Doctor Steuss wrote:
As for the white-shirts dilly: I think G-d might appreciate it more if I where one of my non-white DKNY shirts instead of a white $10 Sears shirt. G-d don’t like ugly.
Yes, God does look for labels, but only the union label.
Here is the exact initial Church quote:
Jeff Holland: May I suggest that wherever possible a white shirt be worn by the deacons, teachers, and priests who handle the sacrament. For sacred ordinances in the Church we often use ceremonial clothing, and a white shirt could be seen as a gentle reminder of the white clothing you wore in the baptismal font and an anticipation of the white shirt you will soon wear into the temple and onto your missions.
That simple suggestion is not intended to be pharisaic or formalistic. We do not want deacons or priests in uniforms or unduly concerned about anything but the purity of their lives. But how our young people dress can teach a holy principle to us all, and it certainly can convey sanctity. As President David O. McKay taught, a white shirt contributes to the sacredness of the holy sacrament (see Conference Report, Oct. 1956, p. 89).
IBM Corporation also thought a white shirt and dark suit contributed to the sacredness of their mission for many years. It was a written part of their corporate culture. Of course, with such a culture comes the burden of unadaptive bureaucracy, and that of course has hurt the IBM business model in terms of growth. The LDS model has also hit a slowdown in terms of growth, but like IBM, it is still plugging along.
As to the initial intention of the white shirts not being a Pharisaical uniform requirement, well the best laid plans of mice and men aft gang aglee.