DiscussMormonism.com

Is the outfit in the following image considered garment worthy?

In one sense, I would say yes because it covers the leg past the knee On the other hand, no because you would see the garment line and it looks almost the same as a short skirt.

There must be some ruling made by the leadership on this one.

Thanks.

Ladies' garments are a lot thinner and sleeker than male ones. Depending on how tight those hose thingies are, I'm not 100% sure how visible the g-line would be. We'd have to get a ruling by a female (ex)g-wearer on that one. If it would show badly, I would think any TBM woman would be mortified to wear it, whether her priesthood overseers objected or not.

Hmmm.

I wore leggings and tunics in the late 90's when that was in style. The leggings were no where near that tight, though.

That particular outfit I would have said no. It looks like she is wearing footless tights under a miniskirt. The skirt is the outerwear that should cover the garmented area, in my opinion.

Oh, and G's would TOTALLY show under those. I mean, I can see the seam under most jeans...I guess I just have a trained eye, though.

I think this would be a gray-area. It would be up to the bishop that saw her in it whether he'd issue a TR or not. Hard-core people are gonna say no way and the more lax people will say it is okay.

BFF,

What if the skirt were a bit longer and she wore boots?

I know that's not the effect that quark likes, but still, would that work?

(I love that outfit!)

Interesting that females are faced with gray areas while the same rules are so black and white for the males.

Is this a sign from God that men are more like the ancient Hebrews and women are more like the deciples of Jesus? Spirit vs Letter?

Jersey Girl wrote:I know that's not the effect that quark likes, but still, would that work?

(I love that outfit!)

WTH? I love the boots with slightly longer skirt! my wife wears these boots with colorful, thick socks that come up higher than the boots. Love. It.

I guess the longish sweater dresses with black or denim leggings won't either?

quark wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:I know that's not the effect that quark likes, but still, would that work?

(I love that outfit!)

WTH? I love the boots with slightly longer skirt! Dear Wife wears these boots with colorful, thick socks that come up higher than the boots. Love. It.

I think all of these fashions are just so darn attractive!

Why isn't there a style of garments that would accomodate leggings?

With the first image, I can see where the heels might not be so appropriate for church, but it's not slutty looking at all. Just feminine and attractive.

It's not like she's wearing fishnets, you know?

Jersey Girl wrote:Why isn't there a style of garments that would accomodate leggings?

I'm just guessing but it seems that *any* garment extending down the leg to just above the knee would show under leggings. What if the garment was super thin and tight just like nylon pantyhose? Are any garments like that? Maybe that would work.