DiscussMormonism.com

My dear, fabulous board members,

Do you believe the ensemble depicted in Exhibit A (below) represents an appropriate dress for a temple worthy member of the church? Let's not quibble about gender differences and what males vs. females should be wearing, OK? I would like to direct you to the use of tights (which are so amazing, in general).

Let's assume that you developed a garment bottom that could hide the garment line under the tights shown in Exhibit A. Would this be considered appropriate attire by the Temple Recommend Interviewer?

Thank you for your thoughts and consideration.

Exhibit A

Source: - Anna Sui Fall 2012

Have a WONDERFUL evening!

Zee.

My next question comes to me based on what I noticed at church on Sunday. A youth was wearing an outfit very similar to what is depicted in Exhibit B. The skirt was less sheer than what you see in Exhibit B, but it was sheer enough that you could see legs and hot pants under the skirt.

If you could develop garments that are invisible under a sheer skirt like this, would you consider such attire as appropriate per the Recommend Interviewing process?

Exhibit B

Source - MATTHIAS LOUWEN S/S13

Thank you!

zeezrom wrote:
Exhibit A

Source: - Anna Sui Fall 2012

Exh A--EXTREMELY HOT!!!!


Exhibit B

Source - MATTHIAS LOUWEN S/S13

Exh B--Extremely boring--NOT hot

That's all I've got to say on this topic.

I think if a midriff shirt and low-rise jeans that barely meet together, passes, anything would.

Yes, have seen that midriff baring look more than once, only it wasn't skin that was bared it was garments.

The idea is that you can't see the garments. Outfit A would technically work if the tights were opaque. My mother would not have let me wear it. Other mothers might. Outfit B is out. Gs would be visible. Making them invisible defeats the purpose of them.

Outfit B also doesn't work with the waist gathers and ruffles, and flower shrug, which make a potentially cheeky concept look dowdy. I have just realised why it looks familiar - the bottom half looks like my son last Halloween when he used black netting to make himself into the Ghost of the Flying Dutchman.

Man, you really like these fashion threads don't you? I think this is got to be at least the 3rd one you've posted (just an observation, haha).

I like Exhibit A, I think that's temple recommend worthy, but if you get an anal bishop, he might pull the plug because the "tights" are too "tight"

As for Exhibit B, trim those eye-brows!

Looks like freakin' caterpillars are making a home above her eyes.

God made Adam and Eve and and left them starkers in the garden, so nudity is not a sin.
so whats the problem with showing your knees?
Or toes.

I heard a YWs leader telling her girls that open toe sandles are not acceptable at church.

PrickKicker wrote:God made Adam and Eve and and left them starkers in the garden, so nudity is not a sin.
so whats the problem with showing your knees?
Or toes.

Or navels. If Adam and Eve had such thing.