clarkgoble Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 1 minute ago, bluebell said: For most women, the problems with bras and garments don't have to deal with chaffing or comfort. The problem is that bras don't work very well over garments for a lot of women (they don't fit right, they don't size right, and that means that they can't do their job properly, causing muscle problems in the shoulders and neck.) Same goes for wearing garments bottoms and issues of menstruation or the severe bleeding that follows giving birth. Garments prohibit certain things from functioning correctly. Ah, I didn't know that. Most people I've heard complain about bras is due to chaffing or finding it hard to get proper support. We just had a baby so I'm familiar with your other point.
JLHPROF Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 29 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Wearing and Caring for the Garment Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple have taken upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment. When issuing temple recommends, priesthood leaders should teach the importance of wearing the garment properly. Leaders also emphasize the blessings that are related to this sacred privilege. These blessings are conditioned on worthiness and faithfulness in keeping temple covenants. The garment provides a constant reminder of the covenants made in a temple. When properly worn, it provides protection against temptation and evil. Wearing the garment is also an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior. Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. 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 properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible. Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing. Nor should they alter the garment from its authorized design. When two-piece garments are used, both pieces should always be worn. The garment is sacred and should be treated with respect at all times. Garments should be kept off the floor. They should also be kept clean and mended. After garments are washed, they should not be hung in public areas to dry. Nor should they be displayed or exposed to the view of people who do not understand their significance. Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment. [emphasis mine] Amazing how many members don't agree with some of these things. I highlighted the things I have heard members on this board take issue with. I am all for thinking for ourselves, but it seems to me that many members would prefer the garment instructions looked something like this instead of following the above instructions: Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple should wear the garment properly. Leaders also emphasize the blessings that are related to this sacred privilege. These blessings are conditioned on worthiness and faithfulness in keeping temple covenants. The garment provides a constant reminder of the covenants made in a temple. Wearing the garment is also an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior. Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible. They should also be kept clean and mended. This seems to be as far as some members are willing to accept.
HappyJackWagon Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) On 12/2/2017 at 11:39 PM, rongo said: I think you already answered your own question. If you "don't wear them like the temple recommend interview asks me to," and the interview asks you "do you wear the garment night and day, as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with covenants made in the temple" --- well, . . . . If you answer "yes" to this question, when you're not, then you aren't being honest with the bishop, yourself, or your covenants, are you? That can't feel good spiritually or mentally. Have you discussed this with your bishop? It might be scary for you to do that, because you might be afraid you'll lose your recommend, but you want it honestly and legitimately, don't you? You will feel better when you talk to him, and you might be surprised at the outcome of that conversation. I would especially discuss how wearing the garment as instructed would give you "major repercussions to your spiritual and mental well-being." This is something you need to counsel with your husband and your bishop about, if you still want to not wear it as instructed. I'm the wrong person to ask, probably, because my wife and I wear ours always other than sex (or swimming, or things that can't "reasonably be done" while wearing the garment, as the statement in the interview says). Neither of us have any issues with this, and we are grateful for the blessings and protection of the garment. We feel that it really is a blessing. I believe that if you decide to repent (to change your attitude, outlook, and behavior, with God's help), that you will find that this weak thing can be made strong, and that the repercussions you think you will have not only won't materialize --- you will grow spiritually. Are we somehow under covenant to wear the garment in the manner we are asked about in the TR interview? The TR allows one access to the temple, it is not a covenant in and of itself. In other words, I don't feel we are bound to wear the garment as we are told in the recommend interview because it does not match instruction given in the temple nor does it match any covenant made in the temple. In fact, that's a form of gaslighting when it is implied that the TR interview question matches the instruction given in the temple. It does not. There is not a specific covenant made in the temple to wear the garment both night and day, when working in the yard, yada yada. The TR misleads the individual into thinking a covenant has been made to wear the garment the way the TR interview is defining it. They have not. As discussed by others, there is vast variability in instructions given by various temple presidents/matrons over time. My instructions were likely very different than yours. So am I now being held to a correlated standard (night and day) even though the instruction is very un-correlated? How does that make sense? To answer Erica's original question- the only real answer you need to worry about is do you wear the garment as you have covenanted in the temple to do. Figure out exactly what you covenanted. If you follow that, they you are good to go. If you covenanted to wear the garment 24/7 then you should do that. If you were merely instructed (no covenant) to wear the garment throughout your life, then you could consider what it means to wear it throughout your life. Does that mean 24/7. Does it mean once a week on Sundays, or every time you go to the temple? The interviewee asks the question but you answer based on your conscience and understanding. A random bishop or SP's opinion doesn't have much bearing on what you have or have not covenanted to do. Quote Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment. Edited December 5, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 2
ksfisher Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Amazing how many members don't agree with some of these things. I highlighted the things I have heard members on this board take issue with. I am all for thinking for ourselves, but it seems to me that many members would prefer the garment instructions looked something like this instead of following the above instructions: Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple should wear the garment properly. Leaders also emphasize the blessings that are related to this sacred privilege. These blessings are conditioned on worthiness and faithfulness in keeping temple covenants. The garment provides a constant reminder of the covenants made in a temple. Wearing the garment is also an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior. Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible. They should also be kept clean and mended. This seems to be as far as some members are willing to accept. I consider it a sacred privilege to wear the temple garment. As with anything that has any connection to the divine it should be treated with reverence and respect. I'm sure that there are things that I could do, inwardly as well as outwardly, that would improve my experience in wearing the garment. 4
JLHPROF Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I consider it a sacred privilege to wear the temple garment. As with anything that has any connection to the divine it should be treated with reverence and respect. I'm sure that there are things that I could do, inwardly as well as outwardly, that would improve my experience in wearing the garment. I agree. Not all members seem to.
ksfisher Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Are we somehow under covenant to wear the garment in the manner we are asked about in the TR interview? The TR allows one access to the temple, it is not a covenant in and of itself. In other words, I don't feel we are bound to wear the garment as we are told in the recommend interview because it does not match instruction given in the temple nor does it match any covenant made in the temple. In fact, that's a form of gaslighting when it is implied that the TR interview question matches the instruction given in the temple. It does not. There is not a specific covenant made in the temple to wear the garment both night and day, when working in the yard, yada yada. The TR misleads the individual into thinking a covenant has been made to wear the garment the way the TR interview is defining it. They have not. As discussed by others, there is vast variability in instructions given by various temple presidents/matrons over time. My instructions were likely very different than yours. So am I now being held to a correlated standard (night and day) even though the instruction is very un-correlated? How does that make sense? To answer Erica's original question- the only real answer you need to worry about is do you wear the garment as you have covenanted in the temple to do. Figure out exactly what you covenanted. If you follow that, they you are good to go. If you covenanted to wear the garment 24/7 then you should do that. If you were merely instructed (no covenant) to wear the garment throughout your life, then you could consider what it means to wear it throughout your life. Does that mean 24/7. Does it mean once a week on Sundays, or every time you go to the temple? The interviewee asks the question but you answer based on your conscience and understanding. A random bishop or SP's opinion doesn't have much bearing on what you have or have not covenanted to do. This comes of as trying to justify things. The recommend instructions come from the First Presidency. The First Presidency holds all the keys of the priesthood. Any advice given by the First Presidency about anything to do with the temple or temple covenants sounds like good advice to me.
bluebell Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Are we somehow under covenant to wear the garment in the manner we are asked about in the TR interview? The TR allows one access to the temple, it is not a covenant in and of itself. In other words, I don't feel we are bound to wear the garment as we are told in the recommend interview because it does not match instruction given in the temple nor does it match any covenant made in the temple. In fact, that's a form of gaslighting when it is implied that the TR interview question matches the instruction given in the temple. It does not. There is not a specific covenant made in the temple to wear the garment both night and day, when working in the yard, yada yada. The TR misleads the individual into thinking a covenant has been made to wear the garment the way the TR interview is defining it. They have not. As discussed by others, there is vast variability in instructions given by various temple presidents/matrons over time. My instructions were likely very different than yours. So am I now being held to a correlated standard (night and day) even though the instruction is very un-correlated? How does that make sense? To answer Erica's original question- the only real answer you need to worry about is do you wear the garment as you have covenanted in the temple to do. Figure out exactly what you covenanted. If you follow that, they you are good to go. If you covenanted to wear the garment 24/7 then you should do that. If you were merely instructed (no covenant) to wear the garment throughout your life, then you could consider what it means to wear it throughout your life. Does that mean 24/7. Does it mean once a week on Sundays, or every time you go to the temple? The interviewee asks the question but you answer based on your conscience and understanding. A random bishop or SP's opinion doesn't have much bearing on what you have or have not covenanted to do. What part of the TR interview questions about wearing the garment are different than the instructions given in the temple?
HappyJackWagon Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Amazing how many members don't agree with some of these things. I highlighted the things I have heard members on this board take issue with. I am all for thinking for ourselves, but it seems to me that many members would prefer the garment instructions looked something like this instead of following the above instructions: Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple should wear the garment properly. Leaders also emphasize the blessings that are related to this sacred privilege. These blessings are conditioned on worthiness and faithfulness in keeping temple covenants. The garment provides a constant reminder of the covenants made in a temple. Wearing the garment is also an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior. Members who have made covenants in the temple should be guided by the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves personal questions about wearing the garment. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible. They should also be kept clean and mended. This seems to be as far as some members are willing to accept. The problem with this is that the priesthood leader doing the interview is in essence standing in and either a. requiring the individual to make a new temple covenant outside of the temple as if they made it inside the temple, or b. treating a written interview question like an unwritten and unstated temple covenant. At best it's a broad extrapolation of covenants actually made in the temple, but that creates its own set of problems. For example if a person were to covenant in the temple to live the law of consecration but then are asked in their TR interview if they have deeded all of their property and donate 100% of their income to the church. Actually, that's a bad example because that's exactly what consecrating everything to the Church would mean. Maybe it's more like covenanting in the temple to keep the law of chastity, and then being asked in the TR interview about the kind of relations you have with your spouse to make sure you are only doing "natural" things. Of course that was attempted around 1980 but it was a short-lived endeavor. 1
rongo Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: There is not a specific covenant made in the temple to wear the garment both night and day, when working in the yard, yada yada. The TR misleads the individual into thinking a covenant has been made to wear the garment the way the TR interview is defining it. They have not. Do you agree, though, that complying with this requirement is necessary for continued worthy access to the temple? In other words, given the wording and content of the TR questions, regardless of whether or not they match the instruction given in the temple, candidates are asked if they wear the garment according to the instructions listed in the TR interview (which includes your yada yada stuff). To choose to disregard this is to make one either a) unworthy to attend the temple, or b) dishonest in their TR interview. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, ksfisher said: This comes of as trying to justify things. The recommend instructions come from the First Presidency. The First Presidency holds all the keys of the priesthood. Any advice given by the First Presidency about anything to do with the temple or temple covenants sounds like good advice to me. So is it okay for the First Presidency to ask a question about keeping their instructions (given during the interview- not in the temple) as if the person had made a covenant in the temple, when they had not. I would suggest that if they want people to adhere to a covenant about wearing the garment they should actually insert a covenant about the garment in the temple. That would get all new initiates on the same page even though it wouldn't address the disparity of instructions given previously. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: What part of the TR interview questions about wearing the garment are different than the instructions given in the temple? "Do you wear the garment both night and day" as instructed and in accordance with covenants made in the temple. There is no where in the temple that talks about wearing the garment both night and day. Add to that the long statement about wearing the garment that is included at the point of the interview where the person is answering about wearing the garment and you have a very large section of rules imposed about garment wearing that are not a part of any covenant. I don't have the whole thing memorized any more, but some of it includes... Quote Endowed members should wear the temple garment both day and night. 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 properly beneath the clothing. Nor should they remove it to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. When they must remove the garment, such as for swimming, they should put it back on as soon as possible. Members should not adjust the garment or wear it contrary to instructions in order to accommodate different styles of clothing. Nor should they alter the garment from its authorized design. When two-piece garments are used, both pieces should always be worn. None of that is included in temple instruction. If you pay close attention in the intiatory and in the endowment proper, there is no specific instruction given, or covenant made. 1
ksfisher Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: So is it okay for the First Presidency to ask a question about keeping their instructions (given during the interview- not in the temple) as if the person had made a covenant in the temple, when they had not. In the temple we are instructed as to wearing the garment. The recommend question asks if we follow the instructions we received in the temple. In the temple we also covenant to be obedient. What is expected of a member of the church who has received their endowment seems pretty clear. edit to add: Addition instruction from priesthood leaders in addition to that received in the temple would seem appropriate. If we have covenanted to be obedient we should pay heed to these instructions just as we pay heed to those given in the temple. Edited December 5, 2017 by ksfisher 4
Tacenda Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: "Do you wear the garment both night and day" as instructed and in accordance with covenants made in the temple. There is no where in the temple that talks about wearing the garment both night and day. Add to that the long statement about wearing the garment that is included at the point of the interview where the person is answering about wearing the garment and you have a very large section of rules imposed about garment wearing that are not a part of any covenant. I don't have the whole thing memorized any more, but some of it includes... None of that is included in temple instruction. If you pay close attention in the intiatory and in the endowment proper, there is no specific instruction given, or covenant made. Maybe they excluded it because further requirements might change. The washing and annointings changed, the endowment wording changed also. So maybe they are careful about making people covenant to wear them because there is the possiblity that they won't be required to wear them one day. I know there was an article I read that at one time they were considering not wearing them. I'd have to find it. And I don't know how credible it is, but something to think about.
HappyJackWagon Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, rongo said: Do you agree, though, that complying with this requirement is necessary for continued worthy access to the temple? In other words, given the wording and content of the TR questions, regardless of whether or not they match the instruction given in the temple, candidates are asked if they wear the garment according to the instructions listed in the TR interview (which includes your yada yada stuff). To choose to disregard this is to make one either a) unworthy to attend the temple, or b) dishonest in their TR interview. No. I think it is a new policy but I don't think it has anything to do with worthiness. The TR questions are used to enforce and manage the policy the church has set for who can and who cannot attend the temple but it has nothing to do with actual temple covenants or worthiness. You're right that they have the right to manage access with the TR interviews. My recommendation would be for them to at least change the wording to be accurate. Remove the line about wearing the garment as instructed and in accordance with covenants made in the temple. Then at least they wouldn't be gaslighting members into thinking they had made a specific covenant when they have not. A person being refused a recommend in cases like this is more a case of falling outside church policy than anything to do with worthiness before God. 1
bluebell Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: "Do you wear the garment both night and day" as instructed and in accordance with covenants made in the temple. There is no where in the temple that talks about wearing the garment both night and day. Add to that the long statement about wearing the garment that is included at the point of the interview where the person is answering about wearing the garment and you have a very large section of rules imposed about garment wearing that are not a part of any covenant. I don't have the whole thing memorized any more, but some of it includes... None of that is included in temple instruction. If you pay close attention in the intiatory and in the endowment proper, there is no specific instruction given, or covenant made. I was instructed on how to wear the garment. From other discussions (including here on this thread), my experience wasn't unique. Do you believe those instructions should have no authority over people because they did not specifically covenant to follow them? (trying to make sure I understand what you are saying.)
HappyJackWagon Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 13 minutes ago, ksfisher said: In the temple we are instructed as to wearing the garment. The recommend question asks if we follow the instructions we received in the temple. In the temple we also covenant to be obedient. What is expected of a member of the church who has received their endowment seems pretty clear. edit to add: Addition instruction from priesthood leaders in addition to that received in the temple would seem appropriate. If we have covenanted to be obedient we should pay heed to these instructions just as we pay heed to those given in the temple. And I'm suggesting that someone can honestly state that they wear the garment as instructed in the temple even if they don't wear them as instructed in the TR interview. Wearing of the garment is only "clear" because the policy has become acculturated. But that should not be confused with any kind of standard of worthiness. The covenant to be obedient could be extrapolated in so many ways it gives leaders a blank check. It supposes that to be worthy an individual must do anything and everything a priesthood leader tells them to do. Sounds like blind obedience to me. How'd that work out at Mountain Meadows? I'm going to go all Godwin's law here by suggesting that one could claim Helmuth Heubner was guilty of failing to be obedient to his leader for his failure to support the Nazi's and was therefore unworthy. Perhaps he even deserved his excommunication. No...wait. That was overturned posthumously. In any case, if current leaders want to set policy, they can do that. What I take exception with is the gaslighting of acting like their current request is something we covenanted to do in the temple. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: I was instructed on how to wear the garment. From other discussions (including here on this thread), my experience wasn't unique. Do you believe those instructions should have no authority over people because they did not specifically covenant to follow them? (trying to make sure I understand what you are saying.) I can only speak to what instructions I received. I can only speak to what instructions are part of the endowment and intiatory. If someone gave you extra instructions that are not uniform for all people, then I guess I don't see the value in being obedient to someone's instructions. I would view "instructions" more like advice than I would "commandment" anyway. 1
ksfisher Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: And I'm suggesting that someone can honestly state that they wear the garment as instructed in the temple even if they don't wear them as instructed in the TR interview. Wearing of the garment is only "clear" because the policy has become acculturated. But that should not be confused with any kind of standard of worthiness. The covenant to be obedient could be extrapolated in so many ways it gives leaders a blank check. It supposes that to be worthy an individual must do anything and everything a priesthood leader tells them to do. Sounds like blind obedience to me. How'd that work out at Mountain Meadows? I'm going to go all Godwin's law here by suggesting that one could claim Helmuth Heubner was guilty of failing to be obedient to his leader for his failure to support the Nazi's and was therefore unworthy. Perhaps he even deserved his excommunication. No...wait. That was overturned posthumously. In any case, if current leaders want to set policy, they can do that. What I take exception with is the gaslighting of acting like their current request is something we covenanted to do in the temple. How did you go from following the First Presidency to MM and Nazi's? Sort of puts an end to any kind of discussion.
Thinking Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 I think this whole "authorized garment" thing can be a turnoff. During the last redesign it took my wife about a year to find the garments that fit correctly. I wonder how many faithful LDS quit wearing them because they can't find the right fit.
bluebell Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I can only speak to what instructions I received. I can only speak to what instructions are part of the endowment and intiatory. If someone gave you extra instructions that are not uniform for all people, then I guess I don't see the value in being obedient to someone's instructions. I would view "instructions" more like advice than I would "commandment" anyway. I wonder if they put that part into the temple recommend interview to specifically help with a lack of correlation of garment wearing instructions when going through for the first time? Would you really tell your kids that instructions are just advice though? That doesn't seem like a real reasonable way, in general, to define that word (though I agree commandment isn't a synonym either). "Directions so that you do something how it's supposed to be done", is probably a more accurate definition. 2
ksfisher Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: I wonder if they put that part into the temple recommend interview to specifically help with a lack of correlation of garment wearing instructions when going through for the first time? Would you really tell your kids that instructions are just advice though? That doesn't seem like a real reasonable way, in general, to define that word (though I agree commandment isn't a synonym either). "Directions so that you do something how it's supposed to be done", is probably a more accurate definition. In my experience additional instructions seem to be given because people are doing things that, while they may be following the letter of the law, are contrary to the spirit and the intent of the law as originally given. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: How did you go from following the First Presidency to MM and Nazi's? Sort of puts an end to any kind of discussion. It's quite obvious if you've been reading the thread. The statement was made that anyone who is being disobedient to a leader is unworthy. Blind obedience, which that poster seemed to be a approving could lead to all kinds of problems. I chose the obvious worst case scenarios (as I recognized as Godwin's Law)
HappyJackWagon Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 58 minutes ago, bluebell said: I wonder if they put that part into the temple recommend interview to specifically help with a lack of correlation of garment wearing instructions when going through for the first time? Would you really tell your kids that instructions are just advice though? That doesn't seem like a real reasonable way, in general, to define that word (though I agree commandment isn't a synonym either). "Directions so that you do something how it's supposed to be done", is probably a more accurate definition. Instructions are advice. They are not commands. If I read an instruction manual it may be wise to follow those instructions but it doesn't mean I'm commanded to follow every jot and tittle. It would be pretty silly to have those instructions changed after I had already followed the original instructions and my item was assembled correctly. I think it is an effort to add correlation into a system of inconsistent instructions. I can understand that. What I can't understand is the gaslighting of people to make them think that's what they've always been told and that's the instruction they received in the temple, and that they've even covenanted based on the correlated instructions in the TR interview.
HappyJackWagon Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 56 minutes ago, ksfisher said: In my experience additional instructions seem to be given because people are doing things that, while they may be following the letter of the law, are contrary to the spirit and the intent of the law as originally given. Can you provide any kind of reference for this original law that isn't being adhered to strictly enough? Again, the church can change it's policy about garment wearing (they have many times in various ways) but that doesn't mean a person has made temple covenants for those new policies nor that they were instructed in the temple. It's dishonest to tell people they were instructed and covenanted something they have not. So as long as the church keeps that language in there, a person can honestly affirm the TR question about wearing them as instructed and as covenanted, even if that doesn't fit the current policy. The church is creating it's own problem. 1
Jeanne Posted December 5, 2017 Posted December 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Tacenda said: They are gray originally and dyed white, so bleach won't do any good. Most of my garments eventually go a darker color. My husband's go almost dark gray, maybe it's how his skin interacts with the material, it's super weird. I guess the people that have white garments all the time, probably purchase them often. We may hold onto ours for way too long and don't buy them that often. I just googled how to keep lds garments white and this reddit thread came up. I guess using "blueing" may help. https://lifehacker.com/keep-white-clothes-whiter-with-bluing-liquid-1633760416 I'll have to try it to see if it will work. Seriously though, my husband's garments only stay white for a short time before they are dark gray. I wish the church would use regular cotton material and not dyed. Thanks,,,I thought it was just me.I know that when Mom washed them they looked a whole lot better!! Thank you again.
Recommended Posts