“This year I’ve decided not to bother with fixing a dress I like to make it garment-approved and instead aim towards modest in general. I found a dress that won’t show my cleavage, stomach, or back but will show my shoulders. … Since we’re told to not go out of our way in order to avoid garments, should the same rule in reverse also apply?”

I don’t think you understand the spirit of wearing garments at all, NewlyHousewife. Maybe you’re very young or maybe you haven’t been taught, but “modest in general” is not the same thing as garment appropriate.

We should be striving to wear our garments as instructed unless there is a valid reason for removing them. Fashion and an optional social event are not valid reasons to just ignore the covenants you made in the temple. Even if the dance is “work related,” it’s still NOT work.

My husband’s company throws a large, swanky social at Christmas every year. The dress is formal. His coworkers show up in everything from tuxedos to ball gowns and we’ve attended most years since he started at this company 10 years ago. Knowing about the event in advance, I haven’t had any difficulty finding appropriate clothing that I can wear with my garments. Does it take a little effort? Yes. I don’t stop by the mall and find the right outfit in 15 minutes. However, I haven’t had to special order anything online or alter my garments for the event. I’m not a size 2 and I’m very short, so I’m not the easiest person to shop for to begin with, but there are always options. And I have never been out of place among my husband’s coworkers for these events. Likewise, I don’t think I’ve spent more than $50-$80 on any one outfit for these parties.

Just because wearing garments isn’t always convenient doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make an effort to respect the CHOICE we each made to make those covenants.

Newly Housewife, I support your decision to look for “modest in general” dresses in the future instead of obsessing over cap sleeves so you can keep your garment top on for a 3-hour event. I don’t believe God is displeased when we choose to make our lives a little easier by wearing the $15 dress form ebay instead of spending an extra $50 plus hours of time sewing and who knows how much headache. Our garments are meant to be a reminder of our covenants, and how we wear them is our own personal stewardship. To paraphrase Mark 2:27, were garments made for man, or man for garments? I believe it is the former.

We’re told to dress modestly so as not to draw attention to ourselves, but the women in my post who chose to wear garment-appropriate dress in doing so were drawing attention to themselves.

I’m with you for the most part, but I think you’re reaching here. It’s ok to feel like it’s very difficult to find garment-appropriate formalwear in your size at a price you can afford (I’ve heard many, many Mormon women and girls complain about the same thing) but it’s not ok to condemn the other women for their solution to this problem. they are doing their best in the face of a difficult situation, just as you are.

PPP, your snotty comment isn’t helping either. It’s not necessary to use bold and caps on a single word. Do you think we’re not hearing your judgmental tone well enough? Believe me, we get it.

I applaud your attempt to do the best you can, to spend time thinking about this issue.

I will say that wearing the garment properly is about covenants, not about modesty. I personally feel keeping my covenants are more important than the part of the policies of modesty about not drawing attention to myself in this context, or a difference in price that is likely not obvious to anyone else.

Christ also spoke about a light on a hill. Perhaps those other LDS women who were drawing attention to themselve BECAUSE of their modesty, were being the light.

I agree with Paroled from the Primary Presidency, though not necessarily with the way she stated all she said.

I believe the garment is about modesty AND our covenants. I also believe the garment is the barest guide. By this I mean, if a woman is buxom, she should not necessarily wear a given blouse just because her Gs are covered, but consider how much of her body is left exposed. There is a way the Gs are meant to cover the breasts and chest. If breasts are very large, the blessed lady may need to consider how much MORE than her Gs cover she needs to conceal.

As for me, I believe and feel strongly and practice that there is no circumstance in which I do not wear my Gs. I wear them to exercise, swim, garden… everything. And I’m raising my girls to do the same… to always wear garment covering attire for any and every occassion.

Finally, I believe there are times when Christ expects us to, by our adherance to His Laws, draw attention to ourselves… not that we’re TRYing to draw attention, but (like those ladies you mentioned) because we’re trying to simply be obedient to the very best of our ability.

Often enough we make a difference between letter and spirit of the law when there is no need.

I think NH’s point is that the church’s sizing system doesn’t
allow for women (or men, likely) of the same height
being different thicknesses.

It sounds like NH is on the thin side, and that Gs made
for her height are too wide for her. And the size of
Gs that are made for her width, are likely too short.

Bookslinger, I’m on the skinny but severely blessed side. So nothing I wear fits right.

Regarding the octagenarian BYU alumna who wore modest strapless gowns back in their salad days: When the culture as a whole has the same general expectations and practices regarding sex as the Latter-day Saints, then that’s possible. When 90% of those arriving at marriage are not virgins, and 40% of children are born outside of marriage, then the Mormon culture has to be oppositional to the larger society in ways it didn’t need to be before, to explicitly signal “No, I don’t do all the same things everyone else does.” There’s a portrait of Mary Todd Lincoln in a strapless gown while First Lady; who would be the most recent First Lady to pose in a strapless gown?

Paroled, Your negativity and condescension needs to go!

The problem, Tori, is that “because we’re trying to simply be obedient to the very best of our ability” suggests that your hedge around the law (or around the garment, if you will) is a sign of greater obedience, when some might just think it’s a sign that you’ve become a fanatic about something the Lord doesn’t require.

That being said, I wouldn’t follow NewlyHousewife’s solution. Back when shirts open to the waist and gold chains were all the rage, I never felt that I should remove my garments so I could join in. But then I don’t have enough hair on my chest to pull off that look anyway.

Ok, John, but that scowl on Mary Todd Lincoln’s face will stop even the randiest 14-year-old from even a hint of an improper thought.

Which suggests a solution–show all the cleavage you dare, but look mean. It all evens out in the end.

NewlyHousewife, I’m glad 90% seems too high. Would that it were so. From the CDC URL below:
Percent of ever-married men and women who ever had premarital intercourse in 2002: women, 84.9%, men, 91.3%.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/abc_list_p.htm#premarital

Right you are, living in zion. We teach the young men in church that they have to be worthy at any minute to call on angels and rebuke Death, and it seems to have some effect on them. A study showed a rate of sexual experience among 18-year-old Latter-day Saints of 11% compared with 58% for all American 18-year-old boys. The rate was 19% for the LDS girls and 59% for all American 18-year-old girls.

My apologies for the judgmental tone, but this issue sticks in my craw.

NewlyHousewife – “I’m assuming you live in Utah where you can find garment-covering, used formals at the thrift store. I can’t get that as I live in the Mid West nor can I get that online for under $100 in my size.”

Actually, I live in New England. I wear a size 16-18 petite (depending on the brand) so I’m not an easy size to find (plus sizes swamp me and a lot of brands don’t carry clothes past a 14). If you “can’t” find garment appropriate clothing, you need to look harder. Garment-appropriate clothing is available in major department stores today for both everyday wear and formal events.

My real issue here is the attitude. Wearing our garments is a reminder of a covenants we each chose to make. You have an obligation to live up to your side of that promise. I get tired of hearing about the “burden” of garments-they’re not sexy, they’re expensive, they’re a pain when I want to wear special clothing, and on and on. Wearing our garments is a privilege and a blessing.

I have a friend who, through her own choices, has put herself in a place where she can’t access the blessings of the temple. It started with removing her garments on a day-to-day basis for similar reasons mentioned here (too hot, special occasions, poor fit, etc.). Even she will acknowledge that she willingly removed some protections from her own life by willingly removing her garments when not necessary.

IMO, a formal event is not a necessary reason for removing one’s garments. You aren’t required to attend, and, even if you are, there is no uniform. It is possible to wear garment-appropriate clothing and be appropriate for the activity. No, I don’t wear mine to swim or exercise or while being intimate with my husband. However, I strive on a daily basis to respect the covenants I made in the temple and wish others would try to do the same.

You may have rationalized why you just can’t manage to respect the covenants you’ve made and the obligations related to those covenants, but don’t expect everyone else to be as cavalier about those choices.

#28 NewlyHousewife – So, the only way to find garment-appropriate clothing is to spend lots of money? I’m telling you, it’s not. Nor do I go for a “mother of the bride” look when dressing for formal events. Just because you’re shopping at a department store doesn’t mean it has to be expensive. The “high end” stores I shop at are Burlington Coat Factory, JCPenney, Sears, and Kohls. All have reasonable prices and regular coupons and sales. And I don’t buy a new dress for each event (we can’t afford it nor would I waste my money that way).

I don’t think you’re reading my comments very thoroughly. I never said you’re too poor and don’t “deserve” to have fun. But, it’s still a CHOICE you’re making to attend. It’s not a REQUIRED event. And, as such, you’re making a CHOICE about the clothing you’re wearing.

And, come off it. Wearing sleeves means you’re trying to dress old? Give me a break! I think I tried to sell my mom the same story while looking for dresses for my Junior Prom. You’re trying to rationalize your choice by saying you would draw undue attention to yourself and look weird if you wore something that covered your garments.

Not all clothing that covers garments has to be expensive. A budget is not an excuse for choosing to wear something that doesn’t meet the standards of an endowed member.

I think you and your mother went above and beyond to honor the letter of the law and in the end, honored the spirit.

Tori, hon, you’re a bit off the wall, I think. That kind of thinking is what makes kids go crazy as teenagers; I’d say you’re in for a rude awakening.

THAT being said, there is much wisdom in what Paroled says. I agree with her. I’m not obsessive about garment wearing, but they are a sacred and necessary part of our observance. Again, it’s not rocket science to get garments that fit correctly. I do realize that some of you live in a place where you have to order your garments, but I’ve never heard of altering garments as has been described here. Never.

Paroled: I do not read negativity and condescension and I hope you don’t ever go away :).

My daughter’s husband is in the Marine Reserves and they went to the ball last year. She found a gorgeous dress in a consignment store, with sleeves. It’s a beautiful blue, formal, kind of what you’d think of a Vera Wang style. Very simple, long and silky, short-sleeved, modest, but stunning. She did have to look for it, but it wasn’t impossible and didn’t require any alterations to her garments. It can be done.

#12 Bookslinger: That’s for dang sure!

#19 Mark: I agree

Sister in law spent 20 years as an officer’s wife, so she had a different budget, but still, she did have to work to find appropriate dresses for formal stuff. I think the jacket over the shoulder is what my own wife opts for on the very rare occasion that we’ve gone to something formal. I hope whoever puts on these formals would not be “offended” if a woman came to the party wearing a conservative, better than Sunday but less than Oscars presentation, dress. My own daughters have managed to find things for proms that were appropriate, and they weren’t even wearing garments. As for wearing garments in general, I grew up and still live in the Deep South. Yes, it is hot as Hades down here. There’s nothing like walking around in 80% humidity at 85 degrees at 8:00 am to make your day! I wear t-shirts and knee length shorts all the time that cover my garments. I’m a little with Tori on that aspect. Mowing the yard and weed eating and edging (to me) are not an excuse to take off my garments to get a tan. So does my wife, whether we’re working in the yard or doing any other outdoor activity, even exercising. And so do my kids. None of us has ever suffered heat stroke or anything else. You’re going to get sweaty one way or another, so we just plow on. I’ve even taken to wearing rash guard swim shirts when I swim or kayak, and my board shorts/swim suits cover my bottom. I do take them off on occasion to swim, but they’ve become so a part of me, it’s not a big deal to wear them. And I only have to put sunscreen on my exposed areas. (I don’t know too many guys who like to wear sunscreen). I know – women are not going to wear their garments with their swimsuits, but even my wife, if we’re not actually at a formal swimmning pool or beach, wear usually wear a t-shirt and light swim shorts. I know some women (and men) who want to remove their garments and wear (usually) shorter shorts and muscle shirts, but it really isn’t that hard to wear clothes that cover the garment. I do get griped occasionaly when I see Marie Osmond and/or Gladys Knight in clothing that would appear to not be garment appropriate, but I’ve tried to take the attitude of not worrying about it. I don’t think my daughters or other young women are holding them up as models of modesty. That’s their business, not mine, as are all these other issues dealing with garments. My understanding of the admonition in the temple recommend is to wear the garment by night and day except for activities when clothing is not worn. No, I would not go to the extreme of including sexual relations, but the wording doesn’t leave a lot of wiggle room with respect to other activies where clothes are normally worn.

Where? I’ve got Handbook 1 and Handbook 2 at my disposal. Maybe I’ve missed something.

“Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible… Handbook 1. I don’t read that as we shouldn’t wear garments if we swim. Like I said, I’ve just taken to wearing the rash guard shirts that thoroughly cover my garments. I didn’t mean to imply that I expect anyone else to do what I do. And BTW…” nor should they alter the garment from its authorized design…” Finally, “they should not remove it, either entirely or partially, to work in the yard or for other activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn beneath the clothing..” My point is that for me, I can work in the yard and wear my garments. I leave it to others to make that decision for themselves.

NewlyHousewife, for what it’s worth (irrespective of the modest formalwear discussion) you can special order garments made to specification, so if you’re finding they don’t fit right, that might be an option for you. My grandfather has been doing it for years because the seams bug him. I think it does cost a bit more, though.

#36 NewlyHousewife – “Are women who turn down the honor of being a bridesmaid just because the dress is sleeveless wrong for putting their garment ahead of a relationship? Asking a bride to alter her wedding, and budget, takes away from the union and makes it all about sleeves.”

Just because you’re asked to be a bridesmaid in a friend’s wedding and the dress doesn’t meet standards doesn’t mean (1) that you have to turn down the honor of accepting or (2) that you have to ask the bride to alter her wedding or “make it all about sleeves.” There are options besides these.

When good friends asked my husband and me to be in their wedding (we had introduced the couple), I faced the issue of wearing a strappy gown as a bridesmaid that didn’t meet garment standards. My friend knew I was LDS and knew I had some clothing standards. I spoke with her and asked if she would mind if I added a short jacket to the dress to cover my shoulders. She wasn’t offended and, actually, one of the other bridesmaids (not LDS) ended up asking for a similar accomodation because she just wasn’t comfortable in the dress the bride had chosen. I had a little jacket made out of similar fabric that complemented the dress perfectly. It cost me about $40, but as the dress was close to $200 alone (which each bridesmaid paid for herself), the additional cost was really minimal comparatively.

Here’s the important part: it DIDN’T ruin her wedding. The day wasn’t all about me. And no one even seemed to notice our dresses weren’t completely identical. The even bigger shocker? We’re still friends.

Stand up for your values. Wear your garments as instructed. Be an example for others whether they’re LDS or not. This is how I live (at least I try).

Paroled, you’re fortunate in your experience. The friends I have here would have found it insulting if a bridesmaid asked to alter the dress after they’ve spent countless hours trying to find one. Even more insulting is the fact that having one bridesmaid in a jacket when everyone else is wearing sleeveless looks funny in the pictures. You were fortunate that another bridesmaid asked for a jacket as well, then some type of symmetry could be achieved.

#38 annegb – “Another thing I haven’t been able to find are silk sleeved camis. You can find them, but not the pretty dressy ones.”

I actually have some very cute cap-sleeve camisoles that are silky… I got them online through a “modest clothing” retailer. I’ll have to check the tag ’cause I can’t remember the name. Right now I only have my post-partum clothes out so it could take a bit to find… :-)

IDIAT: no, I just thought I could get my hands on one.

NH: you’re killing me….

Paroled, I would love that.

That would be all good if the subject wasn’t brought up as a topic post. That precludes rubber stamping any opinion and opens it up to opposing points of view. That’s not the same as judging. If you want to be in the kitchen, take the heat. Or however that saying goes. Part of the job description :).

Truth is “easiest questions” is a relative term depending on who’s talking.

And you know what? Your “fangs out” comment is condescending and sexist. YOU are guilty of judging. Did you read all the comments carefully? They were pretty reasonable, considering the level of disagreement. Nobody called anybody names. You made me mad. My fangs aren’t out, but my fists are up; how rude. You can put your preaching up where the sun don’t shine.

annegb, your facebook settings currently are set so no one besides your friends can see your pictures. You can edit them to allow just the album (I think specific pictures too) be available to the public.

Sorry to offend, it was not my intention. It was just to remark that people felt very strongly about how other people were wearing their underwear. I know that ‘easiest’ questions is relative. Of course, it is. That was also my point.

I thought men had fangs too. I sure do.

NewlyHousewife and annegb:
you should try eshakti
http://www.eshakti.com/Products/Dresses#

They customize for a modest fee–you can choose alternative lengths and sleeves for any of their styles.

*showing up IN any

I’m going to bed, it’s clearly too late in the night for me to type clearly.

I sewed my own dress (for the “modest” total price of $15 for fabric and pattern) for a fancy dress party this past June and it was a strappy, off-the-shoulder dress. Went to the party and ran into another ward member wearing a sleeveless dress. Both of our dresses were appropriate for the occasion and we could not reasonably wear our garments with them. So we didn’t. And we were back at church the next day teaching YW and nursery without any lightening bolt scars or anything!

I’m having a little trouble reconciling the two notions that this military ball was a very special, very formal, once every few years, blow out all the stops occasion, and that it was very important to spend under $100 on an appropriate gown. What did Mr. NewlyHousewife wear and how much did he spend?

He wore his uniform, I’m sure.

I’m not a morning person, but at first I read that as it costing a million dollars to look good when you’re fifty. Which is almost true.

Well, my comment earlier is in moderation. But it provides some links to internet resources that sew custom tailored modest formals.

You can also periodically check clearance at Simply Elegant, and find dresses for under $100. (simplyelegantforyou.com)

Thank you, annegb!

I’m on a search roll, now. Time to stop. But not before I share lightinthebox.com, which allows you to search by sleeve length and has reasonable pricing.

It is interesting that we often refer to a covenant to wear garments, yet I remember no such explicit covenant. I do remember an instruction.

When I was a bishop decades ago, those entering the military service were given a fairly short instruction about wearing garments with general principles and then a statement something like that they were to use their own judgment in applying the principles.

NewlyHousewife, you are the judge in how you answer the recommend question or in how you interpret the temple garment instruction and the supplements issued by the Brethren. It is sort of like tithing or Sabbath observance.

My recollection is that it was a subject of much discussion on the Bloggernacle when Ann Romney did not wear garment friendly attire at the Massachusetts governor’s inaugural ball for her husband. http://www.millennialstar.org/who-is-ann-romney/

Perhaps Sister Romney was “wrong”. Perhaps you are “wrong” too. Or perhaps those who may call either of you “wrong” are the ones who are “wrong.” The supplemental garment instruction does mention things like wearing garments while home at leisure, but it does not address formal balls, performing in Vegas, or dancing at the Polynesian Cultural Center. (When I visited there 20 years ago, the female performers tops did not cover their shoulders.)

Yes, in the early 1950s, strapless ball gowns were common at BYU. Until Elder Spencer W. Kimball gave an address at BYU condemning them, after which students felt obligated to “Kimball-ize” their formal attire. http://bycommonconsent.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/blakesley.pdf

As to those who felt it necessary to criticize me, I’m sorry for you. I was attacking no one. I’m sorry you felt it necessary to call me names… or say I’m “out there” or make negative predictions about my children. That’s just sad, isn’t it?

My family has very little in the way of extra money… as a result we don’t use AC in Central Florida… at all. The first summer of that was excruciating, but this, our third, is quite tolerable. I have worn my garments throughout. It’s all about deciding to make a change and then accepting the difficulties that come along with it.

To him who wrote, “The problem, Tori, is that ‘because we’re trying to simply be obedient to the very best of our ability’ suggests that your hedge around the law (or around the garment, if you will) is a sign of greater obedience, when some might just think it’s a sign that you’ve become a fanatic about something the Lord doesn’t require.” I respond: First, who says the Lord doesn’t require it? You? I beleive He DOES require it, which is why I choose to live as I am. Secondly, I am NOT saying or implying that my hedge around the Law is a sign of greater obedience, as you put it. This is your incorrect interpretation of what I have shared. What I said, perhaps poorly, is that, in my opinion, there is no good reason to make for removing our Gs. I am explaining my conviction. Perhaps it’s a sign of my level of conversion. Although I recognize that this is a possibility, I am not saying that this is the reality. You seem to be… not directly, but that’s you’re opinion if it is what you imply. My convction is, of course, I realize, my opinion based on belief and, yes, I know I am in the minority.

To answer, “Do you get your swimsuits from the Muslim websites? That is the only way you could wear garments while swimming. Does your husband wear his full garment while swimming too? Muslims don’t require the men to be as covered as women, so I guess for your husband he would have to be creative with swim wear.”

No. We cannot afford the full-coverage swimsuits, though that would be nice. We wear t-shirts and shorts to swim. Perfect coverage since we only wear G covering attire as a rule. So, you are mistaken. Buying those suits is not the only way I can accomodate my Gs while I swim.

My husband is not LDS. He has been among my attackers in the past, but has come to be glad that I choose to respect and honor my covenants to the very best of my ability at all times… and to raise our children to do so, in expectation that they will make the same covenants in the future, too.

As for our family, my husband wears a t-shirt during all public activities… and by public I mean anything that involves more than the two of us.

For me, it’s not about being better than anyone else, as a previously quoted person implied. It’s about abiding my personal convictions. I have felt the whispers of The Holy Ghost direct me down difficult paths of strict obedience (not just always wearing my Gs). I rarely obey immediately because I am super imperfect, but when I get to being obedient, I do try to obey perfectly. I do, indeed, fail regularly and sometimes constantly, but I do continue to try.

God bless, Tori, I’m sure you told only a small part of your story. I don’t agree with your vision of proper garment wearing, but I can see your feelings were wounded. It’s the nature of blogging to be plain spoken and while it semms that the criticisms of you were personal, they were not. I do think your choices reflect fear and in my long life, I’ve seen that kind of thing end badly. Again, God bless.

Tori, I think God would be fine with it.

annegb, of course. How could I tell my whole story? Even I don’t know that. While you may and will have your opinion about my motivations, I have shared them: desire to obey to the best of my ability. Interpret as you will… and think of my future what you choose.

I just ran across another blog and it ties in here (for me). It’s about standing apart through (good) etiquette. http://raisinghomemakers.com/2012/standing-apart-through-etiquette/ I happened to read it today and it helped me understand my main qualm with NH’s initial post (which was also solidified by some of her additional comments). tracys said what I think/feel… almost, in comment 76.

Basically, I have this feeling that NH is trying to make her position correct while not feeling it correct. This is, of course, my own interpretation of words she has shared and I’m sure NH would say she really doesn’t see anything wrong with wearing a sleeveless dress once or twice a year. But NH keeps citing that such attire is more “appropriate” to the circumstances and certainly easier to aquire, though not necessarily saying it in those words.

The etiquette blog post a contrasts to this one because that author argues that we should not change our manners to fit in (basically and loosely paraphrased, of course), while NH suggests that we should lower our standards to fit in and be (based on comments NH has made herself) more “modest” because we are then not drawing attention to ourselves….

We should simply, as numerous commentors have stated in various ways (and which I totally agree with, thus the restating of it in my own way), live as our Heavenly Father would have us live and let the chips fall where they may. This is the correct way, reinforced by scripture.

Please do not mistake my comments and desire to share my thoughts on this subject with a judgement of individuals who live in a manner other than my own. We are all, afterall, at different levels of conversion. And conversion pertains to each and every aspect of Christ’s Doctrine, not just this one! I know, from my own life, that I do not truly understand any other human on this planet… including me since I don’t know my pre-history!

Just wanted to try to clarify my opinion for me and anyone else who might care in any limited sort of way. Thanks for allowing such in comments here. :)

Tori, I have no problem with what you personally would do/wear in any given situation. What drove me bonkers was your judgmental tone by implying that the hoops I had to jump through the first time, only to have them fail, are not good enough and by saying “I give up, I’m just going to wear what I feel comfortable in” I am also saying I don’t believe in God as much as you do. The level of conversion really has nothing to do with it. It’s about what each of us feel is appropriate in any given situation. I feel like all the crap I had to go through with the first dress was taking the act of wearing the garments to the extreme, to the point that the clothing became more important than the event. It has nothing to do with lowering my standards. It has everything to do with whether or not I was focusing on the proper spirit in wearing the garments–that it’s a blessing, not a curse.

NH: Is this animated gif/video you?

http://cheezburger.com/6284271872

It has a kitten in it.

NH- wear what you feel comfortable in. I haven’t been through the temple so I don’t wear garments, but this is the first summer I’ve taken to wearing tank tops on a regular basis and I couldn’t be happier. I tend to sweat a lot and I hate getting big sweat marks under my arms. It makes me feel gross and self-conscious and I can’t stand it. When I was in jr. High I would wear a jacket everyday to hide it and in high school I would only wear big ugly t-shirts to try and avoid the problem. (and yes I tried all the expensive deoderents, including the prescription ones)

The problem isn’t as severe these days, but this summer I’d had enough and went with what made me feel happy and confident. Which is wearing tank tops and feeling cool and sweat mark-free.

I know it’s different when you have garments, but, IMO, God cares more about your heart than what underwear your wearing. Spirituality is such a personal thing and I’ve come to realize lately how individual it is. Tori, for example, feels closest to God by strict obedience to the letter of the law and that is great for her, but that doesn’t mean it works the same for everyone. It doesn’t work that way for me. And it doesn’t make her better than me or visa-versa. We just feel differently about how we connect to God.

Best of luck. From your posts, I think you’re a good person and that’s what matters most.

My Mom used to always say, “I wasn’t trying to give you a guilt trip, if you felt guilty, maybe there’s a reason for that.”

I wasn’t being judgemental. I’m sorry you felt that I was… or that my tone was judgemental. I was simply expressing my opinion on the subject you wrote about in this blog and declaring my own conversion level (and stating/implying that it could be an indication of degree of conversion because constant wearing of my Gs is an indicator for me, as it has changed over the years).

Again, I feel no judgement about you, as a person. Of course I have an opinion about what you’ve shared, but I do not think you’re a bad person. Therein, I think, lies the difference.