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

[Brother_Anon]

I didn't see any pants, but except for the 2nd counselor who conducted, and the YM doing the sacrament, both prayers and all 3 speakers were women. The bishop had a purple tie. I wore a dark blue shirt, my purple one was at the cleaner.

I missed part of Sunday School and then went to Priesthood where I taught a lesson on Chastity to a great group of YM.

And I did it for many of the same reasons others did above. But mostly for my daughter.

[Dravin]

I'd also be thrilled if the Relief Society president were authorized to set apart women to callings in the Relief Society.

As stands, and as outlined in the CHI, setting apart is done by the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood. So are you talking about being thrilled to see a change in how setting apart is done? Being thrilled to see women being ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood? Both? Something else?

Edited December 18, 2012 by Dravin

[john doe]

What isn't clear to me, though, is why the Relief Society president can't present names of teachers to the Relief Society for sustaining (as is done in the Elders Quorum). It's an artificial and highly arbitrary distinction and one I'd be happy to get rid of.

Because Relief Society is not a priesthood quorum, nor do any of its members directly hold the priesthood.

I'd also be thrilled if the Relief Society president were authorized to set apart women to callings in the Relief Society.

Oddly enough, I think you've hit upon what I believe is the ultimate goal of the 'pants' women. They want to force the church to give women the priesthood. That is what they really want.

[Brother_Anon]

Why does it have to be so black and white? I don't know a single woman who wants the Priesthood. It would be interesting to see if callings such as RS teachers can be called, without the need for being set apart, much like EQ teachers are often not set apart.

[MarginOfError]

As stands, and as outlined in the CHI, setting apart is done by the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood. So are you talking about being thrilled to see a change in how setting apart is done? Being thrilled to see women being ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood? Both? Something else?

But that is a policy matter. I think there is plenty of room for an interpretation of the doctrine in scriptures that allows the Relief Society president to be authorized to perform settings apart without having to ordain her to any priesthood.

Because Relief Society is not a priesthood quorum, nor do any of its members directly hold the priesthood.

That still doesn't explain why presentations are done in quorum meetings for the quorums, but in general meetings for the Relief Society. It could just as easily be done in Relief Society.

I know of no doctrinal requirement for priesthood holders to present people for sustaining. As far as I can tell, that is a policy that was introduced and I see no reason it couldn't be changed.

Oddly enough, I think you've hit upon what I believe is the ultimate goal of the 'pants' women. They want to force the church to give women the priesthood. That is what they really want.

Not necessarily. Women perform temple ordinances, as authorized by the temple president, without being ordained to any priesthood office. What doctrinal reason is there not to act in a similar fashion with respect to callings in the Relief Society.

[Bini]

Only got to page 6 but lots of great responses here from Wingnut, Suzie, Jenamarie and MOE.

I would have participated in this event myself but unfortunately have missed the last few Sundays at church. Anyone who believes that gender inequality is non-existent amongst church members (note, I said "members" and not "gospel") is either in a bubble and is fortunate not to experience it, or is in denial.

My personal experience is that the general attitude regarding how women should present themselves at church is in-a-dress, and anything less is unacceptable, however unwritten. My parents' ward is a fine example of this. As a teen, I had brought my Navajo friend to church with me, and she wore blue jeans. Later that day she said that a lady approached her and her family about what is "proper" and "appropriate" church attire. I was immediately angered that someone had the balls to even say anything! My friend and her family did not feel comfortable attending again. In a more recent event, my sister is an attorney, and has been practicing for a couple years now. She wears dress suits and occasionally wears them to Sunday. She has told me that people have made comments about it. But the good news is, she says that the comments become less and less as time goes on. So maybe this "culture" that so many of us are immersed in will diminish over time, and it won't matter if a woman decides to wear dress slacks one Sunday, or a dress the next.

[Suzie]

From the events page:

"It is merely an invitation to entertain the notion of wearing pants, and to help others overcome the fear of being faced with discrimination and disapproval when they challenge the cultural norm so that all may feel welcome to worship."

The emphasis is mine. This is is what I supported. It is a cultural norm, not a doctrinal one.

[Dravin]

But that is a policy matter. I think there is plenty of room for an interpretation of the doctrine in scriptures that allows the Relief Society president to be authorized to perform settings apart without having to ordain her to any priesthood.

Maybe, but it could also be an issue of doctrine. I realize you think there is plenty of room for interpretation of the doctrine in the scriptures but you, nor I, have the authority to so interpret those scriptures for the Church. Note, I'm not declaring I know which one it is, a doctrinal issue or a policy issue. I suppose if it ever changes at some future date you'll be validated though, as the only way it'll change is if there isn't doctrinally mandated as being a Melchizedek function.

Thank you for clarifying, I wasn't sure which direction your statement was leaning.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

Maybe, but it could also be an issue of doctrine. I realize you think there is plenty of room for interpretation of the doctrine in the scripture you, nor I, have the authority to so interpret those scriptures for the Church. Note I'm not declaring I know which one it is, a doctrinal issue or a policy issue.

Thank you for clarifying, I wasn't sure which direction to read your comment as it could have been a reference to one or the other as a way of permitting the Relief Society Presidency to set apart those called.

And I also recognize that I lack the authority to make that interpretation. If I'm ever in a position as a bishop or stake president, I'll do things exactly as the handbook specifies they be done. I just won't let that prevent me from saying that there might be a better way to do it.

Like I said before, I'm more interested in the discussion happening. I want us, as a religion, to periodically evaluate if we are doing things for a reason (and for the right reason) or if we're doing them just because that's what's always been done.

[Guest]

Okay, I truly can't read anything in this thread anymore.

In most every single thing here it's I-ME-MINE.

I want to hold the baby when giving a blessing.

I don't want to have to wait for a bishop to get a calling filled.

I felt the spirit when I wore the purple shirt.

I have these feelings and you need to listen to me.

I - I - I - I.

It would have been great if we would hear more things like -

I don't want there to be a miniscule of a chance to distract anybody from Jesus Christ - I'm going to refrain from wearing my Best Sunday Dress Pants (women) or Purple Shirt (men) today for Christ no matter how uncomfortable I get. I will offer my own discomfort that may make it harder for me to feel the spirit as a sacrifice for others.

The blessing is for the baby - not me - I am grateful to be able to witness her first faith experience under the power of the Priesthood without having to hold some particular place in it.

The bishop is taking a long time to issue callings. I hope he is not so very busy with his Church calling that he can't find time to spend with his family. Maybe I can approach him and ask him what I can do to help.

I am feeling gender inequality in the Church. I know this is God's Church and that it is the most perfect organization on earth. I'm going to work twice as hard to serve others to make my gender of greater use to the Church just as God intended.

...

...

...

The biggest problem of the world. SELFISHNESS. It kills people. It breaks up families. It taints worship service. And that's all I see in this thread now. I'm sure it's not the only thing that got posted, it's just I'm getting blinded by all the self-focus, it's blinding me to anything else.

This is the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-Day saints. Jesus Christ. Not you. Not me. Jesus Christ - who wore a crown of thorns, who was scourged at the pillar, his garments stripped from him and casted lots over, stabbed on the side, and finally died on the cross for us. The Man whose example we are supposed to follow and we're so focused on who has to go through who to get a calling and who gets to hold the baby during blessings and how people look at us funny when we wear pants to Church.

Surely you must see how ridiculous it all sounds.

Edited December 18, 2012 by anatess

[Dravin]

And I also recognize that I lack the authority to make that interpretation. If I'm ever in a position as a bishop or stake president, I'll do things exactly as the handbook specifies they be done. I just won't let that prevent me from saying that there might be a better way to do it.

Like I said before, I'm more interested in the discussion happening. I want us, as a religion, to periodically evaluate if we are doing things for a reason (and for the right reason) or if we're doing them just because that's what's always been done.

I have no issue with discussion. I do have issues with the idea of protesting, but because that's not how I think the Lord wants conflict handled in his Kingdom (nor are death threats). If there had been an organizing of women, and men, to bring their concerns to their leadership, even if it required skipping a bit up the chain, it would have been something I could have got behind. Not the issues so much, unless it was mostly a matter of, "Our units need training." but the method.

[estradling75]

From the events page:

The emphasis is mine. This is is what I supported. It is a cultural norm, not a doctrinal one.

Which you can work on changing without being involved in a protest during sacrament, which out hitching yourself to a movement that seeks to overthrow the government of the church that God has set up.

Anatess as touched on some of them... Other would be during lessons in Sunday School and RS and Priesthood classes where the subjects of reverence is taught... You can speak up and make the class/lesson interesting, and give the ward members something to think about if the are so set in their ways.

And if individuals are offending... then it needs to be reported up to the leadership that members are placing stumbling blocks so they can be dealt with. And if it is leadership then it need to go to higher leadership. If you can go no higher (except for through prayer) Then you can try going to those leaders that are in position to council or advise the leaders in question. And if all that fails (but prayer) then you wait because the leadership will change.

The church has means and methods to correct itself internally. But it involves helping individuals become better and more Christ-like and having a more solid understanding of doctrine. That takes time and too many people want to step on the express-lane to get it now.. NOW.. NOW... And miss the fact that the express-lane is going straight to apostasy (or they think they can get off before it gets there)

[Jenamarie]

Nevermind.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Jenamarie

[Suzie]

I have no issue with discussion. I do have issues with the idea of protesting

Which you can work on changing without being involved in a protest during sacrament

Guys, I just fail to see this whole thing as a "protest". How exactly is a protest?

"It is merely an invitation to entertain the notion of wearing pants, and to help others overcome the fear of being faced with discrimination and disapproval when they challenge the cultural norm so that all may feel welcome to worship."

[Dravin]

Guys, I just fail to see this whole thing as a "protest". How exactly is a protest?

It's right here:

The creators of this event are feminists who recognize pants are a symbol of much larger issues that require addressing. This event is the first act of All Enlisted, a direct action group for Mormon women to advocate for equality within our faith. We do not seek to eradicate the differences between women and men, but we do want the LDS church and its members to acknowledge the similarities. We believe that much of the cultural, structural, and even doctrinal inequality that persists in the LDS church today stems from the church's reliance on – and enforcement of – rigid gender roles that bear no relationship to reality.

If it was, "Maggy is feeling excluded because she wears pants, lets wear pants next Sunday to include her." I'd have no objection to it. I don't buy that was what it was about

Edited December 18, 2012 by Dravin

[Brother_Anon]

And my post got eaten.

Basically, wearing your best is what is important, not the color of your shirt or what is covering your legs. And maybe that purple shirt or pair of pants is just what an investigator, fearful of their inability to fit in because they don't own a white shirt or a dress, needs to see to pass the final hurdle to accept baptism.

[Suzie]

It's right here:

I was going to reply to the word "challenge" but you edited the post. I still fail to see this as a "protest". I would also like to say that hundreds of people who supported the "pants" idea are not feminists or feminists supporters, we simply supported the sentiment of that statement. I do understand the fear behind it (I am not oblivious to that fact).

[beefche]

Wikipedia says:

A protest is an expression of objection, by words or by actions, to particular events, policies or situations.

[Bini]

Wikipedia says:

A protest is an expression of objection, by words or by actions, to particular events, policies or situations.

Yes, I object to the "cultural" pressure and expectation amongst members that women should wear dresses to church. I guess that falls under "situations". I believe the best solution is just to ignore others and wear what feels most appropriate to you. I enjoy wearing my pin skirts to church but I'll be careful how my daughter interprets "Sunday best". I'll emphasise that it does not translate to "dress or skirts only" for women.

[Anddenex]

I really don't think there is a problem with Church history. I think is very interesting to learn how things were done in the early days compared to our present day. My mention of the examples given were just purely informative because I thought maybe an LDS history fan like myself may be interested in reading that bit of information.

I agree, Church history, in and of itself is neutral and no problem with it. The problem with Church history is when members revert back to a period of time and then try to change policy, guidelines, and doctrines to the current time period, and then make a protest to the brethren as if they are the ones who are receiving revelation to direct the Church.

In our ward we unfortunately had this experience, not with a woman but with a man. He went back to a 1936 addition of the church handbook, and protested in front of the Bishop and Stake President calling them out.

When we use history as a spring board to try to force the hand of the Prophets, those our Lord has called to guide and direct, those we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, and when they make changes we protest, we fall borderline to apostasy.

History repeats itself, those who stand with the prophets survive, and those who don't have a tendency to falter and fall short. We have many different religions, break-offs from the Mormon Church as a result of individual and group apostasy protesting the change of doctrine or policy.

[Backroads]

anatess, THANK YOU for that post. My sentiments exactly.

Having caught up on the thread, having read so much material, really has got me thinking. I still stand by my original thought that the whole hullaballoo is silly. I really don't care what anyone else wears. If you participated in the event and were able to have a spiritual Sunday without too much giddy grins of "I'm in a protest!", good for you, you did it right. Sure, I'm for anything we can do to improve church culture.

But not at the expense of remembering why we're in the Church in the first place.

[Traveler]

Thought I would tell a story. A few years back I was doing some consulting in Taiwan in the city of Tainan. My experiences in attending church there was rich and inspiring – despite the fact that I never understood a single word ever said. My story is about a young couple that was just baptized the same week I first attended. The couple befriended me and were one of the few that spoke fluent English. What a blessing to talk to someone at church. The husband was a policeman and the wife was a professional business woman. They were a hansom charming couple. The wife was a stunning lady with waist length dark hair with streaks of white and for her first ever time at church she wore a black leather very mini skirt. For those that have traveled in the Western Pacific Rim realize her appointments are very much part of the Asian culture. I was quite uncomfortable in her presents but in struggling to get past her appearance – I was most impress with her and her husband’s spirituality. There is something wonderful about new converts excited in the gospel and just getting started.

We sat around for hours after church just talking about various gospel topics. It was a highlight of my Sabbath and trip to Taiwan. During the weeks that followed I enjoy church and they were very much a part of helping me while in a very foreign country.

A couple of years later I returned to Tainan and was most disappointed to not see the couple at church. I was disappointed and thought they had gone inactive. As I inquired – no one seem to know who I was talking about. Finely, with no other options I described the lady and her leather mini skirt - somewhat embarrassed to describe the lady in such a manner. Still no one seemed to know who I was talking about. After church a pleasant lady walked up and asked if I remember her. This is always difficult because in Taiwan (my obvious prejudice) a lot of people look alike. I did not remember her. As she described our meeting – I realized this was the lady I had hoped to see with her husband. What a change!!!

Again I sat to talk to her and her husband after church – but not as long as before because they now had a little baby girl. But being who I am I brought up her dress styles. Her husband was now the Elder’s Quorum President and she was in the Relief Society Presidency. But she told me that her dress styles changed because of the church and she had to change her entire wardrobe and her white streaks were gone from her hair. Her husband had changed as well. But she said something most interesting. She said that the spirit had changed their dress habits and that is what had gotten the attention of the rest of their family and friends – many who had followed them into the church because of their change in dress.

Are we a peculiar people? Do members stand out in a crowd? I believe so. I believe that LDS members do stand out and because of that – they create a “different” culture. It has been my observation that when members try to stand with one foot in LDS culture and one foot in culture of the world that spirituality is lost. Not so much at church as it is at home. This thread is mostly about what is worn to church – but I think that we miss an important principle – especially if our Sabbath style varies radically between church and home. I guess the words of the lady in Taiwan keep coming back to me. She said that when she became a saint that the reason she wore something became more important than what she wore. Before she wore what she liked and felt good about – but now she dressed in a manner that she knew Jesus would be pleased.

I love what the church has done for me and many others – I believe there is joy and honor and something else hard to describe in seeking to be comfortable with the spirit and the saints.

The Traveler

[pam]

Kind of humorous to see which side of the fence which people are on just by which posts or posters they thank. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree, Church history, in and of itself is neutral and no problem with it. The problem with Church history is when members revert back to a period of time and then try to change policy, guidelines, and doctrines to the current time period, and then make a protest to the brethren as if they are the ones who are receiving revelation to direct the Church.

"Honey, you are welcome to stand in the circle when our child is blessed. In fact, I think my other wives should be able to stand in, too!"

[MarginOfError]

Kind of humorous to see which side of the fence which people are on just by which posts or posters they thank. :)

Darnit, Pam! I want to thank your post, but then you might think I agree with all of your positions, not just this one