The following post has an updated version, “The Garment, with additions“
Any member who has received initiation into the kingdom of God has been authorized to wear the garment of the holy priesthood — called “Garments” by most members. My wife’s family, my ecclesiastical leaders, and my temple’s presidency spent a decent amount of time preparing me for receiving the garment. These garments play an important role in the identity of Latter-day Saints.
What I was told:
- Garments should be kept completely white in color. No stains, etc.
- Garments should not be left on the floor before or after doing laundry.
- Garments should be laundered separate from other clothing.
- Garments should not show under the other clothing you wear.
- Garments should only be removed for absolutely necessary reasons, e.g. showering and having sexual relations with spouse, and should be put back on as soon as reasonably possible.
- Garments must be touching your skin, i.e. no panties or bras under the Garments for women [my wife was told by a temple matron that during menstruation, the pad should be applied directly to the Garments instead of using panties].
- Garments offer physical protection from injuries such as burns.
What the ceremony says: [Note, I was initiated post-2005]
- The officiator is under proper authority
- The garment is now authorized
- The garment is to be worn throughout life.
- The garment represents what was given to Adam/Eve when found naked in the garden.
- The garment is called the garment of the holy priesthood.
- Inasmuch as the garment is not defiled — meaning the wearer is true and faithful to the covenants — it will be a shield and a protection against the power of the destroyer until the earthly probation is finished.
What I see as divergent:
Where is the physical color of white stated as important? My stake president put a lot of emphasis on laundering our garments — inspecting and destroying an pair that become discolored. Is the focus on the outward color a manifestation of dogmatism and focusing on the outward [clothing, behavior, etc.] in general? Why focus on getting the garment physically soiled as a manifestation of “defiling” it — instead of on turning away from the covenants?
Why should we worry so much about covering our coverings? I mostly mourn for women in this regard. Both in my ward and online [here, here, and here], I have found that most women fret constantly about whether or not their clothing is covering their garments or whether to wear panties/bras under or over the garment. Shopping is difficult for them, etc. If the garment is intended to be our covering — then why care so much about covering the covering?
When worn, the garment will cover your nakedness. We have previously discussed how this is only secondary — meaning the covering of nakedness is not the express purpose of the garment. If this is the case, then why be so concerned with constantly wearing the garment? That the garment covers nakedness does not imply that we should always cover it. And, of course, there are the stories of members who believe in having intercourse will keeping the garment on — however, this may be an urban legend because I have never direct a direct anecdote from someone who does this [maybe someone here has]. Further, the garment is a shield and a protection inasmuch as it is not defiled — not inasmuch as you keep it on your body.
What I still wonder:
How does being instructed to wear the garment throughout one’s life relate to the truths learned from the Body Modesty post?
How problematic are the changes to the initiatory ordinance as it relates to nudity. Mainly I wonder — when are we sprinkling? I plan on redoing the washing, anointing, and clothing in the garment for my wife and me under tribal authority because I fear what the Church (TM) has done by succumbing to pressure to appease feelings of body modesty in members.
Next Article by Justin: The World I See
Previous Article by Justin: Connecting with Pixels
See also: Body Modesty is not a principle of the gospel
47 Comments
LDS Anarchy 
I was told a few of those things from your list as well, although not all – notably protection from burns, and I also wasn’t told anything about laundry. It does seem kind of extreme to be that focused on the “outward appearance” to to speak…
The burning reference came by way of a story that in a car accident, a member was burned when the car caught fire — however, they were not burned in the places that her garments covered.
Great article. What i am wondering about is a reference I heard that Joseph instructed members to burn their garments. Also that garments were not to be worn during times of danger or something like that. Joseph did not wear his garments in Carthage.
I too have the desire to redo my and my wife’s washing anointing and even endowment. I have even purchased material to make garments after the original pattern. I do feel that the style of garments should be up to the wearer however I think the original pattern may have some siginifance. Also there are many symbols present on original garments that no longer are present on modern versions.
Zo-ma-rah:
I was told by my stake president that I should first cut off the markings and cut them to tiny pieces — and then I was free to either shred the garment into small pieces or was to burn it. The quote you mention may be why he said that.
Willard Richards was the only one to wear his garments at Carthage — and he was the only one unwounded. So — take that for what it’s worth.
Some of this stuff I’ve never heard before.
Demonstrably untrue. While white is a useful symbol with lots of scriptural resonance, the Church actually produces garments in other colors for military personnel (tan, black, etc. –– and on the tops the marks are not stitched, they are silk-screened on the inside). It’s desirable for garments to be white, but it is not essential.
An appropriate sign of respect.
Overkill, imo.
If I wear a polo, I let it show at the neck. (I prefer the crew-necked kind. The “celestial smile” variety has always looked wonky to me.)
Yeah, in general.
Again, I think this is overkill.
I’ve heard stories along these lines, but I’ve never had such an experience myself. I think it might be more productive to consider “protection” in other ways (e.g., spiritual protection as a barrier to sin).
the Church actually produces garments in other colors for military personnel
I’m sure that the person who told me this held it as a given that I would be wearing white garments, since I am not employed by the military.
Again, I think this is overkill.
That’s my point.
zo-mar-ah said, “I have even purchased material to make garments after the original pattern. I do feel that the style of garments should be up to the wearer however I think the original pattern may have some siginifance. Also there are many symbols present on original garments that no longer are present on modern versions.”
I have wanted to make my own garments for years now, but neither my wife nor I know how to make our own clothing. There is also the notion in modern LDS that it is wrong to make your own garments, that one must purchase approved garments from the Church.
What are these other symbols that were present in the original pattern?
Yes, also about garments needing to be white. From my understanding the original garments were unbleached muslin. Muslin is a very soft fabric and used for pajamas. But when it is unbleached it is a darker off-white color. So I don’t think pure white has any significance.
The other symbols were a collar and three double knots down the front according to John Taylor “the collar represented the idea that the Lord’s ‘yoke is easy and [his] burden is light’, or the ‘Crown of the Priesthood’; the double-knotted strings represented ‘the Trinity’ and ‘the marriage covenant.'”
I think the three knots may individually symbolize God the Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.
It’s pretty easy to sew. And the original garment designs were said to have as few seams as possible. If you are interested in the original design, once i get a pattern worked up, I could share it with you.
I found this at the LDS Skinny Dippers forum — someone there linked to this post, so I read their site to see what the conversation was about:
To summarize everything I’ve written so far, I can see four broad categories for instructions on how to wear the garment (in order of importance):
1) Obligations (all endowed members must comply)
Wear it throughout their lives
Don’t defile it
2) Formal Guidelines (provided in a reference for all members)
Treat it with respect
Keep it private
Don’t alter it
3) Less-than Formal Guidelines (provided in a reference for Church leaders)
Worn night and day
Only remove it if it’s impractical to keep it on during an activity
Put it back on ASAP after the activity is over
Proper disposal
4) Informal Guidance (anything else a Church leader, temple worker, parent, friend, Sunday School teacher, etc. has said)
Not to touch the floor
Not to be wadded up
Can only be removed for showers, sports, swimming, sex, etc.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34810209/ns/technology_and_science-science/
The most helpful info I’ve ever read about the garments, or the temple endowment itself was found here: http://webspace.webring.com/people/np/potai/ The first Temple Book was written by Max Skousen, the second, Book II, by an annonymous author starts its section about the garments with this: ” In the case of the garment, endowment patrons are given a covering which they are told is the “Garment of the Holy Priesthood” and represents a “garment of skins” given to Adam when he was cast from the Garden of Eden. Patrons are told that this garment is to be a “shield and a protection” and they must wear this covering “all the days of your life”. However, very few who have taken out their endowments in LDS Temples take time to consider what is symbolized by the garment or how it relates to the endowment ceremony and the temple experience as a whole. ”
The website has given me SOOO much to ponder. I link to it in hope that some of the readers here may also find it worthwhile. God bless!
Calimom,
I’ve read that link before. I did find it to be worthwhile. Thanks for providing it.
Well most are too young , or too young in the church to know that making your own garments is perfectly fine. Well at least it was when I was teenager. Now has the church changed since then. Well I know back then you could buy a whole set of the journal of discourses from Deseret Book. But I don´t think you can now. That is another discussion though.
What I am saying is the idea of making your own garments as late as the early 1970´s was perfectly understood and acceptable. We knew in those days that the pioneers all had to make their own garments. There were not many beehive clothing outlets back then. And a 10 plus hour drive to the nearest temple (and we lived closer than most in the US) was the only way to buy garments. Maybe you could order them in the mail but I am not sure and I did not know of anyone who knew how to. And I knew at that time that the church used to make the authorized pattern available for the purpose of members making their own. I knew these thing then. So my point is it was standard knowledge. Has church policy changed? If it has in this regard it should not have. If it has it is just another sign of apostasy. I feel confident in staking my salvation on the fact that God is happy to have us make our own garments so long as we make them according to His pattern.
Another thing I forgot to bring up was that, according to me research, the marks in the garments(not the knots of collar) were cut into fabric. This was done at the veil in the endowment. Now I’m not sure what was done with e multiple set of garments. For example would each individual pair of garments need to be cut at the veil, or would only your “main” set need that? But I think this question arises more out of our modern mass production mindset rather.
Some other questions, should we in fact be able to go out and buy a pair of garments? After all you can buy anything in this world with money.
Would making one’s own garments give more meaning to them? Would they have greater spiritual power than mass produced ones?
I do think that the original pattern revealed is best. But I do think that a person should wear a pattern that is best for them, so long as all symbolic elements are present. I don’t necessarily believe that changes to the original garment pattern were authorized by the Lord. But if such changes are acceptable it is really be less about the pattern and more about the spiritual symbolism they have in your life.
I found an interesting link: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=29528486&blogID=241663250&MyToken=06c45794-3895-4ae7-b0b6-1da53927f589
I think that insofar as the garment represents the coats of skins given to Adam and Eve when they were found naked in the garden — it should be a practical article of clothing. However, I feel many members find it to be quite the opposite: an irritation and a generally unpractical thing to have to wear under your clothing everyday.
I do think that the original pattern revealed is best.
Is not the original pattern revealed a leather tunic to be worn as protection from the elements here on this earth? Making our garment similar to what Fight Club called, “You’ll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life.“
Per this scripture, we are to make our own garments. We often interpret the word garments in this revelation as meaning clothing, such as that worn by people who have never attended the temple, clothing being something worn to cover our nakedness. However, as the intention of the garment of the priesthood is to cover (or clothe) one’s nakedness, priesthood garments is also clothing.
Prior to entering the initiatory, our clothing (garments) is the same as that worn by other non-LDS people. After the initiatory ordinances of the temple, we receive a new type of clothing called the garment of the priesthood, or priesthood “garments.” We learn what it is that converts normal garments (normal clothing) into priesthood garments (priesthood clothing): the marks on the garment. Coming out of the temple, we again read D&C 42: 40-41 and now understand that we are to make our own priesthood garments, for these are the garments we are to wear throughout our lives to cover our nakedness, per the temple intructions.
Now, typically, people comply with these instructions by having two sets of garments: normal, everyday garments, such as those worn by non-LDS people, and a set of priesthood garments that have the marks of the priesthood in the material. We then wear two sets of clothing, one set to comply with the temple instructions and another set on top of those to hide the temple clothing from the eyes of others.
And then people complain about how priesthood garments get in the way of everything, especially when it’s hot.
But there is another way to comply with the instructions found in the temple and in D&C 42: 40-41, and that is to simply take all the garments that we typically wear to cover our nakedness and make them all priesthood garments. Using a simple pair of scissors or a sharp knife to cut the marks of the priesthood into our garments will convert them into priesthood garments. In this way, you can wear pretty much whatever you wish to wear with a single layer of clothing and be fully obedient to the commandments of God. The priesthood garment you wear will conform to the environment and customs you find in your area, but will still be recognized by the Lord.
Additionally, as no one complies with D&C 42: 40-41, because everyone buys clothing from stores, operating in this way will actually bring one into compliance, because you literally will be making your own priesthood garments out of already made clothing. So, there’s no need to have your wife learn how to sew and make clothing from scratch, any man can do it himself with a pair of scissors today.
Finally, the priesthood garments (all one’s clothing with the marks cut into them) will actually operate as a covering of one’s nakedness, per the intention of the Lord, and not as a simple undergarment that no one sees. (If garments are intended to cover one’s nakedness, it is the intention that the garment or covering be seen instead of what is below the covering. The two sets of garment interpretation removes this function of the priesthood garments, because the upper set acts to cover one’s nakedness and not the priesthood garment.)
One last thought, should LDS turn their everyday clothing into priesthood garments, it will be a visible sign to both member and non-member alike as to who has been through the temple. We literally become a walking billboard for the Lord. (That is, unless we are walking around naked…)
I imagine that nothing is taught relative to the saints making their own garments for the same reason praying after the true order was officially stopped:
There is a de-emphasis on the actual practice of our faith — and more on just the mental part of it. Daymon Smith wrote about this in his disertation on polygamy and correlation. The Church (TM) has set-up a mind/body or beliefe/practice dualism.
So we see now that the saints are instructed in how convert normal garments into priesthood garments and are instructed how to approach the Lord for manifestations in the true order — yet in both these things we are discouraged from actually doing as we have been instructed.
This all started as a way to deal with polygamy. The Church (TM) thought it best to just believe in polygamy — as they had rationalized that doing so had the same redemptive effects as practicing it — at least so long as the state outlawed it.
The whole article is a pretty good summary of current thought on the garment.
Justin, your mentioning of the true order of prayer reminds me of The True & Living Church of Jesus Christ of Saints of the Last Days, started by James D. Harmston. It was his practicing of the true order of prayer, I believe, that got him in trouble with the Church. It also led him to receiving lots of revelations and visitations of angels, the re-initiation of polygamy, etc.
I made garments today by cutting the marks. It feels good to not have to wear two layers of clothing, although it is highly noticeable on some fabrics and patterns. On others it is nearly invisible. I’ll still need to do some sewing though, to address frays.
May I ask what kind of clothing you used? I mean, was it jeans and a standard shirt — or something special.
If someone asks me about these marks, I could just respond with something similar to the answer given in the temple:
So, I could just say that these are religious marks to keep my mind focussed on Jesus Christ and then go into explaining the significance of each mark. I might also tell them that they serve “a similar function for a Latter-day Saint as a crucifix or scapular serves for a Catholic, ritual fringes for a Jewish man, or the veil for a Muslim woman.” I doubt anyone would find that them strange when compared to the practices of other religions. Also, as the explanation of the marks points one immediately to Christ, it would be hard for a person hearing the description to not look upon the one wearing the garment as a Christian, or believer in Christ, so that when the inevitable question of “what religion are you?” and the answer of “I’m Mormon” comes, the association is immediately placed in the hearer’s mind that Mormons believe in Christ.
For me, personally, I would explain the marks to non-members in a way that puts emphasis on Jesus. So, for example, I could say:
So far I’ve cut marks into two pairs of shorts that cover my knees, a t-shirt and a button-up shirt. i’m going to make all my clothing into priesthood garments. Jackets and other second layer-type of clothing I won’t cut up or sew, but all first-layer clothing is getting the marks.
I thought about this last night — however I came to the conclusion that I would be more uncomfortable in only one layer of clothing than two. For years before I joined the church, I always wore a white undershirt and boxers under all my clothing. For me, the transition to wearing the priesthood garment only consisted of getting used to feeling fabric so low on my thighs.
The only change that I’ve made relative to this post is to stop worrying about whether or not I am wearing outer garments over my priesthood garment when visitors come to my house or I go out side to pick-up the kids’ toys/take out garbage/etc.
I do like the idea of the marks being visible as a means of explaining my relationship with Jesus to people I talk to.
I’m sure it will make the TBM’s squirm though.
The only second layer of clothing I ever wore prior to the temple was underwear briefs. I never wore an undershirt. I also never wore boxers. Then came the temple/mission and everyone told me that two-piece garments were the best and most comfortable, so I got those. Big mistake. I couldn’t stand two-piece garments. The shirt constantly needed to be tucked in and I was always losing either the top or the bottom and ended up with mismatched pairs and odd numbers (two bottoms, one top, etc.). Plus, I always had two layers on top, which was insane during hot weather. (During cold weather it was okay.) After my mission the first thing I did was get new, one-piece garments. This was better because now my garments were always matched (I could never lose a top or bottom because they were attached) and I could take the top off for awhile by just pushing it down and then pulling it up again when I wanted, never misplacing it. Also, the one-piece garments I got were kind of loose, so it was like wearing boxers, I guess, a new experience for me, instead of the constricting briefs I was accustomed to.
Now with one day’s experience under my belt in wearing priesthood garments in the shape of street clothes, I am back to a single layer on top with the new experience of a single layer on the bottom. I’ve never gone free-balled before. I kind of like it.
While reading the 2010 CHI, I found that the Lord has already spoken on this matter — no further discussion ought be required on our part:
3.4.3 = Members may make their own temple aprons only if they use approved apron embroidery and sewing kits. This kit is available from the Church Distribution Services. Other temple ceremonial clothing may not be made. Nor may temple garments be made.
3.4.5 = Church members who have been clothed with the garment in a temple have take upon themselves a covenant obligation to wear it according to the instructions given in the endowment…
…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…
…Nor should they alter the garment from its authorized design…
…Garments should be kept off the floor..
…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.
I find it funny that after stating that members have a covenant obligation to wear the garment according to the instructions given in the endowment — the CHI then goes on to list many instructions that are not given in the endowment. Typical.
I guess I’m not in conformity with the CHI. I suppose that any priesthood leader who sees me wearing the garment (on street clothes) is going to call me in for a meeting. I wonder if members can be brought up on charges of not conforming to the CHI? My understanding is that charges must be based upon the scriptures. This is very interesting, indeed.
I’ve had bishops who have allowed me to see and read the CHI before, but my bishops of late have not even allowed that. They have offered to read the pertinent CHI parts to me, instead of allowing me to pick it up myself and browse to the section I was interested in and read it myself. It may be that these have been control freaks or perhaps this has been instruction that they have received to do this. I’m not sure. At any rate, I’m glad to hear you’ve got the books and can share with us anything that might throw light on any discussions.
Needless to say, I don’t really care what the manual says regarding garments. I’ll continue to take my instructions from the word of God.
LDSA:
How do you wear your garments? On top of your street clothes?
No, no, Ananas. I have converted street clothes into garments by putting the marks on them.
More on the the burden typical garment usage is to women — here: though one should comment at his own risk.
I was thinking today about the commandment in the “law of the church” to:
I searched the words “garment” and “beauty” — and there came back four results:
The three others have priesthood associations:
Exo 28:2 = “And thou shalt make holy garments for Aaron thy brother for glory and for beauty.”
Isa 61:3 = “To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.”
D&C 82:14 = “For Zion must increase in beauty, and in holiness; her borders must be enlarged; her stakes must be strengthened; yea, verily I say unto you, Zion must arise and put on her beautiful garments.
gee…I’m always surprised for the incredible stumbling stone we can become when we start to teach our own ideas as doctrines…the Lord doesn’t specify every little thing you must do, because you’re supposed to progress by learning this things by the Spirit. What I was told was the general guidelines (wear all the time, don’t trim it, don’t fold it, don’t expose it unnecessarily, keep it neat), and was told to resolve all doubts about it by praying and pondering on the subject. Should I wear it to the doctor? how long after swimming should I put it back? 5 min., ten? I mean come on people…Let us use the brains the Lord gave us and then pray about it…and don’t go around teaching what you do as doctrine. Revelation is one of the main principles in the Church. Without it it’s just a group of people.
And whoever said that women should wear the pads on the garments has never been a woman…I’m not and I’m sure it can be a real mess…There’s nothing like that on the handbooks, manual or scriptures. Everything else is an opinion. And my opinion is that that is between the particular woman and the Lord.
Funny enough tanuki — the person who told that to my wife was the wife of the temple president.
Justin,
You probably noticed the NOM forum thread (page 2) linking to this post, where some of them are talking about my making of the marks in outer garments. I decided to take a small look around that forum and saw that the first page of that same thread had this quote by one AllieOop, who wrote:
Wow — sounds exactly like the method of making one’s own priesthood clothing that you outlined in the comments above.
Lol — I don’t know if referring to something relating to Brigham Young will help this idea gain more traction among other LDS though.
I just want to take the lace elastic off the bottom of the womens… that stuff falls apart in the wash and pulls and snags on the thighs like no other. Also even the long style is too short for me. What if i want them LONGER and without the lace (which I’m sure has no doctrinal significance)… if I can’t make them myself, is that a special order option? I’m almost fed up enough with it that I’ll make an appt to ask the bishop.
also, re: menstruation and panties, personally, wearing panties under the garment is very bulky and uncomfortable. tried it, won’t do it again.
Sister F:
1) If you’d like the lace off the standard garment, then I’d suggest you just take it off. You’re right — there is no doctrinal significance to the lace, only the marks.
2) However, if it is too short for your liking, but you are not willing/able to make your own from scratch or convert a working pair of shorts into garment bottoms — then I have been told that there is a special order option. But you would have to ask your local church leaders or contact Distribution Services to find out specifically. I don’t know specifics about that b/c I just make my own.
3) Thanks for your perspective on the menstruation in garments issue. The only input I have on that is my wife’s experience — and she rarely menstruates b/c we are in reproductive age and she either usually either pregnant or lactating.
After having a baby, the hospital gives a woman a very light-weight mesh pantie to put the pads on. (At least they did when I was having babies.) After my first, I debated about whether I should use them (for the weeks following a baby’s birth, as well as for regular use). I came to the conclusion that it was more respectful to get blood accidentally on the mesh than on the garment. When my spouse critically commented on the fact that the mesh panties were under the garment, I explained my reasoning. He agreed with me.
AFA special-ordering garments…
You can special-order garments from Beehive Clothing. If you have a need that is not met by any garment in the catalog, they will make some for you for the regular price. If your need is already met by garments in the catalog and you’re just being picky, they will make some for you for ten times the regular price.
This is what I was told when I called about 3 years ago to ask about getting one-piece maternity garments. I was told that since they already sell two-piece maternity garments, my need was met by the current catalog and if they made one-piece maternity garments for me they would have to charge me ten times the normal price.
I detest two-piece garments, and I was not willing to pay $60 for a single garment (and with no discount for bulk ordering), so I ended up just ordering some one-piece garments that were long and several sizes too large for me.
i find it interesting because i was told in temple prep class that the garment was “an outward sign of an inward commitment” that confused the hell out of me because of my conditioning.. everyone else in the class( 2 people) just seemed like they understood or they were pacified so i didnt want to look like an idiot and protest….
How is it an “outward sign” if nobody sees it? Haha.
I personally do not find the garment to be uncomfortable to wear. However I have been interested for a while now in wanting to make my own (or inlist in the help of my sister who is a seamstress). I ran across some comfortable looking fabric that happens to have th ability to block EMF. When my budget can afford it I will start making my new garments out of this material. I like the idea of changing everyday clothing into pristhood clothing. I just can’t take that leap yet. My wife isn’t on that page yet and I don’t want to cause problems with my recommend status since it is tied with my employment.
(1) For those who don’t find the LDS-produced underwear-style garments to be an issue — then I think they should go on wearing them. I still use my LDS garments as undershirts (when I wear undershirts). I just think that it’s important to know that if the factory-produced ones are an issue for you — then the liberty is there to make your garment yourself — and that doing so is still within the scope of the instructions we receive in the temple.
(2) If you’ll read the follow-up post to this one (linked at the top), I wrote:
I make my own garments by converting my everyday clothing into priesthood clothing by cutting the marks into them — and I have a current temple recommend.
But I’m aware that all it takes is one witch-hunter-type ecclesiastical leader on a mission to “humble” a saint for daring to step out of line to bring persecution upon yourself and family [as undue as I think such persecution would be].
So expediency must rule, I’m sure.
I recently had the following thought:
The body of flesh we inherit is an already marked garment. The two nipples, the belly button and the right knee are the marks on our (physical) garment. So when we are naked we are still “wearing the (flesh) garment of the priesthood.” The cloth garment of the priesthood is to cover up the nakedness of the flesh garment of the priesthood, when it is expedient that it be covered up, so that whether naked or covered up, the priesthood marks are always seen. In other words, wearing a cloth garment under one’s non-marked clothes defeats the intended purpose of the cloth garment, which is to show the marks while covering the flesh garment.
Yeah — I call that “covering our coverings”. If you cover the cloth priesthood garment, then it defeats the purpose of it acting as a covering in the first place.