Sunday Best?
Okay people. I saw these shoes (go here for a bigger picture and multiple views!) and thought that they matched me: cute-yet-ever-so-slightly-edgy-in-an-entirely-non-threatening-way. (You know, like a bunny rabbit with a spiked collar.)
As I contemplated buying them, and was thinking where I might wear them, the thought came to me that I maybe could wear them to Church in the summer time. But then I also thought, no…maybe not. They’re not entirely respectful…but…they’re not so bad…really….
So I put the question to you.
Assuming you would wear these shoes at all, would you wear these shoes to Church? Would you even consider it? If someone wore these to Church would you be Scandalized? While we’re at it, has anyone ever been Scandalized by something you wore to Church? What is the most Scandalous thing you ever wore to Church? Did you wear it with the intention of being Scandalous? Inquiring minds (or, maybe, just I) want to know!
Emily: You might want to make the picture a little bigger — I stared in wonder for a moment at how these cute shoes could possibly be scandelous — until I noticed the skull and crossbones. As for me, I thought about wearing my “Save Darfur” shirt to church, but stuck to my bracelet instead.
Comment by Deborah — April 24, 2006 @ 2:01 pm
I wouldn’t wear them to church, but thats just me. I see the youth wearing things like this to church, and I gotta say I think its inapropraite. Same with casual flip flops, they just aren’t your sunday best. Sorry.
As for myself, I dont wear stockings in the summer. I have been told that this is not right, and that we are to wear stockings all the time. I draw the line…. its 100 degrees here in the summer. I don’t see it stopping me from getting a recomend so… naked legs it is.
Comment by kristi — April 24, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
Emily, you crack me up. I bet those shoes would look great on you.
I’m a tiny little thing, with freckles, who wears girly fashions, but inside I’m somewhat jaded and cynical–those shoes match my psyche as well!
The most “scandalous” thing I wore to church was an ankle bracelet. It was the 80s and I was in Young Womens and my mother nearly had a heart attack. The ankle bracelet was paired with high heeled pumps (no pantyhose), and lace used as both a belt and a hair band. Very Madonna-esque and I didn’t even like her music. I was more of a Depeche Mode fan. Oi. Fashion Victim central. I should have listened to my mother.
Comment by Wendy — April 24, 2006 @ 2:12 pm
I’d wear ‘em.
My Sunday School bag is covered in patches that dh and I have gathered on our journeys, and one of the patches is the Boingo smoking skeleton. Oddly enough my uber Molly VT partner saw it and got very excited and we bonded over Boingo concert memories. Good Times.
Comment by fMhLisa — April 24, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
They look too much like sneakers for me to wear to church. They’re cute though, only I’d like them in powder blue or pink.
Lisa, my SS bag has one of those Edward Gorey drawings on it, with the “So many books, so little time” caption. Also, I’m a big Boingo fan!
Hm, the only slightly scandalous thing I ever did was to wear my hair up, at a time when I had an undercut–the lower two or three inches of my head was clipped short. Oh, and sometimes I wore my blue Docs; they looked good with some of my dresses and with black tights. However, none of those things were in the least interesting to the congregation in question.
Comment by dangermom — April 24, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Oh no! I just flashed back to more scandalous church dress horror from my youth!
I also went through a sort of Courtney Love phase, wearing babydoll dresses and knee highs. If my daughters do this to me, it will only be karmic payback. I despair….
Rock stars are not good fashion icons for church.
Comment by Wendy — April 24, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Bare legs are scandalous at church? Wow, I must be young. I stopped wearing panty hose the minute they were called panty hose instead of tights!
The most scandalous thing I saw at church (I didn’t wear it . . .), well two things actually. Both during my young women years. One was a sleeveless dress. It was a thick strap, but definetly sleeveless dress. The older ladies had a fit. The second thing was a sweatshirt with a long skirt. It was winter and it was cold, but a sweatshirt at church just didn’t seem right to me.
I say go for it with the shoes . . . see if anyone even notices!
Comment by Trivial Mom — April 24, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
I would wear ‘em. If it’s the worse thing you ever do, you’re in great company. I have a Grateful Dead patch on my bag, so skeletons are no biggie- and Danny Elfman is a genius. Oh, and I NEVER wear stockings- I must’ve missed the memo- I didn’t know we were supposed to. Pantyhose. Ugh…
Comment by tracy m — April 24, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
Most scandelous thing I wore to church? Green velvet bodice, knee-high lace-up elven boots and my long, black cloak. (Yes there was a skirt in there too but it was the most normal of the set.)
My ward must’ve been pretty cool; I wore that get up alot and no one ever said anything.
Comment by Proud Daughter of Eve — April 24, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
I have a pair of pink converse shoes that I have been known to wear to church sometimes. My theory on this is that the more my church shoes feel like combat boots instead of vices the more I’ll be able to focus on the spirit. If my feet hurt, and my blouse itches, and pantyhose pinch me, then I’m distracted and thinking more about what I’m wearing and how I look. Part of the ‘best’ in Sunday Best should be comfort.
Comment by Starfoxy — April 24, 2006 @ 3:02 pm
Emily,
RebZecca and I are discussing as two members of your ward. We would not really ever notice the skull on your shoes unless we tripped and fell to your feet. Which could happen. In any case, I would probably think it was an advertisment for the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie or something. Wouldn’t really care what you were wearing. You should show us when you where them. Just do it. If people care, it is their loss.
Comment by Maren — April 24, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
If anyone notices those shoes and comments, they obviously were either peeking during the prayer or ignoring the lesson
Most scandalous thing I have seen - a maternity prom dress paraded through sacrament meeting the day after the prom. No joke.
Pantyhose?? I haven’t worn a pair in honestly 5 years - ankle bracelets?? They’re scandalous? I am pretty conservative with my own dress and I wouldn’t bat an eye at either “offense”
Comment by Leslie — April 24, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
I used to live in Tucson, and did kind of an informal study of pantyhose wearing to church. When I was up in Utah, earlier, my mom had been upset because I wasn’t wearing any stockings to church. In Tucson, no one my age (40 ish at the time) wore them. It seemed to me that only women over about 60, and women under 30 or so wore tham. Over 60 it was probably only about 50%. It was that younger group that surprised me. Probably only about 50% there too, but I was surprised that any did. Any explanations for that? Maybe not out of Utah long enough? Or young enough to still be worried about things they “should” do? I don’t know.
Comment by pjj — April 24, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
Those shoes aren’t even close to scandalous. Wear them proudly, I say.
I get comments from time to time on my church wear. I sometimes wear a brown leather skirt; I’ve got leather boots (several pairs, actually) that sometimes draw looks, too. This past week, I wore a cool patchwork denim skirt and calf-high suede boots, and I got a lot of compliments on them.
The older ladies in the ward tell me to wear nylons too, sometimes. One way to get people to stop telling you that is to wear fishnet stockings to church. It works wonders!
Jewelry counts too. I’ve got dragon earrings and pendant that get comments from holier-than-thou family members; also a set of matching triquetra (celtic symbol) that people ask about sometimes. The other good thing is to let your jewelry disappear into your cleavage with a good cleavage top - lots of fun!
My most scandalous item though, by far: The Feminist Mormon Housewives tote bag that I take to church every Sunday.
Comment by Mardell — April 24, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
When I was in YW, there was this older woman in the ward who was absolutely scandalized by everything. Once I wore a knee-length baby-doll dress with clunky Mary Janes (in my defense it was the early 90s) on Fast Sunday. It was in no way scandalous – it was knee-length, it was not low cut, it had cap sleeves. This woman got up on stand, looked me directly in the face, and went on at some length about “these young women who dress immodestly in skimpy little dresses.” I also had short hair and she felt obligated to mention how ungodly that was. Afterwards I made a point of going up to her and, in my sweetest voice, complimenting her on her testimony.
More recently, a member of the Bishopric told me off for wearing a halter dress. I’ve never been endowed so I don’t wear garments. This is a beautiful dress; I bought it in France some years ago. It’s long, it’s loose-fitting, the only thing not church-appropriate with it is that it’s sleeveless. This counselor pulled me aside and told me that I shouldn’t wear things like that because the young men might get aroused (number one, that’s my problem how, and number two, do you really think they’d get turned on by someone twice their age). Immediately after, though, the Bishop – who couldn’t have known about this little talk – came up to me and complimented me on the dress. Kind of took the wind out of the lecture, not that I paid any attention to it anyway.
Comment by Quimby — April 24, 2006 @ 4:11 pm
You should definitely wear them proudly. I have a necklace that will match that I’m sending your way. If you remind me.
I’ve already mentioned here that I love the fishnets. Once, I was wearing fishnets while conducting Primary, and one of the little sunbeam boys got up out of his chair, tried to get underneath my skirt, and started rubbing my legs. I think it was the last time I wore fishnets to Primary, but in the months since my release, they have made a comeback.
On a related note, I am interested in the expectation that we must wear a skirt to Church, and the ickiest, grungiest, even sluttiest skirt still trumps a very tasteful pantsuit. I’ve heard the missionaries (even ones who should know better!) tell women in our ward that they need to wear a skirt, even when they look very respectful in the pants they wear, and I’ve had several non-member friends relate experiences of being chastized by their member friends when they wear pants to church. What’s up with that? I think it’s stupid, and as soon as I own a nice suit, you bet I’m wearing it to church. Can anyone explain what is so scandalous about wearing pants to church? I tend to explain it away, as I explain most things that bug me, as a holdover from the nineteenth century. We might even explain it as a material manifestation of the sexism in our religious culture (we wouldn’t want to be confused about who wears the pants in the family), but I dunno.
And…I just want to say that this isn’t meant as a threadjack! I just want to know why pants would potentially trump all of the edgy outfits you all are mentioning.
Comment by Sonnet — April 24, 2006 @ 4:21 pm
Okay, my comments are not valid, (remember where I’m coming from) …I’m of the belief that getting to church to worship is the important thing, and the manner you are clothed is not.
Now, the scandal thing…the most scandalous thing I wore to church was actually to my baptism in 1976…NO ONE TOLD ME, then, (maybe they tell everyone now because of folks like me) but I wore bright PINK underwear…
It was my boyfriend who was baptizing me, and no one said a word, but under his breath he whispered, “girl, what ARE you wearing?”
So I suppose it was very scandalous, and NO, I didn’t wear them on purpose (I was at the age where my mother bought all my clothing, and all my underpants were BRIGHT PINK because she was a LeVoy dealer…aarrgghh.)
Comment by Darlene — April 24, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
Well, the only time anyone said anything to me was just after my son was born. Unlike most pregnant women, I tend to get swollen feet just AFTER the birth. So, I was wearing a denim dress (selected for nursing convenience) and clean white Keds-I remember making sure of that in a sleep-deprived haze. As I stood in the library line to get chalk and an eraser, so cutesy little newlywed hissed to me in a whisper that my “sneakers” were untied. She had a bit of that “I make a BIG DEAL out of everything” tone to her voice, but I thanked her and bent to tie the shoe. As I did so, she said “Assuming that’s appropriate footwear for church anyway!” I only wish that I could both find a pair of shoes like that AND still be in her ward to wear them. I’m a bad girl that way.
Comment by Mel — April 24, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
Ha! I love this. I may or may not wear those shoes to church now (it would depend on my outfit), but when I was younger I certainly would have. The most scandalous thing i wore? Think early 80’s with a “new wave” stripey mod dress and a punk rock leather jacket. I don’t know why my mom even let me out of the house, but she never said a thing. Neither did anyone else, but they were probably rolling their eyes behind my back!
Oh, and I NEVER wear panty hose. Black tights sometimes.
Comment by meems — April 24, 2006 @ 6:48 pm
According to my father, everything I ever wear to church is scandalous. He thinks sandals are scandalous, but I always tell him that they can’t be, because that’s what Jesus wore.
I don’t know if I’d wear those shoes to church…maybe. I’m a fairly casual church dresser–I usually wear a nice, fitted plain tee and a coordinating skirt. I wear tights in the winter sometimes just to stay warm. I usually wear dress sandals/shoes, but sometimes wear my Doc sandals (which I think look nice). I do feel scandalous when I take one of our Evolution conference bags, with lettering that clearly says “EVOLUTION”. 
Comment by mindy — April 24, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
Wear the shoes!!!! Those shoes say gently “hear me roar“. I love ‘em.
I’m banished from some of your wards, big time! Hose…no way. Too many kids to dress. Plus my behind has the tendency to umm, well rip the tops to shreds by the second hour. Anklets…every Sunday along with whichever color the five year old picked for toe polish.
The most scandalous thing I ever wore was on my honeymoon. The only dress I had packed was a knee length red and white pokadot with a v neck and cap sleeves. It was really more like a theatre dress. We got a few looks as we entered the 11 person branch…….oops. If only they knew what I had on under itJ. I think it says something we even went to church on our honeymoon……
Comment by Amy C. — April 24, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
I say wear them and see if anyone notices! I sure wouldn’t look close enough to see the skull and crossbones!
I gave up wearing pantyhose long ago (way too annoying with garments) but I do wear knee highs if my skirt is long enough, mostly because my shoes don’t stick to my feet! Ha ha.
When I was younger I had these really cool ribbed tights that I liked to wear, the black pair was especially scandalous. I got lots of compliments about them, but we were a bunch of students in Seattle and women were known to wear pant suits on occasion. Heck, our bishop even wore colored shirts and loud ties!!!! Oh my!
As a side note- I’ve noticed other people posting as Nicole so I will change my name to Blue gal.
Comment by formerly Nicole, now Blue gal — April 24, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
Emily,
They look great to me!
Of course, I’m a perpetual fashion victim (which is to say, I have no fashion sense whatsoever) so you may not want to trust me on this one.
Your questions about scandalous dress reminded me of a long-suppressed incident early in my return to activity. I was inactive for most of college. My senior year, when I started attending regularly again, I decided to express my frustration with gender roles by wearing white shirts and ties with my skirts. (I don’t know what possessed me. I’m very reserved, and in general my goal in dressing is to avoid attracting attention to myself). Then I advanced to wearing white shirts and ties with pants and a Greek fisherman’s cap to stuff all of my hair into. (One Sunday someone almost asked me to help pass the sacrament :>). I absolutely did it to scandalize—in fact, one Sunday I bore my testimony in that get-up. But I give my ward full credit. Everyone was nice to me, and no one said a word about the fact that I was dressed almost exactly like an elder.
Maybe that’s why I can’t see the absence of pantyhose, anklets, keds, sandals, or Doc Martens as any big deal. Some weeks it’s a major achievement just to get to church. How one is dressed seems of very secondary importance. I recall having to wear hose to church on Sundays in Sicility in August, when the temperature was well over 100 degrees, in order to comply with mission rules. The members thought we were nuts. And as soon as church was over, we would run out into the field across the street and strip off our sticky knee-his.
Comment by Eve — April 24, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
Darlene (#17)—ouch! What an introduction to Mormon life!
Comment by Eve — April 24, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
well i’d say go ahead and where them just for the reactions!! as for panty hose ( we call them tights here) yep i go without them in the summer no one has ever said anything don’t think it’s UK problem - my most scandolous dress? last week i wore a reallly nice sweater lovely and soft in pastel peach but the cleavage was just a bit too low so i wore a little white top underneath didn’t really make an enormous difference but it helped a lttle, so i thought oh what the heck it looks great i feel great and it might just cheer up some of our sad men in the our sad little branch… nobody battered an eyelid quite dissapointed really
although i do recall a senior sister missionary once coming up to me and asking “is your dress supposed to be like that??” didn’t have a clue what she was on about then realised my very, very modest dress had a top button that had come undone oh shock horror!! …i left it open to annoy her:).
Debra UK
Comment by Debra — April 25, 2006 @ 3:53 am
I suppose I used to wear clompy sandals with fishnets and sheer black tops when I was a teenager. I do remember specifically wearing fishnets on my arms under a severely cut tight fitting tank top to seminary once. I disliked the teacher and was blatantly trying to provoke him with cleavage, black eyeliner, and pretty uncovered shoulders. I think I was also reading a Poppy Z. Brite novel about two homosexual, cannabalistic necropheliac serial killers.
None of that provoked a comment.
When I moved to England and was called to the YW I was taken aside and told off for my skirt being too short. My black, knee length pencil skirt that *covered* my knees when sitting. I was also given a packet of tights thick enough to be worn as leggings for Christmas.
Anyway… I have a pair of these that I occasionally wear to church.
Comment by LAT — April 25, 2006 @ 5:31 am
In my opinion, as long as it’s modest and clean, and unwrinkled…why can’t you wear it to church? I agree with the comment about pantsuits versus scrungy skirts, I agonized every Sunday trying to find one skirt to wear to the ward when I had a whole closet load of really nice pantsuits. The most spirit filled church I ever went to was filled to the brim with kids who had different colored hair, piercings, and strange (but def. modest) fashions. We went to church three times a week, had Bible study once a week, volunteered in our cafe outreach up to 15 hours a week, and were generally treated like trash by the outside society in our very conservative, religious town. My boyfriend’s ward however was pretty okay with his hairstyle- three inches long, spiked out all over, blonde and black. Of course, when he told a few people he was going on a mission, they said “he doesn’t look like a missionary, he can’t go on a mission”. I think it’s much more scandalous to have to agonize over something to wear to church, and for other people to have to do the same. Especially when the question isn’t modesty, but taste.
I have some flats in pink sequins with skulls myself.
Buy those shoes
Comment by sophia*rising — April 25, 2006 @ 5:50 am
LAT-
those are the cutest shoes EVER! where do I pick up a pair (but not to wear on sunday)
I go to church with my inlaws (episcopalians spelling?) and they wear eans. Gotta say Drives me nuts! Would it kill you to dress up a bit for the Lord? I don’t have a problem with pant suits on women however, and I heard that it is now acceptable to wear them to the temple? (not in the temple, but to the temple before you get into your temple gear)Anyone know?
Comment by kristi — April 25, 2006 @ 8:57 am
You are all hilarious and I love you. No, really.
While I am glad to know that many totebag skeletons have gone to church before my pirate shoes might, and relieved to know that I’m not the only one who used to wear clunky docs and temporary tatoos (oh wait, did anyone mention temporary tats? or was that really just me?), I am shocked and appalled that there are so many bare-legged women in our churches….for shame….
Actually, I’m mostly bare-legged, too, and with the color of my pasty skin, I agree that that ought to be much more scandalous than it is. A pant-suit would be infinitely more flattering to me and more comfortable for all.
As for Maren and RebZecca…I can’t believe that, fashion maven that I am, you are not constantly awaiting my latest escapades in footwear. Sheesh! And hey…wanna come to dinner this weekend?
Comment by EmilyS — April 25, 2006 @ 9:28 am
By the way, Mardell, do tell us the reactions you get from your Scandalous FMH tote (way to represent!). Did I ever tell y’all about how I wore my T-shirt to the Ward Party? Maybe we should open a thread for reactions to FMH-wear?
PS - Count me as one who was not aware of the scandalousness of ankle bracelets. I guess that makes me Very Naughty, for I have also been known to sport a toe ring…
Comment by EmilyS — April 25, 2006 @ 9:32 am
HUSH….a toe ring????
Comment by Amy C. — April 25, 2006 @ 9:38 am
Emily,
Count us in for Dinner. Monday is my Birthday, so that would be great. As for noticing fashon, I am lucky if I get up on a Sunday morning and find a shirt without a stain on it. One day Chardell from our ward was wearing the cutest fishnet stockings with flowers on them, and I wanted to mention it right away, but couldn’t decide if it was appropriate to tack it on as the last of the announcements for RS so perhaps I should tell the bishop I am too scandalous for the RS presidency.
Comment by Maren — April 25, 2006 @ 9:53 am
I refuse to wear standard pantyhose… if I will wear stockings at all (always during the winter) they will always be nude fishnets. I won’t wear bare legs until the spring and summer when I can use either tanning lotion or go tan, just because pasty legs are kind of iffy looking.
I’ll always wear the lowest cut shirt I can wear without completely revealing my garments, and I don’t wear anything generally below the knee. And for the recond I think that a nice pants suit would be more appropriate than… say… all the g-strings that show from skirts of young women these days.
And my husband will rarely, if ever wear a white shirt. To the temple is the extent of it. He and his friend always have a competition to see who can wear the classiest colored shirt with cufflinks to church.
Comment by Nicole — April 25, 2006 @ 10:21 am
Ooh, this is fun. I’m glad you asked about the reactions, Emily. The reactions are many, they range from one end to the other.
One ward member loved it. She said it was awesome. Then there’s the Relief Society presidency member, who dutifully ignores it. You can tell when people ignore it. They look at it, and then studiously look away. Like they never saw it. It’s a don’t ask, don’t tell approach. Most people take that tack.
A few people have made derogatory comments, like “that’s not appropriate for church.” But I tend to speak my mind and people know that, so if they don’t like it, they probably don’t tell me. Unless they want to have a long talk on the topic. (Besides, I’ve learned to argue from my lawyer husband. Add that to my normal lack of tact - or rather, unwillingness to put up with the facades of Mormon life - and it creates a style that may be just a little too no-holds-barred for most sisters).
Comment by Mardell — April 25, 2006 @ 10:48 am
Oh, I forgot one thing.
My husband likes to braid hair. (Yes, it’s weird). So he has put my entire head into tiny braids quite a few times. I like the look — I even got it done once professionally, when he was working crazy hours and had no time to do it.
That draws looks, when you go to church in little tiny braids. Well, it depends on the venue. In the Bronx, no one batted an eye. (In fact, I got lots of compliments). But when I went to church like that in Arizona, it was mostly studiously ignored. (Mormons are very good at that). And my mother was convinced that I was in the fast lane to hell. I had blue (long) fingernails, tiny braids, and I was moving to New York. I’m sure I gave her lots of gray hairs. It was awesome.
(And the in-laws studiously ignored it. Biting their lip the entire time. It was great.)
Comment by Mardell — April 25, 2006 @ 10:53 am
Two months ago we had a talk given by a young sister that admonished us all for ALLOWING our husbands to wear colored shirts. The sacrament is an ordinance…and the white repesents the purity of Christ. Is this anywhere else or did she just think it up? My hubby wore a bright blue suit (his past gospel chior suit) the first Sunday he went and indeed got a lot of comments. He’s so big I guess none of the guys wanted to say anything bad and he informed me the idea of a black suit was my hang up. He’s so cool! I’ll have to encourge the cuff-link thing. That’s really cute.
Comment by Amy C. — April 25, 2006 @ 11:34 am
okay…forgot spell check…sorry.
Comment by Amy C. — April 25, 2006 @ 11:35 am
Oh the horror of the toe rings. I had two small toe rings on with one ankle bracelet with my sandals at work last summer and had the daughters of Zion cited to me by a co-worker. But he’s really old and I chalked the lack of tact up to his age more than religion
I kind of wonder where people think they are ok to judge other’s appearances? Isn’t “judge not” a pretty basic principle of the gospel? And, if you want to pass judgement in your head, ok I guess - but I think a lot of people need a lesson in tact and good manners. You can have the most beautiful outfit in the world on and mar your appearance by making nasty comments to someone.
That said, I CANNOT believe you guys would let your husbands out of the house in colored shirts… I make my husband wear short sleeved white dress shirts that a bit too small and a bit dingy…. much better! ha ha ha ha ha ha
Comment by Leslie — April 25, 2006 @ 11:48 am
LOL #5 blue docs, that takes me back! As does the nod to DM #3.
Obviously it is worse for women at church than men when it comes to criticism over church attire. But how anyone would have the nerve to make snippy comments in the first place is beyond me. You can have the most beautiful outfit in the world on and mar your appearance by making nasty comments to someone. Agreed.
We recently got the no coloured shirt lecture in our ward, although our new bishop did say that white shirts were prefered, not required. I have made a point of wearing my tasteful blue shirt 3 out of the last 4 sundays to pass sacrament (we have only two deacons in our ward).
I was always too goody goody to wear anything out of the ordinary to church. I do remember my best friend getting chastised for blessing the sacrament wearing florescent blue pants, a black shirt and a white tie (circa 1988). He looked like he was on his way to a New Order concert. Its hard to take that criticism seriously when its being delivered by a middle aged gentleman in a poorly fitting grey suit and a tie that is too short to extend over his casserol belly, let alone reach his belt line.
Comment by Talon — April 25, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
This is going to make me sound very old and conservative, and I am neither:
These shoes would only be appropriate if:
-you were a new investigator and didn’t know better
-you were poor and honestly only had one pair of shoes or somehow these were your best
-you were young and just had to get at your mom somehow and these shoes are it
Since I think neither apply to you, I would say inappropriate, but feel free to not care, I have no right to judge, but I might anyway.
In my opinion, you don’t need nylons or slips and sandels are fine, with or without painted toenails. I don’t approve of denim for people who “know better” (see above) and really don’t have a problem with the dress/skirt status quo.
I guess I don’t think Church is the right place to “make a statement” and draw attention to yourself. Ward picnic? Definitly.
Comment by a spectator — April 25, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
I hate to see so much attention given to appearances when we worship — whether it’s people trying to enforce their standard or people trying to subvert that standard. I sure wish we could all just go and focus on the inside.
(We just had the most spiritually unsatisfying stake conference ever where someone went on at length about “appropriate” appearances. I went there hoping to be FED, not lectured …)
Comment by Ana — April 25, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
Wait, a denim skirt is inappropriate now unless you’re dead broke or new? Or do you just mean jeans?
Comment by RCH — April 25, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
Oh, and PS — I like the shoes. I’m not sure I’d wear them to church, but I wouldn’t think twice (unless to think, “Dude! Those are awesome!”) if someone else did.
Comment by RCH — April 25, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
Mardell, you are clearly going to hell (in an FMH totebag). Bound by flaxen, tiny-braided cords. But I will pretend not to have noticed.
Spectator (#40)…such a buzz kill…sheesh!!
Actually, I have similar reservations, which is why I turned the question over to y’all in the first place. I should have known that such a bunch of rebels as those who hang about this joint would naturally push me to advocate piracy in my footwear, even though we ought always to avoid the very appearance of evil… (which piracy clearly is)
I remain unconvinced either way, though, so maybe what I’ll do is wear them to RS and SS, but switch really quickly into more sober mary janes for sacrament meeting…whaddaya think?
Truth be known, I’m not even sure I want to keep the shoes (they were less cute in life than in the picture), except that now Sonnet’s offering me matching jewels, and how can I turn down that opportunity?
RCH #43 - you have stated my position exactly!
Maren - How’s Friday? And I think I’m gonna make Chardell and her Mann komm auch. Z says the more the merrier, but wonders if anyone has food allergies or other dietary restrictions?
Comment by EmilyS — April 25, 2006 @ 2:28 pm
I want to know what’s wrong with denim too. I love denim skirts.
As a YW, our stake had this rule that you weren’t allowed to wear denim skirts or dresses to the temple. The logic went, guys can’t wear jeans to the temple, so girls can’t wear denim skirts. What sort of wonky-ass logic is that? We were also told we weren’t allowed to change into pants for the 3-hour ride home. (Of course, this was the same stake that had a rule that men in the bishopric or high council couldn’t have facial hair.) I thought the no-denim rule was stupid, but I really took umbrage at the no-changing rule. The young men got to wear pants - so what if they were church pants? - and they got to take off their ties on the car ride home and unbutton a couple of buttons on their shirt and roll up their sleeves, so the rule was just sexist. I made a point, each and every temple trip, of changing into pants for the ride home (not at the temple, but at the restaurant after the temple, or sometimes in the car.) I was constantly getting into trouble for this, but since I knew the rule was stupid and I knew I wasn’t doing anything contrary to doctrine, I refused to cooperate. It helped that I had the full support of my parents - although my dad was also constantly getting into trouble for refusing to shave his mustache.
Comment by Quimby — April 25, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Avoid the appearance of piracy. That’s awesome.
And the jewels are on their way, as we speak.
Argh!!
Comment by Sonnet — April 25, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
Re #45.
“As a YW, our stake had this rule that you weren’t allowed to wear denim skirts or dresses to the temple. The logic went, guys can’t wear jeans to the temple, so girls can’t wear denim skirts.”
Well guys can’t wear bras to the temple either now, can they?
“I made a point, each and every temple trip, of changing into pants for the ride home (not at the temple, but at the restaurant after the temple, or sometimes in the car.)”
Of course, you could have gone one step further — temple parking lot! I mean, that’s how you try pants on at the thrift store if there are no changing rooms — put them on under your skirt, see if they fit. Same principle, right? Besides, it would scandalize everyone, which is a good reason all in itself.
Comment by Mardell — April 25, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
Pantyhose is a problem? I understand why for sister miss’s it would be since it doesn’t take much for a 19 yr old boy away from all female contact, but for us laywomen? I hate pantyhose so much I always say they’re against my religion.
I adore the shoes and I say wear them. I’d just take care what I wear them with.
To this day I wear 20-eye Doc Martens and fishnets and big black boots with buckles all over them, I just usually wear one at a time and make that the only outrageous thing I’m wearing. When I wear the Doc’s I wear them with a knee length kakhi pencil skirt and conservative sweater. I dig the contrast anyway, but then it’s just a little bit of personality instead of a big “LOOK AT ME” moment.
The most scandalous thing I ever wore was in the late 90’s when the athleticwear inspired/Spice Girl look was in and I wore a bright red dress made up out of this shiny workout suit material, trimmed with racing stripes. But I was at BYU at the time, so obviously my taste and sense had already abandoned me.
Comment by Reese — April 25, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
Guess I’m with the fuddy-duddies. :~)
My rule is if you wouldn’t wear something to an important non-church meeting and expect to be taken seriously then you probably shouldn’t wear it to church. [though callings can modify this — e.g. working in the nursery]
Also, I do wear pant suits to church — I believe Sunday best doesn’t mean a dress or skirt, but something that shows you’re serious about where you are. There are skirts appropriate for the beach. There are pant suits appropriate for church. Mixing the two seems less than ideal.
NO
Comment by not ophelia — April 25, 2006 @ 7:38 pm
I always wear nylons in the winter, for one reason only: they hide unshaven legs! LOL. Thick black tights are the best for this, and are also warm and cozy. Although I hate how uncomfortable nylons and bras are. I connect them, because I only wear either of them to church.
I don’t wear nylons in the spring/summer, though. Then I wear sandals and shaved legs and painted toenails. I’ve always resented having to get dressed up for church. It’s very stressful for me! And I feel ripped off at how uncomfortable sunday clothes often are for a jeans or loose skirt and t-shirt chick like me.
As far as scandal, I’m sure I’ve done my share, mainly because I have a tattoo on my lower back (which my husband told me is now referred to as a tramp stamp! - LOL) and I can sometimes feel my shirt riding up and the occasional silent gasp from the row behind me. Oh well. It doesn’t bother me none, seeing as I can’t see it. And truly, I like it. No regrets at all.
Comment by Kerri — April 25, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
Molly goes Goth — or tries to! That’s what these shoes say. I see Molly slipping on her pirate mules for grocery shopping, or when her home teacher drops by. Make no mistake. These are GATEWAY shoes. Next, you will be drinking coffee and sniffing brandy.
By the way, I have heard that the best nylons for bagging a husband are super sheer black stockings. They are sexier than the bare leg. This tidbit is courtesy of my Mormon girlfriend (she, by the way, would say no-no to the goth mules.) I think sheer black nylons, under a g-string, would go nicely with any skirt. What are you guys complaining about.
But those shoes…definitely dangerous.
Just my $0.02.
Comment by pele — April 25, 2006 @ 9:19 pm
Once I removed my suit coat at a meeting before the presiding authority removed his.
Comment by Seth R. — April 25, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
Now, if you really want to blow your mind, consider this:
On this thread, I’m the rebel!
Comment by Seth R. — April 25, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
LAT - I so totally want those scary kitty shoes!
Comment by meems — April 25, 2006 @ 9:58 pm
Super cute shoes! I would wear them.
Ok, I hope this isn’t a total threadjack, but how the hell are you even supposed to wear nylons with garments?? I mean, they do not go over well, and under just is too wierd. If you are doing knee highs or something then it’s not a problem, but what if your skirt is not to your ankles??
Comment by Aimee Roo — April 25, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
You are supposed to, with great effort, try to stuff all the garment leg fabric down into your nylons and around your legs. There will be lots of bunching and sliding and if you or anyone else happens to get a look at your garments stuffed into your nylons it will be a cause for great hilarity and maybe even loud laughter.
Comment by Kerri — April 25, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
I’ve worn nylons/pantyhose with garments for many years, and once I found the right fabric and size for the garments, and the correct size for the pantyhose, my problems disappeared. When new fabrics are introduced, I have to experiment again. If either the garments or the pantyhose are too large or too small, or the combination of fabrics is too slippery, frustration and discomfort often ensue.
Comment by Anonymous for this post — April 25, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
This is the most current standard of Sunday dress I have heard:
From Elder Holland:
I make a special appeal regarding how young women might dress for Church services and Sabbath worship. We used to speak of “best dress” or “Sunday dress,” and maybe we should do so again. In any case, from ancient times to modern we have always been invited to present our best selves inside and out when entering the house of the Lord—and a dedicated LDS chapel is a “house of the Lord.” Our clothing or footwear need never be expensive, indeed should not be expensive, but neither should it appear that we are on our way to the beach. When we come to worship the God and Father of us all and to partake of the sacrament symbolizing the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we should be as comely and respectful, as dignified and appropriate as we can be. We should be recognizable in appearance as well as in behavior that we truly are disciples of Christ, that in a spirit of worship we are meek and lowly of heart, that we truly desire the Savior’s Spirit to be with us always.
Jeffrey R. Holland, “To Young Women,” Ensign, Nov. 2005, 28
I think Elder Holland would agree with the comment made earlier that sacrament meeting is not a place to “make a statement” nor to deliberately test the tolerance of others. We are there to worship and to reflect on the atonement.
The sacrament is an ordinance…and the white repesents the purity of Christ. Is this anywhere else or did she just think it up?
As President David O. McKay taught, a white shirt contributes to the sacredness of the holy sacrament (see Conference Report, Oct. 1956, p. 89).
Jeffrey R. Holland, “This Do in Remembrance of Me,” Ensign, Nov. 1995, 67
I have heard this mostly focused on those passing the sacrament, but I think the principle can apply to anyone participating in the ordinance of the sacrament.
Another quote on that:
Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has used the example of teaching our Aaronic Priesthood deacons the doctrines and principles of sacrament meeting so they will understand that the rules they follow (such as wearing a white shirt and tie when possible and passing the sacrament in a nondistracting way) support what the Lord would have us accomplish in sacrament meeting (renewing our covenants and remembering the Atonement in a reverent manner). In many areas we are guided only by doctrines and principles rather than rules. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” We are responsible to the Lord for how we respond in such situations.
Quentin L. Cook, “Looking beyond the Mark,” Liahona, Mar. 2003, 21
None of this is license to criticize or condemn or reject others, but I think it is good to reflect on why we wear what we wear and if it contributes to the spirit of the sacrament. Elder Holland says we should present our best selves — inside AND out.
My vote? Save the shoes for a ward party.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 25, 2006 @ 11:06 pm
The kitty shoes are by TUK and I’m not sure where you can get them in the US. You could probably find them just by googling “kitty mary janes”
I don’t wear mine very often because they don’t really go with anything and I have a thing against pink. I have monster sized feet in the UK (apparently) and I couldn’t find a black on black pair anywhere in my ginormous size.
I always dress well for church and try to pull myself together but it is difficult. I’m not even technically *alive* on a Sunday morning until halfway through my YW lesson. Oh well.
My solution to the nylon fiasco is stockings. Sheer black stockings and a suspender belt. Other than that I just don’t wear anything.
Comment by LAT — April 26, 2006 @ 3:01 am
Okay… so *that* came out wrong.
I meant, obviously, that I just go bare legged. Tights and nylons are just itchy, uncomfortable and pointless. I don’t even use them to hide the fact that I didn’t bother to shave my legs because my leg hair is so fine and blonde that no one would notice anyway. I think it would actually cause more notice if I turned up in skin toned nylons because I would have suspiciously tanned legs compared to the glaring paleness of the rest of me!
Comment by LAT — April 26, 2006 @ 3:04 am
So according to that quote by m&m, a nice pants suit would be perfectly acceptable then… That is really nice to know! In order to make it more socially acceptable we just need to wear more pant suits right, then people will stop thinking it is weird!? I am all for activism… I have loved the post!
I would wear the shoes!!!!! They don’t have to make statement just be different and cute.
Once when i was living in Texas I wore gray/black tights that have the criss crosses that fishnet hose have, and a woman (maybe 25) told me, “I really like those tights but I could never wear them.” She said it like they were in some way scandalous… I was amazed! In fact, i thought they were conservative! In Europe I wear pants under long skirts in the winter because i avoid hose and garments like the plague! Plus if i am walking or biking… I refuse to wear a dress!Nobody has ever said anything to me. I also credit myself with the new member with trying skirts with pants as well, i was pretty excited about my influence! Last sunday she came in a pants suit, i told her she looked very nice!
Comment by Sarah — April 26, 2006 @ 4:53 am
I’m usually just a lurker here, but this one pulled me in…
First, I wouldn’t wear the pirate mules to church - but not because they’re ‘wrong’ in any way, they just don’t match my personal taste/style. Something equally casual that was to my taste - not a problem. Mostly, I’ve been working in the corporate arena for so many years, I’m now socialized to respond negatively (albeit ONLY in my head - no comments, no looks - I just don’t have it in me) to things that are insufficiently polished looking - things that aren’t ‘dressy’ enough for the occasion. I guess I’ve officially become my mother, grandmother, great-grandmother…
Overall, I have to agree with the poster who said that people just shouldn’t dress too casually for church - and I’m completely in agreement that a tasteful pantsuit is far better than a tatty skirt and t-shirt…but I also know which one would get you the most comments/dirty looks/sidelong glances.
I often wore nice pants to church (and I’ve been around the Brits for too long now, because now that sentence makes me giggle), and I didn’t get any comments, nor even any looks that I was aware of. My friend who always wore dresses wore trousers one Sunday in the middle of COLD winter, and the RS President made a snarky-veiled-in-sweetness comment to her. Hmm.
I recall once wearing a Nehru jacket-type top (no, I’m not *that* old, it was a Nehru-revival thing in the late ’80s), floor-length straight black skirt, doc marten shiny boots, and a floor-length sleeping-bag looking overcoat to church, along with my dead-white foundation and purply/black/red matte lipstick. Shudder.
But the most outrageous thing I ever wore to church (and this is funny, because it would be fine to wear it to the office or a wedding or other semi-formal occasion) was when I wore a light blue trouser suit to church (it looked great with my tan, it was the middle of summer) and the top piece was sleeveless (not a tank top - but a high-neck sleeveless top, made of the same suit material, so no coverage issues).
Things like this always remind me of my favorite satirical mormon comic strip I saw many years ago - showed a nine-months-pregnant teenager (complete with very high bangs) talking to her horrified parents and saying “but Mother, I *can’t* marry him - he smokes!” Never fails to make me chuckle - and a nice shorthand way of pointing out the inherent idiocy in some of our norms. Someone in a nice-but-sleeveless trouser suit is more out of place than a t-shirt-khaki-skirt-no-pantyhose*-casual sandals/flip-flops wearer would be. Neither outfit is objectively *wrong* in ANY way…but one is okay and one is not according to the norms we live by.
*I too avoid pantyhose like death itself - mostly by wearing trousers almost all the time
Comment by RE — April 26, 2006 @ 4:57 am
If denim skirts are not appropriate in church, then the entire country will have to dump their wardrobes because it seems to me that that is all most under 40 women wear to church these days. :-/
I did give up denim skirts, but just found a sweet knee length 7 for all Mankind denim skirt - I may just have to buy it.
And I will have to wear it to church.
Although I am the girl you always see wearing stilletos.
Comment by Nicole — April 26, 2006 @ 7:22 am
And PS - the white shirt thing I have always heard pertained only to those participating in the blessing and passing. Nevertheless my husband hates white dress shirts and isn’t likely to be caught wearing one regularly. Though his shirts are very tasteful.
Oh and the shoes (I never did address that one!)… I wouldn’t wear them to church, but then, I would never wear anything like that casually. Just not my scene. However I think they are better than a host of things I have seen, and I am all about making a personal style statement at church (here on the east coast in one of the country’s richest cities it is very much a constant fashion show)(What a change it will be when we move to Utah in three weeks!!).
Comment by Nicole — April 26, 2006 @ 7:27 am
I wear pants suits occasionally in the winter to church. I’ve only received positive feedback, and about how it’s too cold to wear skirts in Boston during the winter. Of course, I and another woman are the only women who wear pants to church. It is strange that sloppy skirts and flip flops are more acceptable than nice pants and a shirt, but such is the status of Mormon haute couture.
Comment by Elisabeth — April 26, 2006 @ 7:51 am
So, I hope all y’all realize how totally cultural this all is. And not even just ‘mormon culture’ but, the culture of where you live. I have NEVER in my life heard of pantyhose being something you ’should’ wear to church. I didnt think people wore pantyhose at ALL anymore, anywhere. I have spent my adult life in California/Hawaii and a little Texas, and I have also never ever heard of SANDALS or FLIP FLOPS being something taboo. There is no other footwear where I come from. There is sandals, and flip flops (arent those the same btw?). period. I do not own other types of shoes! Such a weird idea! Definitly in Cali/Hawaii no one would think anything of what you put on your legs and feet.
Heres the other thing- people wear ’sleeveless’ all the time. Nothing immodest obviously, but I had several technically sleeveless dresses growing up, where the fabric went to the edge of my shoulder. So did everyone else. Lots of mumus for younger girls are like that.
Now, the culture of where I have lived my whole life is very casual. People just dont dress up for ANYTHING in Cali or Hawaii. I have never seen my dad or anyone else wear a suit to church or work. But, I understand that when my dad goes to NY on business he has to wear a suit (he hates it, and ones one lonely suit for this purpose). He also doesnt wear white shirts (along with everyone else). The YM do, for the sacrament. My husband designs videogames and wears shorts and tshirts to work and has one pair of khakis, one white shirt, one blue shirt. We dont even iron them, is that scandolous?
I wear khaki or denim knee length skirts, with plain tshirts and flip-flops. I have a couple dresses which I wear to the temple. This is dressing up for me. I have never heard of things really being ’scandolous’ ata chruch because people generally just worry about themselves. As they should. This isnt the first post I have seen like this around, and I’m starting to wonder if members aren’t totally obsessed with appearance in a way that is not in harmony with our beliefs. There is no universal dresscode for church, we all have different ideas of what is respectful, and all that matters is what is in your heart.
Comment by Veritas — April 26, 2006 @ 8:19 am
Yeah, I live in CA and no one ever says anything about pantyhose. In the summer it’s over 100 degrees, and no one wears it–not the RS Pres, not the YW Pres, not the Primary Pres, not me. Also, at least one of our YW leaders is in the habit of wearing toe rings, and it isn’t to express her rebellion–she’s just a fashion lover. She also wears purple satin skirts to church (she looks good, too).
I never wear demin skirts, because I look incredibly dumpy in them. But if I didn’t, I would, because I teach eleven Sunbeams. The rest of the Primary presidency wears them.
And finally, there was a lovely woman in our last ward who sometimes wore pantsuits to church. No one ever said a word that I know of.
Comment by dangermom — April 26, 2006 @ 9:32 am
I totally agree, 66 and 67 - California (where I’m from originally) IS different in this way, and lots of other ways as well. I actually prefer the casual approach in dress and attitude that is on the West Coast. However, I do have to say that my western upbringing did not prepare me well for the corporate world - particularly in the approach of dress and formal speech/interaction. I had to learn a lot of that the ‘hard way’ when I lived on the East Coast (thank goodness for mentors!!). (And what I learned in my East Coast years was a major advantage when I moved back to CA to work for a large west-coast-based corporation: even though I ‘got’ the local culture very well, I also knew the more formal corporate-type positioning I had learned in the East, and it helped more that one would imagine.) HUGE differences coastally in these areas. And I personally found Utah to be much closer to California in attitudes, dress styles, etc., than it was to the East Coast.
Comment by RE — April 26, 2006 @ 10:01 am
My husband loved comment 66. He wants to move. He didn’t go for the cuff-links idea either. hum….
Comment by Amy C. — April 26, 2006 @ 10:10 am
Emily,
Friday should be fine, though Arwin may be late and/or not there. He has to go to Syracuse University with his school Thursday and Friday, and I am unaware of what time he will return.
As for this whole discussion, I prefer having people wear whatever they want. My mom stopped wearing hose when she got sick, I was around 12. She did recieve a lot of negative feedback, but she always said that God didn’t care. I am so sick of hearing what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. I do not think that Christ would come in and condemn anyone for wearing sandals to church, or pirate shoes, or even immodest clothing. And, perhaps I am wrong for thinking this, but I see nothing wrong with sacrament meeting being a place to make a statement. If the statement is “We love and accept you for who you are,” then that is the perfect statement. We should be going to church to repent of our own sins, which we all have, not pointing out what we may see as faults in others.
When I was on my mission, I taught a woman who came to church in pants, and a member came up to her and told her she was dressed innapropriately. She never came back. That was a lesson to me. The world looketh on the outward appearance but the Lord sees the heart.
Comment by Maren — April 26, 2006 @ 10:18 am
As a convert, I interpret the lack of “Sunday Best” to really be a lack of reverence. When I first joined the Church I often wore formal pant suits with heels to Church - but quickly learned that pant suits were inappropriate attire in Mormon culture. While I believe that a professional pant suit is often more formal to the a-line skirts and tee shirts that many members wear, I have adjusted my Sunday attire accordingly. Last month I overheard two sisters commenting on the attire of someone in our ward. The visitor - who could very well have been an innocent investigator - was wearing a lovely formal pant suit. Unable to sit quietly and ignore the remarks, I told the sisters that someone wearing dirty flip flops to Church has no right to judge someone for wearing a pant suit.
Needless to say, I have not won any popularity awards in my ward. But it comes down to this. Church attendance, by its very nature, is a sacred, formal and VOLUNTARY event. One should make every effort to represent themselves in their best possible light. Church should not be a fashion venue, it is a place to renew our covenants and increase of understanding of the scriptures. If Church doctrine dictates that a dress or knee length skirt should be worn to Church - then instead of making clothing choices aimed at irritating the repressed housewives that reproduce annually or the beaten down bishopric, wear something that fits within the guidelines of the Church. It’s three hours and it won’t kill you.
Comment by sally — April 26, 2006 @ 10:35 am
I blame my denim aversion entirely on my mother–I have been brainwashed, I’ll admit, but when I see women wearing denim dresses or skirts at church, I feel it is too casual. I don’t think Church is the place you need to look cute, make a statement, show off your taste, or be comfy. I think people should dress in a manner that shows respect to those they have come to worship. Even if you have a presidency meeting before and choir practice after and work in the nursery, you can hack clean and professional attire for the few hours you are at church.
I promise that in real life I don’t sound so uptight, but I think it is a positive piece of our culture that we actually wear “Sunday Best.”
Comment by a spectator — April 26, 2006 @ 10:53 am
The sacrament is an ordinance…and the white repesents the purity of Christ.
Excellent. This means that I am definitely going to continue wearing colored shirts to Church, and especially to administer the sacrament:
Red - for Christ’s sacrifice, and the robes he will wear at the Second Coming (see D&C 133:48)
Purple - for Christ’s royal office
Blue - also royalty, and for the heavens where God dwells
Black - for the darkness of the tomb, and three days without sun in the Americas
I could go on, but you get the point. We can all play the symbolism game, too.
Comment by obi-wan — April 26, 2006 @ 10:57 am
I read your blogs almost daily and feel a sense of relief that other LDS ladies have different thoughts and ideas. I however have not been active in the church because i married someone outside the church and he is totally weirded out by “church goers.” He relates them to Ned Flanders from the “Simpsons” . But anyway, I thought I would comment on the shoes. Although quite cute, I would not wear them to Sacrement. I would wear them to any other church function because every creature and human has a skull under their flesh. -and skulls are quite cool!
Comment by ANGELA — April 26, 2006 @ 11:07 am
The most scandalous thing I ever wore inside a chapel was a dress with a (relatively) low back. It was my seminary graduation, and as I recall I’d had to go there straight from some other senior awards ceremony at my school and didn’t have time to change. I felt quite uncomfortable, even though the dress would have been perfectly appropriate for, say, a Presbyterian.
Once my husband went to a mutual activity at the church wearing his “Your Mother Dates Kennedys” t-shirt. (Yes, he was an adult.)
Comment by RLJ — April 26, 2006 @ 11:09 am
I think part of the reason white shirts are suggested is because when all the members of the priesthood passing the sacrament are dressed similarly, they don’t distract from the spirit. I don’t mind a light blue shirt, or something not too garish, but a bright shirt is distracting. Along the same lines, no one has mentioned Looney Tunes ties or any of the other garish ties that the YM seem to wear, but to me, those are the kicker. I guess I just have ADD, but I have a hard time concentrating on what I should be when they wear those.
I am a bit of a hypocrite myself though, because it drives me crazy when girls wear flip flops to church, but when it is warm, I wear dressy backless heeled sandals (with out nylons… horrors!)… and I have to ask myself if there is really a difference (probably not!) That said, I can’t believe that anyone would ever say something to someone who came to church modestly dressed, in pants or not. I have considered wearing pants myself on occasion, and my hubby said he wouldn’t care if I did, but I guess I just never want to make waves. I have a good friend who was baptized about 7 months ago, who wears pantsuits to work more than dresses, so that is what she wears to church also. One of my counselors commented that someone should tell her she is supposed to wear a skirt, and I said no way… there is no rule against nice pants!
Comment by Ginger — April 26, 2006 @ 1:09 pm
I totally respect the thinking along the lines of “sacrament is not a place to make a statement” and “we’re not there for a fashion show, we’re there for a sacred ordinance.” I thoroughly get that. I even get the white shirts for blessing and passing the sacrament and my husband (who LOVES his colored shirts) and I have discussed keeping a spare white shirt in the car should he ever get called to pitch in.
So I won’t go to sacrament intending to tell the ward through my dress that I am a rebel and too cool for school and that looking hot is the most important thing. But I also don’t want to have to go to sacrament telling myself that if I don’t wear exactly what everyone else is wearing then I am not appropriate or acceptable.
There is a very wide array of clothing that I could wear to work and be thoroughly appropriate while still using a little personal style. My most important pitch meeting ever I wore a nice black pant suit with a blue sweater underneath covered in rows of sparkly beading and with pointy pointy stilleto shoes, a big bright blue handbag and a big flower on my lapel. So if the standard is clothes you’d wear in a professional setting, there’s plenty of room for difference.
I’m just not a jumper wearer or a pastel pink skirt suit and pearls wearer. That’s just not how I came. And if that narrow parameter is all that’s appropriate in Sacrament meeting, then we’re just not a very inclusive church.
The bottom line is, I don’t think that expressing who you are in subtle ways is making a statement that doesn’t belong in Sacrament meeting. To me, the statement I’m making is, “God made me a creative person and we’re both happy about that.”
Comment by Reese — April 26, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
I’m starting to wonder if members aren’t totally obsessed with appearance in a way that is not in harmony with our beliefs. There is no universal dresscode for church, we all have different ideas of what is respectful, and all that matters is what is in your heart.
But what do you say to what Elder Holland says? Maybe there is something — a sort of polish — associated with attention to appearance (not to give license to judge, but to give individuals food for thought). I don’t think flip flops will keep someone out of the Celestial Kingdom, but I think it’s good to consider what our leaders have said about reverence, respect and being our best selves — inside and out — especially when involved in ordinances.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 26, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
I’m just not a jumper wearer or a pastel pink skirt suit and pearls wearer. That’s just not how I came. And if that narrow parameter is all that’s appropriate in Sacrament meeting, then we’re just not a very inclusive church.
But I don’t think this narrow parameter has ever been hinted at, has it?
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 26, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
Clothing is communication with those around you.
First ask yourself what you are saying to those around you. This requires that you think about your reaction, not just your own intentions.
Secondly, ask yourself if the message is really worth saying.
Comment by Seth R. — April 26, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Seth, your statement suddenly turns shopping, which I hate, into an even more stressful nightmare.
Amen to you Reese (#77)!
Comment by Veritas — April 26, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Life’s hard.
Then you die.
Comment by Seth R. — April 26, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
I certainly don’t think the Brethren have suggested anything close to the sort. Of course, I haven’t researched it, so maybe they have, but I would be surprised to find that out. I personally love the comments about flipflops and beach wear that were made recently.
I’m speaking more to the culture that raised us all and taught some of us that pantyhose are a necessity and denim is wrong and pant suits are unacceptable.
Comment by Reese — April 26, 2006 @ 4:50 pm
An inside joke on my mission among the sisters was to proclaim, “I made a new outfit!” Invariably, it was something that no one in the US of A would ever wear together, but after more than a year in Ukraine, it was a relief to have a different combination. Because of visa problems, no new sisters from the west had arrived in a year, so no one could correct our fashion faux pas.
One week we were in a temporary threesome, so I borrowed from *both* companions and came up with a new outfit! And I was CUTE! Oh, the excitement! I wasn’t two steps inside the door at church when a teenage girl who always dressed rather flashily gave me a huge hug and said, “It’s wonderful how you missionaries always dress so plainly and modestly!”
She crushed me.
Comment by Melinda — April 26, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
All I know is that President Hinckley has asked the General presidencies of the Relief Society, Young Women and Primary to wear close toe shoes and nylons to all Sunday meetings and meetings held in the Temple or chapel.
My Bishop extended this invite ro our ward and since I have followed it (not easy for someone like me whose she wardrobe is 90% open toe and hates nylons) I have been bless beyone imagination.
You have to do what is right for you personally. You have to prayerfully decide that and then you have to accept that others have differing opinions. For me, I will never go back to the open toe shoes and bare legs again because I have seen the blessing that come from that simple thing
Oh I would never wear those shoe inside or outside of a church but I wouldn’t judge anyone who did
Comment by Kimberly — April 26, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
85
I made the decision to wear hose after Elder Holland’s talk (in combo with another CES talk I read last year). For me, it feels good to sacrifice a little for the renewing of my covenants. I DETEST nylons. But I agree with you that we can be blessed for little efforts we make.
I would submit that dresses are encouraged because they remind us of our femininity. Even though they may be nicer than some sloppy dresses/skirts, maybe it’s still better to wear a nice skirt suit instead. (Not that I ever advocate criticizing someone for wearing pants. I saw enough jeans when I lived on the East coast to not be shocked, and it is critical that we all understand that everyone is at a different place in terms of upbringing, understanding, knowledge, etc.)
Having been in the business world, I have a hard time understanding how we sometimes get upset when we hear talk from our leaders about how dress/appearances matter, but anyone who has ever met with an important client has (or should have) cared about how she looks. Why would the principle be any different for coming to the Lord’s table?
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 26, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
85, are you sure that’s a fact that all General Presidencies are asked to wear close-toed shoes, etc? I certainly haven’t heard anything about women in general being asked to dress this way. And find it to be silly at best. Blessings from wearing close-toed shoes? umm….. I think that the Thumper the Rabbit’s mother rule requires that I not comment further.
Comment by pjj — April 27, 2006 @ 8:27 am
I would submit that dresses are encouraged because they remind us of our femininity.
That is perhaps the most astonishingly sexist comment I have heard from anyone, anywhere, in a very long time — not simply the implication that a piece of clothing should define your identity, or even that women are unable to realize the meaning of feminity for themselves, but that the women of the Church need a (male) leader to define feminity for them by ecclesiastical fiat.
I have some tendency to think that the claims that are often thrown around this blog, of oppression and subordination of women by the Church, are a little overblown. Then I see a comment like that and realize, with a bit of a shock, just how bad things in the Church still are.
Comment by Dora — April 27, 2006 @ 9:30 am
THANK YOU REESE!!
And it’s comments like 85 and 86 that have made me have to draw a line of distinction between the doctrine of the church, and what people think should be the way the church operates.
The Lord would never condone dresses and closed toed shoes and nylons as the only acceptable way to practice their faith. I’m sorry but that seems so incredibly backwards and fundamentalist and so related to the cultural nature of the church. I’ve never heard such nonsense, such repression, and could never believe in receiving blessings from those things.
Comment by Nicole — April 27, 2006 @ 10:25 am
Comment 80, from Seth– It’s true that your clothing does send a message about you–but I wonder what whether the message that typical church dress sends is really what we want. It seems to me that sometimes the message is that we are a strange and conservative people, rather wierd, and not very attractive to many folks who aren’t already members. There’s a documentary out on DVD, just recently, New York Doll, about Arthur Kane, one of the New York Dolls who joined the church. It’s a very well-done movie about, among other things, how the church affected Arthur’s life. Many aging rock folks are interviewed, along with Arthur’s friends at the Family History Center, and some of his ward leaders. It struck me as I watched the movie, how some, not all, of the Mormons looked just as outlandish as the rock stars. It also occurred to me that this documentary could do a lot more for the church’s image in some circles at least, than all the official stuff that’s put out, in the same old mold.
(And Arthur’s home teacher is an amazing example!)
Comment by pjj — April 27, 2006 @ 10:49 am
Thank you Nicole and everyone’s comment.
I have to say that I’ve been struggling with this for a while and it’s great to find a place where people agree with me!
There’s no good reason why pantsuits should be looked down upon at church. In fact, there’s no good reason why women shouldn’t be able to wear dress slacks to church just like men do.
Especially when they wear them with nylons and closed-toe shoes (not necessarily required, but I do anyway).
I’ve gotten so many harsh looks and even comments from ward members, and it drives me nuts. Every week I try to remind myself why I’m still going to church with these people. Even my little sunbeams always ask me why I wear pants. What are their mothers drilling into their heads?!?
Really, someone should send me a quote where a RECENT prophet said something about wearing dresses.
Comment by Beata — April 27, 2006 @ 11:47 am
This is a most interesting conversation. I wish, as sisters, we were able to discuss this on friendly terms. Some posts seem a little harsh towards others. And at the risk of it directed towards me here is my two cents. FYI: I am not an 80 year old woman; I’m 30 and money is not an issue. I think it irrelevant if I would wear those particular shoes. Each of us attends Sacrament meeting with different needs, concerns, and experiences. But we all meet at the same table. When I get dressed for Church I choose to sacrifice comfort, & trendiness. Along with my sins I lay my rebelliousness(which for me manifests itself by telling myself that I can wear what ever I want to Church) and submit my selfishness (the need to look extraordinarily cute) at the sacrament table, and it reminds me of who I am trying to become. (by the way,I am far to busy at Church to notice what anybody else wore to church that day)When I attend Sacrament meeting I am Honoring the Life and the ultimate Sacrifice of my Savior for me. So when you see my Family Arrive at church, My Husband in his white shirt and tie, Me in my Sunday Best, A dress, or skirt suit (denim is far to casual) and Nylons complete with dress shoes and our 4 children in tow in their Please don’t judge us, We are just like everyone else trying to overcome our weaknesses.This is just one way we choose to do it.. In Deut 14:2 The Lord is talking to the Israelites and calls them a “peculiar people unto Himself”, As Latter Day Saints We are peculiar, not weird, but we are different from the world, we should embraces it. I live across the Street from an other Faith and on sundays observe And as a last bit, we often refer to Modest dress as Shirts with sleeves, no bellies showing, But the dictionary defines modest in these ways: 1) Having or proceeding from a disinclination to call attention to oneself; retiring or diffident. 2) Observing conventional proprieties in speech, behavior, or dress. 3) Free from showiness or ostentation; unpretentious 4) Moderate or limited in size, quantity, or range; not extreme.
Comment by annonymous — April 27, 2006 @ 12:24 pm
Sorry- I didn’t finish my train of thought… I live across the street from another Faith and observe them attending in Casual clothing, jeans, pants etc… and my friends of other Faiths also attend thier worship services in casual clothing. Its not bad thing, but as Latter Day Saints, its not a bad thing to stand out.
Comment by annonymous — April 27, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Annonymous
Please think of something rather than ‘anonymous’ to use as you ID on this site. ‘Anonymous’ is way too confusing.
Also — please use a real email address when you post to this site. We don’t publish these, but we do need to know how to get ahold of commentors.
Comment by Not Ophelia — April 27, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
Sorry, seriously scared of the hate mail.
Comment by Imperfect to a T — April 27, 2006 @ 1:03 pm
85, are you sure that’s a fact that all General Presidencies are asked to wear close-toed shoes, etc?
I think I have heard the same thing (at least with hose). If this is the case, wouldn’t it be interesting to at least consider the concept? (At least to not dismiss it as silly or repressive or whatever?)
And it’s comments like 85 and 86 that have made me have to draw a line of distinction between the doctrine of the church, and what people think should be the way the church operates.
I don’t think anyone here has been declaring dress standards as “doctrine.” They clearly teach principles and let us govern ourselves. But I do think those principles are interesting to consider. The fact that women wear dresses in the temple, on missions, etc. should underscore that there is something tied to our dress in the minds of our leaders. This is not a sexist thing, either — standards apply to males as well. (This isn’t all just cultural development — there is some top-down guidance coming into play.) However, we are still allowed to choose. If you get bad looks from other adults, that is wrong.
Even my little sunbeams always ask me why I wear pants. What are their mothers drilling into their heads?!?
Comments from children should not come as a surprise, because obviously some parents are teaching specifics like “wear a dress to church” for the girls, and that should not be criticized. They are teaching what they feel is appropriate attire. (And three-year-olds are still pretty young to understand why anyone is different from them!) The next lesson for parents is obviously to teach that “we don’t criticize or comment about others who do things differently.”
)
I’ve never heard such nonsense, such repression, and could never believe in receiving blessings from those things.
But some people feel they do benefit from making small (what they consider to be meaningful) sacrifices like wearing nylons, or whatever. This is not nonsense to those people. I haven’t heard anyone here saying this is a “should” per se (except in the case of those meeting with the prophet, which doesn’t apply to any of us here, most likely), they have been sharing personal experiences and feelings. Please don’t label this — just because you don’t agree — as nonsensical, repressive or delusional (thinking blessings have come when they don’t seem possible to you). There is room for individual choice on these matters, but there should be respect going both ways, dontcha think?
That is perhaps the most astonishingly sexist comment I have heard from anyone, anywhere, in a very long time — not simply the implication that a piece of clothing should define your identity, or even that women are unable to realize the meaning of feminity for themselves, but that the women of the Church need a (male) leader to define feminity for them by ecclesiastical fiat.
Oh dear. Take a deep breath. I was just musing over possible reasons for this. Please don’t start getting all upset at our leaders for something I said.
We should remember, however, that both male and female leaders have talked about femininity and how we should embrace and develop it. We have been told repeatedly that how we dress does matter and does reflect something of who we are (and can even affect how we act and/or feel). There are expectations (and ever requirements) that, in certain situations, women wear dresses. (I belive standard for missionries also includes no denim, at least it does for my friend who is a mission mom.) So should we be surprised that the majoirty of women choose to wear dresses to church? This isn’t just cultural craziness. There is reason for those trends (because these standards ARE expected — by our leaders — in some situations.)
Having worked at the temple, I know that pantsuits are not supposed to be worn there, although we were instructed to not say anything to anyone. I personally believe there are reasons for this, but it’s obviously not something that will keep someone out of the Celestial Kingdom.
But, I have to ask: if it’s encouraged, what’s the big deal about just doing it because we’ve been asked to? Also, just because some of these things may be defined as “culture” and not “doctrine” that doesn’t mean they are insignificant or repressive. Consider this from Pres. Kimball:
President Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) encouraged us to create a culture of modesty different from the one that may exist outside of our homes: “We can create a style of our own. … [He’s talking as a people here…. ] We must be different. … We can create our own style and standards. We can influence the patterns among our own people, and we can also help to develop proper community patterns.”
Once again, I’m not trying to declare shoulds per se, but suggesting that we may not be commanded in all things (like being told specifically to wear a dress to church) but I think we might look at patterns and general counsel and consider what might be “preferred” — and then perhaps try to understand possible reasons for that. Just because something isn’t “doctrine” doesn’t mean it isn’t good or desirable. (As a side note, women developing their femininity is getting closer to doctrine, so that is something to consider as well.) You may not like what is preferred, and that is your choice. You may not want to follow the “cultural norms” (which, IMO, are often more than just culture, as I have already poited out). My own personal experience has been to try to find meaning in the unwritten things, and I have found great peace and purpose by doing so. That doesn’t make me a sexist, bad, shallow person. That also, of course, doesn’t give me a right to judge or criticize, which I have tried to say repeatedly in my comments. Once again, we all have the right to choose and we should ALL respect that.
And, as a general point, it doesn’t matter if our prophets are male; it is within their authority and role to talk about gender-related issues. One can choose not to like that, but that doesn’t change the fact that they can (and sometimes do) give us guidance as women on our lives as women. Being female does not somehow give us immunity from some of the things they say just because they happen to be male.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 27, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
When I read your post M&M I specifically think that standards of femininity are equated to wearing certain things… what if my idea of feminine is not the same as that which the prophets claim?
I agree with an earlier post that noted that perhaps our means of dress is setting us apart from the general public - in a bad way. I really think what ultimately matters is what is in people’s hearts when they go to church - not what they are wearing - especially because anyone who wears something different than something resembling bad drapery is generally treated with some form of contempt.
Although I do feel that dressing nicely to church is a form of respect for the Lord, I can’t help but feel that that often presents a barrier for others to attend our church, or even feel somewhat normal there. So maybe someone’s neighbors are going to church in jeans, but at least they are going to church, which is all that matters. And I do feel that telling the women of the church (there is no such thing as “recommending” because that’s just a nice way of insisting while attempting to maintain free agency), as a whole, what to wear is opressive because it just takes away that free agency.
Personally I wouldn’t mind seeing the general women’s counsellors wearing something besides a suit because it would humanize them a little.
Comment by Nicole — April 27, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
But some people feel they do benefit from making small (what they consider to be meaningful) sacrifices like wearing nylons, or whatever.
Yes, I’ve met quite a number of people over the years who have made up new and onerous rules for themselves — their own personal addenda to the Word of Wisdom, or the law of the Sabbath, or the law of the fast, or otherwise. Elder McConkie used to refer to such addenda as “gospel hobby horses.” He denounced them on a fairly regular basis.
After all, why stop at wearing nylons? Why not a hair shirt, or maybe a little self flagellation? Then you can feel really virtuous about the pain you are gratuitously putting yourself through.
The question is not what you or I think is “meaningful.” Neither is the question, as you so nicely put it, what might be culturally “preferred” along the Wasatch front. That way lies apostasy. The question is what the Lord requires. And there is absolutely no scriptural basis for believing that he requires any of the silliness you are advocating (in fact, quite the contrary.)
There are enough actual commandments that the Lord does require, that are difficult enough for people to follow, that there is absolutely no reason to start multiplying new “preferred” hobbys on top of the Lord’s actual instructions.
So if you are looking for a religion that tends toward mortification, or for one that is obsessed with outward appearances, or for one that follows whatever cultural whim might be “preferred” by leaders not moved upon by the Holy Ghost, try somewhere else. There are plenty around like that, no need to pervert the Lord’s Church in those directions.
Comment by obi-wan — April 27, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
I like this place more every day. Right on obi-wan.
Comment by Veritas — April 27, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
I don’t know, I just worry that the main message that some “individualistic” minded folk are trying to convey at church is:
“I don’t give two straws about what you think!”
I’m quite certain that this is not a worthy message. Sure, it feels empowering and everything, but it is really quite juvenile.
Comment by Seth R. — April 27, 2006 @ 3:31 pm
especially because anyone who wears something different than something resembling bad drapery
OK, I understand that you see things differently, but how is your attitude any more accepting and Christlike than the attitudes you condemn? I have a hard time when people not only want to do things their own way, but then give this feeling of superiority to those who simply make choices different from theirs (and more “mainstream,” which should not be seen as a weakness).
Tell me again how you don’t have agency on this matter? If you choose something that is different from what the prophets say, then it should come as no surprise that some people might not understand (or even like) that. (NOT saying that gives license to judge, just saying that by choosing a position that is atypical you choose a consequence which includes “being different.” Choosing something different doesn’t give one the right to declare that everyone else (or the leaders’ position) should change.
So maybe someone’s neighbors are going to church in jeans, but at least they are going to church, which is all that matters.
If someone is beginning the journey on the gospel path, I wholeheartedly agree. Or if someone has nothing but jeans to wear. Or if someone truly doesn’t know better. I lived in a ward where this happened ALL of the time, and they were embardced and welcomed, so I won’t buy into the notion that all church members are critical and unwelcoming. It is true that in many cases we have a way to go in that regard, but that doesn’t change the principles behind proper dress.
On my mission, there was a young man ANGRY at being the idea of dressing up for church. We didn’t “make” him change, but we tried to teach the principle of why a white shirt, etc. is encouraged. I wish you could have seen how his demeanor and HEART (which, we say, is “what matters”) when he decided that would be a worthwhile way to show respect and humility.
There are plenty of reasons one might come up with to not follow the “norms” and only the Lord knows the heart. But if what is outside is reflective of what is inside (which is sometimes the case) then I have a hard time not thinking that the Lord wouldn’t hope for a change of heart and a correspondent change in appearance. (I think of another example of a YW whose skirts were so short she made even the women blush. I was her leader. I loved her, I embraced her, and I didn’t say anything specific to her. But when the time came to teach the doctrine of modesty, I did so unflinchingly. And you know what? She realized on her own (and said out loud), that “maybe I should consider the way I dress”).
When I read your post M&M I specifically think that standards of femininity are equated to wearing certain things… what if my idea of feminine is not the same as that which the prophets claim?
It is plain denial to say that femininity and dress are not somehow equated. Go to any prom and that concept is clearly reinforced. Of course, what feels feminine to one woman may differ than what does for another. However, I would argue that dressing differently as a form of rebellion (against prophets, standards, culture, whatever) possibly puts the concepts of hear/motive/whatever on the table as a possible concern. So, once again, I think there is ample support for the idea that “what is in the heart” can often be correlated with what is on the outside. Not always, but sometimes, it is. To deny that is ignorant.
BTW, this is a concept I have heard discussed in a business setting as well…..(femininity, dress, etc.)
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 27, 2006 @ 3:32 pm
I am definitely with Obi-wan on this one. I don’t especially care what Church leaders — or even just kibbitzers in the Church hallways — prefer. I have at various times been asked by Church leaders to do things that were unwise, immoral, or actually illegal — fortunately those instances were fairly unusual. But the fact that Church leaders have some idiosyncratic prefences does not by itself obligate me to follow those preferences.
I do have an obligation to conform to what the Lord prefers. To the extent that a Church leader is speaking for the Lord, fine, I have a responsibility to follow. But if they are just making stuff up, then I’m not under any particular constraint to elevate what they think is best for me over what I think is best for me.
And let me tell you M&M — the fact that the trope about how “skirts equal femininity” was there for you to parrot, courtesy of some of our leaders, displays exactly what is wrong with cultural attitudes in the North American part of the Church. That is a cultural preference that has, so far as I can tell, nothing to do with the Gospel but everything to do with old, tired, repressive prejudices. I think you are quite right that what we wear affects what we think and feel, and I don’t particularly care to think and feel the way that subordinated women in rural Utah and Idaho (especially subordinated women in rural Utah and Idaho 50-75 years ago) thought and felt, thankyouverymuch.
Comment by Dora — April 27, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
It is plain denial to say that femininity and dress are not somehow equated. Go to any prom and that concept is clearly reinforced.
I just read this, counted to twenty, and now I am very calmly going to post a comment.
If you think that what passes for “femininity” at proms is something that is either natural or admirable, then I’m extremely sorry for you, and I can see why you don’t understand that some women might choose to wear appropriate pant suits to Church, to work, to federal court, to the White House, or anywhere else that respectful attire is indicated.
And I also don’t think we have anything else to talk about.
Comment by Dora — April 27, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Comment by Leslie — April 27, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
I don’t know, I just worry that the main message that some “individualistic” minded folk are trying to convey at church is:
“I don’t give two straws about what you think!”
I’m quite certain that this is not a worthy message. Sure, it feels empowering and everything, but it is really quite juvenile.
I think most women who dress a little off the mainstream aren’t thinking “I want to shock someone,” but rather, “I want to be comfortable in what I wear so that I can feel reverent instead of tugging at my outfit all day.” At least that’s how I feel.
When I wear a skirt to church, especially with sunbeams sitting on my lap (2 of them at a time), the skirt rides up and I’m uncomfortable. I wear a pantsuit. People give me strange stares for wearing the pansuit. What do they want me to do? Flash them my underwear?
And really “I don’t give two straws about what you think!” is really quite a good mindset to have within the gospel. If I care what mainstream opinion says about me, then I wouldn’t be Mormon. People should just reconcile themselves to God and do the things that they feel comfortable with (because if it’s wrong, the spirit will tell you so) then everything should be okay.
Comment by Beata — April 27, 2006 @ 4:13 pm
BTW, this is a concept I have heard discussed in a business setting as well…..(femininity, dress, etc.)
Yeah, me too. By male partners who were later (successfully) sued for Title VII violations, specifically, gender discrimination and sexual harassment.
Not the best model for Church leaders to follow.
Comment by obi-wan — April 27, 2006 @ 4:39 pm
obiwan,
You have completely misunderstood me. I know it’s hard to know my heart in this limited medium. But I assure you that I am in no way involved in gospel hobbies. I wear a dress to church. I have personally chosen to wear nylons because that was a way for me to “dress up” a little more at church, and I felt it was good for me. Stop making me into a fanatic for doing something that is completely reasonable. You have twisted my position unnecessarily and inappropriately.
The key to avoiding apostasy is to follow our leaders. When counsel is repeated, Elder Eyring says we should rivet our atention. I have heard counsel repeated regarding how I dress on Sunday. So I made a little tweak in my behavior. That is a far cry from having a gospel hobby or making up rules. Gospel hobbies distract us from the gospel. This is not what I have been advocating at all. once again, please don’t twist my words.
I know what kinds of hobbies you are talking about. I assure you that is not the direction in which I am headed. In fact, staying in the mainstream is a really good way to prevent apostasy.
“Enduring to the end means that we have planted our lives firmly on gospel soil, staying in the mainstream of the Church, humbly serving our fellow men, living Christlike lives, and keeping our covenants. Those who endure are balanced, consistent, humble, constantly improving, and without guile. Their testimony is not based on worldly reasons—it is based on truth, knowledge, experience, and the Spirit.”
(Joseph B. Wirthlin, “Press On,” Ensign, Nov. 2004, 101)
I’m sorry if I have given a different impression, but this is what I strive to do. I realize that there is a range of what people view as “the mainstream” and that’s OK. But don’t criticize my personal choices to try to “continually improve.”
It is plain denial to say that femininity and dress are not somehow equated.
I should have said related, not equated. But they are closely related. But, again, I realize that there is an element of personal taste that can come into play, too. I’m not as crazy as you think I am. Really.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 27, 2006 @ 4:53 pm
BTW, this is a concept I have heard discussed in a business setting as well…..(femininity, dress, etc.)
Yeah, me too. By male partners who were later (successfully) sued for Title VII violations, specifically, gender discrimination and sexual harassment.
Nope. In my case, it was by a woman who wanted to encourage women not to lose their femininiity in the business world.
You are unfarily making me into a monster here.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 27, 2006 @ 4:57 pm
hey M&M, could you email me?
fmhlisa at feministmormonhousewives dot org
thanks
Comment by fMhLisa — April 27, 2006 @ 5:00 pm
I think most women who dress a little off the mainstream aren’t thinking “I want to shock someone,” but rather, “I want to be comfortable in what I wear so that I can feel reverent instead of tugging at my outfit all day.” At least that’s how I feel.
This is a good example of a personal choice that makes some sense (esp. when you describe having Sundbeams on your lap). I just get uncomfortable when choices are accompanied with “the leaders are out to lunch so I’m gonna do what I want!”
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 27, 2006 @ 5:01 pm
And I also don’t think we have anything else to talk about.
Sorry that I have frustrated you.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 27, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Don’t we get dressed up for church to show repect for heavenly father. I don’t know why we get so upset if someone is in a pant suit. didn’t the pharisees get all got up in stupid set rigid rules. I have had a homeless man in my ward. He comes to church in jeans and he smells. He like to participate in sunday school even though I don’t think he is all there. Yet everyone accepts him. should we say to him sorry you can’t come your not dressed nice enough.
Comment by Noone — April 27, 2006 @ 5:14 pm
Don’t we get dressed up for church to show repect for heavenly father. I don’t know why we get so upset if someone is in a pant suit. didn’t the pharisees get all got up in stupid set rigid rules. I have had a homeless man in my ward. He comes to church in jeans and he smells. He like to participate in sunday school even though I don’t think he is all there. Yet everyone accepts him. should we say to him sorry you can’t come your not dressed nice enough.
Just for the record, since I have clearly been misunderstood on this thread: Rejecting people is NOT what I have ever been advocating. Kudos to your ward for welcoming that homeless man. I have made a sincere effort to be welcoming and accepting to everyone in every ward I have attended (and that has been in both North and South America).
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 27, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
Gospel hobbies distract us from the gospel.
Well, we agree on that much.
Comment by obi-wan — April 27, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
Emily? knock knock… you there?? We scare you off?? Did you know that your shoes would blossom into this???
At this point in a conversation in my home someone would be saying “So, about the weather….”
Seriously - this has been eye opening for me and I’m treating this is a positive learning experience for me. I obsess over my clothes - I just never realized that OTHER people might obsess/get concerned over my clothes. So for the insights I have gained… thanks to everyone.
Comment by Leslie — April 27, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
I highly doubt the GA’s have asked all women in leadership positions to wear nylons with closed-toe shoes, for the pure and simple reason that it would be a financial hardship on many sisters to buy nylons and closed-toe shoes. If you can show me a document saying otherwise, I will eat my words.
(For the record I normally wear stockings or tights because my legs are too pasty-white, and I normally wear closed-toe shoes because I couldn’t be bothered giving myself a pedicure. If I was really making an effort to look my best for church, wouldn’t I want to give myself a pedicure and tan my legs?)
Comment by Quimby — April 27, 2006 @ 5:50 pm
highly doubt the GA’s have asked all women in leadership positions to wear nylons with closed-toe shoes,
I think this issue was referring to those who meet directly with the GAs, not the leadership church-wide.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 27, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
I have been unable to read all the comments for the past few days and the last few hours on the thread reflect the attitude we are experiencing in our house on this topic. Husband agrees with the …come as you are people….. and I tend to be a little more …… outward communication thing. Somehow I think the subject isn’t worth the contention it has caused. Cue up the Barney theme song….(Not that the original post was in anyway bad or at fault or that your opinions don’t matter.) This has been a wide eye opener. Wow.. people really care what I wear??? Strange….. I think I need to go shopping for some shoes.
Kid 1 used to have a bunny and we did in fact put a spiked collar on him. He walked on a leash and everything!(Or in other words back to the original…(I think) light…post)
Comment by Amy C. — April 27, 2006 @ 7:53 pm
Hi Leslie–I’m still here! I’ve been asleep for a lot of the past couple of days, but I’ve been trying to at least keep up with reading the comments.
I actually am kinda surprised that my little post about pirate shoes (which, by the way, are more skater or punk, not goth, if anyone is taking notes
) would elicit so much debate–although I’m not sure why that surprises me. Clearly questions of outward representation of inner states of mind and being are close to our hearts.
I’m still not truly certain where I come down on this question–and the question goes far beyond these specific shoes, obviously. I get that clothing communicates, and I understand the desire to show respect, but at the same time, I believe that the ways we show respect are largely subjective, and I think that arguing about nylons versus pantsuits versus flip-flops is akin to arguing Mary versus Martha. Some of us are more concerned with the outward trappings than others–which is not to say that they are only concerned with outward trappings (be they conservative or progressive trappings) or that those who prefer to concentrate on the inward are always and only thumbing their noses at culture or authority.
It’s been interesting to follow the discussion and I want to thank you all for being mostly civil to one another thus far. Carry on, if you please.
Hey Maren–is 7 cool with y’all? Chardell and Mark are coming and it’ll be a gay old time!
Comment by EmilyS — April 27, 2006 @ 8:28 pm
I’m just thinking, another $0.02 worth from outside, from the Apostate world (could you guys think of something else to call us, by the way?
)…
The Catholic, Buddhist, Yoga, Muslim, etc., traditions are all designed so that if you want to really seek enlightenment/union/or whatever, you give up certain things, coffee/wine/meat, whatever, and perhaps dress in a way that keeps you separate. Turmeric robes, or, going barefoot as the Carmelites do.
It’s really unusual and remarkable for a church to suggest its *entire* membership to give up certain distractions — coffee, alcohol, smoking — while, it sounds, directing its members to dress in a non-distracting, “modest” way.
I can think of some reasons as to why this is. When you’re a new religion, and you were formed in the newish United States, and that United States was still struggling ontologically, defining its mission to a skeptical Old World, and plagued with the evil of slavery, it’s no wonder, if you were Joseph Smith et al, you would want to protect this precious revelation by demanding your members come out and be separate. That way, in light of all the distractions in society (and they were some biggies), the new revelations would have a chance to grow.
The Catholics, Buddhists, and Yogis have it easier — you can do yoga at the community center twice a week, or you can follow all 8 limbs of it, and give up wine & coffee & meat. You can be Catholic, and go to church twice a year. Or, you can be a Discalced Carmelite if you want, and give up shoes and sex. Not every one of us is cut out to be super religious, in a celibate or monk/nun sense. Not all of us wants to walk the path of a Turmeric Robe, so to speak.
I think it’s fabulous that this discussion exists — it will only bring positive evolution to the religion. Maybe one day, only Mormon temple workers will adhere to strict dress recommendations, because they have chosen that super religious life, the Way of the Turmeric Robe, so to speak.. And that Way will always be a choice for any Mormon to follow.
So, that’s about $3.25 worth, sorry to rattle on so long, but I just had to butt in.
Comment by pele — April 27, 2006 @ 9:13 pm
Emily-
Had an unexpected death of one of the kids at my work today, so I will be there, but we may be late.
Maren
Comment by Maren — April 28, 2006 @ 6:14 am
Honestly, I don’t care what other people wear as long as there isn’t an obvious intent to disrupt the church meetings (and no, I don’t consider bare legs or sleevless dresses to be unduly “disruptive”).
But I would like to see a little humility and self-reflection.
I simply would like people to entertain the possibility that:
a) Gospel participation isn’t solely about “me and my needs.” Maybe I am being a bit selfish
b) Just because other people are being self-righteous and judgmental doesn’t mean that my own conduct has been entirely appropriate
c) Perhaps other people are worth sacrificing a bit of comfort and self-identity for. After all, the Gospel isn’t provided simply for personal convenience and comfort
d) Maybe I am not giving the people surrounding me enough credit
e) It’s possible that originality is overrated
I’m not saying that all, or even any, of these things apply to any particular poster here. But just remember that humility, not individuality, is the preeminent virtue in our faith. Let’s all try to be a bit more self-critical.
Comment by Seth R. — April 28, 2006 @ 7:20 am
And Seth, I guess the point I am trying to get at here is that I may dress fashionably (I am very concerned about my appearances, which for some of you may be a fault), but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have a great deal of spirituality. I just like to look good. I like to have pride in my appearance. And quite frankly to feel uncomfortable wearing something I am not used to wearing isn’t a sacrifice - it’s distracting from the “Real” reason we all go to church. I think alot of times people in the church get too caught up in the trappings of people who are wearing something different. It’s not a big deal where I am now because I fit in, but I know I will not fit in in a few weeks when I move to Utah.
Comment by Nicole — April 28, 2006 @ 7:44 am
Throwing some thoughts out for reflection was more the purpose of my posts as well.
Nicole, I sincerely hope that you will be pleasantly surprised in your ward. There’s an awful lot of good about Utah, and even Utah Mormons! (Have lived in various places, including Utah. My experience has been good there.)
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 28, 2006 @ 9:14 am
I checked with our local temple matron yesterday, and she hasn’t heard of any rules about open/closed toed shoes. I realize that 85 says that was general presidencies of the RS, etc, that this applied to, but still you would think that temple officials might be aware of the issue.
Comment by pjj — April 28, 2006 @ 9:20 am
M&M - I hope you are right. My experiences with “Utah Mormons” to this point have not been positive. Nevertheless, one never knows. I’ll keep myself open to the possibility.
Comment by Nicole — April 28, 2006 @ 9:48 am
125:
OK, I hate rumor mills, so I went to a source that is reliable (I know someone who works on one of the church committees). Modest dresses are the standard for general-level church meetings. Hose are worn, but the closed-toe shoe thing is NOT on th elist of required attire.
Hope that helps. I don’t share this to say that I think all women should now wear hose. I hope I said enough to indicate that this was MY decision, not something I was trying to impose on anyone else. Once again, I was hoping to throw some things out for “mulling and musing” — not to tell peole how to live their lives.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 28, 2006 @ 9:55 am
Nicole! I’m a Utah Mormon! (an expatriated one, but still). Moreover, I can vouch for a number of the women who regularly participate on this site as being Utah Mormons, in one way or another. I’m sure you’ll be just fine, just keep an open mind, even when you bump smack into the closed ones of others.
Comment by EmilyS — April 28, 2006 @ 10:07 am
Thanks M&M Re 127, but it still raises some questions in my mind– is this a written rule? “Hose are worn”– does that mean that everyone wears them because they’re used to that? Or because they’ve been instructed to do so?
Comment by pjj — April 28, 2006 @ 10:16 am
I don’t know Nicole,
Give em a chance. They might surprise you.
Comment by Seth R. — April 28, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
Seth,
IBID post 126!
Comment by Nicole — April 28, 2006 @ 1:20 pm
FWIW, my thoughts on Utah Mormons, as one, and as something of a refugee from (certain aspects of) Utah. The dominant culture can be tough, I won’t deny it. But the thing to remember is
Greater Concentration of Mormons = Greater Concentration of Mormons You Can Relate To
The trick is finding them. They tend to be in hiding.
I would suggest looking for people with pirate shoes (:>). Or you could just wear your handy-dandy FMH T-shirt to your first ward activity to see who you can flush out of the bushes of conventionality.
Comment by Eve — April 28, 2006 @ 1:28 pm
If this is a threadjack, I apologize in advance, but I just have to say that I long for a day when there are no “-ites” in the Church (Utah Mormons, intellectuals, conservatives, feminists….) Yet another aspect of the ideal society that eludes us in a big way. *Sigh*
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 28, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
Thanks M&M Re 127, but it still raises some questions in my mind– is this a written rule? “Hose are worn”– does that mean that everyone wears them because they’re used to that? Or because they’ve been instructed to do so?
pjj, I’m glad you asked. I thought it was specific instruction, but wasn’t sure (which is why I chose my words carefully). I made another call. There were no specific instructions given. This just happens to be what women on this committe wear. (Please, no derision for such women, OK?) I asked about the general RS presidency, and we lost the call phone signal…so the mystery continues on that point.
Thanks for the questions.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 28, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
Thanks for checking, M&M. No derision for them if that’s what they’d like to wear, just wondering, if it’s a “rule” or a “custom”.
Comment by pjj — April 28, 2006 @ 6:21 pm
I like ties. They add a fun dash of color and style. Of course, I wouldn’t mind trying one of those white, high-necked collars like Catholic priests wear (which are starting to come into vogue with suits).
I’m also a big fan of a stylish blazer or suit jacket. The bracing feeling of wearing something powerful and rich in texture more than makes up for the fact that you can’t raise your arms above your head. You really feel impressive (so much for my injunction for humility eh?).
Wish I had a real good pair of patent leather shoes though …
Comment by Seth R. — April 28, 2006 @ 7:02 pm
#136
So, Seth, the real question for you is: laces or tassles on your shoes? In one of my wards, we used to joke about the Wall Street guys and their tassled shoes (good-naturedly, of course)…..
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 28, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
This has been a fascinating thread. It really set me thinking, and I wrote a comment to post here, but It ended up so long, that I posted it on the blog A Prayer of Faith. Some of you might be interested in seeing the comments over there.
Comment by RoAnn — April 29, 2006 @ 2:01 am
I made another call. There were no specific instructions given. This just happens to be what women on this committe wear.
So, I’m really curious about all these blessings that were extolled in comments 85 and 86, purportedly from following an instruction from the First Presidency, which was dubious on its face, and which with only a little investigation turns out to have been an unfounded rumor rather than a genuine instruction.
I mean, if I make up and circulate some bogus new Gospel requirement — let’s say, that President Hinckley wants everyone in the Church to paint his or her nose green — will everyone who follows my rumor be showered blessings, or will they just look silly (not to mention confirming to the world at large that we are every bit as weird and cultish as they think we are)?
Comment by obi-wan — April 29, 2006 @ 11:19 am
I have to ask: does anyone else find it really uncomfortable to wear knee length (or a bit more) skirts with garments? I find that I have become a much sloppier church dresses since I started wearing them because I always think that my underwear is going to show which would just mortify me. Am I the only one who is so paranoid? Mind me, they probably won’t I have my Dh check a full range of motion but I still get freaked out! any suggestions?
Comment by sarah — April 29, 2006 @ 11:25 am
This is kind of off-topic (but at 140 comments, I’m not going to worry too much about the threadjack), but did anyone see “What Not to Wear” last night? The woman receiving the makeover was a Mormon artist from Provo, and the “modesty” issue was definitely addressed, in a pretty respectful way, I thought.
Actually, this point *does* directly address Sarah’s question in 140. The woman from Provo did purchase some knee-length skirts, and had the slit in the back stitched up for coverage purposes. I thought it was interested that she talked about “modesty guidelines” (aka garments) in terms of areas that need to be covered, but she also talked about how it was very unusual for her to wear clothes that fit her body. I think that often (and this happened to me, but I’m trying to get over it) we hide our bodies in clothes that are too big for us or too long for us, and our concern with “modesty guidelines”–or coverage–spills over into issues of fit. For many, modesty isn’t a question of covering the areas that garments cover; modesty is about hiding the shape of the body altogether. Anyway. It was interesting to see a Mormon on the show, because I’d always wondered how they would handle the “modesty guidelines” issue. She looked lovely in her clothes that fit her shape, and the garments were definitely covered–knee-length skirts and all.
Comment by Sonnet — April 29, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
m&m,
Tassles are only for those who are so powerful and influential that no one dares tell them that they shouldn’t be dressing that way.
The same with black. Black is a form of nonverbal agression. If you choose to deck yourself out in black, you’d better have the ammunition to back it up.
Comment by Seth R. — April 29, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
sorry for the threadjacking!!! I thought of this question after some of the wearing pants for sunbeam class comments and couldn’t resist asking even though it is off the subject a bit.
Comment by sarah — April 29, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
So, I’m really curious about all these blessings that were extolled in comments 85 and 86, purportedly from following an instruction from the First Presidency,
As far as my comments are concerned, obi-wan, you are once again jumping to conclusions (and being unnecessarily sarcastic, IMO). I chose to wear hose because I felt like “stepping it up” a little in my Sunday dress. This had nothing to do with any rumors. I based my decision on Elder Holland’s talk last Oct. and a CES fireside I read from one of the Seventy. The blessings are simple and more in how I feel — not necessarily something “tangible.”
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 30, 2006 @ 12:13 am
140-
I basically avoid short skirts for that reason. I would much rather sit (and walk) comfortably without worrying about what can be “seen.”
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 30, 2006 @ 12:14 am
p.s. to 144
I don’t recall anyone ever claiming that the First Presidency had given a directive for the membership at large. All I remember was a mentioning of the general-level auxiliary leaders being asked to wear hose and closed-toe shoes. I found out that the closed-toe thing is not a requirement, but the hose thing for those particular women has not been proven to be wrong (NOT that it matters if it were true because it isn’t relevant to any of us (unless there is a general-level leader lurking here somewhere :)). The only directives we have been given have been to be modest and to wear our “best dress” or “Sunday dress” (”to present our best selves inside and out”). What that means to each person is obviously not going to be the same, and that’s great.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 30, 2006 @ 1:03 am
Tassles are only for those who are so powerful and influential that no one dares tell them that they shouldn’t be dressing that way.
Exactly!
(Thanks for the grin. I needed that.)
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — April 30, 2006 @ 1:05 am
Here is a ces broadcast from Nov 2004, it helped me to decide for myself. Absolutely not concerned with what anyone else is wearing.
CES Fireside for Young Adults, November 7, 2004 - Elder D. Todd Christofferson. very interesting! he doesn’t tell what to wear, but it makes you think! I would encourage everone to take some time to read it!
find it at:
lds.org
gospel library
recent adressess
additional adressess
4th down the list A Sense of the Sacred.
or try copy and pasting this:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,538-1-2874-1,00.html
I would be interested to hear the comments after reading that article
thank you!
Comment by Imperfect to a T — May 1, 2006 @ 10:21 am
This has been a VERY interesting conversation to come across and I want to respond to several aspects of it. I don’t worry about my underwear showing because I wear dress pants to church EVERY Sunday - even when I was Stake Young Women’s President. I’m a large woman and long skirts just make me look like a barrel (What not to Wear - rule #1) and knee length skirts never stay at the knee when you sit down, so I always wear very nice dress pants, silk shirts, jackets, sweater sets, whatever. My mother of course is scandalized when I come to Idaho and go to church with her, but hey, I’m comfortable, I’ve got a $500 suit on, believe me, this is my Sunday best! I think I look a whole lot better than the woman who walks in with her white T-shirt and denim jumper.
With regard to panty hose - I quit wearing those when I quit wearing a dress! Liberation on all fronts.
Comment by Barb — May 1, 2006 @ 10:53 am
Imperfect to a T,
THAT was the “other talk” to which I referred. Thanks for going to the effort to post the reference.
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 1, 2006 @ 11:30 am
As a representative for the Devil’s Advocacy Group, Inc., I would like to throw this in for what it’s worth.
Consider the lilies…they neither spin nor get all gussied up. But they are the rootin-tootinist cool little flowers and they sure look great. (Not my words. They are the words of Jesus, with a few additions and some paraphrasing). There are many different varieties of these lilies: tiger lilies, white Easter lilies, “day” lilies (I’m assuming these are in the same family as “day” beds), those ginormous pink amazon lilies you see so often portrayed in the Fake Flower world these days.
Human tribes of all stripes and scents have developed coming-of-age markers and rituals for their members. Piercings and tattoos are some of these. In Nairobi, women like to go bald — to them, this is truly feminine.
So, Devil’s Advocate, (you say), what do lilies, women, earrings, tattoos, and baldness have in common?
I don’t know. I think it just seems right that you all strive for some kind of tribal identity — The Mormon Girl Bangs, the Skirts, etc. At least you don’t get dressed out of your hamper. I think the clue you should take from all this, however, is that piercings and tattoos aren’t inherently bad, and neither is appropriated baldness. Maybe these are cultural. For YOU they don’t work. I think it’s great to get a good idea of Sunday Best, but let’s not flush everyone else down the toilet because they shave their heads and ululate.
(hic). My fermented beverage is gone, so I have to sign off and go get another. Ciao, keep it up.
Comment by resident anthropologist apologist — May 1, 2006 @ 10:04 pm
Good lands, people, as the spokeswoman for the fashion impaired everywhere, 150 comments later may I just I can’t wait for the next life when I can wear the same white robe every single — day for all eternity ?
And can we please, please import some of that Nairobi femininity our resident anthropologist mentioned above? Don’t even get me started on hair. Hair care is a plot of the devil. I keep begging my husband to apply his economic expertise to the problem of how much time women have to spend on themselves every day. But then, my husband has much better fashion sense than I (not a hard standard to beat, I’m tellin ya!), and in our relationship he’s the one who says, “Honey, are you leaving the house dressed like THAT?”
It’s also a persistent fantasy of mine to get me some “round tires like the moon” so that I can waddle into church like the Michelan Woman, literally one of the haughty daughters of Zion straight out of Isaiah.
Comment by Eve — May 1, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
Good lands, people, as the spokeswoman for the fashion impaired everywhere, 150 comments later may I just I can’t wait for the next life when I can wear the same white robe every single — day for all eternity ?
LOL
Comment by mullingandmusing (m&m) — May 2, 2006 @ 12:25 am
Eve, I think the depiction of a white robe is probably only symbolic.
Sure, most divine visitations are portrayed with a simple white robe as de riguer. But it’s entirely possible that it’s just a working uniform.
We have no idea how we’re going to dress in the afterlife.
Comment by Seth R. — May 2, 2006 @ 5:54 am
Seth, take care. You are treading upon a significant factor in my aspiration to a heavenly life. The prospect of an eternity of fashion decisions is inducing me to contemplate other and hotter “final destiations.”
;>
Comment by Eve — May 2, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
If those shoes didn’t have the skull and crossbones on them, I would wear them to church in the summer. I’m not LDS, so my favorite dressy thing is a nice pair of slacks in the winter, and a skirt that is at least knee-length in the summer. I do wear sundresses in the summer, but not if I’m going to church. With slacks, I wear knee-highs or trouser socks and just go bare-legged when I’m wearing a skirt. I hate nylons, especially when it’s 90 degrees outside. The only times I really go to church is for weddings or funerals as I prefer to worship the Creator on my own terms.
Comment by Adrienne — May 4, 2006 @ 2:20 am
if they don’t have anything better to talk about than what you are wearing I would say that they are a little “holier than thou” and should remember the lesson learned when the apostles wanted to kick the “bad woman” from Jesus..and he washed her feet…..that is true christ like love
Comment by Denise — May 22, 2006 @ 6:49 pm
JESUS WORE A DRESS AND SANDALS
as did all the men of his time, sure they called it ROBES but, none the less, the same cut as a dress, with a robe over it, they didnt wear pants. So maybe we should dress how the original saints did? and have men wear dresses…pants where invented later….also -history lesson, durring the same time period, what did the Romans wear?? SKIRTS…what do the Scottish Highlanders Wear…SKIRTS!
Aside from that…Honestly…I think a suit is WAAAY to fancy for church. I think it represents pride far more than humility, our clothes are supposed to be plain ( joseph smiths words, and book of mormon )
How is a suit and tie plain and simple? ( aside from the fact that ties no longer serve any point at all and look totally hideous ).
I sorta dig the old fashioned 18th suits, but our suits now days? They are so ugly…that and with the garment, suit shirt, tie, and suit jacket, the man looks like his clothing is trying to swallow him up. Like drowning in his clothing. And upon that dress shoes…how is this ” plain and simple” clothing?
Its not. Its fancy dressed up clothing.
As far as the shoes I don’t care, and anyone who does must think church is a fashion show to impress eachother.
Also Pantyhose are not good for you. They breed bacteria and fungus by causing extra sweat and inability for the skin to breathe, they are a health hazard for many female missionaries who go to unsanitary areas ( i was told they do not have to wear them ). Why in gods name would we have to wear something that could harm us? Also its made out of synthetic material…if you absolutely HAVE to have tights…they should always be 100% cotton. Anything else will breed bacteria.
Comment by Roman ( yes I am female ) — June 15, 2006 @ 10:42 pm
I prefer pants and trouser socks. In summer sometimes a long skirt with ballet flats and bare legs. I never wear nylon pantyhose!
Comment by Cath — August 4, 2006 @ 8:29 am
my opinion: no heels, no hose = modest ! so i could wear them to church.
Comment by karin — December 16, 2006 @ 2:12 am