Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Bikinis aren't acceptable in Mormon culture? I....have some swimwear to return....

Just for general information; they've cut back significantly on the de-facto rules for temple attire etiquette. There was a time not that long ago that you would likely be asked if you'd kindly remove your earrings, watch or other jewelry if it was deemed distracting. I've known individuals who felt that their glasses weren't temple appropriate and would rather the whole thing be fuzzy.

And, I have to admit, I can see some of the reasoning behind it. Sit in a white room, with everyone dressed in white, and have the lady in front of you sport black-tipped inch and a half neon pink fingernails and see if you don't take undue notice throughout the entire service.

Tao wrote:I've known individuals who felt that their glasses weren't temple appropriate and would rather the whole thing be fuzzy.

Wow. I think if I took my glasses off in the temple, it would be a safety hazard for everyone involved. I don't even take them off in the shower. My uncorrected vision is really bad. I can't even see the big E on the eye chart. As far as jewelry, I don't usually wear any to the temple. I have started keeping my watch on, though, so that I don't miss the bus afterwards. Missing the bus in Cole Harbour on a Saturday usually means you have to sit in the rain for an hour until the next one comes. Not fun times. But the sleeves of my temple dress are long enough that you can't actually see my watch, so I don't think it's particularly distracting to anyone.

Tao wrote:And, I have to admit, I can see some of the reasoning behind it. Sit in a white room, with everyone dressed in white, and have the lady in front of you sport black-tipped inch and a half neon pink fingernails and see if you don't take undue notice throughout the entire service.

I have done that before-- only I think it was purple nails. Yeah, I had a hard time paying attention to that session.

Rifka wrote:I think a good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself if your jewelry is drawing attention to you or distracting other people.

I'd amend that to weighing the purpose it's serving for you vs. the distraction it might cause. (I don't consider being perfectly unobtrusive to be an end, in and of itself.)

There goes Katya the troublemaker again.

Wheelchairs are pretty helpful things, and I tend to look at them longer than I do a nosering, because I want to see if they have spokes or mags, what kind of handles do they have, is there a motor on that thing? What? Oh, it's time to stand up

Marduk wrote:There goes Katya the troublemaker again.

Did you really think I could stay away?

[For the few who might know, my following comments refer primarily to 12- to about 19- to 21-year-olds in the church. Once you go on a mission and/or get married and/or reach adulthood, it's a different ceremony.]

Does anyone who has a nose piercing know whether chlorine can tarnish or irritate the jewelry or nose? As a teenager, I usually removed my jewelry not out of etiquette, but because I didn't want it to get wet.

I think it's clear that these things are neither standardized nor universal . . . take, for instance, the teensy training bras that they provide, expecting that to be sufficient, WET, for someone with my, ah, Jane Russell-like physique. I think visible nipples could be ever more distracting from the Holy Spirit of The Lord, so I always just wore my own and brought one to change into.

I agree that denying someone a recommend (especially if it's for attending an important familial function) is pedantic, not to mention borderline silly . . . however, that's sort of the whole point. Not drinking coffee and attending your meetings, etc.; the whole list of rules, is seen as rather "weird" to the vast majority of people.

If you have tattoos, you're covered head to toe anyway, so I see no reason why anyone should snark. If you feel it is something you need to repent of, then I suppose werf could look into removal, but that is costly and painful, from what I've heard. (But then the tattoos were . . . fear of pain keeps me looking clean-cut, haha.)

I would take it out, but I hate people making snide comments more than anyone I know. I don't know, it's on a par with removing your shoes in a Buddhist temple, or showing up at X time for your breakfast in France . . . is it that big a deal?

I guess I wish Others could refrain from judgment, while The Person could just get over their darn self, in these type of situations. It depends who is the aggressor, I suppose, Member or Ecclesiastical Leader, and who is more of a jerk.

Rifka wrote:

Tao wrote:And, I have to admit, I can see some of the reasoning behind it. Sit in a white room, with everyone dressed in white, and have the lady in front of you sport black-tipped inch and a half neon pink fingernails and see if you don't take undue notice throughout the entire service.

I have done that before-- only I think it was purple nails. Yeah, I had a hard time paying attention to that session.

I went to such a strict private school we couldn't wear nail polish, and we had to have long hair pulled back. Made a lot more prep time for my mom. Made Mormon seem easy by comparison!

Portia wrote: Does anyone who has a nose piercing know whether chlorine can tarnish or irritate the jewelry or nose? As a teenager, I usually removed my jewelry not out of etiquette, but because I didn't want it to get wet.

When my sister-in-law still had hers, she used to swim with it in all the time and it was fine. She only ever took out for surgery (first her c-section and then her gall bladder removal, which was when she forgot to put it back in and the hole closed). It was just a tiny stud with a little diamond chip, and if you were sitting across the room from her you probably wouldn't even notice it. If someone was wearing a similar nose ring in the temple, I don't think it would be too distracting.

Portia wrote:If you have tattoos, you're covered head to toe anyway, so I see no reason why anyone should snark.

Last time I was at the temple a girl in front of me had a tattoo on her neck. Like, low neck. It was partially covered by her dress, but her dress did up with one button, and there was an inch or two oval that was open below the button and it showed off her rose quite nicely. And at first it was really distracting. (About on part with my Relief Society president sitting up front every week with tattoos and bright purple or pink highlights in her hair.) But then I realized that it was possible that she got a tattoo as a non-member, then got baptized and went through the temple and couldn't afford to remove it. And then I got over myself and paid attention to the session. Though every once in awhile she'd move and it'd catch my attention again. But at that point it was just a distraction and no longer a judgmental distraction.

Just sayin' not all tattoos are covered in the temple.

Dragon Lady wrote:there was an inch or two oval that was open below the button and it showed off her rose quite nicely.

Heh, that almost sounds intentional.

Dragon Lady wrote:But then I realized that it was possible that she got a tattoo as a non-member, then got baptized and went through the temple and couldn't afford to remove it. And then I got over myself and paid attention to the session. Though every once in awhile she'd move and it'd catch my attention again. But at that point it was just a distraction and no longer a judgmental distraction.

So, if she'd gotten the tattoo while a member, it would have been OK to be judgmental? (I'm confused as to why you had to come up with such a circuitous explanation for the tattoo.)

Katya wrote:

Dragon Lady wrote:But then I realized that it was possible that she got a tattoo as a non-member, then got baptized and went through the temple and couldn't afford to remove it. And then I got over myself and paid attention to the session. Though every once in awhile she'd move and it'd catch my attention again. But at that point it was just a distraction and no longer a judgmental distraction.

So, if she'd gotten the tattoo while a member, it would have been OK to be judgmental? (I'm confused as to why you had to come up with such a circuitous explanation for the tattoo.)

Because I'm judgmental, of course. And in my idyllic molly-mormon world/bubble, no one would think of getting a tattoo while a mormon. Hey, remember how I grew up in a bubble?

Honestly, my mind didn't even consider the possibility that she would have gotten a tattoo while temple-worthy. In my mind's argument, she could have gotten one while a member, but rebellious, then "repented".

Which, honestly, is largely why I'm not offering any real opinion on this thread. Because my bubble has been pierced and I have been given something new to consider and I'm reading opinions and letting it all stew before I come to a decision.

thebigcheese wrote:

Dragon Lady wrote:there was an inch or two oval that was open below the button and it showed off her rose quite nicely.

Heh, that almost sounds intentional.

I don't think so. I mean, it could have been, sure. But to choose a temple dress solely because it has a button with a slight gap below it instead of a zipper or a pull-over? There aren't a whole lot of dresses with that kind of closure and it seems silly for that to be your deciding factor. And it did hide some of the rose (as I said earlier in the post), but not enough to hide the fact that it was, in fact a rose.

We have a mutual friend, DL, who got a tattoo while a member in good standing. And she went through the temple for the first time not too long after.

I could have some of my facts fuzzy...but if you don't know who I'm talking about, I'm sure Yellow does.

Yellow is staring blankly at the room upon my asking him.

Heh. Twice marked?

We figured it out just before you said that!

And why is the time stamp on my posts an hour behind? Is the whole system set up to Pacific Time, or is it wrong on my profile?