Asked not to wear pants to church

[Iggy]

7 hours ago, zil said:

Are you all saying that where you live it's not uncommon to see women wearing pants to church?  (I'm not commenting on the OP experience, I'm just wondering, based on everyone's comments, whether this is a common thing in your various parts of the world.)

I live on the Oregon coast, am an elderly woman and wear slacks to church from time to time. I am not the only one in my branch who does wear slacks. We have two sister siblings who wear dirty, torn jeans w/dirty campfire smoke smelling t-shirts and the dirtiest, stinkiest tennis shoes. They are always welcomed. The RS Pres. took up donations, bought them each a dress. They brought them back on fast and testimony, went up to the pulpit, thanked her, gave them back and said: Are we to wear our sneakers & wool socks with this? Thanks, but we will keep wearing our other clothes.

One other sister has fibromyalgia so bad that she doesn't come very often. When she does, she wears slacks under a mid-length skirt, pull over sweater and suit jacket. She looks more put together than any of our RS Presidency. We are not a poor branch, we are quite diversified.

BUT ALL of the Presidencies have learned to keep their traps shut when it comes to telling others what to and not to wear to church. To us, Sunday Best means CLEAN clothes on a CLEAN body.

To the OPoster, Bathe that morning or the night before, wear CLEAN clothing, and know that Jesus has done the same. You could move to the Central Oregon Coast and come to my branch. I promise to deflect the RS Pres. from you.

[lostinwater]

39 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Can't there be an Old Spice scented beard oil?

i have a friend who mixes their unscented (and much less expensive) lotion with essential oils - of which there are many types.  Don't see why it wouldn't work for beard oil.  My guess is that's all the people who sell it do - aside from marking up the price significantly.   

[The Folk Prophet]

51 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Does anyone remember the scene in Ephraim's Rescue when Brigham Young asked Ephraim to shave his beard, then shave his mustache?  And I had to wonder about Brigham's beard as long as it was.  I suppose it was that only older men were allowed to have beards -- a right of seniority or something or other.

Methinks someone missed the point.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Methinks someone missed the point.

No, I got the point.  I just make some "Beautiful Mind" type connections sometimes and I don't have a proper filter on describing such.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Blossom76 said:

Well I certainly wouldn't intentionally stop wearing pants because it annoyed someone, thats their problem not mine

I'd discuss the nuances of this with you further, but for some reason all nuance has been cast aside in this thread. Big, bad white male patriarchy = bad. Poor put upon pants wearing female = victim. All else = not worth consideration.

Useful.

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, I got the point.  I just make some "Beautiful Mind" type connections sometimes and I don't have a proper filter on describing such.

Do you recall the story of when Joseph publicly reprimanded Brigham Young for something he many not have even done? Ripped him up one side and down the other? Brigham stood and humbly said, "Joseph, what do you want me to do?" Joseph began crying, came down and gave Brigham a hug and then said something along the lines of, "You passed the test."

[Guest]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Jedi is not wrong.  But 2005 is not 2018.

I am officially old enough to have lived through an LDS cultural change.  I remember arguing on the internet (I think on the forum that eventually became lds.net, before it became mormonhub), that there was nothing wrong with my goatee.  I was in the minority, and the majority of posters (including the high-reputation frequent long-time spiritual-giant posters) were of a differing opinion.  The going notion was, while I might not be openly in rebellion, I should examine my motivation for wearing my goatee, because I would probably discover a gap between my personal discipleship, and what my personal discipleship SHOULD be.

Does anyone remember the name of that board?  It's on the tip of my tongue.

You have GOT to be kidding me (about the goatee).  Same for the people giving @The Folk Prophet a hard time.  I would ask what their motivation is for questioning your discipleship over such a silly and trivial matter.  Is their motivation really to help someone repent, or is it because they are smug, self righteous and enjoy asserting some degree of control over another?  

For the record, there really IS nothing wrong with having a goatee.  I think that really IS an invented rule.  I had one back in 2005, and no one cared (as it should be).  Yes I would shave if my bishop asked me, but I have zero desire to shave for people who have no Priesthood authority over me whatsoever.  It is not their place to enforce my obedience to standards that they wish were gospel standards but aren't. 

I also think people chastizing others for facial hair are coming mighty close to adding to the gospel (a form of apostasy).  It is just like word of wisdom additions - everyone has something they want to see added to the word of wisdom, but where does it stop?  Should meat be banned?  Caffeine? Sugar?  Non gluten free foods?  How about we stick to the teachings of the Church?

Okay, I am done with my rant.

 

Edited March 10, 2018 by DoctorLemon

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do you recall the story of when Joseph publicly reprimanded Brigham Young for something he many not have even done? Ripped him up one side and down the other? Brigham stood and humbly said, "Joseph, what do you want me to do?" Joseph began crying, came down and gave Brigham a hug and then said something along the lines of, "You passed the test."

Yup.

[Vort]

Heaven's going to be SO GREAT! When we finally get there, we won't have to put up with all this crap from other people! Because that's what heaven really is: A crap filter. Keeps all the crappy ones out, and lets only the non-crappy in. This is why we are urged to humble ourselves, love our neighbors, submit to God and even to his frail human representatives: All for that one glorious moment when we pass the test and can put all this nonsense behind us -- when we are judged non-crappy and get to enter into the Crap-free Kingdom. What a joyous day that will be! In the meantime, I'll grit my teeth and put up with all the crappy people, knowing that one day I'll be rid of them for good! Because I'll be just like Jesus!

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Can't there be an Old Spice scented beard oil?

Well, you can always rub engine oil and bacon grease into your beard for that extra-manly scent.

[Blossom76]

53 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'd discuss the nuances of this with you further, but for some reason all nuance has been cast aside in this thread. Big, bad white male patriarchy = bad. Poor put upon pants wearing female = victim. All else = not worth consideration.

Useful.

Bottom line is there is no rule against wearing pants to church, and if someone - anyone - male or female says to someones face to stop wearing pants to church, then they are acting very inappropriately and, depending on their position in the church quite possibly abusing their authority.  

There is nothing else to consider in this situation (and that is what we are discussing, this situation), the OP said she wore 'nice dress pants' not ripped hooker jeans.  And no one said the guy who asked her to stop wearing pants was white.

[paracaidista508]

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

How can you make that assessment from afar? Arm chair quarter-backing is easy. Playing the game in reality is much more complicated. 

Speaking of making judgements from afar...seems as if you just did that 2 post prior to this....something like you suspect a teaching moment. 

[paracaidista508]

6 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

Actually, it's not an unspoken cultural standard.

As stated in the manual, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ":

"Dress:

Men and boys generally wear suits or nice pants with a shirt and tie. Women and girls wear dresses or skirts."

Source: “Worship with Us,” The Gospel of Jesus Christ (2005), 22–23

https://www.lds.org/manual/the-gospel/worship-with-us?lang=eng&query=dress+standards+at+church

Interesting quote....generally the men do... and the women and girls wear.

Implication is males have a choice and females dont.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

There is nothing else to consider in this situation

As I said. Nuance -- tossed aside.

17 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Bottom line is there is no rule against wearing pants to church

There's no rule against sleeping in church either. Or eating. Or playing games on one's cell phone. Or browsing social media. Or day-dreaming. Or etc., etc., etc.

No rule holds little meaning -- until one casts out nuance, of course. Then it means everything. And anyone that dare imply we act in any way where there isn't a RULE is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Right?

20 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

if someone - anyone - male or female says to someones face to stop wearing pants to church, then they are acting very inappropriately and, depending on their position in the church quite possibly abusing their authority. 

If the story were along the lines of, "You're not allowed to come to church in pants. If you wear them here again we'll call the police and have you cast out!" then you'd have a point. As that is clearly no where near what actually happened, I believe you, and many others, are applying what's known in the business as hyperbole.

22 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

And no one said the guy who asked her to stop wearing pants was white.

Nuance. What do you believe, upon consideration, I actually meant by that?

Look, I am not suggesting that the brother was or was not right to do what he did. I am suggesting that if we step back, consider humility, patience, and an eternal perspective, that this is no big deal whatsoever and doesn't deserve any level of vitriol or defiance whatsoever. I am suggesting that we give the brother the benefit of the doubt, just as we seem to believe he might have been better suited to give the OP the benefit of the doubt concerning her clothing intentions. I'm suggesting that whatever his motivations and choices are, it's OUR motivations and reactions that matter to us, individually speaking, and responding with impatience, anger, frustration, rebellion, stubbornness, pride, or in any other negative way only serves to hurt us. On the other hand, I would dare say that one can never go wrong with patience, understanding, kindness, and humility.

[paracaidista508]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

You have GOT to be kidding me (about the goatee).  Same for the people giving @The Folk Prophet a hard time.  I would ask what their motivation is for questioning your discipleship over such a silly and trivial matter.  Is their motivation really to help someone repent, or is it because they are smug, self righteous and enjoy asserting some degree of control over another?  

For the record, there really IS nothing wrong with having a goatee.  I think that really IS an invented rule.  I had one back in 2005, and no one cared (as it should be).  Yes I would shave if my bishop asked me, but I have zero desire to shave for people who have no Priesthood authority over me whatsoever.  It is not their place to enforce my obedience to standards that they wish were gospel standards but aren't. 

I also think people chastizing others for facial hair are coming mighty close to adding to the gospel (a form of apostasy).  It is just like word of wisdom additions - everyone has something they want to see added to the word of wisdom, but where does it stop?  Should meat be banned?  Caffeine? Sugar?  Non gluten free foods?  How about we stick to the teachings of the Church?

Okay, I am done with my rant.

 

I recently went to a sealing and there were at least 15 or 20 men with beards and goatees.....To include the groom lol.

My old bishop just a few years ago used to yank any kid off the sacrament detail who had any facial hair at all. Made up rules. My own bishop used to order kids to cut their hair when I was in hs or they were not allowed to perform any ordinances. We got down to about 4 boys and he rest were elders or HP. 

Edited March 11, 2018 by paracaidista508

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Speaking of making judgements from afar...seems as if you just did that 2 post prior to this....something like you suspect a teaching moment. 

I'm not sure what you're talking about. But whatever "neener neener" game you're trying to play, I'm not interested.

[paracaidista508]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure what you're talking about. But whatever "neener neener" game you're trying to play, I'm not interested.

Memory refresher:

The Folk Prophet

• Everything wrong with the church according to "progressives"
• 
• Members
•  5064
• 8418 posts
• Location: Saratoga Springs, UT
• Religion: LDS

• Report post
•  
•  

Posted 18 hours ago

I suspect it was intended as a teaching thing rather than a judgemental condemnatory thing. When and how to bring up some things with investigators is tricky. I'd forgive the guy, try to take what is important in the idea(s), and move on. Getting offended helps nothing and no one

Not a neener game. Just pointing out that you are prone to judge from afar also. 

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Not a neener game. Just pointing out that you are prone to judge from afar also. 

I'm not confident you know what's being implied by a "neener neener game".

[Blossom76]

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As I said. Nuance -- tossed aside.

There's no rule against sleeping in church either. Or eating. Or playing games on one's cell phone. Or browsing social media. Or day-dreaming. Or etc., etc., etc.

No rule holds little meaning -- until one casts out nuance, of course. Then it means everything. And anyone that dare imply we act in any way where there isn't a RULE is wrong, wrong, WRONG! Right?

If the story were along the lines of, "You're not allowed to come to church in pants. If you wear them here again we'll call the police and have you cast out!" then you'd have a point. As that is clearly no where near what actually happened, I believe you, and many others, are applying what's known in the business as hyperbole.

Nuance. What do you believe, upon consideration, I actually meant by that?

Look, I am not suggesting that the brother was or was not right to do what he did. I am suggesting that if we step back, consider humility, patience, and an eternal perspective, that this is no big deal whatsoever and doesn't deserve any level of vitriol or defiance whatsoever. I am suggesting that we give the brother the benefit of the doubt, just as we seem to believe he might have been better suited to give the OP the benefit of the doubt concerning her clothing intentions. I'm suggesting that whatever his motivations and choices are, it's OUR motivations and reactions that matter to us, individually speaking, and responding with impatience, anger, frustration, rebellion, stubbornness, pride, or in any other negative way only serves to hurt us. On the other hand, I would dare say that one can never go wrong with patience, understanding, kindness, and humility.

You need to chill out, some chick went to church in nice dress pants and got told to wear dresses.

I'm entitled to think that the person who told her that was acting like a jerk when he told her.

I'm also entitled to think that you need to calm down.  

I think you're looking too far into it, I myself try not to live like that, I believe it would be exhausting and a waste of my time.

You can think whatever you like but I doubt I'll respond to it anymore.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

You need to chill out

Um...   You're reading something into something that isn't there.

6 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

I'm entitled to...

 Did I say otherwise?

[Grunt]

10 hours ago, zil said:

Are you all saying that where you live it's not uncommon to see women wearing pants to church?  (I'm not commenting on the OP experience, I'm just wondering, based on everyone's comments, whether this is a common thing in your various parts of the world.)

I've never seen a woman in pants at church.

[Grunt]

14 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

You need to chill out, some chick went to church in nice dress pants and got told to wear dresses.

I'm entitled to think that the person who told her that was acting like a jerk when he told her.

I'm also entitled to think that you need to calm down.  

I think you're looking too far into it, I myself try not to live like that, I believe it would be exhausting and a waste of my time.

You can think whatever you like but I doubt I'll respond to it anymore.

I may be reading things incorrectly, but you seem to get hostile often.

[Blossom76]

5 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I may be reading things incorrectly, but you seem to get hostile often.

I don't start out hostile,  but I do defend myself when hostility or antagonistic comments are thrown my way  

[Blossom76]

23 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I've never seen a woman in pants at church.

Maybe its just your ward?  The ward I have been attending is pretty 'old school' in its beliefs but women wear pants to church there.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Maybe its just your ward?  The ward I have been attending is pretty 'old school' in its beliefs but women wear pants to church there.

Could be.  I go to a very small ward in the country.  I really don't know.  I don't recall seeing any at the Stake Conference, but to be perfectly honest it's not like I go around looking to see what people are wearing.