Third Hour

Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

Recommended Posts

34 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Jesus commanded against being angry without caveat that I am aware of.

Where?

Matthew 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: "

3 Nephi 12:22 "But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment. "

I don't see a commandment "against being angry without caveat" in either case. Did you have some other scriptural injunctions in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Grunt said:

This makes sense to me.  Do you have references to Christ commanding against being angry?  I'm looking for them, but my scripture referencing is still woefully lacking.  

@Vort provided some good examples.  I am inclined to wonder if his NT example is a places where New Testament scriptures may have been modified to justify historical events in early Traditional Christianity.  Generally, at least for myself, I have found that forgiving others to be impossible until I have gotten past any and all anger against them.  Since I find it impossible for me - I assume the same for others.  I am deeply concerned that righteous anger is a possible excuse to be used with one's spouse or someone included in the oath and covenant of the priesthood.  If someone can give suitable explanation of how to be righteously angry without being tempted to misuse it - I may be interested in logically considering it.  But with my weakness for anger - I would not dare experiment with it.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

@Vort provided some good examples.  I am inclined to wonder if his NT example is a places where New Testament scriptures may have been modified to justify historical events in early Traditional Christianity.  Generally, at least for myself, I have found that forgiving others to be impossible until I have gotten past any and all anger against them.  Since I find it impossible for me - I assume the same for others.  I am deeply concerned that righteous anger is a possible excuse to be used with one's spouse or someone included in the oath and covenant of the priesthood.  If someone can give suitable explanation of how to be righteously angry without being tempted to misuse it - I may be interested in logically considering it.  But with my weakness for anger - I would not dare experiment with it.

 

The Traveler

It makes sense to do what's right for you or even, to an extent, inadvertently project those feelings onto others.  However, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable insinuating that the scriptures were changed because I don't agree with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Grunt said:

It makes sense to do what's right for you or even, to an extent, inadvertently project those feelings onto others.  However, I'm not sure I'd be comfortable insinuating that the scriptures were changed because I don't agree with them.

From my scientific background - I tend to discredit experiments that do not work - lack empirical evidence.  If I cannot duplicate something for myself it is worthless to me.  I am of the mind that the truths of G-d are universal.  In science we call this principle isotropic.  I believe truth always works (without exception) for whoever is using it.  That leaves only two possibilities - either I misused some truth or they did.  If I cannot see from their example why my efforts fail (give different results) - their example is worthless to me.  If they cannot or is often the case - are unwilling to explorer their example with me - their opinion is still worthless to me.

In scripture Pall suggests that we prove all things and hold fast to that which is true.  I cannot give a truthful witness for something that does not work for me.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 1:52 PM, KScience said:

First I need to disclose that I did not read the article.......

BUT

As an English member "pants" has a whole other meaning........

Wearing pants not so controversial!!!!

 

I now get to admit that I wore not just trousers but jodphurs to church a couple of weeks ago, I was on an overnight shift at work and ran over so did not have time to change or I would have missed the sacrament.  No one batted an eyelid...Love this ward SO much  

What you are describing and what this OP is addressing are to different topics. Pants have the same meaning as an English member as they do as an American. The principle is Sunday Best, Sunday Best for whatever country a member lives in (or according to laws).

There is a difference with what you are describing, "Dang, I am late because of work." Obviously the Lord and anyone else understands, just as we understand a potential convert (yes, even a woman) who shows up in shorts and a t-shirt to our sacrament because that is all they have or what they have been used to attending their other religious meeting. Or the homeless lady who walks in -- without having bathed for a long time -- dirty clothes, torn, and ripped. Ya, I love the Church members for this also. Nothing special about the ward in the UK.

This is where it is usually good to read what is being represented, which is talking about members who are making "light" of our sacrament meetings and are light-hearted in their approach toward God and his servants. These are those who are seeking to make a statement, to become a light unto themselves, who would rather say "Look at me! What are you going to do about it!" during sacrament rather then coming to Church with a broken heart and contrite spirit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

So now I am wondering was job would be linked to jodhpurs. You are a Mountie, right?

https://www.google.ca/search?q=image+canadian+mountie&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-ca&client=safari#imgrc=k5qGFFRYClZKgM:

WIsh I was a mountie. I am actually a lecturer in Equine studies, but over the summer have been covering the yard so that they can take leave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

What you are describing and what this OP is addressing are to different topics.

This is where it is usually good to read what is being represented, which is talking about members who are making "light" of our sacrament meetings and are light-hearted in their approach toward God and his servants. These are those who are seeking to make a statement, to become a light unto themselves, who would rather say "Look at me! What are you going to do about it!" during sacrament rather then coming to Church with a broken heart and contrite spirit.

 

I didn't read the article because I just roll my eyes at the statement that is being made and have very little patience for the point of view that women are somehow being demeaned by the church weather due to dress standards or any of the other perceived slights.  Was just going for a little humour with the pants comment as we generally do not discuss our underwear in public.

 

Edited by KScience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

...Pants have the same meaning as an English member as they do as an American...

Apparently they do not. "Pants" to an English person means "underwear", while "Pants" to an American is synonymous with "slacks".

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KScience said:

WIsh I was a mountie. I am actually a lecturer in Equine studies, but over the summer have been covering the yard so that they can take leave

Me also prof but in Canada. Equine studies! How cool! 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KScience said:

I didn't read the article because I just roll my eyes at the statement that is being made and have very little patience for the point of view that women are somehow being demeaned by the church weather due to dress standards or any of the other perceived slights.  Was just going for a little humour with the pants comment as we generally do not discuss our underwear in public.

 

Hope that your knickers are not in a twist! (Only uk expression that I know! So proud to summon this up!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Hope that your knickers are not in a twist! (Only uk expression that I know! So proud to summon this up!)

Perfect use of the vernacular!!!!  :bouncing:

Edited by KScience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MarginOfError this comment of yours: "I'd love for you to point out any one instance where I've advocated for someone else to wear pants to church, or to wear a colored shirt, or to not shave. I've advocated for people to wear whatever they're comfortable wearing, and against using a dress code as a litmus test for faithfulness. "

Reminded me of this quote by Nibley:

"The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism... the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s wrong with using dress as a litmus test for faithfulness, when AllEnlisted and the author of the article at issue in this discussion are perfectly willing to use it as a litmus test for . . . some other character trait?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What’s wrong with using dress as a litmus test for faithfulness, when AllEnlisted and the author of the article at issue in this discussion are perfectly willing to use it as a litmus test for . . . some other character trait?

Neither AllEnlisted or the author of this article are using clothing as a litmus test for anything. They are just wondering why this "culture" of "the only correct appearance" that is accepted in church is dresses for women and white shirts and ties for men. What could possibly be the reason that this kind of clothing is only accepted culturally when it's not even a rule via policy or commandment? The reason why it's accepted culturally is because members for many decades have measured their worthiness and other members' worthiness by what they wear to church.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maureen said:

The reason why it's accepted culturally is because members for many decades have measured their worthiness and other members' worthiness by what they wear to church.

M.

Not really.  The actual measurement is how well they follow those chosen by God.  So, when President David O. McKay,  Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, et al. suggest we wear white shirts and why we should wear them, that doesn't mean you are required to wear them.  There isn't typically someone there to stop them at the door.  Nobody usually gets in trouble.  But whether or not you do listen says something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Neither AllEnlisted or the author of this article are using clothing as a litmus test for anything. They are just wondering why this "culture" of "the only correct appearance" that is accepted in church is dresses for women and white shirts and ties for men. What could possibly be the reason that this kind of clothing is only accepted culturally when it's not even a rule via policy or commandment? The reason why it's accepted culturally is because members for many decades have measured their worthiness and other members' worthiness by what they wear to church.

M.

Interesting how you don’t take issue with Suzie’s suggestion that the Church uses dress as a “litmus test”, but you do take issue with my allegation that AllEnlisted and Sister Coppersmith are doing the same thing.

Can we dispense with the posturing and the bull-poop here?

AllEnlisted deliberately suggested wearing pants as an expression of discontent with the way certain things were being done in the Church.  Even if we accept Coppersmith’s representation of the movement as a placid expression of inclusion and cultural awareness (a remarkable example of the “they-must-think-I’m-stupid”-itis to which progressives in and out of the Church seem so susceptible)—they were still expressing a particular character virtue which they wanted their audience to interpret in a certain way, and make a certain value judgment about them as a result.  Coppersmith, too, on an individual level acknowledges that wearing pants to church makes her feel “confident” and that she enjoys the attention she receives as a result (so long as it’s the right kind of attention, natch).

So, let’s quit lying about this.  We agree that there’s nothing wrong with litmus tests, or appearance-based judgments.  Some folks just don’t like us using our own brains to incorporate additional information to draw inferences other than the ones they wanted us to make.  

Look, these folks wanted to send a message, they sent a message, we heard the message, we pushed back against what we took to be a dopey message—and now these folks are trying to pretend they never meant to send a message at all.

No.

NO.

No, no, and no.

And so would add that passive-agressive, disingenuous “I-mean-it-wait-no-I-don’t” horse crap like this, is a big part of why we can’t have nice things in the Church. 

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Interesting how you don’t take issue with Suzie’s suggestion that the Church uses dress as a “litmus test”....

Well for good reason, because @Suzie did not suggest that the Church use dress as a litmus test.

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maureen said:

The reason why it's accepted culturally is because members for many decades have measured their worthiness and other members' worthiness by what they wear to church.

Says the woman who is not even a member of the Church.

Are you now going to claim that, despite not being a Latter-day Saint, you have extensive, decades-long intimate experience with Latter-day Saints at Church on which you base your judgment? Or are you going to look to weasel-word your way out, a la "I didn't say all members or most members, just members, so as long as there exist at least two Latter-day Saints who have judged their own and others' worthiness by Church wear for at least two decades, then my statement is justified"? I'm kind of thinking yes to that latter thing.

By the way, where is all the outrage against Maureen's hateful, judgmental attitudes? Heaven knows Maureen has voiced her loud and long opinion on this forum against judgmentalism, and more than a few have come to her defense. I suppose judgmentalism, whether real or merely perceived, is objectionable only when exercised against the wrong people, such as homosexuals or Democrats, and not when exercised against the appropriate whipping boys, such as conservatives or Latter-day Saints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Well for good reason, because @Suzie did not suggest that the Church use dress as a litmus test.

M.

I didn’t say she suggested the Church “use” (subjunctive tense, indicating what it *should* do) dress as a litmus test; I said she suggested it “uses” (present tense, indicating what it *does* do) dress as a litmus test.  As, in fact, she did (building, it is true, on MoE’s earlier post).

And, well done on the way you vicariously confirmed the post you meant to rebut (“this obvious criticism of LDS culture/doctrine/practice wasn't really a criticism at all, and those gas lights are just as bright as they have always been!”).  

Suzie and MoE have the good grace to stand by their disagreements with the LDS orthodoxy; which is one of the reasons I respect them so much.  Neither of them are going to come back with some simpering, backpedaling post about how they’ve never believed the Church has theologically or at least culturally inappropriately made dress a litmus test—because they sincerely believe that it does, and they sincerely believe it’s a problem that needs to be fixed, and they aren’t going to slither away from that position just because they know I don’t wholly agree with them.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now