# military clothing at wedding?



## goodear (Nov 29, 2007)

So there is a California wedding and the bride's sister's husband is in the U.S. military. It is a civilian, not military wedding. The bride informs her sister that he may not come to the wedding dressed in military clothing. Is it appropriate to wear military clothing at a civilian wedding? I don't know what the dress code is.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

What the bride says goes. End of discussion.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

My nephew just got married wearing his uniform, but that is a slightly different situation.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Dress blues are appropriate when one or the other of the couple getting married is a member. They are appropriate when the wedding is taking place on a military installation. I suppose they would be appropriate in a civilian wedding in a time of war when all soldiers wear uniforms all day, everyday. But we haven't had one of those since 1945 and aren't likely to ever again, despite what the various television studios would have you believe. Therefore, though I find the bride's statement a bit odd, it's her wedding and what she says goes. Depending on who she's marrying, it may be the last decision she gets to make . . . but I really, really doubt it.:devil:


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

32rollandrock said:


> What the bride says goes. End of discussion.


Word of truth. I'd hate to be the groom, though...


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

If I were the serviceman in question, I would honor the bride's decision by not attending the wedding.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

What is her objection?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1...(referring to post #6)

...the perfect response!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

godan said:


> If I were the serviceman in question, I would honor the bride's decision by not attending the wedding.


+2

FACTS:
UK perspective, possibly the same in US - unlike a private evening social event where the hosts determine the dress code and who attends, the bridal pair DO NOT determine the dress code of guests at a wedding, ONLY the dress code of the bridal party i.e. ushers, bridesmaids etc. I have never ever seen dress code specified on a wedding invitation. This is for exactly the same reason as funerals and christenings where ANYONE is allowed to enter ANY service in ANY church, an invite is not required, it is against Church law to hold Church ceremonies behind locked doors.

No.1 blues is suitable for all formal daytime civilian events.

Of course, at the reception, if it is not Black Tie he may remain in Number Ones, but if it is Black Tie he would by military uniform and civilian etiquette be expected to change into Mess Kit.


----------



## Steve Smith (Jan 12, 2008)

No uniform, it draws attention away from where it belongs, the bridal party.


----------



## goodear (Nov 29, 2007)

The bride is a pacifist.


phyrpowr said:


> What is her objection?


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Oldsarge said:


> ...in a time of war when all soldiers wear uniforms all day, everyday. But we haven't had one of those since 1945 and aren't likely to ever again, despite what the various television studios would have you believe.


Aren't you guys at war? At least one recent president kept using that work almost constantly, and I think your current president has used it a few times when it's suited him.


Not a real Earl said:


> FACTS:
> UK perspective, possibly the same in US - unlike a private evening social event where the hosts determine the dress code and who attends, the bridal pair DO NOT determine the dress code of guests at a wedding, ONLY the dress code of the bridal party i.e. ushers, bridesmaids etc. I have never ever seen dress code specified on a wedding invitation. This is for exactly the same reason as funerals and christenings where ANYONE is allowed to enter ANY service in ANY church, an invite is not required, it is against Church law to hold Church ceremonies behind locked doors.
> 
> No.1 blues is suitable for all formal daytime civilian events.
> ...


Most modern day soldiers avoid wearing uniforms when they're not on duty. My cousin, who is a career NCO, has always shown up to family events in a suit, not a uniform. I don't think it would ever cross his mind to wear a uniform to non-military events.


Steve Smith said:


> No uniform, it draws attention away from where it belongs, the bridal party.


This makes the most sense to me and it's what popped into my head before I saw it posted. Dress for the occasion, which is a rule of thumb that that usually gets ignored in most clothing forums and blogs.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

If you wish to "make a point," either wear the uniform or refuse to attend.

If you wish to help bring joy to your friends by your presence, do as the bride-to-be requests and wear something else.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Doctor Damage said:


> Aren't you guys at war? At least one recent president kept using that work almost constantly, and I think your current president has used it a few times when it's suited him.


There's a difference between having troops deployed and in combat and being 'at war'. Sounds strange but that little issue of Congress making a declaration reorients the entire nation's mindset whereas in its absence people just go about whatever they damned well please knowing that only volunteers and careerists are supposed to make any sacrifices.



Doctor Damage said:


> Most modern day soldiers avoid wearing uniforms when they're not on duty. My cousin, who is a career NCO, has always shown up to family events in a suit, not a uniform. I don't think it would ever cross his mind to wear a uniform to non-military events.


So was I and that's pretty much how I felt



Doctor Damage said:


> This makes the most sense to me and it's what popped into my head before I saw it posted. Dress for the occasion, which is a rule of thumb that that usually gets ignored in most clothing forums and blogs.


Or just ignore the occasion when the soldier is so disrespected as per #6.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

It is perfectly appropriate to wear uniform to a wedding; not so for the bride to lay down the law to her brother-in-law in a way that seems borderline insulting.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

IMHO, and in the US (where the OP is):

Generally, a military uniform of a level of formality equivalent to what civilians are wearing is appropriate attire at various events. From my observation, wearing one isn't standard practice - indeed, it's downright strange - unless there's some military element or theme, _e.g._ if the groom is wearing a military uniform.

However, a wedding isn't a public event: it's a private event that has a host or hosts (traditionally, the bride's father, or family, sometimes the couple themselves or someone else). The host makes the rules, and the guests should follow them.* If the host says "don't wear a military uniform," the brother-in-law has three choices: don't wear a military uniform, don't come (and be a dog in the manger) or come in the military uniform (and be a jerk).

This specific situation has a fairly obvious twist that hasn't really been addressed: we're talking about the husband of the bride's _sister_. The family dynamics involved in the sister-sister relationship are unknown, and possibly significant, particularly if (as seems at least slightly more likely than not) the sister getting married is younger than the one with the husband. I wouldn't really look at this as primarily a sartorial, military or etiquette issue, but a sibling one. When your sister is getting married, you can give her helpful advice, but you're not the boss. It's way out of line for the already-married sister to make an issue of this; it would verge on flat-out evil for her to ignore the bride or have her husband boycott the wedding because he doesn't get to wear what she (or he) feels like wearing.
____
* For an overly legalistic analysis: if an event is such that it would be inappropriate to attend without being invited, then it's in the control of the host whether you are even supposed to attend at all. If the host controls whether you can attend, then he or she sets the terms upon which you can attend. A wedding - at least in this country - is not a public event, open to all comers. It would be wildly inappropriate to attend a wedding reception without being invited (even, or perhaps especially, if you are being played by Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn). If you fit, I suppose there's no great harm in sitting in the back during a ceremony without being invited, though that's kind of oddball behavior. In any event, it's inappropriate if the church is full, as is often the case, since you're taking a seat away from someone whose presence is actually desired.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

godan said:


> If I were the serviceman in question, I would honor the bride's decision by not attending the wedding.


That is, of course, your prerogative. But sometimes we must agree to disagree.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> +2
> 
> FACTS:
> UK perspective, possibly the same in US - unlike a private evening social event where the hosts determine the dress code and who attends, the bridal pair DO NOT determine the dress code of guests at a wedding, ONLY the dress code of the bridal party i.e. ushers, bridesmaids etc. *I have never ever seen dress code specified on a wedding invitation.* This is for exactly the same reason as funerals and christenings where ANYONE is allowed to enter ANY service in ANY church, an invite is not required, it is against Church law to hold Church ceremonies behind locked doors.
> ...


I'm assuming then that the standard procedure would be to check with the groomsmen/bridal party about their mode of dress? Because I'd hate to go to an English wedding overdressed in a morning coat!



goodear said:


> The bride is a pacifist.


Oh for-- not even going to comment on that being the reason she forbids uniforms. But it seems you've already answered your question. Just wear what the groom is.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

To the extent (which I think is minimal) this is about some principle other than family dynamics: if the bride is actually a pacifist, that's what she is. That's not particularly unusual. You might disagree with her, but she's not "wrong" any more than voting for the party you don't favor, or going to a church other than yours is "wrong." You're free to disagree, but making a point of doing so in a highly visible way at her own wedding is _not_ the way to do it.

To risk creating a family rift that may last decades over the desire to express views contrary to the bride's isn't just bad form, it's just plain bad.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

^ Wise words.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Not a real Doctor said:


> Most modern day soldiers avoid wearing uniforms when they're not on duty.


That may be true for Canadia but not for the UK...and I did preface my comment with "UK perspective"...I've been to loads of weddings in the UK where military personnel have attended in uniform, sometimes Order of the Day, sometimes No.1 Blues.


----------



## boatshoe (Oct 30, 2008)

Most men I've seen in uniform at weddings were going stag. I think there's a correlation.


----------



## Eric W S (Jun 6, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> +2
> 
> FACTS:
> UK perspective, possibly the same in US - unlike a private evening social event where the hosts determine the dress code and who attends, the bridal pair DO NOT determine the dress code of guests at a wedding, ONLY the dress code of the bridal party i.e. ushers, bridesmaids etc. I have never ever seen dress code specified on a wedding invitation. This is for exactly the same reason as funerals and christenings where ANYONE is allowed to enter ANY service in ANY church, an invite is not required, it is against Church law to hold Church ceremonies behind locked doors.


Most in the US specifiy attire on the invite. White tie, black tie, semi-formal, cocktail & after 5, casual, and beach casual are the most common. Unspecified one must use the time of the ceremony and reception as a guide and usually are semi-formal or lounge suit.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> UK perspective ... it is against Church law to hold Church ceremonies behind locked doors.


Churches don't set the laws over here. It's a big reason why we exist as a nation in the first place. Though we seem increasingly to have churchy types whose memory is short, or whose education was lacking ...


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

He said, "Church law". Churches are free to set their own laws in the U.S. as well, just not impose them outside . . . something certain members of Congress need to keep in mind!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Churches don't set the laws over here.


I wrote "church law" not "the laws" big difference.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> He said, "Church law". Churches are free to set their own laws in the U.S. as well, just not impose them outside . . .


Exactly what I meant, thank you.


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

I've been to a number of weddings where men (though very VERY rarely women) showed up in uniform. The one thing that I've noticed that all had in common was that they were officers (mostly junior officers, which might jive with the "single" comment earlier). No one ever thought it was odd or out of place. It would have been a much bigger faux pas had someone showed up in civilian attire without a jacket or tie, but I actually haven't seen that happen, but once.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Church "Law" is the same as Church "Policy"...


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

On the church thing, the big point is that there's no established church in the US, so when you refer to "church law" you're talking about scores of different institutions, all with different "laws" (or, if you prefer - and perhaps more accurately - "policies") on access to buildings and everything else. Try to walk into the "secret" part of Morman temple some time if you're not LDS.

Of course, wedding _receptions_ are typically held on ordinary private property. And it is not at all unusual, in the US, to have the wedding ceremony at some private venue other than a church. For that matter, it's not wildly unusual to have no real religious element to the ceremony at all. I've been at secular ceremonies officiated by judges or other public officials, as well as a few where the officiant technically had the authority of clergy, though of the sort you acquire by sending into the address in an ad in the back of a magazine.

In any event, whether you attend a wedding to which you're not invited (like the issue of what you wear if you do) is not so much a matter of legal rights as appropriate behavior.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Exactly what I meant, thank you.


Not sure that's exactly what you meant. A church in the US, as far as I know, can hold whatever legal event they want behind closed doors, especially considering that someone is undoubtedly paying to host their event in that church. It is quite reasonable that someone could be barred entry to a wedding for inappropriate attire, whether held in a church or not. A wedding in a church does not mean that anyone who wishes to attend may attend, either.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Exactly (referring to Tilton's post, in case it's not directly above this one by the time I've hit "post").

If anything, in the US churches have _more_ legal freedom to exclude people than ordinary corporate property owners, thanks the free exercise clause in the First Amendment.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Starch said:


> To the extent (which I think is minimal) this is about some principle other than family dynamics: if the bride is actually a pacifist, that's what she is. That's not particularly unusual. You might disagree with her, but she's not "wrong" any more than voting for the party you don't favor, or going to a church other than yours is "wrong." You're free to disagree, but making a point of doing so in a highly visible way at her own wedding is _not_ the way to do it.
> 
> To risk creating a family rift that may last decades over the desire to express views contrary to the bride's isn't just bad form, it's just plain bad.


This is one of the best posts and one of the truest posts I have ever read in this forum.

Clothes are important, but they are part of our world and should never dominate it. A wedding is no time to "send a message" to a woman who is getting married. This especially means the bridal party. I get frustrated when I see posts where people freak out over what a woman who is getting married asks the bridal party to wear. A woman's wedding is a one time occasion that women dream of for a lifetime until it happens. You will be in the clothing she wants you to wear for four to six hours. You will never be required to wear it again.

Clothes communicate a lot of things. To communicate arrogance or superiority is seldom a good thing.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Many of you have misunderstood my reference to "church law". So I'll expand: As far as I'm aware there is no Christian church ANYWHERE that conducts Christenings, weddings, confirmations, ordinations and funerals behind locked doors, QED, anyone is free to attend ANY church ceremony, therefore a bridal party cannot demand that people stay away or that the ceremony is closed to the public, thereby reserving the entire church just for themselves. My comment about church law was about that point only, nothing else. NOW, if you hae Christian churches in the US that exclude the general public from attendance i.e. private ceremonies behind locked doors please enlighten me, I'd be very surprised though.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

You need _at least_ to jump through a number of hoops to be permitted to attend Mormon ceremonies, including weddings, aka "sealings." As a general rule, you can't attend unless you're a card-carrying LDS member.

Just the one that leaps to mind. I'd be "very surprised" if it's the only one.

On a slightly different note, I don't think it's unusual to limit admission to Easter and Christmas-season services by requiring tickets (often given out free, but still: required). Indeed, you need such a ticket for the National Cathedral's (Episcopal) Easter services, and if you dont' have one they don't let you in.

Back on the original topic, given their general feel, I doubt the Quakers would bar you from attending a service in a military uniform, but they sure wouldn't be happy about it.

And ... hey: you mean to tell me I could just have strolled into Westminster Abbey and sat down for Prince William's wedding?

In any event, the _primary_ issue isn't whether people are flatly barred from attending a ceremony, it's whether it's appropriate to do so. Often, the invitation list for a wedding _ceremony_ is smaller than the list for the reception. If you just showed up uninvited and sat down at such a wedding in (say) an Episcopal church, you wouldn't be a criminal ... you'd just be an ass.


----------



## goodear (Nov 29, 2007)

But she is a pacifist, for a fact. Also, incidentally, the groom is an anarchist. Should be a match made in heaven.



Jovan said:


> That is, of course, your prerogative. But sometimes we must agree to disagree.
> 
> I'm assuming then that the standard procedure would be to check with the groomsmen/bridal party about their mode of dress? Because I'd hate to go to an English wedding overdressed in a morning coat!
> 
> Oh for-- not even going to comment on that being the reason she forbids uniforms. But it seems you've already answered your question. Just wear what the groom is.


----------



## Troglodyte (Sep 7, 2012)

Goodear,

To add another military perspective to the three (Earl of Ormonde, Oldsarge, and Eagle) already offered: This Airborne Ranger knows to let the bride have her day. Were I a guest, I would accept that the event is about the couple, not about me. (Besides, I would hate to give the impression that I didn't have a dinner jacket.)

Another member in another thread said it best: If you must explain why you are wearing your uniform, you probably should not be wearing it.

Extra points to the bride for getting the message to the gentleman indirectly, instead of starting a family feud before exchanging vows!

Best wishes to the happy couple.

Cordially, 
Trog


----------



## Semper Jeep (Oct 11, 2011)

This veteran will echo Troglodyte.

Another thing to add in (and steering the conversation away from church regulations)...

When I was in the Marine Corps I attended many weddings, on base and off and weddings of civilians and weddings where at least half of the couple was a Marine or sailor and the only time I ever wore a uniform was when I wore my Dress Blues to the wedding of a coworker who's invitation directed that the attire was "black tie" (or maybe it said "formal"... it _was_ many moons ago).

Each branch has slightly different regulations on when and where you can wear particular uniforms and I know the Marine Corps regulations are often considered especially strict. Generally, unless the wedding is a black or white tie affair or if you are standing up in the wedding, you wouldn't wear a dress uniform. According to our regulations, a Marine dress uniform has the same formality as a tuxedo (we even have versions with tails if needed) and wouldn't be worn if a tuxedo wouldn't be appropriate. A Marine could wear their Service Alpha uniform (basically a gaberdine suit and tie) to the wedding if a suit is appropriate attire... but nobody likes that uniform so we don't like to wear it.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

So, sounds like the dress code is mufti. Much better to go with the flow and not cause a problem that will last a lifetime. Time to break out the old navy solid.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Oldsarge said:


> He said, "Church law". Churches are free to set their own laws in the U.S. as well, just not impose them outside . . . something certain members of Congress need to keep in mind!





Earl of Ormonde said:


> I wrote "church law" not "the laws" big difference.


I think my snarkiness was lost somewhere in translation, here. My comment was not intended seriously, though there's a serious undercurrent (the Colony was founded largely for purposes of religious freedom, but that has little to do with this discussion).

I really appreciate the sensible comments by Troglodyte (hardly appropriate name, that) and Semper Jeep. Regardless of what one might think about the bride's sensibilities, it would be churlish to behave in a manner so as to insult her by absence, or by dressing as she's asked you not to.

Finally, I don't think there's anything about holding an event in a church that means anyone off the street is welcome to attend. Invitations are issued for a reason.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Bride's a pacifist. It's her day. Anyone who would boycott a wedding because the bride doesn't wish to be reminded of war on Her Day forgets why they are wearing the uniform in the first place.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Starch said:


> On the church thing, the big point is that there's no established church in the US, so when you refer to "church law" you're talking about scores of different institutions, all with different "laws" (or, if you prefer - and perhaps more accurately - "policies") on access to buildings and everything else. Try to walk into the "secret" part of Morman temple some time if you're not LDS.
> 
> Of course, wedding _receptions_ are typically held on ordinary private property. And it is not at all unusual, in the US, to have the wedding ceremony at some private venue other than a church. For that matter, it's not wildly unusual to have no real religious element to the ceremony at all. I've been at secular ceremonies officiated by judges or other public officials, as well as a few where the officiant technically had the authority of clergy, though of the sort you acquire by sending into the address in an ad in the back of a magazine.
> 
> In any event, whether you attend a wedding to which you're not invited (like the issue of what you wear if you do) is not so much a matter of legal rights as appropriate behavior.


Once the rent is paid and the date arrives the facility is for the contracted period and for all practical purposes the private property of the lessee.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Near topic; This 'Bride's Day' bit has been taken so far ( not this particular event) as to effectively exclude the groom.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Near topic; This 'Bride's Day' bit has been so far ( not this particular event) as to effectively exclude the groom.


No, no, it's well understood that the day is about _The Couple_: the bride and her mother


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Modern weddings disgust me.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Many of you have misunderstood my reference to "church law". So I'll expand: As far as I'm aware there is no Christian church ANYWHERE that conducts Christenings, weddings, confirmations, ordinations and funerals behind locked doors, QED, anyone is free to attend ANY church ceremony, therefore a bridal party cannot demand that people stay away or that the ceremony is closed to the public, thereby reserving the entire church just for themselves. My comment about church law was about that point only, nothing else. NOW, if you hae Christian churches in the US that exclude the general public from attendance i.e. private ceremonies behind locked doors please enlighten me, I'd be very surprised though.


No. Weddings are not church-run ceremonies simply by virtue of being held in a church. You rent the space for the wedding, you pick your wedding official, and it is your event - you can bar anyone you wish from entering for whatever reason you wish. Confirmations, on the other hand, are church events, run by the church, and not a case of subleasing the venue to any private party. Try scheduling a wedding in a US church and NOT paying a fee for use of the facilities and let me know how it goes.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Modern weddings disgust me.


Many of the ones we hear about, yes, but most likely well over 95% of couples get married simply, relatively cheaply, and without all this &$%? egodrama that pollutes the media


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

goodear said:


> But she is a pacifist, for a fact. Also, incidentally, the groom is an anarchist. Should be a match made in heaven.


Much as I disagree with her line of thought, just respect her wishes and don't create an incident. Wear a nice three piece suit with a pocket square, possibly even a carnation, and call it a day. You and your loved ones know that you've served your country and that's all that matters in the end. Most of my friends and family in various military branches do not wear their uniforms outside of duty except at the weddings of fellow service members. I have to say I probably wouldn't either.



Troglodyte said:


> Goodear,
> 
> To add another military perspective to the three (Earl of Ormonde, Oldsarge, and Eagle) already offered: This Airborne Ranger knows to let the bride have her day. Were I a guest, I would accept that the event is about the couple, not about me. *(Besides, I would hate to give the impression that I didn't have a dinner jacket.)
> 
> ...


Where was it said that this was a black tie wedding?



32rollandrock said:


> Bride's a pacifist. It's her day. Anyone who would boycott a wedding because the bride doesn't wish to be reminded of war on Her Day forgets why they are wearing the uniform in the first place.


A good point made there.


----------



## Quills Woollen Market (May 15, 2013)

Offering a female perspective, I would allow it. Once the guests look smart and everyone is happy that is fine. There is no rule to adhere to. 

It depends on the circumstances and the guests. If you have some people who for some reason or another have strong feelings about the military than for the greater good you would ask the person and explain the reasons.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Tilton said:


> No. Weddings are not church-run ceremonies simply by virtue of being held in a church. You rent the space for the wedding, you pick your wedding official, and it is your event - you can bar anyone you wish from entering for whatever reason you wish.


Wow! I didn't realise it had gone that far in the US, such is not the case in Sweden or the UK.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Starch said:


> You need _at least_ to jump through a number of hoops to be permitted to attend Mormon ceremonies, including weddings, aka "sealings." As a general rule, you can't attend unless you're a card-carrying LDS member.
> 
> Just the one that leaps to mind. I'd be "very surprised" if it's the only one.
> 
> ...


Thanks for those facts.

And, talking about Christian churches as I was, I'm sure you realise that Mormons aren't Christians.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Uh, don't try and convince a Mormon of that. We of more mainline churches may look askance at their theology but they insist that they are another variety of Christian, so I figure the fine points are between them and God.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I don't need to the WCC already determned that many many years ago, nor are the Mormons listed by NCCC or CCT. If Mormons can be called Christians then so can Muslims i.e. a later prophet with later teachings for a new religion that also accepts Jesus as a prohpet. https://www.oikoumene.org/en/member-churches/north-america/united-states-of-america

Why Mormonism is not Christianity https://www.patheos.com/blogs/bible...-are-not-christians-the-issue-of-christology/

Read up on Mormonism yourself in that link & you'll soon see that their theology is closer to Hinduism than Christianity. Islam and Judaism are closer to Christianity than Mormonism.

And here's another interesting fact. The Vatican has ecumenical links with most other Christian churches and with Islam and with Judaism but NOT with Mormonism.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

And what does any of this have to do with clothes?

I can see an interchange reposting in the near future - - - - -


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

I wandered back into this thread after several days and wondered how it got so far off OP. Moderators? The subject was uniforms at the pacifist bride's wedding.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Good point. Shall we just agree that it's her wedding so let her have what she wants and go on to something else?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Yea, lets do that, we can continue theological discourse elsewhere.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Was that a heartfelt AMEN I just heard?


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

More like an AH-HEM!! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

phyrpowr said:


> No, no, it's well understood that the day is about _The Couple_: the bride and her mother


 *PERF!
*


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The bride displayed exceptionally bad form in specifically directing that her brother-in-law not wear his uniform. If they wished to keep the affair a strictly civilian affair, the couple could have provided dress code guidance to all the attendees, but issuing her edict specifically and (apparently) solely to the brother-in-law was extremely bad form and I think an insult. Hence, as I said in my earlier post, I would have simply made the decision not to attend and allow 'bridezilla' to have her day. Ironically I faced a similar situation when our youngest daughter got married...it didn't involve my military Mess Dress uniform, but rather, the wearing of my civilian Tux. The ladies had chosen for the men in the wedding party to wear a specific version of those atrocious rental formal duds and, as the father of the bride, I was expected to comply. So with a very nicely tailored Tuxedo hanging in my closet (and knowing on which side my bread was buttered, so to speak ), I complied with my instructions and wore the rental. Even though I was writing the checks to pay for the event, I did what I was told. However, that concession did not require accepting such an insult to the uniform that I had so proudly worn for a fair number of years, earning at least a portion of the $$'s that went into paying for "the bride's moment!"


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> The bride displayed exceptionally bad form in specifically directing that her brother-in-law not wear his uniform. If they wished to keep the affair a strictly civilian affair, the couple could have provided dress code guidance to all the attendees, but issuing her edict specifically and (apparently) solely to the brother-in-law was extremely bad form and I think an insult. Hence, as I said in my earlier post, I would have simply made the decision not to attend and allow 'bridezilla' to have her day. Ironically I faced a similar situation when our youngest daughter got married...it didn't involve my military Mess Dress uniform, but rather, the wearing of my civilian Tux. The ladies had chosen for the men in the wedding party to wear a specific version of those atrocious rental formal duds and, as the father of the bride, I was expected to comply. So with a very nicely tailored Tuxedo hanging in my closet (and knowing on which side my bread was buttered, so to speak ), I complied with my instructions and wore the rental. Even though I was writing the checks to pay for the event, I did what I was told. However, that concession did not require accepting such an insult to the uniform that I had so proudly worn for a fair number of years, earning at least a portion of the $$'s that went into paying for "the bride's moment!"


I'd concede the Bride is the dictator at these events but it was my understanding that the father of the bride is NOT technically part of the wedding party and can therefore wear whatever he wants, subject to the predicate to this sentence.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I really don't see it as an insult or as a huge imposition. What's the big deal, is it just stubbornness because the BIL has been told not to do it? She invited the BIL to her wedding, he should comply with her requests if he wishes to go. If those requests are too onerous, then don't go. If she were an ethical vegan and she invited you over for dinner, would you put up such a big stink because she wouldn't let you bring over a meatloaf? Of if she wanted to have a dry wedding because she was 4 months sober and wanted to keep it that way, would you/BIL have the same reaction? No, of course not. Her party, her rules. Abide by the rules or abstain from the party.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

eagle2250 said:


> The bride displayed exceptionally bad form in specifically directing that her brother-in-law not wear his uniform. If they wished to keep the affair a strictly civilian affair, the couple could have provided dress code guidance to all the attendees, but issuing her edict specifically and (apparently) solely to the brother-in-law was extremely bad form and I think an insult. Hence, as I said in my earlier post, I would have simply made the decision not to attend and allow 'bridezilla' to have her day. Ironically I faced a similar situation when our youngest daughter got married...it didn't involve my military Mess Dress uniform, but rather, the wearing of my civilian Tux. The ladies had chosen for the men in the wedding party to wear a specific version of those atrocious rental formal duds and, as the father of the bride, I was expected to comply. So with a very nicely tailored Tuxedo hanging in my closet (and knowing on which side my bread was buttered, so to speak ), I complied with my instructions and wore the rental. Even though I was writing the checks to pay for the event, I did what I was told. However, that concession did not require accepting such an insult to the uniform that I had so proudly worn for a fair number of years, earning at least a portion of the $$'s that went into paying for "the bride's moment!"


What's funny about your story is that I had the opposite experience when I got married last year. We had planned on goung black tie, in part b/c I already owned a dinner suit. My father-in-law apparently hates black tie and vetoed it.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## TSWalker (Nov 2, 2011)

Those who saw my post in another thread know I'm firmly in the "it's her show" camp... I'll be wearing purple Vans sneakers given to me by my brother-in-law (not Converse All-Stars as originally thought) with my rental suit as his groomsman.

And I can think whatever I want about this sartorially, but it's still an honor to be asked.

My final two cents: it's her loss. All brides want great wedding photos and there is nothing that looks finer than a military dress uniform. It's not about politics or pacifism, it's about decor.


----------



## Steve Smith (Jan 12, 2008)

TSWalker said:


> My final two cents: it's her loss. All brides want great wedding photos and there is nothing that looks finer than a military dress uniform. It's not about politics or pacifism, it's about decor.


On that note, back in the day I attended the wedding of a former fraternity brother / fellow Marine Corps officer. The wedding and reception were held on base at Quantico. I was by then a civilian so I wore a suit. The men in the wedding party were all rather junior Captains and wore dress blues.

An active duty Lieutenant Colonel friend who had been our Marine Officer Instructor when we were both in university also attended the event. He wore a suit. I asked him why he didn't wear his uniform. He said words to this effect: "My uniform has decoration and rank which would draw attention away from where it belongs. It is not my day." He was a Vietnam vet so he had some decorations, including combat decorations.

I thought that his attitude was both mature and considerate.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

L-feld said:


> What's funny about your story is that I had the opposite experience when I got married last year. We had planned on goung black tie, in part b/c I already owned a dinner suit. My father-in-law apparently hates black tie and vetoed it.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


What a frickin' killjoy.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

filfoster said:


> I'd concede the Bride is the dictator at these events but it was my understanding that the father of the bride is NOT technically part of the wedding party and can therefore wear whatever he wants, subject to the predicate to this sentence.


My wife and (actually both) daughter(s) are normally compassionate, kind and considerate individuals, but when there is a wedding in play, all reason and rationality go out the window. LOL. At least that's been my experience. 



L-feld said:


> What's funny about your story is that I had the opposite experience when I got married last year. We had planned on goung black tie, in part b/c I already owned a dinner suit. My father-in-law apparently hates black tie and vetoed it.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


Jeez Louise, no one told me I had veto authority. It was more like, "quit being so cheap and just pay the man!" :crazy: Thank gawd we stopped at two kids!


----------



## TsAr (Mar 21, 2013)

when was or is the wedding? and what did the guy wear...military attire or civilian suit?


----------



## jogowill (Nov 21, 2013)

godan said:


> If I were the serviceman in question, I would honor the bride's decision by not attending the wedding.


I know this is an old thread, but this is just the best answer possible. The syntax, diction, how it seems like you're suggesting one thing but then suggesting the other: awesome. But seriously, who would forbid dress blues???


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

See Steve Smith's answers. Also when you are in active duty, you have so little opportunity to wear nice civilian clothing. Any officer and a gentleman would take this offer to dress in nice civilian cloths, make the bride happy, and show the civilians how it's done.


----------



## Bohan (Sep 16, 2013)

People are sheep and will shoot at others just because their country wants them to and it's often the wrong decision. Maybe current military actions are wrong. I wouldn't want a symbol of an unjust war at my wedding. On the other hand, since there are so many of these sheep people and wrong doers in the world that you're forced to interact with politely, I'd probably just say what the dress code is and tell my sister that I prefer it but won't stop the soldier from attending. I'd pay extra attention to seating though, and maybe give them their own table.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

Bohan said:


> People are sheep and will shoot at others just because their country wants them to and it's often the wrong decision. Maybe current military actions are wrong. I wouldn't want a symbol of an unjust war at my wedding. On the other hand, since there are so many of these sheep people and wrong doers in the world that you're forced to interact with politely, I'd probably just say what the dress code is and tell my sister that I prefer it but won't stop the soldier from attending. I'd pay extra attention to seating though, and maybe give them their own table.


Hey, that's really not cool. You're being downright offensive and injecting politics when this really isn't the place for it. The political opinions also seems largely irrelevant to the matter at hand.


----------



## Bohan (Sep 16, 2013)

I just thought people were missing how big an issue this can be in some people's minds. I said "maybe current military actions are wrong" because maybe they're not, but when they are and when innocent people are being killed and one of the killers is at your wedding dressed in uniform...


----------



## rsgordon (Dec 6, 2012)

Bohan said:


> I just thought people were missing how big an issue this can be in some people's minds. I said "maybe current military actions are wrong" because maybe they're not, but when they are and when innocent people are being killed and one of the killers is at your wedding dressed in uniform...


Your opinion is clear and nobody will force you to allow military dress at your wedding.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

*Nice first post*



jogowill said:


> I know this is an old thread, but this is just the best answer possible. The syntax, diction, how it seems like you're suggesting one thing but then suggesting the other: awesome. But seriously, who would forbid dress blues???


Of course, I approve of your approval of my post and admire your perception. If you stay on the site, you will find that there are some gentlemen here who apply knowledge, subtlety and interesting arrangement to both their clothing and their words.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Bohan said:


> I just thought people were missing how big an issue this can be in some people's minds. I said "maybe current military actions are wrong" because maybe they're not, but when they are and when innocent people are being killed and one of the killers is at your wedding dressed in uniform...


That's a rather ridiculous statement. In no way is the bride required to invite anyone she does not approve of.

Innocent people always die in war. That does not mean the service given to your country as a soldier is worth any less. In the end, all soldiers are either killers or killed. If one does not wish to spend ones time in reality with real people, one can watch MTV.

I would never wear something to a wedding that the bride had vetoed, and would, most likely, attend anyway.

However, I find the banishment of dress uniforms from a wedding somewhat ludicrous. I'm sure I do not and at least would not continue to socialize with such a person. One can vote as one wills, but one also relies on police, firemen, nurses, judges and soldiers too keep one safe. Basic respect for our individual democracies.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> That's a rather ridiculous statement. ..... vote as one wills, but one also relies on police, firemen, nurses, judges and soldiers too keep one safe. Basic respect for our individual democracies.


I was just about to ask if he is a cop hater too.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

You guys are overlooking one important aspect: it's a California wedding. People's minds out here are quite perverted. It wouldn't surprised me if the bride had similarly banned driving to the wedding, wearing leather to the wedding, or demanding only ethically-sourced, local, organic gifts.

There are few creatures on earth more irrational than brides-to-be. The soldier should steer clear.


----------



## Bohan (Sep 16, 2013)

I'm not against all wars where innocent people are killed. I'm just like everyone else in being against the bad guy. At least one country is the bad guy in every war. Seems to me there's a 50/50 chance of a soldier being the bad guy. This isn't an American forum. It's international. The above applies even if the US is always perfect. And it's not so obvious that a military uniform is ever appropriate at a wedding. People are citing all kind of rules and laws in the previous posts that aren't known to everyone. It's not unreasonable to assume that normal civilian suits should be worn at a wedding and that someone who comes in a military uniform is being highly inappropriate whether a dress code is stated or not.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Bohan said:


> I'm not against all wars where innocent people are killed. I'm just like everyone else in being against the bad guy. At least one country is the bad guy in every war. Seems to me there's a 50/50 chance of a soldier being the bad guy. This isn't an American forum. It's international. The above applies even if the US is always perfect. And it's not so obvious that a military uniform is ever appropriate at a wedding. People are citing all kind of rules and laws in the previous posts that aren't known to everyone. It's not unreasonable to assume that normal civilian suits should be worn at a wedding and that someone who comes in a military uniform is being highly inappropriate whether a dress code is stated or not.


No, there's generally no "bad guy" IMO. That's completely relative.

And actually, there is a uniform equivalent of all formal dress. The correct uniform equivalent can never be highly inappropriate in itself.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1...
and I couldn't possibly be in any greater agreement with Born's assessment. However, isn't it ironic and frankly, quite sad, that the soldier who was sent into harms way by those career politicians we seem prone to elect into office, is wont to be faulted for wearing his formal dress uniform to a wedding, while the crooked and perhaps misguided politicians responsible for sending our soldiers to war, can attend the same wedding, attired in formal civilian dress and be welcomed with the typical fanfare associated with celebrity guests. We sure seem to harbor some screwed-up value systems!


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1...
> and I couldn't possibly be in any greater agreement with Born's assessment. However, isn't it ironic and frankly, quite sad, that the soldier who was sent into harms way by those career politicians we seem prone to elect into office, is wont to be faulted for wearing his formal dress uniform to a wedding, while the crooked and perhaps misguided politicians responsible for sending our soldiers to war, can attend the same wedding, attired in formal civilian dress and be welcomed with the typical fanfare associated with celebrity guests. We sure seem to harbor some screwed-up value systems!


I agree entirely, both with your approval of Bjorn's views and your own comments.


----------



## Barry_432 (Nov 20, 2013)

godan said:


> If I were the serviceman in question, I would honor the bride's decision by not attending the wedding.


Excellent and thought provoking suggestion - quite right too!


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

I am a retired military officer (U. S. Navy) with over 26 years of service. Wearing a uniform to a civilian wedding was never a consideration unless specifically requested to wear one. Civilian event - dress is dictated by the host.


----------

