A friend was looking through the temple policies book. It said that grooms are not supposed to wear tuxedos to the temple, and temple workers are supposed to let them know before they come to the temple. It is acceptable to wear them after the temple ceremony. Of course this requires them to bring two sets of clothes. Why do you think the church has this policy?
Church Policy, LDS, Mormon, Mormon Culture
No tuxedo
Wheat & Tares 
Smart lounge suit or morning suit for the groom people.
!?Tuxedo?!
I believe it would be to ensure the temple and those that get married within it look as little as possible like anyone else who gets married elsewhere.
It’s just another way the church can control people, give them another reason to feel guilty if they “disobey”, and make it all sound like it’s inspired counsel.
There really isn’t a logical reason for this. To the general authorities, It’s become more important to do what the handbook says than to do what the scriptures say. …and there is a vast difference.
Given what the bride can wear, I can’t think of why this would be.
According to Wikipedia, tuxedos became popular wedding attire in the ’60s. Maybe they were perceived to be too worldly for the temple, so they made a policy against them? This is probably the result of our dress policies always being set by the older generation. That was the same time when the missionary dress standards, BYU honor code, etc., all became more standardized as well.
Perhaps because when we enter the temple, changing into all whites is part of “leaving the world behind”? I can’t think of much that symbolizes the “world” more than a tux would.
When our middle daughter was married in the temple, she chose not to wear her wedding dress. She wore her simple temple dress instead. She said that the wedding gown she bought was for the reception, and had “nothing to do” with the temple. It was a modest dress, & she could have worn it if she had wanted to do so. Granted, she was 27, not 19, but I was pleased with her choice.
Does the guy in the photo even have a temple recommend? I don’t know how I feel about the dress, but I certainly don’t want to see him in the temple.
Well apparently a tuxedo (dinner jacket) is okay for an evening wedding (that is after 6pm), etiquette-wise. Until 2012 marriages in Britain were required by law to take place between 8am and 6pm, thus no grooms in tuxedos.
Given that we separate weddings (in church) and sealings (in the temple) over here, it is not uncommon for the bride to be wearing a much simpler outfit for the sealing ceremony, and given the timing of the wedding the prospect of a groom showing up at the temple on the same day wearing a tuxedo was virtually non-existent.
“Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; …. for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” (1 Sam 16:7)
Rich, at least make an attempt to do this.
Perhaps this is just me looking on the outward appearance, but I’d be OK seeing him in the temple.
The Tux is too worldly. It goes along with giving the couple advice to not think about sex on that special day.
I recall hearing once that in the pre-1991 ceremony, the devil had a helper (preacher?) in the presentation, and that he wore a tux. So maybe the tuxedo represents worldliness?
The devil didn’t have a helper in the pre 1991 ceremony. I went to it many times. The only reason the church is stating this is for more control. Nothing more, nothing less. There isn’t a doctrinal or scriptural reason for it.
There was a preacher who. ..interestingly enough. ..just wrote a suit. There were so many changes in 1991. That came as a result of the church taking a survey of just over 3000 people as to why temple attendance had plummeted and what to do to make it more appealing. Gone were the enactments of the penalties.
Yeah, good luck with getting Mormon kids to *not* think about sex on their wedding day.
I think the temples ideally would prefer no tuxedos or wedding dresses at all, but they’ve been forced to accept the groom’s tuxedo and bride’s gown on the grounds after the ceremony. I don’t know if it’s official policy, but it’s heavily frowned on for anyone else in the party to don formal wear at the temple or directly following the ceremony. The suggestion is to leave all that for the reception.
I wonder if my grandmothers not having formal wedding dresses when they were married/sealed in the temple in the 1930s and 1940s was a reflection of Mormon thinking in that era. I always figured it was because of finances. If there really was a cultural mindset of the early to mid 19th century against formal dress associated with the temple, it could explain some of the thinking behind the policy.
Vinz, that’s a new one for me! I’ve never heard that.
Pre-1991, there was a preacher, but he wore a priest’s collar, not a tux. I wouldn’t call him the devil’s helper, although with Mormon Doctrine proclaiming Catholics were the great and abominable church, I suppose that could be a weird interpretation of that.
I remember the first time I went to the SL Temple and the devil came out wearing a dark suit. It seemed really weird.
I’m okay wish the preference for not arriving at the temple in a tuxedo. I even wish the formal wear for men and women were not allowed on temple grounds at all. But since formal wear is allowed afterwards for the photos, really a morning suit is a more proper choice for a man. In polite society, a tuxedo is only for evening dress.
I don’t know anyone who complained about bringing two sets of Suits-including the tux, I don’t see the big whoop.
I too remember the preacher but not the clothes he wore. The preacher was my favorite with his description of Satan.
MH: You were better with the scriptures than I was. I didn’t even think about that.
Hedgehog and ji are correct on this issue. A tuxedo is evening wear and only appropriate to be worn to evening events, not day time events. Most of us Americans don’t understand this and think of a tuxedo as formal wear to be worn to any fancy event any time of day. If a wedding is held during the day, it would be more appropriate for the groom to wear a nice suit than a tuxedo. If a wedding is held during the evening, a tuxedo would be appropriate.
Secondly, it would make no sense to wear a tuxedo to an event if the wearer won’t be wearing the tuxedo during the event. At a temple wedding/sealing, the groom will change from whatever he wears to the temple into temple robes for the sealing so there’s no point in wearing a tuxedo to the temple no matter what time of day it is. This isn’t a policy about “controlling” people. This is a common sense policy about dressing well and is completely appropriate.
It does have a lot to do with control. Believe me, the handbook committee wasn’t sitting around thinking about “tuxedo etiquette” in the U.S. as compared with European norms when they wrote it. That just didn’t happen. If that were true and fair, they would have to address formal wear etiquette for each country/region where there is a temple and what to wear and what not to wear. Once you understand the power and love of it at the “ivory tower”, it all becomes very clear.
I know I’ve seen high school kids wear a tuxedo to church because they used it for the prom the night before. The thought is, “hey, I paid to rent this thing, I’m going to get the most out of it before I have to return it on Monday.”
I doubt most Americans are well versed on tuxedo etiquette. I do know that when they do the Oscars, actors often wear tuxedos (and actresses wear formal dresses) in the daylight on the red carpet, take photos with them on, and then go in for the evening performance. I don’t think Mormon weddings are all that different.
Check out these Oscar nominated actors in tuxedos on the red carpet (at the bottom of the page) during the day time: http://rosetuxedoaz.com/oscar-party-outfit-ideas/
On a website that is passionately committed to rewriting the definition of marriage I find it amusing to be lectured about proper tuxedo etiquette. Who cares? Who especially cares what a bunch of Europeans consider proper clothing if they’re not in Europe? What happened to diversity and inclusiveness? Doesn’t that include the terrible tuxedo as well?
In addition, wasn’t the tuxedo, or dinner jacket, a rebellion against tails? Wasn’t it against tail etiquette? What is the world coming to?
The only time I heard about dinner jackets, coats with tails, and all those dress rules was on an episode of Downton Abbey. I agree with MH that most lower and middle class Americans are unaware of dress etiquette. It’s more an upper class thing or for those in occupations that are exposed to formal events (also regional – the Midwestern and Western U.S. is much more casual than other regions). Growing up middle class in Utah it was casual, church dress (semi-formal), or formal. I had to ask around when I was invited to something that required cocktail dress.
MH – I can understand those teenagers a bit. The idea of spending hundreds of dollars on a wedding dress that I wouldn’t wear to my wedding was the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. I loved it and this was a (hopefully) once in a lifetime event. Of *course* I was going to wear my dress to the sealing ceremony. If someone insisted that I couldn’t wear the dress on temple grounds my jaw would have dropped. If the church wants to get rid of the tuxes and gowns, they’re going to have to de-romanticize the idea of getting married in the temple. Enforce the separation of the wedding ceremony (which Western culture has exploded with ostentation) with the more sacred sealing ceremony.
This has nothing to do with US vs. European dress etiquette. In fact, the tuxedo isn’t European, it’s an American invention. KLC is correct, the short tuxedo jacket was an American rebellion against European tails. But it’s still evening only. Of course, the policy could be in reference to the Canadian tuxedo which certainly should not be worn to the temple.
This is all kind of a ridiculous subject to debate over European, Canadian and U.S styles of tuxedos with or without tails, bLA bla bla. None of that is the point. The point is this: the church will get its own way. This policy is not doctrine, it’s not scripture, it’s nothing more than personal preference by people on the handbook committee. I know people on that committee.
I agree with DB. I think that church leaders don’t like extravagant celebrations about ANY Mormon traditions, and this policy is similar to killing missionary farewells, trying to get families to avoid too much celebration with baby blessings, crappy Christmas services, etc. It really feels like a Puritan influence to me, and with the church founding in Vermont/New York, the Puritan influence still permeates Mormon culture.
I wouldn’t necessarily call this a “control” issue, although I can see why some feel that way. GA’s just don’t like gawdy celebrations, and this is just another attempt to tamp down the over-celebrations. It’s really got nothing to do with whether tuxedos are day/night wear. The GA’s are not Miss Manners, and I don’t think it plays into that line of thinking one bit.
Well if the GA’s don’t like gawdy weddings, some of their kids do! Lol. I once went to a reception for the son of a GA. It was at the lion house gardens. I was 7 or 8 people behind president Hinckley in line. That family had decked out the already well decorated lion house. It was a bit much. It wasn’t just a few extra flowers. It was DOZENS of big framed of pics of the bride and groom…almost to the point of self indulgence. They were very impressed with themselves. Big huge silk ribbons tied on everything everywhere. Yards of fabric draped around the place. It was very nice, but not only was president Hinckley the only well recognized person. It just so happened that a well known actor in one of the temple films was there too. I don’t remember if he was wearing a tuxedo or not, but let’s just say he was not his usual devilish self! Nonetheless, we all ate plenty of chocolate that evening. Oh, is eating too much chocolate against the word of wisdom?