A Mormon reader writes:

Many of us consider posting photographs of Mormon undergarments to be sacrilegious and offensive. Yes, we wear these garments at all times, except during swimming, athletic, bathing, and other activities where it would be impractical. They are made from a variety of textiles, and are comfortable to sleep in, being really not far removed from long johns. Many religious groups, and not just ours, wear clothing as a symbol of religious adherence. Ours, we wear as a reminder of our commitments, but not in public view, because we are reminding ourselves, not making a spectacle. Hence, underclothing. Additionally, they are cut in such a way as to require us to adhere to church modesty standards.

My policy on this site is to publish reality, within certain boundaries of religious respect. If I can publish a cartoon of Muhammad, I can sure publish tasteful pictures of Mormon underwear. Until today, I had no idea that LDS members even wore undergarments mandated by their church. The pictures provided come from Wikipedia. Is it sacrilegious for Wikipedia to publish them? I mean no disrespect. It's a largely irrelevant issue. The racial history of the LDS church is far more pertinent to Romney's candidacy. And none of this would be relevant at all, if the Republicans did not now base their politics on explicitly religious appeals. You wanna play by the rules of theoconservatism? Then deal with the consequences.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.