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

[Jenamarie]

I know the goal lately since the new church website came out is that we need to make everyone feel comfortable in our church, but I think my wife and I would suddenly be the uncomfortable ones. I am considering skipping church on January 13th if I hear a lot of buzz about this in my ward My ward did have some of the pants wearers yesterday. I am concerned about my kids seeing what Reginald is describing above. We live in an area where I could really see this happening.

Next thing you know we'll be expected to sit down and share a Ward dinner with prostitutes and tax-collectors. How very un-Christlike.

[veryconservative]

I was just sitting next to a very nice guy at a ward function last week, who is also an IRS agent.

[pam]

I was just sitting next to a very nice guy at a ward function last week, who is also an IRS agent.

*gasps* Not an IRS agent. And he was allowed at the church function?

[mnn727]

I just heard of this today (Monday) don't recall seeing any women in pants but then I'm a guy so I probably didn't notice -- now if we could just get rid of the white shirt (unwritten) rule.

[mnn727]

Not the pants thing - nobody wears pants at my ward, not even the Youth .

What do the guys wear: kilts? lav-lava's?

[Anddenex]

I vote for a "sweat pants" day -- so much more comfortable than a suit and tie, even blue jeans. Let us just disregard the "Sunday best" counsel altogether. Solved, everyone happy.

Not only that, everybody must either wear black or white sweat pants. If you want to wear color, then it must be rainbow sweat pants. Issue is now resolved.

[Guest]

I just read- and loved- this perspective.

Mormon Scholars Testify Blog Archive Valerie Hudson Cassler

[Anddenex]

I just read- and loved- this perspective.

Mormon Scholars Testify Blog Archive Valerie Hudson Cassler

Yes, this was a great article.

[veryconservative]

*gasps* Not an IRS agent. And he was allowed at the church function?

Yea, totally. He is a super nice guy. However I have not had a chance to sit next to a prostitute at a ward function. My wife doesn't like me socializing with prostitutes, or strippers for that matter. She is a bit old fashioned that way.

[Wingnut]

Perhaps, though it seems one could simply quietly choose to wear pants or whatever without participating in an organized process. I know I for one would be more focused on my protest than anything else.

I wasn't initially going to wear pants, because I was concerned that I would be overly distracted wondering if anyone was judging me for it. After a few days (and some other developments), I decided that I would wear pants, and I actively chose to not let myself get distracted. But I'm the type of person that normally would be.

The wearing of pants had nothing to do with women being allowed to wear pants. It was a way of being able to show and protest the inequalities between the genders in the church. And again perceived inequalities.

Perceived to you (and the majority), but not to the women who have experienced them.

[pam]

I

Perceived to you (and the majority), but not to the women who have experienced them.

And what inequalities do these women experience? I seriously don't understand this.

[Jenamarie]

And what inequalities do these women experience? I seriously don't understand this.

One example that I was just made aware of by personal experience a few months ago: Primary, YW, and RS leaders have to submit names to the Bishop of who they would like to have called as advisers and teachers, and wait for him to extend the calling etc. Priesthood auxiliary leaders don't. My husband was extended his calling as EQ teacher by the EQ President (ETA: and his name wasn't even put before the ward to be sustained). When I was in the YW presidency we had to wait weeks (and one time a few months) for the Bishop to have the time to get around to extending a calling to someone we wanted to bring on as an adviser.

It really effects the efficiency of the women's auxiliaries when we have to wait (and wait) for the Bishop to find time to approve names and extend callings among all the other many many things he has on his plate to do.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Jenamarie

[pam]

That's because callings are a Priesthood function. Sorry that example doesn't fly with me.

[Wingnut]

And what inequalities do these women experience? I seriously don't understand this.

There's a big long list in a link I shared earlier. It's the same one I posted on my FB status last night as well. I posted it specifically to try to help you and others understand.

[pam]

Primary Presidencies are also women. Yet they rely on the Bishopric to call people to positions as well.

[pam]

There's a big long list in a link I shared earlier. It's the same one I posted on my FB status last night as well. I posted it specifically to try to help you and others understand.

Wingnut about the only thing that I ever see in my newsfeed is how many swagbucks you got. :)

Edited December 18, 2012 by pam

[Wingnut]

...about the only thing that I ever see in my newsfeed is how many swagbucks you got. :)

Okay, well, that only posts once a day or so.

But like I said, I posted it here earlier, as well.

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/50816-what-i-will-focusing-today-my-favorite-sunday-dress-4.html#post719911

Edited December 18, 2012 by Wingnut

[pam]

Okay, well, that only posts once a day or so. And could you please not use my name on here? Thanks. :)

But like I said, I posted it here earlier, as well.

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/50816-what-i-will-focusing-today-my-favorite-sunday-dress-4.html#post719911

Sorry that just slipped out. I forgot where I was posting. hahahaha

I guess I still see that list as perceived inequalities.

[Wingnut]

Sorry that just slipped out.

Thanks for changing it. :)

I guess I still see that list as perceived inequalities.

I see a lot of them as perceived as well. But dismissing them as being only perceived effectively dismisses the feeling of the women who perceive them. Like I said, some I agree with, some I don't, some I don't care, and some I hadn't even thought of. Right or wrong, reasonable or not, to many women out there, these are real issues.

[pam]

So using church as a venue to protest these feelings is okay?

[Wingnut]

So using church as a venue to protest these feelings is okay?

*facepalm*

*deep breath*

I have said many times that I don't like the idea of using church as a protest ground.

But what else do you suggest? One-on-one discussions with priesthood leaders have been ineffective, and not surprisingly, given the combative nature of many Feminist Mormons, and the "injustices" they experience at the hands of their priesthood brethren (I think they are inequalities, but not necessarily injustices). Blogging hasn't changed much. Nothing that has happened outside of church meetings has had the desired effects. Pantsmageddon was not a starting point: it's an escalation (which perhaps makes it even worse).

I don't agree with the methodology (or all of the goals), and I don't know how else to make that clear. But I understand and can sympathize, and I'm just trying to help you understand as well. Maybe you are, and I just am not seeing that.

Maybe it's time for me to walk away for the evening.

[pam]

And I will say it once again. Those that participated are giving a statement that they agree with what this group stands for. It doesn't say I agree with some and not with others. It's a overall statement that they support and agree with this group.

[pam]

I realize that many of us will just not agree on this.

I'm just not sure there is anything else anyone can say on this subject. I feel like it's been talked to death today.

[Wingnut]

And I will say it once again. Those that participated are giving a statement that they agree with what this group stands for. It doesn't say I agree with some and not with others. It's a overall statement that they support and agree with this group.

Okay, well, again, I've stated over and over why I participated. I know why I did. If you think that I'm lying or otherwise wrong about why I participated, that's your problem and not mine. To reiterate: "I see you, I hear you."

Edited December 18, 2012 by Wingnut

[Suzie]

the "right" to stand in on baby blessings and father's blessings.

I think it would be terrific. Many sisters choose to have their babies blessed at home which I think would probably give them the opportunity to stand in or hold their babies.

For those interested a bit in LDS history:

In the early days of the Church, both fathers andmothers joined in blessing their children. It is recorded that Wilford Woodruff and his first wife Phoebe gave a blessing to their son Wilford Jr. when he was already a Priest and "dedicated him to the Lord". George Goddard and wife also gave a similar blessing to their teenage son (and his record is quite clear when he wrote "his mother AND myself...".

It was also common in the early days to have the babies blessed when they turned 8 days old, following the Israelite tradition.

Wilford Woodruff gave one of these blessings to his son Joseph in 1845 with his wife Phoebe holding the baby in her arms. (The complete blessing andordination to the Priesthood of the baby is on Woodruff's journal). Unfortunately, the baby died a year later.