Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

[Third Hour]

Dear Reader, I have a confession: I wear pants to church. Sorry, I should clarify why this is a confession: I'm a woman and I wear pants to church. If we're just talking about style choices, I also like horizontal stripes, dangling earrings, and natural, wavy, hair. But this particular style choice is much more important than that. Sure, you may be thinking what you wear to church is not important. We go to church to  renew covenants. I agree! However, if what we wear is so insignificant, why does the sight of women wearing pants cause such a fuss in the first place? Believe me, it does. In December of 2012, some Latter-day Saints staged "Wear Pants to Church Day". One participant, Jamie Baydd, remarked in this article that it was designed to tell church members that "If you think you're different...or if you feel there isn't a place for you here, there is." Saints within and beyond the continental U.S. and Europe participated to raise cultural awareness. Women and men wore pants...

View the full article

[Vort]

Here's an example of a great article to skip. "I think it's a wonderful idea to use a sacred communal worship service in memory and recognition  of our Savior and his Restored Kingdom as a platform to air my social opinions."

If Sister Coppersmith's managing editor activities have been for TH, that would explain a lot.

[The Folk Prophet]

Shame shame shame shame SHAME on the More Good Foundation for publishing this article.

I cannot even begin to express my disappointment.

I do believe this may well be the final straw with me. I do not believe I am comfortable being associated to any degree with them any longer.

Sister Coppersmith is lying. It is and was nothing but rebellion and pride. She lied to her bishop. She's lying to herself. She's filled with pride and trying to bring others into her pride-based thinking.

Those in charge at The More Good Foundation should know better! They should hold their writers to higher standards or truth.

Shame on them!

[Midwest LDS]

You know what's sad to me. This is such a pointless hill to die on. Maybe it's because I'm in the Midwest, but this isn't even an issue in the church where I live. No one pays attention to the type of clothing someone wears out here, unless it's obvious they may need some help because they are new or struggling. You wear your Sunday best, and that's enough. It's just so hard for me to understand why anyone cares so much about whether a woman wears pants or a skirt. Every Saint I've ever met is happy to see someone at church, no matter their clothing (within reason obviously). Is there someone, somewhere who gave a sister a hard time for wearing pants? Undoubtedly, but those are certainly few and far between and this whole dumb issue seems like the poster child of making a mountain out of a molehill just so you can seem "woke".

 Now as a caveat, I think joining in any protest day at church is dumb and reeks of apostasy. Church is for worshipping the Lord, not pushing some agenda so please don't misunderstand this as a post supporting that pants movement.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Midwest LDS

[Grunt]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Here's an example of a great article to skip. "I think it's a wonderful idea to use a sacred communal worship service in memory and recognition  of our Savior and his Restored Kingdom as a platform to air my social opinions."

If Sister Coppersmith's managing editor activities have been for TH, that would explain a lot.

This is one of the reasons I took a step back from this site.  It seems nothing has changed.  

[person0]

I almost never read the articles, because of stuff like this.

I have enjoyed this forum because of the forum rules which frown upon anti material and discussion.  So many people that I have enjoyed conversing with seem to be vanishing for one reason or another.  Carborendum, TFP, Zil, and others.  If people keep fleeing from this forum, why isn't someone doing something about it?  I have found myself to be participating much less frequently as well, if for no other reason than lack of engaging discussion.

What is to be done?  And who will do it?

[Just_A_Guy]

Sister Coppersmith was probably fifteen (or younger) when the whole “wear pants to church” thing was going on.  I’m not going to call her a brazen liar; but I don’t see how I can avoid describing this column as “staggeringly, stupendously ignorant; especially for a BYU English major and a published author”.  A simple Google search would have taken her to a New York Times article confirming that the stunt was not a general, innocuous call for inclusiveness; it was a premeditated protest against Church policy, practice, and doctrine.

When you do the same crap that highly-visible rebels deliberately do as an outward token of their rebellion, you get associated with rebels.  It’s why men still can’t wear beards at BYU fifty years after Woodstock, for Pete’s sake.  

I will also note that Sister Smith’s slap at the women of this Church who choose to wear dresses to Sunday services, is likely not the sort of thing she’d dare to say to any of their faces in a Relief Society meeting or any other real-life interpersonal encounter. 

As far as MGF’s publishing slant goes:  I will merely note that AskGramps is still recruiting authors who actually love and understand (or sincerely want to understand) LDS teaching, practice, and culture and are willing to speak in the Church’s defense.  PM @pam if you’re interested in helping out.

[MarginOfError]

Looks like I'll need to start reading more of the articles here

[Guest MormonGator]

8 hours ago, person0 said:

What is to be done?  And who will do it?

It's important to remember that this forum is bigger than any individual poster. Just because some people leave, doesn't mean more people won't come in and add to the conversation. Look at @Mores-someone with great things to say who is on the traditional and orthodox side. He's relatively new, and I'm sure there will be more people like him. If everyone agreed on everything, this place would be incredibly boring.

When people whine about leaving (and I'm not saying you are doing that), I think of this meme: 
 

People who whine like that will almost always be back. I've seen people on other forums (and in fairness, this one too) threaten to take their ball and bat and go home multiple times-yet they still come back. Sounds like they just need a nap and a juice box. 

Edited August 22, 2019 by MormonGator

[mirkwood]

Church is not the platform for your social justice agenda.  You deserve what you get if you go down that path.

[Grunt]

58 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's important to remember that this forum is bigger than any individual poster. Just because some people leave, doesn't mean more people won't come in and add to the conversation. Look at @Mores-someone with great things to say who is on the traditional and orthodox side. He's relatively new, and I'm sure there will be more people like him. If everyone agreed on everything, this place would be incredibly boring.

When people whine about leaving (and I'm not saying you are doing that), I think of this meme: 
 

People who whine like that will almost always be back. I've seen people on other forums (and in fairness, this one too) threaten to take their ball and bat and go home multiple times-yet they still come back. Sounds like they just need a nap and a juice box. 

That depends on what you want the forum to be.  If you want it to be a group of apostates who drink coffee, don't follow the Word of Wisdom, and push against the Prophet, then yeah.  More people will come.  If you want a forum that sustains the Prophet, follows Christ, and supports each other in our struggles, then no.  Once they're gone, they're gone.  You'll only attract more rabble-rousers who will make more posts mocking and gloating over the departure of the faithful.

Edited August 22, 2019 by Grunt

[MarginOfError]

16 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Church is not the platform for your social justice agenda.  You deserve what you get if you go down that path.

I'm curious what  you think these individuals will "get" on this path.

Edited August 22, 2019 by MarginOfError

[mirkwood]

9 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm curious what  you think these individuals will "get" on this path.

They are separating themselves from the gospel.  That has consequences, up to and including their membership.

[MarginOfError]

Curious.  Those certainly aren't the consequences I've had to pay. Quite the opposite, actually.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

That depends on what you want the forum to be. 

I guess it doesn't matter what I want it to be, or what you want it to be. It's what they allow it to be. For the record, I know of many LDS liberals who do keep the WOW, follow the prophet, etc, but also don't post here because they think it's too conservative. I know this because they have PM'd me saying so. Sadly, the admins  can't win. No matter what they do, they'll anger someone. 

 

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

 Once they're gone, they're gone.  

Disagree completely. The people who have left-and I've spoken to two out of the three mentioned-didn't leave due to religion/politics, they left due to time constraints. And those who post about how many times they leaving, thinking of leaving, etc almost always come back. They remind me of the old lady drama queens who post about how much they hate Facebook and how much they want to leave Facebook and how much they hate everyone else on Facebook---on their Facebook page. Multiple times. 

For the record, I hope no one leaves. I enjoy reading all posts, especially those who I disagree with. I find it sad when anyone chooses to leave. 

 

[Grunt]

Just now, MormonGator said:

I guess it doesn't matter what I want it to be, or what you want it to be. It's what they allow it to be. For the record, I know of many LDS liberals who do keep the WOW, follow the prophet, etc, but also don't post here because they think it's too conservative. I know this because they have PM'd me saying so. Sadly, the admins  can't win. No matter what they do, they'll anger someone. 

 

1

I'd love to see what they consider "too conservative".  I guess following the Prophet is too conservative?

 

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Disagree completely. The people who have left-and I've spoken to two out of the three mentioned-didn't leave due to religion/politics, they left due to time constraints. And those who post about how many times they leaving, thinking of leaving, etc almost always come back. They remind me of the old lady drama queens who post about how much they hate Facebook and how much they want to leave Facebook and how much they hate everyone else on Facebook---on their Facebook page. Multiple times. 

For the record, I hope no one leaves. I enjoy reading all posts, especially those who I disagree with. I find it sad when anyone chooses to leave. 

 

1

You post a lot of anecdotal evidence.    Which regular, long-term, followers of the Prophet have left and come back?   I haven't been here long enough to view it.  

For ME, and straight from the horse's mouth, I don't visit much for the precise reasons I stated, in direct support of my thesis.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Which regular, long-term, followers of the Prophet have left and come back?   

I thought you meant the forum.

Edited August 22, 2019 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

This article appears to be trying to persuade people to a view point, however due to multiple failures to critically examine the ramifications of its own postulate it comes off as biased and full of privilege. Thus as a persuasive argument this article fails.  It preaches to the choir and everyone else is ignored and unmoved.  

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Curious.  Those certainly aren't the consequences I've had to pay. Quite the opposite, actually.

Everyone’s experiences are different, and I want to respect that.

But there are also some overall trends that I don’t think we can ignore.  

Where is Stephanie Lauritzen, who started the All Enlisted Facebook page back in 2012?

Where are the other women and progressive men whose voices were dominant in the conversation at that time?

Kate Kelley, and her then-husband?

Hannah Wheelwright?  

Nadine Nielsen?

By the way:  I’ll quit complaining about what women wear to church, when women quit complaining about what men wear when they’re putting a robot on Mars.  

#butitsdifferentwhenWEdoit

Edited August 22, 2019 by Just_A_Guy

[Grunt]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I thought you meant the forum.

I did.

[MarginOfError]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Everyone’s experiences are different, and I want to respect that.

But there are also some overall trends that I don’t think we can ignore.  

Where is Stephanie Lauritzen, who started the All Enlisted Facebook page back in 2012?

Where are the other women and progressive men whose voices were dominant in the conversation at that time?

Kate Kelley, and her then-husband?

Hannah Wheelwright?  

Nadine Nielsen?

By the way:  I’ll quit complaining about what women wear to church, when women quit complaining about what men wear when they’re putting a robot on Mars.  

#butitsdifferentwhenWEdoit

I'm not sure those trends are as strong as you might think.  Truthfully, I think the only thing that I've learned from the fates of those particular individuals is that bad publicity is more likely to get you in trouble than the things they stood for.

I participated in Wear Pants to Church Day. I rarely wear white shirts. I refuse to shave unless I'm going into work. I am vocally feminist and unabashed about my social preferences. I am highly critical of many of the Church's policies, and have refused to serve in youth programs on the grounds that I refuse to run a program bound to all of the constraints the Church imposes. I have publicly complained about the language used in temple ordinances (prior to last year's changes). When the November policy was first released, I described it publicly, in Church, in front of the bishop and the entire ward, as a foul and disgusting policy.

The penalty for all that behavior has been more influence, more responsibility, and more trust.

And I'm not the only one. I've seen more and more men and women in my stake move in similar directions (with varying extremes).  Heck, I've even watched my bishop get asked if women are treated fairly in the Church and give the response "[chuckle]. No, of course not."  

So it seems like the hash tag you're looking for is #butitsdifferentwhenitisntinthenews

[MarginOfError]

Anyway, my point is, the statement "Church is not the platform for your social justice agenda.  You deserve what you get if you go down that path." comes off as pretty self-assured, implying that there's only one place that path leads to.  It would seem the truth is far more nuanced than that. 

And I'm also willing to make it personal.  If those who go down that path deserve what they get, please, explain to me what I should be getting.

Edited August 22, 2019 by MarginOfError

[dprh]

How many Sunday School/Priesthood/Relief Society lessons have you been too where someone says they would like to see more people with tattoos, or smokers, or other types of people at church?  I've heard it more times than I can count in the last few years.  Why would we draw the line at pants?  The church is supposed to be a hospital for sinners, not a country club of saints.

[mirkwood]

SJW agendas have no place at church.  If you are engaging in SJW moments at church, all you are doing is thumbing your nose at the church.  Doing that puts you on a path that eventually results in no longer accepting church leadership.  That is a path that eventually takes you down the road of apostasy. 

In my opinion, if you go there (apostasy), you deserve to lose your membership.  You are a cancer that should be excised.  If you get your act together, you are welcome to come back.  

Or you can stop the SJW games at church and you are probably fine.  Political activism has no place at church.

Before anyone goes into histrionics.  That is a general you and not a specific you.

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2019 by mirkwood

[NeuroTypical]

December 2012?  Wow - I now have almost 7 full years of not really caring about this issue.  I don't pay enough attention to what other people are wearing at church, to know if the women are wearing pants or not. 

I've only had faux rebellious wars with stuff like this.  Part of breaking in my new bishop, was to grill him mercilessly on whether pineapple belonged on pizza or not.  He thought quick, saying the only true position was that pineapple was ok on pizza, but only in the presence of meat, such as canadian bacon or ham.  Those who engage in activities with pizza that have pineapple as it's only topping, are in danger losing their soul.  I told him that I would adopt his position as my own, as one of the ways of sustaining him in his calling.

Far as I can tell, when it comes to doctrinal importance and relevance to personal salvation, women and pants arguments = pineapple on pizza arguments.  If you're all passionate about it, whatever.  I think you're missing the point, but I don't care, you do you.

I suppose I'll draw the line at public nudity (which does sometimes happen with uppity breastfeeders looking for a fight).

Edited August 22, 2019 by NeuroTypical