Nose Rings

[NerdGirl]

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/63087/

I really am not trying to turn this into the board hate board, but I completely disagree with the idea that someone with a nose ring shouldn't have a temple recommend. I don't think that people who have piercings typically are any more rebellious than the rest of us. Do you have to have personally gained a testimony of every single thing the prophet and apostles have ever said and be doing or not doing those things perfectly in order to answer yes to the question about whether you sustain them? I would say that you absolutely don't, and if the standard was complete obedience, then none of us could hold a temple recommend. We get so hung up in the church on the commandments that are easy to either check off a list (don't drink coffee, don't watch porn, pay your tithing) or that are outwardly visible (don't have tattoos and piercings, wear clothes that cover your garments) that we sometimes completely neglect the other commandments. I could probably list 20 things right now that I do that I shouldn't be doing, but in my case they don't happen to be things that you would know about just by looking at me. I do things that I know are wrong all the time. But I'm working on them. And I have a temple recommend. Are the hypothetical people sitting in the temple staring at and judging the temple patron with the nose ring any less sinful than the nose ring wearer? I would say that they are not. If someone is doing their best to live the gospel and to sustain the leaders of the church, but they haven't quite yet reached the point where they feel a personal conviction to take out their nose ring, I don't see why they shouldn't go to the temple. In fact, it's been in the temple that I've received inspiration about how to fix some of my own sinful tendencies. If I hadn't gone to the temple because I wasn't yet completely obedient to all of the commandments, I might never have figured out how to become more obedient.

[Rifka]

NerdGirl,

First of all, I didn't see any of the board writers say that you shouldn't have a temple recommend if you have a nose ring. Secondly, I understand your point about not being perfect, but I don't think that's the reason we shouldn't wear things such as nose rings to the temple. Wearing a nose ring to the temple doesn't make you unworthy, but it does show a lack of respect. Consider the stringent rules about entering the temple during old testament times: you couldn't attend if you had touched a dead person/animal, if you hadn't washed ritually, if you were on your period, etc. Was that because being on your period makes you unworthy? No. It's because the Lord wanted to emphasize a symbolic purity by making yourself as symbolically pure as possible. Thankfully, in modern times we can still go to the temple while having a period, etc., but the principle remains the same. You probably wouldn't show up to the temple in jeans and flip-flops. If you did, would that make you unworthy? No, but it would demonstrate a lack of respect for the temple and the sacredness of the ordinances that are performed there. In "The Holy Temple," Elder Packer gives a great explanation: "Suppose for a moment that you are invited to be the guest in the home of a prominent and highly respected leader. You are given to understand that you will mingle with distinguished guests who have received similar invitations. The invitation is in an indication that the host holds you in very high regard. You realize that many others would highly prize such an invitation, but for one reason or another they have not likewise been invited and therefore are not able to attend. Under these circumstances, I doubt that you would arrive in old work clothes or dressed as you do for recreation. I doubt that a man would go unshaven or a woman with her hair unkempt . . . When you have the opportunity to go to the temple to participate in temple ceremonies . . . remember where you are. You are a guest in the house of the Lord. You should groom yourself and clothe yourself in such a way that you would feel comfortable should your Host appear." (pg 73-74) Obviously it's a personal decision, but for me, I know I wouldn't feel comfortable wearing a nose ring in the Lord's presence. Anyway, I hope this helped you understand the matter a little better. For additional explanation, I highly recommend reading Chapter 6, "Dressed in White," from The Holy Temple by Boyd K Packer (the full book, not just the pamphlet). The whole chapter deals with appropriate dress for the temple.

[TheAnswerIs42]

I am not familiar with nose rings, etc. Can you just take them out and put them back in at will? Obviously ears work that way, but I seem to remember hearing that some piercings can't handle that. That, to me, has a lot of bearing here.

Rifka has a point that we should respect the temple, and dress (in all ways) at attend there. But I agree (A LOT) with what NerdGirl said. We are all struggling with something in the church to varying degrees - pretending we aren't isn't helping anyone - and just because some are more outward than others doesn't automatically make some people better than others. One of the fastest paths away from the church is "I'm already not worthy because of x,y or z, so I shouldn't take part in the church anymore." The more we can do to dispell that idea, the better. I can say that I have felt that way before in my life, and it is a big hurdle to overcome mentally.

[Dragon Lady]

One of the fastest paths away from the church is "I'm already not worthy because of x,y or z, so I shouldn't take part in the church anymore." The more we can do to dispell that idea, the better.

It's one thing to still take part in the church when you don't feel you're worthy because of something. In fact, it's encouraged. It's quite another to go to the temple.

I'm not taking a side on this discussion. I know my knee-gut reaction, but I also know it's not necessarily the correct answer. But I did feel like I needed to step in long enough to say that there is a HUGE difference between those two.

[NerdGirl]

Rifka - I fully agree that people should dress respectfully when attending the temple, but Genuine Article said, "to my way of thinking having a nose ring should disqualify you from attending the temple", and "Now we come to the option of taking the nose ring out to attend the temple, which I don't consider to be any better. Taking it out while attending the temple might seem respectful and help you avoid stares, but it smacks of duplicity. Underneath you're still the same rebellious soul who got their nose pierced and probably has an issue with authority, so what would you hope to gain by attending the temple in the first place?". Those are the statements that I don't agree with. (And Genuine Article, if you're reading this, I'm actually a huge fan, so please don't think I hate you!)

42 - You can take them out, but not for extended periods of time like you can with earrings. My SIL used to have one, then she had to take it out to get her gallbladder removed, and she forgot to put it back in and her hole closed. But unless it's brand-new, I think you can take it out for the ~2-3 hours that you would spend in the temple.

[Whistler]

I... don't really care either way. Just thought I would contribute.

[Hypatia]

I'm a bit proud that my legacy is coining the term, "Board Hate Board." D'aaaaaaaw.

[Yarjka]

I think nose rings are awesome, but I would probably remove the nose ring to go to the temple.

I have a question though, as I've never paid much attention to the ladies' side of the room: do women generally remove their earrings when they go to the temple?

I'd assume some do and some don't. Is there anything about a hole in the ear that is inherently more modest than a hole in the nose?

[Dragon Lady]

I have a question though, as I've never paid much attention to the ladies' side of the room: do women generally remove their earrings when they go to the temple?

I'd assume some do and some don't. Is there anything about a hole in the ear that is inherently more modest than a hole in the nose?

I've never known anyone to remove earrings before going to the temple, but that's just my personal witness. It's possible that it happens. That's hard to judge, though, since you can't just look at who has holes in their ears. I'd be one of those people, except my ears aren't earring-less at the temple because I took them out before I came, but rather because I just rarely wear earrings anymore.

And no, I don't think there is anything inherently more modest about a hole in the ear as opposed to the nose. But it is a cultural thing. In our culture a nose ring is much more rebellious than an earring. In other cultures that's simply not true.

[thebigcheese]

I vaguely remember somebody saying that you should remove most jewelry prior to the ordinance. Not sure who.

[Dragon Lady]

I removed my CTR ring before I went through for my first time. I left it in the locker. It had special meaning to me and I made my parents drive back to the temple and help me get back in to the locker room to get my ring back. My sister told me that I was silly for taking off my jewelry. I told her that since I didn't know if it was allowed or not, I'd rather be safe than sorry. But ever since then I've never removed any jewelry. (Granted, I don't own any gaudy jewelry that I'd feel uncomfortable wearing in the temple. I'm not a heavy jewelry person.) I've since noticed, though, that many women wear their jewelry in the temple. So if that's really a policy, it's not enforced at all. Nor widely known.

[Rifka]

I don't wear huge, gaudy earrings either, but if I'm wearing a pair that's a little bigger or more dangly, I'll take them off. I'll also usually take them off if they're brightly colored. If they're small and neutral colored (silver, white, etc.), I'll generally leave them in. I've also debated wearing a simple necklace (like a young women's medallion) with my temple dress, but I decided to keep my temple clothes as plain as possible. Obviously that's personal preference, though. I think a good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if your jewelry is drawing attention to you or distracting other people. If it is, you might want to leave it in your locker (or at home).

[Imogen]

I think Genuine Article got a little TOO bothered by the nose ring question. Having a nose ring doesn't mean that person is rebellious. It can be an expression of culture (as was pointed out). Would you tell a convert from a country that didn't see nose rings as a big deal "well you aren't worthy to become LDS or go through our temple because you have a nose ring." Doesn't that seem kinda...silly?

I have 4 tattoos, and two non-ear lobe piercings (used to be three, but I took one out), and I didn't get them because I was feeling *~rebellious~*. I got them because I think they're cute, and the tattoos hold very special meaning to me, and I'm glad I have them. I don't see any problem with small, tasteful piercings. Not all piercings are created equal, that's for sure.

[Dragon Lady]

Imogen, I think you have to realize that nose rings and tattoos and more than one ear-peircing (and that one being in the lobe) are seen as more rebellious in LDS culture than they are in the general American culture.

[Digit]

Notions of decency are relative. In the Hasidic Jew community in New York, as shown by the policies of the local Yiddish-language newspaper Di Tzeitung, it's immodest to even show a woman's face, as shown by the recent news story in which the faces of Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason were photoshopped out of existence to make the picture viewable.

source

[Dragon Lady]

Well, that's because orthodox Jews consider pictures graven images, which the 10 commandments forbid. Cameras are forbidden in the more orthodox parts of Jerusalem as well.

[Digit]

Well, that's because orthodox Jews consider pictures graven images, which the 10 commandments forbid. Cameras are forbidden in the more orthodox parts of Jerusalem as well.

But they show pictures of men. Also, from the linked article, in a written statement by Di Tzeitung:

"Because of laws of modesty, we are not allowed to publish pictures of women, and we regret if this gives an impression of disparaging women, which is certainly never our intention," it continued. "We apologize if this was seen as offensive."

[Emiliana]

Imogen, I think you have to realize that nose rings and tattoos and more than one ear-peircing (and that one being in the lobe) are seen as more rebellious in LDS culture than they are in the general American culture.

But again, what if that person comes from *outside* LDS culture originally, and didn't get a nose-ring for the sake of rebellion? I know a quite conservative Muslim woman who wears a veil in public, but has a nose-ring as her only form of ornamentation. If she were to join the LDS church, would it be necessary for her to give up that one piece of jewelery? She was clearly not rebelling when she got it, so why is it rebellious to keep it?

If I understand correctly, the LDS objection to tattoos is that they disrespect the body (or perhaps I'm making that up because I know other Christians who think that, I'm not sure). Is the objection to nose-rings similar? Do they defile the body in some way, or is it purely a matter of respect for LDS culture? Is it because it looks "trashy"? (My grandmother about flipped her lid when my cousin got a nose-ring, because she thinks only slutty girls wear nose-rings. I disagree, but I think that's more a generational difference than anything else.)

I hope this doesn't come across as disrespectful of the LDS faith or traditions, because that's not my intent. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of why this is a big deal to some people.

[Dragon Lady]

It probably depends on who you ask. A previous prophet asked the membership to not get tattoos nor to have more than one ear piercing. And only in your ear. So many people would say to have a nose ring or a tattoo is going against the prophet, and thus rebelling. Those people would probably not judge the Muslim woman for having a nose ring, but once she was baptized and was informed of the prophet's counsel, they would expect her to remove it.

My dad was more along the lines of your grandmother, but for earrings. My mom didn't have her ears pierced, so when my older sister was old enough to want them (around 12 or 14, I think?) my mom wanted to get hers pierced, too. But my dad would not allow it. He said that only hookers and floozies (sp?) had pierced ears. My mom quietly pointed out that his mother had pierced ears, which he didn't believe until Mom took him next door to see. After that he submitted to it so long as they didn't complain of pain to him nor could they ever wear dangly "hooker or floozie" earrings. When I got my ears pierced at 14, the same stipulations applied. Which is probably why I've rarely bought dangly or flashy earrings. The exception being for my wedding, I got long skinny diamond-studded earrings. Ironically, I wore them out of (but not in) the temple. To my knowledge, my dad never said anything about them. (Though, for the record, my sister went into a rather rebellious teenager phase and ended up with two piercings in her lobe and one at the top of her ear. I'm still not sure how she got away with that. But when Pres. Hinckley asked the church to remove all but the one, she did. But she still has the holes over a decade, close to two decades, later.)

But yes, a lot of the objection comes from our belief that our body is a temple and that we should treat it with the utmost respect, just like we would treat an actual temple. We should not defile it with tattoos or excessive piercings. Y'know, daughters of Zion with their tinkling bracelets and all that Isaiah jazz.

I guess there's not a real cut-and-dry answer to your question. There's a little bit of a lot factoring into the culture as to why tattoos and extra piercings are frowned upon.

[krebscout]

While there is a big doctrinal emphasis on caring for our bodies, piercings and such are cultural. The LDS culture tries very hard to groom clean-cut, respectable-looking members. We're all intended to be missionaries and representatives of the church at all times, and for a lot of people nose piercings are still pretty edgy. But then showing your ankles used to be edgy, too. Maybe a few generations down the road things will change, and the church will care less when the world cares less.

I don't know how a particular set of ecclesiastical leaders would handle a convert with a nose piercing - with some tact, I hope. When my sister-in-law converted, nobody bothered to tell her for years that bikinis weren't acceptable in Mormon culture. She was embarrassed when she found out, which is an unfortunate side effect, but I'm glad that she didn't have to deal with a more abrupt change than was necessary.