Third Hour

Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

She speaks specifically of the bishop whose whole role in the situation she describes was to make sure she is worthy of the temple. If a man walked in for an interview and he wreaked of alcohol, I would specifically ask he he drinks alcohol. She came in wearing pants, he asked her if she was trying to make a statement... based on the fact that this article exists suggests that the bishop was at least partly right....

The difference is your Church has a prohibition on alcohol, especially when it comes to a temple recommend. Your Church does not have a prohibition on women wearing pants/slacks to Church. What kind of TR question is asked in regards to clothing worn to church?

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Fether said:

She speaks specifically of the bishop whose whole role in the situation she describes was to make sure she is worthy of the temple. If a man walked in for an interview and he wreaked of alcohol, I would specifically ask he he drinks alcohol. She came in wearing pants, he asked her if she was trying to make a statement... based on the fact that this article exists suggests that the bishop was at least partly right.

What we have here is a classic Men in Black 3 situation minus the racism/sexism (start at 0:25)

The ironic thing is.. the bishop asked because of the "wear pants to church" movement.  I would wager that if that movement had not happened the bishop would not have said a word.

The Church standard is Sunday Best.  That has always been a personal call, with culture having an influence.  The culture of women being limited to dresses was already fading naturally all on it own.  Simply by all the women making there own personal call on what there Sunday Best was.  And yes there was some push back by individuals who like to impose there own will, that is the nature of sinful people.  But it was and still is going away.

Then there was the rebellion...(and yes that is exactly what it was an organized rebellion).  Cultural rebellions happen all the time... but these apostates targeted our worship service and that provoked the reaction that has powered this thread. And gets otherwise innocent people in the cross fire.  Because now Church leaders have to at least consider a woman wearing pants to be in open rebellion. (Which is kind of silly but that is the effect of the actions of these apostates)

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

  Because now Church leaders have to at least consider a woman wearing pants to be in open rebellion.

Do you really think that church leaders will notice if a woman is wearing pants? I don't. And if they do notice, I'm certain they won't be thinking about rebellion. 

Share this post


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

The difference is your Church has a prohibition on alcohol, especially when it comes to a temple recommend. Your Church does not have a prohibition on women wearing pants/slacks to Church. What kind of TR question is asked in regards to clothing worn to church?

Maureen, honesty in communication here would be much appreciated. You know perfectly well that the issue was not pants per se, which the author herself admits in saying that the bishop signed her temple recomment. The issue is whether she was trying to make a contrary sociopolitical statement in her choice of clothing.

Duh.

And the column is strong evidence that, despite her protestations of innocence to her bishop, she was doing exactly that. Shame on her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MormonGator said:

Do you really think that church leaders will notice if a woman is wearing pants? I don't. And if they do notice, I'm certain they won't be thinking about rebellion. 

I expect this is generally true, but I have known several women who would very much wear pants to a Church meeting as a token of rebellion. Several of them have already left the Church. If you believe that all cases of women wearing pants to Church are innocent style choices with no ulterior motives, you are naive. The bishop was well within his rights to ask, and given her authoring of the column under discussion, it looks as if the bishop was inspired in his question. That she apparently lied in response will condemn her, but the bishop did his due diligence and is blameless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Do you really think that church leaders will notice if a woman is wearing pants? I don't. And if they do notice, I'm certain they won't be thinking about rebellion. 

The bishop in the article did exactly that (if you take her word for it)...  While I think it is very silly... but if you are going to associate with apostates you really have no room to complain if the leaders question if you are one.

Share this post


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

Maureen, honesty in communication here would be much appreciated. You know perfectly well that the issue was not pants per se, which the author herself admits in saying that the bishop signed her temple recomment. The issue is whether she was trying to make a contrary sociopolitical statement in her choice of clothing.

Duh.

And the column is strong evidence that, despite her protestations of innocence to her bishop, she was doing exactly that. Shame on her.

And that's the sad part because she wasn't. It's some of the readers of this article that are assuming her clothing choice was making this ridiculous statement.

M.

Share this post


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

The difference is your Church has a prohibition on alcohol, especially when it comes to a temple recommend. Your Church does not have a prohibition on women wearing pants/slacks to Church. What kind of TR question is asked in regards to clothing worn to church?

M.

But we do have a prohibition on rebellion... and one rebel sign that has been used has been wearing pants. Not that pants are a problem... rebellion is.

Share this post


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

And that's the sad part because she wasn't. It's some of the readers of this article that are assuming her clothing choice was making this ridiculous statement.

M.

and that isn't the church's fault, it is the fault of the thousands of woman that marched about in rebellion and chose PANTS as their rebel symbol. The Swastika wasn't a problem until the Nazis made it one. pants on a woman wasn't a problem until the ordained woman's movement made it one.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fether said:

and that isn't the church's fault, it is the fault of the thousands of woman that marched about in rebellion and chose PANTS as their rebel symbol. The Swastika wasn't a problem until the Nazis made it one. pants on a woman wasn't a problem until the ordained woman's movement made it one.

It's not the fault of women who wear pants and have no idea about this rebellion talk either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fether said:

But we do have a prohibition on rebellion... and one rebel sign that has been used has been wearing pants. Not that pants are a problem... rebellion is.

True, and she is familiar with the following question, "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MormonGator said:

It's not the fault of women who wear pants and have no idea about this rebellion talk either. 

I agree! But when I knock on a door with an emboldened swastika on their door frame (which is very common for Indian homes), I then have to wonder if the person is a Nazi or a member of an Indian religion. In the case of the bishop, he has to decide if the sister is rebelling or just rocking some stylish dress pants. How does he do that? He asks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fether said:

But we do have a prohibition on rebellion... and one rebel sign that has been used has been wearing pants. Not that pants are a problem... rebellion is.

Do you believe then that all women who wear pants to church or all men that don't wear a white shirt and tie to church are rebelling? And if you don't why not? You think the author is rebelling because she wrote an article about wearing pants to church but for those who don't come right out and say they are rebelling with their clothing choice how can you determine who is rebelling and who is just wearing certain clothes because that is their choice?

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fether said:

I agree! But when I knock on a door with an emboldened swastika on their door frame (which is very common for Indian homes), I then have to wonder if the person is a Nazi or a member of an Indian religion. In the case of the bishop, he has to decide if the sister is rebelling or just rocking some stylish dress pants. How does he do that? He asks.

You need to be careful when you compare anything to Nazism. Unless they are actual Nazis. It's like comparing words to racial slurs. Doing so shows a startling lack of historical knowledge and understanding. 

Share this post


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

Do you believe then that all women who wear pants to church or all men that don't wear a white shirt and tie to church are rebelling? And if you don't why not? You think the author is rebelling because she wrote an article about wearing pants to church but for those who don't come right out and say they are rebelling with their clothing choice how can you determine who is rebelling and who is just wearing certain clothes because that is their choice?

M.

I don't :) never did, and don't really feel the need to know. HOWEVER, if I were a bishop whose responsibility is to judge worthiness, THEN I would need to know if someone is rebelling against the church... and yes I would ask "are you rebelling or just wearing some stylish dress pants?"

Edited by Fether

Share this post


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

You need to be careful when you compare anything to Nazism. Unless they are actual Nazis. It's like comparing words to racial slurs. Doing so shows a startling lack of historical knowledge and understanding. 

Great attempt to switch the topic to something unrelated that you feel you can win... but it won't work.

I agree, calling anyone a Nazi is idiotic. I am not doing that, I am not comparing anyone or anything to Naziism, I am comparing the transformation of the Swastika from being a symbol of divinity to becoming a symbol of white supremacy by the Nazis to the transformation made by the ordained woman's rebellion to a woman wearing pants. No one here is a Nazi except the actual OG Nazi's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fether said:

Great attempt to switch the topic to something unrelated that you feel you can win... but it won't work.

Cute. It's not about "winning" or "attempting to switch topics." I'll be more than happy to discuss this further. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Maureen I know you want SO badly to prove we are wrong and evil and misogynistic. You want us all to think a woman who wears pants is a sinner, you say it in every post... but we don't because we don't. Stop trying to convince us to hate women who wear pants. We are smarter and more progressive than that. I'm sure there are some great Pentecostal church forums that are looking to hire someone like you. But you won't find any pant wearing woman-haters here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Vort said:
22 minutes ago, Vort said:

Your powers of mind-reading are unconvincing.

 That she apparently lied in response will condemn her, but the bishop did his due diligence and is blameless.

And yours aren't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fether said:

@Maureen I know you want SO badly to prove we are wrong and evil and misogynistic. You want us all to think a woman who wears pants is a sinner, you say it in every post... but we don't because we don't. Stop trying to convince us to hate women who wear pants. We are smarter and more progressive than that. I'm sure there are some great Pentecostal church forums that are looking to hire someone like you. But you won't find any pant wearing woman-haters here.

 

On 8/22/2019 at 9:31 AM, person0 said:

People don't get addicted to wearing pants, and it does not require an expensive procedure to replace pants with a dress.  We want to see people with tattoos and addictions in Church because it is indicative of their desire and willingness to change.  Wearing pants after knowing, believing, and committing to the standards of the Church is open rebellion.  We want homosexuals in Church too, but that doesn't mean we want them to embrace a homosexual lifestyle.

I know most don't, but at least one person seems to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fether said:

@Maureen I know you want SO badly to prove we are wrong and evil and misogynistic. You want us all to think a woman who wears pants is a sinner, you say it in every post... but we don't because we don't. Stop trying to convince us to hate women who wear pants. We are smarter and more progressive than that. I'm sure there are some great Pentecostal church forums that are looking to hire someone like you. But you won't find any pant wearing woman-haters here.

What a weird statement. Should I assume this is your attempt at sarcasm? You do realize by reading the posts on this thread that there are many posters who are actually judging this author as being rebellious.

M.

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