Immodest Rings?

[Bini]

So the LDS temple requires women to wear modest bridal gowns upon entering. And from my understanding, these requirements may vary from temple to temple. In related threads, it was noted that commonly, bridal gowns fancily embellished may not be permitted. Keyword here is "may". It's my understanding that this is done to minimise the aspect of materialism and to show humility/modesty in going through the temple. I also understand that after the temple occasion, one may then choose to throw on her glitzy glammy gown for the reception, photos, etc - the Church has no qualms regarding this.

Okay, so keeping the above in mind.. It's a bit interesting (to me) that engagement/wedding rings are not also held to the same standard. Now, I'm assuming that women are able to wear in the temple whatever ring given to them by their spouse-to-be. Be it a simple gold band, or a flashy 6 carat diamond. I'm specifically referring to the "flashy" stuff. I get that this is just one of those things where the Church has no voice on the issue. So I'm just thinking out loud and interested in what others thought on the issue. Can an engagement/wedding ring be immodest and inappropriate for temple wear? I suppose we could expand this to other forms of jewelry as well.

[Vort]

The ring should cover from the knuckle to the webbing. Exceptions are allowed, but discouraged, for so-called "two-piece rings". The underside of the finger below the second knuckle should never be exposed except to the husband (and even then, only with great modesty).

[Dravin]

Could it? I suppose, though I suspect that vast majority of wedding rings aren't, but if your ring looks like this:

Or if you are planning on doing an endowment sessions decked out like this:

You may want to rethink what you are planning on wearing inside the temple.

Edited June 17, 2012 by Dravin

[Bini]

Vort.. you know how some sounds just irk you? Like.. scratching a blackboard with one's nails? "Webbing" totally does it for me!

[Bini]

Dravin, you make a good point. And to comment on your images.. YES I've seen rings that big - well - almost

[beefche]

My understanding from when I was married in the temple was the restrictions placed on the dress were more for convenience rather than modesty (other than the whole cover the chest and arms thing). I was told that I can have "bling" and even a train, but the train had to be bustled while in the temple to avoid it ripping and tearing and causing a traffic problem (the halls can be narrow and a huge dress just won't fit or cause other patrons to get lost in your dress trying to pass you).

[Bini]

My understanding from when I was married in the temple was the restrictions placed on the dress were more for convenience rather than modesty (other than the whole cover the chest and arms thing). I was told that I can have "bling" and even a train, but the train had to be bustled while in the temple to avoid it ripping and tearing and causing a traffic problem (the halls can be narrow and a huge dress just won't fit or cause other patrons to get lost in your dress trying to pass you).

Beefche, thanks for that insight.

So perhaps I misunderstand? Are bridal gowns with flashy bling (gems, beads, sequins) discouraged due to convenience over modesty?

[Vort]

Vort.. you know how some sounds just irk you? Like.. scratching a blackboard with one's nails? "Webbing" totally does it for me!

Hope you realized my response was silly and TIC...

[beefche]

Beefche, thanks for that insight.

So perhaps I misunderstand? Are bridal gowns with flashy bling (gems, beads, sequins) discouraged due to convenience over modesty?

I don't know. When I called the Louisville KY temple and the Bountiful UT temple to discuss what I could have as a wedding gown, KY said to be "modest" in the bling. Bountiful said I can have bling (and she specifically mentioned crystals and beading), but warned me of the train issue.

Most wedding gowns that I've seen at the temple (and you see them walking around inside and outside the temple), there isn't alot of bling. Usually, the problem is the modesty issue--covering the arms and chest. My dress is modest, but I still had to wear a small jacket (provided by the temple) to make it temple appropriate for the sealing ceremony.

[Jennarator]

The ring should cover from the knuckle to the webbing. Exceptions are allowed, but discouraged, for so-called "two-piece rings". The underside of the finger below the second knuckle should never be exposed except to the husband (and even then, only with great modesty).

Okay, guess my ring is pretty much a bikini of a ring. I need a new, bigger one. But My fingers a small enough to get away with it, and it is cute. If I wear something more modest to church and the temple, can i wear it around everywhere else? It's in style and just blends in with everyone else's. I modest ring will just stand out and look odd.

No wait....even better.....I haven't been sealed to my husband, yet. I can wear this one for a church wedding. I'll get a new one when we are sealed.

[Iggy]

When I was living in AZ, and in the YW Presidency, we were given a list of items the YW were not to have on when they went to do baptisms.

Wearing more than two modest rings was on the list. Along with braided, tied on fabric bracelets and watches. Also no dark fingernail polish or henna tats on the hands, arms, feet or legs, no makeup or perfume/cologne.

Included in the list was the warning that if a young woman had a tied on, braided cloth bracelet and still wanted to do baptisms, then a Temple Worker will cut the bracelet off. Those with dark polish, henna tats would not be allowed to do baptisms and would require an adult female member of their Ward/Branch to sit with them in the waiting area or outside on the temple grounds until their group was ready to leave.

As the YW Secretary, I read this letter to everyone on the 3 Sundays prior to the temple trip. I knew that the Bishop and his councilors had a copy because they are the ones who gave me the copy.

Even with this well advanced warning there were three of our young women who were singled out and not allowed to do baptisms. WHY the RS Pres, and the Bishop allowed them to go in the first place is beyond me. The bracelets should have been cut off prior to leaving their house AND those with the tats and black nails should have stayed home and never been given the temporary recommend.

Also, one of the Temple workers handed the RS Pres a small envelope to put her 8 rings in. Yep, she wore gaudy, large rings on her fingers.

I went to the temple here in Oregon with a sister who had tats on her ankles. She wore anklets to cover them when she did initiatories. The tats were from before she was a baptized member. She also favored deep red nail polish, yet when she planned on going to the temple, she used pale pink or lavender polish.

A few of the women in our Stake do have large wedding rings and they also have large "cocktail" rings on their right hands- they wear them to and through the temple. The younger women who have multiple rings on their hands going into the Temple, seem to remove them in the dressing rooms because they aren't wearing them during the sessions.

One gentleman I saw in the endowment had a white on white bandanna tied around his neck to mostly cover an elaborate tat on his neck. Also I could see tats showing through the sleeves on his forearms. My conclusion was he was an adult convert. It was easy to spot his wife, she wore a matching bandanna even though her tat was a ring tat. What warmed my heart and lifted my spirit was this couple was asked to be the example couple.

[Vort]

No wait....even better.....I haven't been sealed to my husband, yet. I can wear this one for a church wedding. I'll get a new one when we are sealed.

I sincerely hope he hasn't seen the underside of your finger below the second knuckle.

[Guest]

I don't understand these young brides demanding huge rocks. Most of the time their intended is either just starting out his career or still in school. Expecting him to drop several grand on a piece of jewelry is selfish and short-sighted. </rant>

[Jennarator]

I sincerely hope he hasn't seen the underside of your finger below the second knuckle.

He has, do Ineed to see the bishop, will this delay our sealing? Maybe I could get sealed, then confess later?

Okay....I'll shut up......

[Vort]

I don't understand these young brides demanding huge rocks. Most of the time their intended is either just starting out his career or still in school. Expecting him to drop several grand on a piece of jewelry is selfish and short-sighted. </rant>

Such a demand is a no-fail sign that the engagement should be terminated post haste.

[Guest]

Jennarator! You'd better keep it quiet until after your first baby is born. What will the relatives think?

[Guest]

Such a demand is a no-fail sign that the engagement should be terminated post haste.

Agreed, and my nephew had to do just that a few months ago. She was demanding a 40k engagement and bridal set, and setting her foot down that should she decide to grant him a child or 2, she expected a nanny so that she could focus on her (as yet unrealized) career. He's almost 30 and wants so badly to be married and have a family. I was proud of him for running the other way.

[Jennarator]

Okay...I am cracking up! And we just had our first baby.

Truth be told, I love my ring, I pick it out small because I like it cute and a big one would look funny on my finger. My husband asked if I was going to ask for a bigger one later and I said no. But since it is now immodest, perhaps I should....hmmm......

[Jennarator]

Agreed, and my nephew had to do just that a few months ago. She was demanding a 40k engagement and bridal set, and setting her foot down that should she decide to grant him a child or 2, she expected a nanny so that she could focus on her (as yet unrealized) career. He's almost 30 and wants so badly to be married and have a family. I was proud of him for running the other way.

Wow....I think he made a good call.

[Iggy]

Jennarator! You'd better keep it quiet until after your first baby is born. What will the relatives think?

Little late for that!

[Dravin]

Agreed, and my nephew had to do just that a few months ago. She was demanding a 40k engagement and bridal set, and setting her foot down that should she decide to grant him a child or 2, she expected a nanny so that she could focus on her (as yet unrealized) career. He's almost 30 and wants so badly to be married and have a family. I was proud of him for running the other way.

I'll be honest, I always hoped such people didn't exist outside of TLC.

[Vort]

Agreed, and my nephew had to do just that a few months ago. She was demanding a 40k engagement and bridal set, and setting her foot down that should she decide to grant him a child or 2, she expected a nanny so that she could focus on her (as yet unrealized) career. He's almost 30 and wants so badly to be married and have a family. I was proud of him for running the other way.

Good for him. Hard though it may be to believe, better to be unmarried than to be shacked to such a person.

[Guest]

I'll be honest, I always hoped such people didn't exist outside of TLC.

Let alone inside the church.

[Maureen]

I don't understand these young brides demanding huge rocks. Most of the time their intended is either just starting out his career or still in school. Expecting him to drop several grand on a piece of jewelry is selfish and short-sighted. </rant>

In some cases it's the groom-to-be that picks out the large ring on his own. My niece was proposed to with a carat-in-a-half ruby, it's gorgeous and definitely suits her.

Isn't there a rule about wearing jewelry into the Temple, earrings and necklaces?

M.

[Misshalfway]

Hope you realized my response was silly and TIC...

I did. I'm having my ring altered as we speak.