Asked not to wear pants to church

[Grunt]

37 minutes ago, bytebear said:

Three flowers pomade. 

<insert inappropriate LGBTDSJD comment here>

[bytebear]

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

<insert inappropriate LGBTDSJD comment here>

Hey, don't knock it.  It makes a great beard softener.

 

[NightSG]

On 3/11/2018 at 1:42 AM, seashmore said:

My advice: dress like you're going to meet Jesus for brunch, wherever you think it is He would take you to eat. 

McDonald's, obviously.  We can share a 4pc McNuggets and feed Sudan on the leftovers.

[NightSG]

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Don't drink fabric softener.  Let me write that down.  

As in, don't even get it on your lips.  Probably not actually toxic, but it takes forever to get rid of the taste and the odd feeling.

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

All kidding aside, I'll try fabric softener.  I'm afraid we don't go for the fancy stuff.  So I'll have to forego Downy in favor of a store brand.  Thanks for the suggestion.

Spring for the smallest bottle of the good stuff.  (April Fresh Downy)  It'll last a year or more and smell better.

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

No, that's only for westerners.  Think of Kwai-Chang's blind master.  He had a fu-manchu. 

Remo Williams' master had a mustache.

Pei Mei (Kill Bill) had a thick ol' fu-manchu.

And now back to the real world, Mitsugi Saotome, Morihei Ueshiba, Jigoro Kano, Kyuzo Mifune, among others. 

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Going to church is a formal occasion for Mormons.  Apparently, your background says church is NOT as formal occasion as it is to us. It is no different than if you went to a formal dinner and would be expected to wear a formal gown.

Really?  Everything I've been to that was formal enough for the women to dress up that much, men were expected to be in tuxedos, or at least much more formal suits than anyone I know wears to church on any sort of regular basis.  Heck, I sometimes get funny looks because one of my best fitting suits is double breasted and looks substantially more formal than any of the other men.  (And a heck of a lot sharper in general, but that's just because it's on me.)

[truthseaker]

16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

This is what I don't understand.  If you've read what I've posted earlier, you'd know that I've had similar things happen to me.  I was somewhat irritated.  I shrugged it off and moved on.  But not only did you get "ANGRY" about it.  But you're so angry that you have to vent through a now 6 page long thread.  I understand you having a mild problem with it.  I even understand your characterization of this particular individual as a "jerk".  But your words and tone in all your posts go well beyond simple irritation.  It seems rather extreme to me.  That is what I don't understand.

really, you think I'm the one making this thread 6 pages long? I'm responding to comments made, responding to others is not extreme, its polite

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, truthseaker said:

really, you think I'm the one making this thread 6 pages long? I'm responding to comments made, responding to others is not extreme, its polite

I agree with this @Carborendum. I think you're making more of truthseaker's replies than there is, just as I think she's making more of things than they are, and just as so many seem to be.

Maybe we should stop making more of things than they are.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I agree with this @Carborendum. I think you're making more of truthseaker's replies than there is, just as I think she's making more of things than they are, and just as so many seem to be.

Maybe we should stop making more of things than they are.

So exactly what you are trying to say, TFP? Are you suggesting that we're overly voluble? Are you implying that we're making mountains out of molehills? Do you think our speech is merely a series of cliches? Are you saying we're repetitive? Redundant? That we keep saying the same things over and over again?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

So exactly what you are trying to say, TFP? Are you suggesting that we're overly voluble? Are you implying that we're making mountains out of molehills? Do you think our speech is merely a series of cliches? Are you saying we're repetitive? Redundant? That we keep saying the same things over and over again?

I would never even dare suggest such a thing.

I'd add to that, right along-side it, that we (collectively) also tend towards often making molehills out of mountains. FWIW. Calling good evil and evil good, and all that jazz.

BTW, did anyone else have to look up the word 'voluble'?

[Connie]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

BTW, did anyone else have to look up the word 'voluble'?

"Not I!" chattered the cat.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I would never even dare suggest such a thing.

I'd add to that, right along-side it, that we (collectively) also tend towards often making molehills out of mountains. FWIW. Calling good evil and evil good, and all that jazz.

BTW, did anyone else have to look up the word 'voluble'?

I figured from context that it had something to do with talking a lot.  So, I looked it up.  I guess it means talk a lot.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I agree with this @Carborendum. I think you're making more of truthseaker's replies than there is, just as I think she's making more of things than they are, and just as so many seem to be.

Maybe we should stop making more of things than they are.

That may sound horrible if I'd actually done so.  But I'm trying to look at what I posted this entire thread (minus the bit about my beard).  I honestly can't think of anything I personally posted that would drive any ire toward me.  I was being inquisitive.  That's all.  I had no agenda.  I was not being emotional.  Nor am I being emotional as I write this post.

If you look at all my previous posts, I was trying again and again to get clarification about why she was making such a big deal of it.  All she responded with was that she was offended.  Then her post which I quoted stated just how angry she was.   I didn't say she got angry because I though it would be cute to accuse her of something.  I got it directly from her words.

Finally, I responded that I was not going to put any more effort in trying to understand her because she kept refusing to help me understand her.

So, I thought I'd try to help her come to understand us since she didn't seem to want me to understand her.  And I thought I did so in a very level-headed and unemotionally logical manner.  But she still decided to simply take offense rather than try to learn from what I wrote.

Whatever.

[mordorbund]

Why don't we just remove our pants when entering the church building? You know, like guys do with hats.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

That may sound horrible if I'd actually done so.  But I'm trying to look at what I posted this entire thread (minus the bit about my beard).  I honestly can't think of anything I personally posted that would drive any ire toward me.  I was being inquisitive.  That's all.  I had no agenda.  I was not being emotional.  Nor am I being emotional as I write this post.

If you look at all my previous posts, I was trying again and again to get clarification about why she was making such a big deal of it.  All she responded with was that she was offended.  Then her post which I quoted stated just how angry she was.   I didn't say she got angry because I though it would be cute to accuse her of something.  I got it directly from her words.

Finally, I responded that I was not going to put any more effort in trying to understand her because she kept refusing to help me understand her.

So, I thought I'd try to help her come to understand us since she didn't seem to want me to understand her.  And I thought I did so in a very level-headed and unemotionally logical manner.  But she still decided to simply take offense rather than try to learn from what I wrote.

Whatever.

I'm not accusing you. Just think there's a bit more being read into some things than is probably there. It's a common internet thing. Heck, look at my interactions. I can say anything in any tone and someone's going to go off on me. Just the way it is.

[truthseaker]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That may sound horrible if I'd actually done so.  But I'm trying to look at what I posted this entire thread (minus the bit about my beard).  I honestly can't think of anything I personally posted that would drive any ire toward me.  I was being inquisitive.  That's all.  I had no agenda.  I was not being emotional.  Nor am I being emotional as I write this post.

If you look at all my previous posts, I was trying again and again to get clarification about why she was making such a big deal of it.  All she responded with was that she was offended.  Then her post which I quoted stated just how angry she was.   I didn't say she got angry because I though it would be cute to accuse her of something.  I got it directly from her words.

Finally, I responded that I was not going to put any more effort in trying to understand her because she kept refusing to help me understand her.

So, I thought I'd try to help her come to understand us since she didn't seem to want me to understand her.  And I thought I did so in a very level-headed and unemotionally logical manner.  But she still decided to simply take offense rather than try to learn from what I wrote.

Whatever.

I'm angry that some dude I don't know told me what to wear, I don't understand why you need extra information from me to help you understand that.  I'm not refusing you anything, I actually think this whole conversation is kind of ridiculous, I just wanted to know if anyone knew what the church's offical standpoint on dress code for church attendance was.  Seems its a little muddy.

And FYI, I'm not offended by anything said by you or anyone else on this website.

Its just the internet people, calm your farm

Edited March 14, 2018 by truthseaker

[NightSG]

7 hours ago, truthseaker said:

I just wanted to know if anyone knew what the church's offical standpoint on dress code for church attendance was.  Seems its a little muddy.

Well, it seems men are allowed creative interpretations like short sleeves and no jacket, while women are held to the full-but-redefined-as-needed standard.

[paracaidista508]

I was just reading comments on another forum which was about an lds topic. Check out the comment in the middle reference a woman in pants:

2 years ago

I have another theory.Take a stroll into any fast and testimony meeting and you'll find that it's dominated by women. Without exaggeration, and if you're LDS you know it to be true, 90% of the people getting up are women. And they cry, cry, cry. The infamous tear-filled testimonies about finding lost car keys and other such nonsense almost always come from, yep you guessed it, women. At the risk of coming across as a misogynistic jerk, I'll just say it, women are illogical and emotional! They buy into the church, with all its sappiness, hook line and sinker. Walk into relief society and you'll find a bunch of crying women happy to be there. A few exceptions, maybe an angry woman with short hair wearing purple pants off the side somewhere. Walk into elders quorum and you'll find half of them asleep, the other half staring at their phones, and then a literal handful of weirdos who are really into it that are giving the rest of them guilt trips about not being more into 

Purple pants lol

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I was just reading comments on another forum which was about an lds topic. Check out the comment in the middle reference a woman in pants:

2 years ago

I have another theory.Take a stroll into any fast and testimony meeting and you'll find that it's dominated by women. Without exaggeration, and if you're LDS you know it to be true, 90% of the people getting up are women. And they cry, cry, cry. The infamous tear-filled testimonies about finding lost car keys and other such nonsense almost always come from, yep you guessed it, women. At the risk of coming across as a misogynistic jerk, I'll just say it, women are illogical and emotional! They buy into the church, with all its sappiness, hook line and sinker. Walk into relief society and you'll find a bunch of crying women happy to be there. A few exceptions, maybe an angry woman with short hair wearing purple pants off the side somewhere. Walk into elders quorum and you'll find half of them asleep, the other half staring at their phones, and then a literal handful of weirdos who are really into it that are giving the rest of them guilt trips about not being more into 

Purple pants lol

Your ward is REALLY odd.  @The Folk Prophet will say because you're looking at your ward with odd glasses.

[Jane_Doe]

11 hours ago, truthseaker said:

I'm angry that some dude I don't know told me what to wear, I don't understand why you need extra information from me to help you understand that.  I'm not refusing you anything, I actually think this whole conversation is kind of ridiculous, I just wanted to know if anyone knew what the church's offical standpoint on dress code for church attendance was.  Seems its a little muddy.

And FYI, I'm not offended by anything said by you or anyone else on this website.

Its just the internet people, calm your farm

Yeah sometimes individuals can take it upon themselves to be absolutely ridiculous (like when a person isn't violating the non-existent official dress code).  

I remember once when some random guy from the ward called up *my* phone to talk to my husband, and chew him out about not being in Elder's Quorum that week.  My husband's like "I'm not even LDS...."     I have no idea who this dude was, and just forgave Mr. Nameless for his silliness and moved on with life.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

I remember once when some random guy from the ward called up *my* phone to talk to my husband, and chew him out about not being in Elder's Quorum that week.  My husband's like "I'm not even LDS...."    

Wow. 

[BeccaKirstyn]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

I remember once when some random guy from the ward called up *my* phone to talk to my husband, and chew him out about not being in Elder's Quorum that week.  My husband's like "I'm not even LDS...."     I have no idea who this dude was, and just forgave Mr. Nameless for his silliness and moved on with life.

People like this need to find better hobbies. 

[truthseaker]

12 hours ago, NightSG said:

Well, it seems men are allowed creative interpretations like short sleeves and no jacket, while women are held to the full-but-redefined-as-needed standard.

It does seem that way doesn't it

[truthseaker]

8 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Yeah sometimes individuals can take it upon themselves to be absolutely ridiculous (like when a person isn't violating the non-existent official dress code).  

I remember once when some random guy from the ward called up *my* phone to talk to my husband, and chew him out about not being in Elder's Quorum that week.  My husband's like "I'm not even LDS...."     I have no idea who this dude was, and just forgave Mr. Nameless for his silliness and moved on with life.

Seriously? That's insane, I can just picture your husbands face.  What the.....

[Sunday21]

I had a woman tell me that I should be denied a temple recommend for not attending activities. 

[Grunt]

What did I get myself into?  I'm not going to last long.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, Grunt said:

What did I get myself into? 

Just wait till you become bishop my friend.