krose wrote:
ludwigm wrote:as far as I know, in the army&navy where private underwear is not permitted, they should use pinned-on or sewed-on marks.
According to this, only the markings count. Not the material, not the fashion (color, length, neck-line). The (masonic) markings only.

When my brother went to Vietnam, he dyed all his garms green (so he wouldn't get his butt shot off, he said). That was the compromise the church made with at the time. So the US Army had no rule against private undies, at least in the 70s. I don't know about now.


Currently, they still have no rule.

The Church also produces a DBU tan and a BDU green version of the garments only for those in the service.
_skippy the dead
_Emeritus
Posts: 1676
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am

Post by _skippy the dead »

Bryan Inks wrote:
krose wrote:
ludwigm wrote:as far as I know, in the army&navy where private underwear is not permitted, they should use pinned-on or sewed-on marks.
According to this, only the markings count. Not the material, not the fashion (color, length, neck-line). The (masonic) markings only.

When my brother went to Vietnam, he dyed all his garms green (so he wouldn't get his butt shot off, he said). That was the compromise the church made with at the time. So the US Army had no rule against private undies, at least in the 70s. I don't know about now.


Currently, they still have no rule.

The Church also produces a DBU tan and a BDU green version of the garments only for those in the service.


My understanding is that you can send in your standard issue and have the marks silk-screened on the inside.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
_Doctor Steuss
_Emeritus
Posts: 4597
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:57 pm

Post by _Doctor Steuss »

Blixa wrote:Yes but all this is beside the point---I need an in real life ignore button. Lil' help?

Canibus.
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski
Post Reply