What I will be focusing on today, in my favorite Sunday dress

[Wingnut]

Oh, and just to lighten things up a bit, I found this amusing:

[Guest]

I wasn't targeting you with my comment, I am sorry if you took it that way. Remember I said earlier in the thread that I understood your point of view, and that I wore a dress to church.

I was speaking generally as I mentioned previously in the thread about my concern about how hateful the Facebook discussion became.

TO ALL

I don't support the goals of the feminists, as reported here (I haven't actually read their site), but I am also uncomfortable with the jump to name calling and judgment. I think the difference is some of you are talking about a faceless group, and some of us are talking about individuals.

Though I haven't read the site mentioned up thread, I have read blog posts from sisters who call themselves feminists, and while I don't share their concerns, none of them seem apostate to me. They seem like sisters that are struggling with their faith, trying to make it work. If someone is on the fence, struggling with their testimony perhaps, name calling may likely push them the wrong way.

Finally...if it is not already clear, I am trying not to take a side here, but to petition for a little more understanding, patience and tolerance. What if it were your daughter that was struggling, would you want people to call her an apostate and tell her to "get out of the church already" or would you want people to lovingly fellowship her? That is all I am saying.

Patience, understanding, and tolerance is well and good. And I will NEVER tell ANYBODY to get out of Church.

But if my daughter's testimony hinges on pants and she intends to use Sacrament Meeting to display her displeasure, I'd say she's better off out of the Church than in (for her own good as well as the Church). She's making covenants without knowing what covenants mean. I can fellowship her just as well outside the Church. And I'd rather she not use Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School as her protest ground as a means to strengthen her testimony getting everybody riled up and divided. There are many other venues to discuss such matters. Facebook, Blogs, Ward Council, etc. etc. But once Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School comes around, it is time to go beyond ourselves and unite under Jesus Christ.

This culture of divisiveness needs to stop.

[Backroads]

While I definitely support the notion of fellowshipping everyone, it seems we can approach a troublesome line where we encourage people to come to church at the price of offering them "the cafeteria menu" where they can pick and choose what they want to believe. But, hey, as long as they are physically at church!

Is it worth that? Just because they're not believing LDS members doesn't mean we can't love them. Why must they be LDS to receive our full love and appreciation?

(Note I don't consider Sunday dress part of the gospel principles but still consider the whole pants movement to be downright silly).

[Guest]

Eowyn, I was not attacking you. But if you felt attacked I apologize for that. You chose to make that post and it is retrievable by anyone who posts on this forum. I was trying to point out your inconsistencies in thought. Your previous heart felt post is exactly what other LDS women go through. To say that other women haven't felt like you in either their private home life or church life is not real or fair. To ask for support from women on this forum and then to not be able to understand why other women also look for support is confusing. To say on one hand that pants are allowed in church and then on the other hand to say that the church's standard is that a dress is best, is contradictory.

M.

You are the one misrepresenting me. I never said they don't feel the way they do. I never said I've never felt that way. My approach to it was different, though. I think I explained that well enough. I'm not a big fan of non-apologies, either, but I understand the reasoning you're presenting even if I don't agree with it.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

But if my daughter's testimony hinges on pants and she intends to use Sacrament Meeting to display her displeasure,

That is not what I meant. Was my meaning really that unclear?

I don't suggest that anyone's testimony is hinging on wearing pants to church...I am talking about sisters who struggle feeling comfortable at church for reasons I admit I do not agree with but it is not my job to judge them...only to love them and try to help them come to Christ. It is a much larger issue than wearing pants one day.

This culture of divisiveness needs to stop.

So there is no room in the church for people who struggle or have doubts? What about Elder Uctdorf's quote, "Don't judge me because I sin differently than you do."

We all have sins, weaknesses, and yes even rebelious moments (every sin is essentially rebellion and none of us are perfect.)

Alll I am trying to say is lets love and strengthen one another rather than tearing each other apart. How is that divisive?

[Backroads]

Alll I am trying to say is lets love and strengthen one another rather than tearing each other apart. How is that divisive?

Things can be divisive is when we give a constant "Yes, yes, you're right" everytime someone has doubts, disagreements, or different ideas.

I agree, not what you were saying, but I believe it's what anatess was getting at.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

While I definitely support the notion of fellowshipping everyone, it seems we can approach a troublesome line where we encourage people to come to church at the price of offering them "the cafeteria menu" where they can pick and choose what they want to believe. But, hey, as long as they are physically at church!

And what if they do pick and chose...is it our place to tell them to leave? Or is it our place to love them and hope that some day they will be able to believe all the principles of the gospel? THAT is not going to happen if they are outside of the church.

Surely you don't mean that if someone struggles with say...the law of tithing...they should just not come to church until they can follow it. I know you don't mean that, but is that so different than someone who struggles to understand why women can't hold the Priesthood...or whatever.

Yes!!! Absolutely, we want people to come to church even when they are struggling...even if they are not sure they can accept everything.

And yes, I remember the cafeteria menu talk, that is something we should apply to ourselves...take care of the mote in our own eye and all that....

Is it worth that? Just because they're not believing LDS members doesn't mean we can't love them. Why must they be LDS to receive our full love and appreciation?

Why must they live/believe the way we say they should to be loved and accepted?

(Note I don't consider Sunday dress part of the gospel principles but still consider the whole pants movement to be downright silly).

I am not a supporter of the pants movement either. I am a supporter of accepting people where they are in their growth and testimony and loving them.

[Dravin]

Heh. I do recall specifically choosing not to wear my purple tie yesterday when getting dressed for Church. On the other hand I wore pants...

[Guest]

Eowyn, do you remember posting this thread?

At the moment you wrote that, the feelings you were feeling in your situation did exist. So why do you think that other women in your church do not have similar feelings about their church position, about how they see culture and policy in their church, not equal between men and women? If pants are allowed, then why make such a big deal about women wanting to wear them to express their feelings? If dresses are really viewed by you and the LDS church as "best" then why be disingenuous about saying that pants are fine? The way I'm reading you is that you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

M.

THIS. This is why All Enlisted is even MORE dangerous than what y'all see.

You can take these legitimate, very human experiences like Eowyn just shared and then twist it and manipulate it to use as emotional tug-of-wars to blur out the steep slope you are standing on.

It now becomes - the poor women who are so trodden on they can't even wear pants - instead of the more vile Protesting over Church Culture on Sacred Ground. It is using the temporal issue of clothing to undermine the spiritual sanctity of the Sacrament. It is putting one's SELF over Jesus Christ.

Once you cede over the Sanctity of the Sacrament to these actions, you give up the sanctity of doctrine to a'la carte worship. Where worship is about one's SELF instead of Jesus Christ. It opens up the more serious spiritual attacks on the sanctity of our worship. And it is relatively easy to get women to support such attacks because they make a play on their emotional responses.

In this particular instance that Maureen brought up, Eowyn is not trying to have her cake and eat it too. She is a woman going through the same emotional experiences as everybody else - Man or Woman - in a temporal state, not the spiritual state. Her spiritual state is clear on the matter. But, Maureen, or anybody else, can easily take that temporal weakness and use it for fodder.

Eowyn's action of taking it on an LDS.net forum to discuss her feelings is a much more appropriate venue than staging protests at Sacrament Meetings.

Edited December 17, 2012 by anatess

[Guest]

Thank you, anatess.

[Backroads]

And what if they do pick and chose...is it our place to tell them to leave? Or is it our place to love them and hope that some day they will be able to believe all the principles of the gospel? THAT is not going to happen if they are outside of the church.

So you're saying that we should tell them their beliefs are right and everyone else in the Church is wrong? Or should we love them and gently correct them?

No, it's not our place to tell them to leave and I never said that. But we also shouldn't compromise what our Church teaches in order to make someone feel better.

Surely you don't mean that if someone struggles with say...the law of tithing...they should just not come to church until they can follow it. I know you don't mean that, but is that so different than someone who struggles to understand why women can't hold the Priesthood...or whatever.

No, it's not what I mean. But I also don't think we should tell them "It's perfectly okay not to pay your tithing!"

Yes!!! Absolutely, we want people to come to church even when they are struggling...even if they are not sure they can accept everything.

What if they refuse to accept everything and want us to change our ways to accomodate them?

I am a firm believer that if you believe what you believe and there is little point in to trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, so to speak. This might be totally non-missionary, but if someone's beliefs better fit another religion and this person has no intention or desire to change those beliefs, why should he be forced?

We are not a church where we as a lay people get to vote on what we do and do not believe, what we do and do not follow. Why should we pretend to be so and why should we give investigators the impression?

I am all for encouraging people to be at church, but not at the expense of our beliefs and values and all-out lying to people about what we believe and what we accept.

Why must they live/believe the way we say they should to be loved and accepted?

Not sure why you're trying to argue my point back at me.

I am not a supporter of the pants movement either. I am a supporter of accepting people where they are in their growth and testimony and loving them.

Are you willing to lie to someone about what we believe to get them to church and then later give a "just kidding"?

[Guest]

Yes!!! Absolutely, we want people to come to church even when they are struggling...even if they are not sure they can accept everything.

Not when they use Sacrament Meeting solely as their venue for protest. No. It's better for everybody if they stay home and use the time to protest on Facebook or something.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I wonder if this conversation would go better if we could have it in person. I think we are misunderstanding each other, at least that is my hope.

I can certainly understand why Eowyn took exception to Maureen bringing up her past comment. Because as she said that was a difficult...and passing...time for her.

At the same time, I didn't feel that Maureen meant any malice by it. I thought she meant it as in..."this is a sample of what other women experience." But other sisters may struggle with it longer. I could be wrong, but since I don't know Maureen, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

[Vort]

The sheep are imperfect. All of us. We don't exclude other sheep for their imperfections.

Wolves are different. Wolves exist for the purpose of killing the sheep. For the benefit of ourselves, our loved ones, and all other sheep, it is in our best interest to invite the wolves to leave the sheepfold.

Of course, only God can render final judgment on who are the sheep and who are the wolves. So we must be careful in drawing such distinctions. But we are not commanded to be deaf, dumb, blind, and stupid -- quite the contrary. Attacking the Church from within and perverting holy ordinances to serve as social or political platforms are wolf-like actions and should be recognized as such.

[Backroads]

Heh. I do recall specifically choosing not to wear my purple tie yesterday when getting dressed for Church. On the other hand I wore pants...

Y'know, I think I may have found one of the causes of my odd dream the other night in which Husband and I had not been yet sealed and we had it scheduled and husband had my sister's clothing on because he had forgotten his suit in Logan (we were getting sealed at the Brigham City temple, which happened to be on Riverdale road next to the Hancock Fabric). I was upset because that scrapped any plans for photos.

I blame the pants notions.

[Guest]

That is not what I meant. Was my meaning really that unclear?

I don't suggest that anyone's testimony is hinging on wearing pants to church...I am talking about sisters who struggle feeling comfortable at church for reasons I admit I do not agree with but it is not my job to judge them...only to love them and try to help them come to Christ. It is a much larger issue than wearing pants one day.

So there is no room in the church for people who struggle or have doubts? What about Elder Uctdorf's quote, "Don't judge me because I sin differently than you do."

We all have sins, weaknesses, and yes even rebelious moments (every sin is essentially rebellion and none of us are perfect.)

Alll I am trying to say is lets love and strengthen one another rather than tearing each other apart. How is that divisive?

Staging a Protest is divisive. I'm not going to pretend I would welcome protests in Sacrament Meeting so I can show love and tolerance. I can show love and tolerance just as much outside of Church.

Yes, it is a much larger issue than wearing pants one day. And that's what is very disturbing about this. There is a lot of room in the church for people who struggle and have doubts. But, I don't welcome anti-Mormon discussions in Sacrament Meeting or Sunday School to appease their doubts. No.

And it is EXACTLY because I don't want to see people tearing each other apart in Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School that I would rather have those types of activities like protests and anti-discussions done outside of Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School.

And I'd like to repeat this: We can love and strengthen one another just as well outside of Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School. Visiting Teaching and Home Teaching are designed just for this exact purpose.

[Guest]

Y'know, I think I may have found one of the causes of my odd dream the other night in which Husband and I had not been yet sealed and we had it scheduled and husband had my sister's clothing on because he had forgotten his suit in Logan (we were getting sealed at the Brigham City temple, which happened to be on Riverdale road next to the Hancock Fabric). I was upset because that scrapped any plans for photos.

I blame the pants notions.

Backroads, I tell ya, you can write a book about all your dreams while pregnant and it will be a blockbuster!

[Guest]

I wonder if this conversation would go better if we could have it in person. I think we are misunderstanding each other, at least that is my hope.

I can certainly understand why Eowyn took exception to Maureen bringing up her past comment. Because as she said that was a difficult...and passing...time for her.

At the same time, I didn't feel that Maureen meant any malice by it. I thought she meant it as in..."this is a sample of what other women experience." But other sisters may struggle with it longer. I could be wrong, but since I don't know Maureen, I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

LP, there is only one thing you are missing. Everybody agrees with you and Maureen about "what women experience". And no, it's not just women - but men too.

What you are missing is... We don't tolerate holding protests in Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School. That's it.

[Backroads]

I wonder if this conversation would go better if we could have it in person. I think we are misunderstanding each other, at least that is my hope.

I think we misunderstood each other, as well.

I shall try to restate my beliefs.

Fellowshipping is good. Bringing others to the gospel is good. What I do not believe in doing is pretending the Church is something it's not, or encouraging people to alter the Church to fit their personal tastes. You can either fit in well, manage to make it work somehow, or decide it's just not right for you at this time.

If I invite someone to church, and they only agree to come if they can use it for some protest or vendetta... I don't know if that's the right spirit. Perhaps they'll come, be humbled, truly feel the Spirit. Or perhaps they'll get the impression the Church is all about personal taste and modification. Who knows?

You're right, we probably should have everyone at church on the benefit of the doubt. But I will not let it interfer with my personal worship.

(Did this come across better? Or did I just dig myself a deeper hole?)

[Guest]

LiterateParakeet, I'm going to make a wild guess and say you're a white in the color personality test.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

So you're saying that we should tell them their beliefs are right and everyone else in the Church is wrong? Or should we love them and gently correct them?

I can't understand why you think I said that. It's lunch time, I'm going to take a break from this discussion....maybe I can return and see what is missing here later.

Not when they use Sacrament Meeting solely as their venue for protest. No. It's better for everybody if they stay home and use the time to protest on Facebook or something.

Once again, I did not support the protest...but I am not talking to them right now. I don't believe it is our place to suggest that they should just stay home...I think we should leave that between them and their Bishop and the Lord.

Edited December 17, 2012 by LiterateParakeet

[Backroads]

We don't tolerate holding protests in Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School. That's it.

And I assume for it's about the same reason we don't tolerate "deep doctrine debates" at these times. It's simply not the time nor place, and I don't think it should be encouraged just to make a few people happy.

[Backroads]

LP, I responded to comments you made when you became upset at my comment on not tolerating changing our beliefs. Which gave me the impression you supported getting people to church above being clear about what our church and gospel is about.

I did make another post above which I hopes clarifies my position.

[Backroads]

LiterateParakeet, I'm going to make a wild guess and say you're a white in the color personality test.

I am!

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

LP, I responded to comments you made when you became upset at my comment on not tolerating changing our beliefs. Which gave me the impression you supported getting people to church above being clear about what our church and gospel is about.

I did make another post above which I hopes clarifies my position.

I think we cross posted, so I edited my post.

I really think that we (all of us, not just you and I) agree more than disagree, and a lot of this is misunderstanding.

Eowyn, I can't recall, but I think I am Yellow. Why do you ask?