Long Sleeve White Shirts At The Temple-Or Short?

[Duncan]

I'm curious here, my sister's MIL made a big fuss over her not wearing nylons upon arriving for her son's temple marriage. According to this MIL, it is a no no. Is this new? Or has this woman been told wrong? I've met her and she is not dogmatic or picky about things in the church, that I know about, that's why I was curious.

When I go to the Temple in the Winter time I always wear Long Johns over my garments. If they think I am travelling 6 hours to a Canadian Temple in the Canadian winter time without then they have another thing coming!!! even Jesus worse sandals, fashionable yet functional for his times

[Tacenda]

You mean your street clothes or temple clothes? white knee highs are all I've been wearing since I started going.

As far as streetclothes, no one has ever said anything to me about not wearing nylons (I haven't had a pair in the house for at least ten years.

My dad forgot his socks for my son's wedding. It just looks weird and if one is borrowing the shoes (which he was) I think it's kind of rude as well as I am not sure they can sanitize them as well as one can socks.

Street clothes, and I, like you have never worn hose for that long or longer. That's why I asked, I wondered if it was a new policy. My sister is about as TBM as one could be, (she's praying for me I'm sure). She is the last still standing out of 6 children. So for her to have balked was something.

[Tacenda]

When I go to the Temple in the Winter time I always wear Long Johns over my garments. If they think I am travelling 6 hours to a Canadian Temple in the Canadian winter time without then they have another thing coming!!! even Jesus worse sandals, fashionable yet functional for his times

Oh, I'll bet it was a shock to come back from your mission in California to that.

[Storm Rider]

The objective is modesty and to remove anything unnecessary that could take away from the focus on our Father in Heaven. It is really nothing more than trying to help each temple patron focus on eternal matters during their time in the temple. Discreet jewelry or none at all, simple white clothing for men and women. Some people go overboard and forget the priority; it is like focusing on a tree rather than seeing the entire forest. There was a time when short sleeves were acceptable, but times change and things adjust, but these are minor things and have no real value. Again, the objective is to promote a place of holiness to the Lord. When you attend the temple just remember that is the primary objective and forget about the rest. It is not a place to be casual or for visiting (Some stake temple nights can turn the Celestial Room into what would appear to be a social). The Celestial Room is a place for contemplation and respecting others and their spiritual needs and objectives. If you would like to ask a question, ask to speak to one of the temple presidency. They are generally very happy to assist those who seek. However, do not be surprised if some questions are not answered plainly. The temple is a place for spiritual growth and each member is encouraged to seek, to search, to expend effort in growing spiritually. Some things that are revealed to one person are often not appropriate to share with others. This can be a difficult principle for some people to accept, but it is a good one nonetheless.

[mnn727]

why? any reason that you know of?

Cause they have the air conditioning set too low for short sleeves.

[Duncan]

Oh, I'll bet it was a shock to come back from your mission in California to that.

it was, it was!!!

[canard78]

On a hot summer day, I had gone with the youth to do baptisms. I was going to be a witness – not actually doing the baptisms – so I kept on my short sleeve white shirt and put on my white pants and tie. When I came out of the dressing room they asked me if I had a long sleeve white shirt. I replied that I didn't. I was told that I was not allowed to wear a short sleeve white shirt and if I didn't have one to change into they have to have me wear one of the jumpsuits. That was fine. I felt kind of silly that I hadn't thought about wearing a long sleeve white shirt to go to the temple. So i changed into one of the jumpsuits. About 20 minutes later I look down and realize that the jumpsuits that you wear in the baptistery have short sleeves...

I'm sat here laughing at this. Very funny.

Edited August 12, 2013 by canard78

[ZelphtheGreat]

This and the whole white shirt silliness in LDS meetings sure looks a lot like 'how many steps can one take on the sabbath' I see with some of my Jewish friends. Ritualism is hurting the LDS Church and it is getting worse.

[omni]

What's odd is that short sleeves are seen as immodest or disrespectful, but the clothing worn (previous to the change a few years ago) during the initiatories are not.

[JAHS]

JAHS, on 12 August 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

Besides for reasons of uniformity, the long sleeves will cover up all those tatoos men have on their arms.

calmoriah

"All women's dresses are long sleeved as well."

Yes I know, but we are seeing a lot more tatoos on women these days aren't we?

[omni]

JAHS, on 12 August 2013 - 12:28 PM, said:

Besides for reasons of uniformity, the long sleeves will cover up all those tatoos men have on their arms.

calmoriah

"All women's dresses are long sleeved as well."

Yes I know, but we are seeing a lot more tatoos on women these days aren't we?

Why not just ask those with tattoos on their arms to cover up?

[LordUther]

What's odd is that short sleeves are seen as immodest or disrespectful, but the clothing worn (previous to the change a few years ago) during the initiatories are not.

A) To be fair you didn't wander around the temple in those shields, but only around the initiatory area, I don't know about other temples but in the London temple this was adjoining the locker room and you never really left that area in your shield.

B) I could never understand peoples problems with the old shield, it covered everything perfectly fine unless you started twirling round-and lets be honest that's not a usual temple activity, & I would wear a lot less, more revealing on the beach.

[omni]

A) To be fair you didn't wander around the temple in those shields, but only around the initiatory area, I don't know about other temples but in the London temple this was adjoining the locker room and you never really left that area in your shield.

B) I could never understand peoples problems with the old shield, it covered everything perfectly fine unless you started twirling round-and lets be honest that's not a usual temple activity, & I would wear a lot less, more revealing on the beach.

Would you not agree that the shields and accompanying actions were much more uncomfortable or distracting than an exposed forearm would be?

Omni: Don't push the limits in this discussion.

[bluebell]

Has anyone ever declared that the 'no short sleeves' rule has to do with modesty, or are the posts implying that such has something to do with it just making an assumption and running with it?

(Just checking to make sure I haven't missed something that was relayed earlier in the thread).

[LordUther]

Would you not agree that the shields and accompanying actions were much more uncomfortable or distracting than an exposed forearm would be?

To be honest I never found the initiatory uncomfortable at all but I do get your point and that for a majority of people it would be so.

I also remember a chat with the temple president at the time about how many people see too much behind what goes on in the temple. I remember him saying that it used to be that in the sealing rooms you weren't allowed to walk between the sealer and the alter, but that this started 'dodgy doctrine' about how if you did walk between them it would cut off the sealers authority and the sealing would be null & void. The real reason was manners pure & simple, but that these false reasons became so entrenched that in the end they had to say ok you can walk there now just to stop this silliness. I wonder if this long sleeved rule is just that, a hold over from times gone by that has no real reason now but just hasn't been changed and people are reading too much into it.

[omni]

Has anyone ever declared that the 'no short sleeves' rule has to do with modesty, or are the posts implying that such has something to do with it just making an assumption and running with it?

(Just checking to make sure I haven't missed something that was relayed earlier in the thread).

I was told by a temple worker that it was for modesty purposes when I mistakenly wore a short sleeved shirt several years ago.

[bluebell]

I was told by a temple worker that it was for modesty purposes when I mistakenly wore a short sleeved shirt several years ago.

Sounds to me like a non-doctrinal interpretation of why long sleeves.

After all, we know that the short sleeved outfits in the baptistery are not seen as immodest, and neither are short sleeved clothes outside of the temple.

[canard78]

There's nothing immodest about a forearm. It's just Mormon tradition that's unneeded. Just like the silly 'no beards' for temple workers rule.

It also makes me laugh that Adam has already discovered shaving in the garden of Eden. Where was that technology from? I bet he was bearded in the the early 'live endowments'.

[LordUther]

Sounds to me like a non-doctrinal interpretation of why long sleeves.

After all, we know that the short sleeved outfits in the baptistery are not seen as immodest, and neither are short sleeved clothes outside of the temple.

Didn't someone earlier say that pre-1975 you had to wear the old style g's with the full length sleeves and legs to the temple, it's probably a hold over from those days where you would have to wear full length sleeves to cover your g's.

[Tacenda]

Didn't someone earlier say that pre-1975 you had to wear the old style g's with the full length sleeves and legs to the temple, it's probably a hold over from those days where you would have to wear full length sleeves to cover your g's.

I've read somewhere that garments were only worn in the temple in the earlier days, not under street clothes? Correct or false?

[omni]

I also remember a chat with the temple president at the time about how many people see too much behind what goes on in the temple. I remember him saying that it used to be that in the sealing rooms you weren't allowed to walk between the sealer and the alter, but that this started 'dodgy doctrine' about how if you did walk between them it would cut off the sealers authority and the sealing would be null & void. The real reason was manners pure & simple, but that these false reasons became so entrenched that in the end they had to say ok you can walk there now just to stop this silliness. I won this long sleeved rule is just that, a hold over from times gone by that has no real reason now but just hasn't been changed and people are reading too much into it.

Could be. There's a great quote by I believe Spencer W Kimball (can't found it on my phone) in which he warns us about requiring the membership to wear certain articles of clothing for things such as passing the sacrament because over time it can lead to the elaborate costumes that we see in the clergy of some churches today.

[canard78]

Didn't someone earlier say that pre-1975 you had to wear the old style g's with the full length sleeves and legs to the temple, it's probably a hold over from those days where you would have to wear full length sleeves to cover your g's.

Very good point. Old traditions.

[Scott Lloyd]

Personal opinion:

Long-sleeved shirts are still widely viewed as more formal and dressy than short-sleeved. We have been admonished to come to the temple in our best Sunday clothes as a show of respect and decorum for the sacredness of the setting. I think the wearing of long-sleeved shirts by men in the temple is in line with that expectation.

The short-sleeved "jump suits" would be anomalous to the above explanation, but as far as I can tell, the jump suits are no longer worn in endowment sessions (probably never should have been in the first place), just in the baptistry.

[cinepro]

Didn't someone earlier say that pre-1975 you had to wear the old style g's with the full length sleeves and legs to the temple, it's probably a hold over from those days where you would have to wear full length sleeves to cover your g's.

Fantastic point! I'll bet that's it.

I wonder if this tradition will change years from now when we have a generation of Temple Workers that grew up with short-sleeved garments?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Would you not agree that the shields and accompanying actions were much more uncomfortable or distracting than an exposed forearm would be?

I've never found any of the above to be uncomfortable or distracting.