DiscussMormonism.com

Or did I miss the announcement about the shorter sleeves on the women garment top?

Hmmmm look at this photo from the same day:



Garment lines clearly visible.

Did they intentionally adjust her garments for that cover shot??

Look at this one also:

WAIT!!!

Look at the right and left garment sleeves.. Perhaps the photographer adjusted the left one for the cover photo and never moved it back?

Now I am confused:

Oh this magazine is not very informed:

Keeping the faith: Even on her tropical honeymoon, Elizabeth still kept with her traditional Mormon conservative dress sense by wearing a below-the-knee dress on their trip to the store

Below the knee dress AND no shoulders!! She got one right..

Maybe she did what my daughter did. She had 2 dresses; one that she wore in the temple and one she wore for her reception and outdoor pictures.

Port, she's an RM. The holy undies are old hat.

Plus, you know that athletic activities, swimming and modeling for celebrity-gossip magazines are exempt from the requirement to always wear them.

(Actually, they probably Photoshopped the cover, and the black outfit is likely a swimsuit cover.)

But why don't they show the kilt?

I hope they continue to apply the idea of wearing garments very loosely throughout their marriage. Such an approach will bring nothing but happiness and protection from the pain of Victorian servitude to a crusty God of the past. God bless Elizabeth and her sleeveless dresses. God bless her husband and his short shorts.

Zeezrom wrote:I hope they continue to apply the idea of wearing garments very loosely throughout their marriage. Such an approach will bring nothing but happiness and protection from the pain of Victorian servitude to a crusty God of the past. God bless Elizabeth and her sleeveless dresses. God bless her husband and his short shorts.

I agree. I think some people can be fairly happy in the church as long as they don't take it too seriously.