Asked not to wear pants to church


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/9/2018 at 3:29 PM, truthseaker said:

Hello

I have been going to LDS church services for a couple of months now, I'm not baptised yet.

Anyway I showed up to church in dress pants, nice pants not jeans or anything.  I was asked by one of the men (who sit at the front when service is on, I don't know his exact position but he is sort of important at church) to wear appropriate dress to church, women should be in skirts or dresses.

It was cold, I wore very nice pants, what is the big deal?

To be honest I was pretty insulted and am not in a rush to go back this week, think I might skip church tomorrow.

The guy was out of line. It’s this sort of self righteous nonsense that puts people off. 

Im a guy, and I haven’t worn a white shirt with a tie to Church in years. No one has ever mentioned anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

The guy was out of line. It’s this sort of self righteous nonsense that puts people off. 

Im a guy, and I haven’t worn a white shirt with a tie to Church in years. No one has ever mentioned anything. 

You may be a bit late to the party.  But the OP was an anti-Mormon with an axe to grind.  My hunch is that she had worn dresses and skirts several times where she showed her true stripes to those at church.  Then she heard about the dress code and tried to test it.

As expected someone came to her to explain the dress code because "obviously" she did not know about it.  And it didn't matter if he did it diplomatically or not.  That wasn't what her test was about.  So, she decided to "get offended" because that's what she does.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You may be a bit late to the party.  But the OP was an anti-Mormon with an axe to grind.  My hunch is that she had worn dresses and skirts several times where she showed her true stripes to those at church.  Then she heard about the dress code and tried to test it.

As expected someone came to her to explain the dress code because "obviously" she did not know about it.  And it didn't matter if he did it diplomatically or not.  That wasn't what her test was about.  So, she decided to "get offended" because that's what she does.

Or, more likely, just made the whole thing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2018 at 3:10 PM, truthseaker said:

I'm a psychologist so I look at this differently from you.  But I think its totally cool that's how you make it work for you!

I personally don't think feelings are not a good indicator of truth and I doubt God is going to show up on my door and say 'yep this is all true' lol.  The human mind can see truth where is thinks it should be, where it wants it to be.  In short its not recommended to trust your feelings alone when trying to ascertain truth, because if you want it to be true, you brain/emotional response, signs you think you see or do not see, will tell you it is.

For me, feelings are the most reliable indicator. When you get right down to it, absolutely nothing in the physical world is provable through science or logic. All you get are a series of coincidences, with scientific thought being dominated by the kind of thinking that where every time A happens, B also happens, so there must be some connection between the two. At the moment, and for many years, without knowing too much about him or his philosophy, I subscribe to some of David Hume's philosophy of skepticism, coupled with aspects of Descarte's approach to knowledge and epistemology. All we have are theories of varying quality, reliability, predictive power and longevity, many of which will eventually be overturned, but no knowledge. But I KNOW that the gospel is true because of how I feel, and nothing and nobody can take that away or disprove it. Everything that exists outside of myself is ultimately either disprovable or unexplainable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

You may be a bit late to the party.  But the OP was an anti-Mormon with an axe to grind.  My hunch is that she had worn dresses and skirts several times where she showed her true stripes to those at church.  Then she heard about the dress code and tried to test it.

As expected someone came to her to explain the dress code because "obviously" she did not know about it.  And it didn't matter if he did it diplomatically or not.  That wasn't what her test was about.  So, she decided to "get offended" because that's what she does.

Just because Blossom decided to not join the LDS Church doesn't automatically make her anti-Mormon. We can only speculate why she chose to create an additional Username; but even that does not make her an anti-Mormon. She broke the rules but who here hasn't, even a little bit.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Just because Blossom decided to not join the LDS Church doesn't automatically make her anti-Mormon. We can only speculate why she chose to create an additional Username; but even that does not make her an anti-Mormon. She broke the rules but who here hasn't, even a little bit.

M.

I think it's pretty safe to say when someone creates another account in order to support herself in arguing that the Church is wrong or has issues, or to start topics to shine a bad light on the Church, a convincing case can be made that the person is now anti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

Or, more likely, just made the whole thing up.

Could be...problem is it is believable. Since it is believable, what does that say about our culture...good, bad or whatever?  We even had an example presented by an exalted member of this forum of a bishop who is the bowtie police and no one doubts her.

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Could be...problem is it is believable. Since it is believable, what does that say about our culture...good, bad or whatever?  We even had an example presented by an exalted member of this forum of a bishop who is the bowtie police and no one doubts her.

We each have our own experiences.  My, albeit very limited, experience is that the claim was not very believable.  

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Could be...problem is it is believable. Since it is believable, what does that say about our culture...good, bad or whatever?  We even had an example presented by an exalted member of this forum of a bishop who is the bowtie police and no one doubts her.

Bowtie police.  Wow.  That's what you got out of it.  And that, my friend, is the perfect example of how God had to give us the "letter of the law" because you are too blind to understand its spirit.  And like I said repeatedly in this thread.  This is not about the bowtie.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Maureen said:

Just because Blossom decided to not join the LDS Church doesn't automatically make her anti-Mormon. We can only speculate why she chose to create an additional Username; but even that does not make her an anti-Mormon. She broke the rules but who here hasn't, even a little bit.

M.

She's an anti-Mormon.  She tried to push me through private message and I was not having any of it.  So then she changed her tactics.  And if her claim about being a professional psychologist is true, I'm sad for her patients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 4:29 PM, truthseaker said:

Hello

I have been going to LDS church services for a couple of months now, I'm not baptised yet.

Anyway I showed up to church in dress pants, nice pants not jeans or anything.  I was asked by one of the men (who sit at the front when service is on, I don't know his exact position but he is sort of important at church) to wear appropriate dress to church, women should be in skirts or dresses.

It was cold, I wore very nice pants, what is the big deal?

To be honest I was pretty insulted and am not in a rush to go back this week, think I might skip church tomorrow.

 

What is appropriate for one culture may not be appropriate for another.  I am a product of the traditional Mormon culture in Utah.  My ancestors settled Brigham City in Utah.  I am the name sake of my great grandfather that was a stalwart icon of the Scandinavian influence in the Utah culture.  In the family I was raised – preparing for the Sabbath and church was almost a sacred ritual.  It was considered inappropriate to bath the night before – It was required in my home to bathe Sunday morning (this was back in the days before the “block” and Priesthood was held at 7:00 am.)  There were special clothes for Sunday and church.  I had one shirt, suit and shoes that were only worn on Sunday (or very special occasions such as a funeral).   This Sunday attire was called the Sunday best and was by far the most expensive and best made that I had.  BTW – back in those days stay press was not available – every week our Sunday clothes were washed and pressed.  In my home it was considered a flagrant sin to not make sure one’s clothes were cleaned and pressed before Sunday (there was a Saturday ritual to accommodate this).

The chapel was considered sacred – the church building was never locked so often as a youth, my friends and I would play basketball or do other things – but the chapel was off limits and I was taught it was never appropriate to enter into the chapel unless properly bathed, dressed and spiritually repentant.   I remember going to church but not entering the chapel – staying in the foyer because I did not feel properly “prepared”. 

For a long time, I did not believe that there was a more structured environment than the one I grew up in.  That was until I spent some time working in Japan.  There is a saying in Japan about those that think to stray from traditions.  Roughly translated it is – “The nail the sticks up will be hammered down!”

Generally speaking, I find most congregations of the LDS church to be accommodating to individuals that have come to worship and learn of G-d.  Never-the-less there are traditions that sometimes vary from ward to ward.  Few of these traditions make much sense except to those of that particular culture.  As a world traveler – one of my great joys is attending church in other nations and cultures.  I find great joy in learning of other cultures and doing my best to accommodate those cultures that are new to me. 

My suggestion to all is to be converted to the law, ordinances and covenants that are unique and special to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Conform a best as possible to whatever culture you encounter and do not be judgmental of other cultures as you would not have them to be judgmental of the culture you are most comfortable with.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Could be...problem is it is believable. Since it is believable, what does that say about our culture...good, bad or whatever?  We even had an example presented by an exalted member of this forum of a bishop who is the bowtie police and no one doubts her.

I really don’t think the ‘told off for wearing pants’ by ward mission leader is believable. Not in any ward that I have attended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Maureen said:

Just because Blossom decided to not join the LDS Church doesn't automatically make her anti-Mormon. We can only speculate why she chose to create an additional Username; but even that does not make her an anti-Mormon. She broke the rules but who here hasn't, even a little bit.

M.

Lying is going against Christ and loving Satan.  Blossom turned out to be such a person.  Maybe (hopefully!) that'll not be her final fate at all, and she'll come to change her ways.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Lying is going against Christ and loving Satan... 

@Jane_Doe, in all the years that you have been alive, have you never lied? And if you have, are you saying that that moment you lied you were loving Satan? Or maybe for whatever reason, you just lied and Satan had nothing to do with it.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Bowtie police.  Wow.  That's what you got out of it.  And that, my friend, is the perfect example of how God had to give us the "letter of the law" because you are too blind to understand its spirit.  And like I said repeatedly in this thread.  This is not about the bowtie.

The bowtie police is an example of how in various ward we have made up rules or whatever you want to call it. I get it that you intended to teach your kid that church leaders are never to be questioned. I get that. That in combination with made up rules is what makes letter of the law issues relevant. Too often leadership within and without the church decide to make up their own rules knowing that since they are the boss this is the way it is....no one questions me. Later, the kids grow up to do the same thing. Thus policies are set forth so that leadership can make calls wish are consistent with church policy. When there is inconsistency in seemingly standard rules (and dress code should be standardized) then it tends to lead to confusion down the road.

Edited by paracaidista508
Uncontrollable auto correct typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Maureen said:

And if you have, are you saying that that moment you lied you were loving Satan? Or maybe for whatever reason, you just lied and Satan had nothing to do with it.

To potentially help clarify Jane's answer.  Love can be used as a principle of action (i.e. charity), as opposed to emotion.  If to love Christ is to serve Him, then to love Satan is to serve him.  Telling lies generally serves the purposes and objectives of Satan, therefore it could reasonably be said that in that moment, one who lies is loving Satan.  Likewise, honesty serves and fulfills the purposes of the Lord, so when we are honest, we are loving Christ.  When you serve your spouse, you are loving your spouse.  Love is much more than the emotion and affection that we generally attribute to it.  Hence the Lord said:

Quote

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
(Matt 7:21-23)

I presume that @Jane_Doe was using the action based definition of love.  In the moment of telling a lie, the person loves the perceived benefit of lying, more than the perceived heavenly benefit for honesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

The bowtie police is an example of how in various ward we have made up rules or whatever you want to call it. I get it that you intended to teach your kid that church leaders are never to be questioned. I get that.  

You don’t get anything.  I never said that in my post.  You are completely missing the testimony.  You’re too hung up on your desire to paint my bishop as a bowtie policeman to see how the bishop was inspired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

You don’t get anything.  I never said that in my post.  You are completely missing the testimony.  You’re too hung up on your desire to paint my bishop as a bowtie policeman to see how the bishop was inspired.

This whole thread is like the cake in Portal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You don’t get anything.  I never said that in my post.  You are completely missing the testimony.  You’re too hung up on your desire to paint my bishop as a bowtie policeman to see how the bishop was inspired.

Yea you wanted him to "sustain" the Bishop. I get it- even if it was a made up rule or standard.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Yea you wanted him to "sustain" the Bishop. I get it- even if it was a made up rule or standard.

 

This is COMPLETELY NOT the testimony on that post.  There's even nothing on the post that indicated this.  Nothing of the testimony I related had anything to do with me and what I wanted.  Maybe you should read it again.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 11:39 AM, anatess2 said:

Probably because you're a new convert or the bishop just doesn't think white shirt is necessary in your ward.  You get this instruction when you move from Primary to Deacon for lifetime members.  It's like one of those "milestone" moments for primary kids.  For converts, bishops usually just want you to be comfortable in your new church environment.

And the reason I know this is because... my 2 sons got this instruction but the new convert who is a Welshman in our ward wore his customary blue shirt and bowtie.  The young men, including my son, started wearing bowties and it became a "thing" - like being a member of some bowtie club and young men wearing bowties started sitting with each other in priesthood.  The bishop asked to meet with my son and he asked him to start wearing regular ties again.  He was upset (he thought he was singled out because he was the only one that had this instruction from the bishop) and my husband told him, you can continue to wear bowties if you like (he was also upset) and my husband will handle it with the bishop.  But my son did not want that.  Starting the next Sunday my son wore a regular tie because he wants to sustain the bishop.  The bowtie club naturally disbanded soon after my son stopped wearing a bowtie.  After a while, the Welshman realized the bowtie club disbanded.  He probably did some pondering or something because soon after that, he started wearing a regular tie.  Then soon after that he started wearing a white shirt.  The bishop never asked him to do so.  The bishop never talked about bowties with anybody else except my son.  My son wanted to bear his testimony about this incident - about sustaining the bishop - but he decided to not share it because he didn't want to make the other kids uncomfortable about their bowties.  So, as far as we know, the bishop only gave the instruction to my son and nobody else was aware that there was such an instruction.  That was around 4 years ago and the Welshman has long since been ordained a Melchizedek priest and has not passed nor blessed sacrament in years.  He sometimes goes to church with his blue shirt and bowtie but most of the time he is wearing a white shirt and regular tie.

So other that the two mentions of your son wanting to sustain the bishop- which you maintain you never wrote- what in the world are you talking about? Just point it out to me...I'm stupid so just make it easy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

So other that the two mentions of your son wanting to sustain the bishop- which you maintain you never wrote- what in the world are you talking about? Just point it out to me...I'm stupid so just make it easy

Okay, I'm gonna cut you some slack for your insult of my bishop and clarify for you what the whole deal was about - this is, of course, stated from a hindsight is 20/20 point of view so we didn't know at the time when the Bishop talked to my son what the entire thing was about.

Some of the Young Men started wearing bowties.  The bowties became a clique thing... they started sitting together, etc., like they're a member of this bowtie club, excluding other non-bowtie-wearing Young Men.  The Bishop noticed this and instead of going to the "bowtie club" to discourage the Young Men in forming cliques, he instead approached just ONE Young Man.  My son.  He chose my son because he believed my son has a lot of faith and has a strong connection to the Spirit in his exercise of his priesthood.  He was a deacon at that time.  We didn't understand this, so we told our son that if he chooses to ignore the request of the Bishop we will support him on it.  My son chose to sustain the Bishop.  So he stopped wearing bowties.  And sure enough, not too long after my son stopped wearing bowties, the clique disbanded (without anybody mentioning to them about bowties) and the Young Men became a cohesive group once again.  As I stated, the original bowtie wearing newly baptized Welshman never was asked to stop wearing bowties and neither were any of the other Young Men and so until today the Welshman and Young Men still sometimes wears his bowties.  But the bowtie clique is gone never to be seen again.  And that was through a simple INSPIRED act of the Bishop to talk to one young man and that young man's faith in sustaining his bishop.  My son gained that testimony through that experience realizing what the bowtie has symbolized in hindsight and he so bore that testimony on the podium without needing to mention bowties.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share