Lds Ladies: How Do You Feel About Using a Simple Temple Dress As a Wedding Gown ?
That's what I did, I wanted it that way. I didn't want to have to worry about finding a wedding dress that wasn't to fancy for the temple. Also, a fancy dress isn't what a temple sealing is about. I know one of my sister's wore her wedding dress for her sealing (back when the bar wasn't raised as high on how fancy dresses could be), it was all lacy and frilly and had a HUGE train that she and to hold in one arm. What a hassle!! and what a distraction!
I actually felt much prettier and happier in my simple temple dress than I did in my wedding dress.
It was still fun to take pictures in my fancy dress and show off my fancy dress to guests at my reception.
Suggestion:
for a temple wedding? that's what I did.
but for a civil wedding – I don't know…..I went more traditional and more all-out. that's just me.
edit: for clarification: I did a civil service and then a temple one — four years apart.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I actually wore my wedding gown and not a Temple dress. It's optional to wear a Temple dress. It is highly expected that your wedding gown will be temple-appropriate (as in – it covers your garments fully). You actually get a letter in the mail from the temple you select to get married at, with some directions specifically directed towards temple worthy wedding dresses.
It saves time to not have to change in and out of your wedding gown. It makes financial sense to pick a dress you'll get married in – to associate the memories with it.
I didn't spend $800 dollars on my wedding gown so that I couldn't wear it in the Temple and show it off.
Thanks for your question. : )
I don't have a feeling about it, because I didn't wear a Temple dress.
I bought a wedding gown and dressed myself up to look like what I imagined I would look like getting married since I was a little girl.
I also got a letter, well in advance before my wedding date that gave me directions to the temple, a list of things I need to have ready before I go to the temple, and also some information about what kinds of wedding gowns are appropriate for getting married in the Temple.
I picked my wedding gown according to the standards that I read about – and also something that I felt was MINE and special to me. I picked a dress that had a "spanish" flair to it.
It felt great that I picked an appropriate wedding gown to get married in. I also felt pretty proud of myself that my dress wasn't over the top either…it was just right for the temple.
Using a temple dress is optional – and only mandatory if your dress is not covering your garments.
I got married in my temple dress. According to the letter I got in the mail, if I wanted to wear my wedding dress to get married it would have to be pretty simple, without a lot of beading, etc. Mine was not very flashy, but it did have some beading and sequins and I wasn't sure whether or not it would be considered appropriate, so I just got married in my temple dress. Since you wear the rest of your temple clothes over the dress, you can't really see the dress anyway. I just changed into my wedding dress after the ceremony to take pictures, and I wore it at the reception.
I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm not the flashy type, and I'm not about to spend so much on a dress I'll only wear once, so simple works just fine for me.
I do understand why women would want very elaborate dresses, but simple doesn't have to mean plain. Some of the most elegant wedding dresses aren't elaborately beaded or covered in designs, and it's not really good to have a dress so magnificent that the bride is lost within it. Nor should we allow our clothing to eclipse the eternal significance of the ceremony. The most touching and beautiful weddings are always the ones in which the bride and groom have a clear love for each other, the ones in which the spirit is strongly felt and God's blessing is clearly present. They're not the ones in which the bride is swallowed by her gown or the ones in which all of the attention is on the trappings.
No offence:
A comparison of the activities of the biblical temple and Mormon temples shows clearly that the two have nothing in common. Consider first the purpose of the biblical temple. Its sole function was to teach the need for atonement of sins as a precondition for authentic worship of the true and living God. The location of the altar of burnt offering immediately in front of the only entrance to the Jerusalem temple is illustrative of this purpose. It emphasized that God's love and acceptance can only be extended to the sinner whose transgressions have been borne by His lamb of sacrifice. Solomon expressed this singular purpose in his prayer of dedication for the temple: "who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?" (2 Chronicles 2:6).
By contrast, Mormon temples exist as places to perform unusual rituals, including baptism for the dead and eternal marriage. Through these rituals men can become gods, according to the Mormon Church. It claims that these rites were a part of early Christianity but were sabotaged by apostates. It claims that all other churches are false and apostate; that Mormonism is the only true form of Christianity in the world. However, these Mormon temple rituals have no basis in the Bible, ancient Jewish literature, or early Christian history.
Inside each Mormon temple there is an impressive baptismal font mounted on the backs of twelve life-size, sculpted oxen (see Figure 2). This font is modeled after a description in the Bible of a large basin (also called a "laver" or "sea") that was located just outside the door of Solomon's temple (2 Chronicles 4:2,15, see Figure 1). However, the basin at the biblical temple was not used for baptisms, as the Mormon Church teaches (for Christian baptism is a New Testament ordinance). Rather, the Scriptures plainly state that it was used by the priests to wash themselves after offering animal sacrifices, in preparation for ministry in the sanctuary (Exodus 30:18-20; 2 Chronicles 4:2-6). There is no evidence in the Bible or early Christian history to support the Mormon temple ordinance of baptism for the dead. It is neither a Jewish nor Christian practice, but rather contradicts New Testament teaching regarding baptism and salvation.
Likewise, the Mormon temple rite of eternal marriage was never practiced in the biblical temple. Again, there is not one mention of such a temple rite anywhere in the Bible, ancient Jewish literature or early Christian history. To the contrary, in Romans 7:2 the apostle Paul clearly teaches that marriage is only for mortal life: "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth." Likewise, Jesus taught us that, "in the resurrection they neither many, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Matthew 22:30). The Mormon temple rite of eternal marriage is not a Christian or biblical practice.
You must log in to post a comment.