Third Hour

Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, dprh said:

 

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

 

12 minutes ago, Maureen said:

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.

Well shame on them. But not the church.

Share this post


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

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.

I know its hard to understand why someone might think/feel she is being rebellious,

"As a woman, referenced in this article from December 2012 said, “When a rule is this pointless and this scary to break, it NEEDS to be broken.” If in every ward, a woman feels this uncomfortable using agency to express herself, there is a problem. And if this problem prevents people from feeling safe and accepted at church, we should do all we can to fix it, right?

And so they did in 2012, and in 2013. Maybe they’ll do it again. And maybe, dear Reader, we’ll all understand a little more and react a little differently."

And, I remember reading this, but can't find it in the article anymore @Vort's first response, ""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.""

When you use an obvious rebellious/apostate movement as a platform, when you say a sacred communal worship is good to air social opinions and rebellious natures, and then saying we should understand the rebellious movement and think it OK, it shouldn't be hard to understand why some see her as rebellious.

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


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

I know its hard to understand why someone might think/feel she is being rebellious,

"As a woman, referenced in this article from December 2012 said, “When a rule is this pointless and this scary to break, it NEEDS to be broken.” If in every ward, a woman feels this uncomfortable using agency to express herself, there is a problem. And if this problem prevents people from feeling safe and accepted at church, we should do all we can to fix it, right?

And so they did in 2012, and in 2013. Maybe they’ll do it again. And maybe, dear Reader, we’ll all understand a little more and react a little differently."

And, I remember reading this, but can't find it in the article @Vort's first response, ""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.""

When you use an obvious rebellious/apostate movement as a platform and saying we should understand the rebellious movement and think it OK, it shouldn't be hard to understand why some see her as rebellious.

If women wearing pants to church or men not wearing white shirts and ties to church is not against the RULES, then where is the rebellion? There are no RULES about what clothing is acceptable only that it should be "Sunday best" and many people have pointed out that "Sunday best" can be a variety of choices depending on a person's circumstances. I guess I can understand that traditionally and culturally your Church has defined "Sunday best" as dresses for women and white shirts and ties for men; but is going against TRADITION really a serious rebellious action?

M.

Share this post


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

If women wearing pants to church or men not wearing white shirts and ties to church is not against the RULES, then where is the rebellion? There are no RULES about what clothing is acceptable only that it should be "Sunday best" and many people have pointed out that "Sunday best" can be a variety of choices depending on a person's circumstances. I guess I can understand that traditionally and culturally your Church has defined "Sunday best" as dresses for women and white shirts and ties for men; but is going against TRADITION really a serious rebellious action?

M.

You have obviously, once more, used selective reading and didn't pay attention to what I actually said. Go back, reread slower, and actually understand what was said. You're fixated on your own opinion of what is being said, not what is actually being said.

Share this post


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

....When you use an obvious rebellious/apostate movement as a platform, when you say a sacred communal worship is good to air social opinions and rebellious natures, and then saying we should understand the rebellious movement and think it OK, it shouldn't be hard to understand why some see her as rebellious.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't understand how you view this, as you say, "rebellious/apostate movement" as seriously as you do. The mere fact that you and many others view a lot of members banding together to wear pants or purple as rebellious or apostate is unfathomable to my way of thinking. And the fact that these people felt much safer for doing this "activity" in a group (with many members), speaks volumes as to how strange Latter-day Saints bands together to "follow tradition or else". This group was not advocating for something that was against morality or something that was unethical, it was just bringing to everyones attention that this "Sunday best" tradition might need some expanding and less rigidity.

M.

Share this post


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

Where did I mind-read?

I quoted it.  You claimed that the author lied when she told her bishop that she wasn't rebelling when she wore pants.

 
Quote

 

  1 hour ago, Vort said:
  1 hour 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.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I understand what you are saying, I just don't understand how you view this, as you say, "rebellious/apostate movement" as seriously as you do. The mere fact that you and many others view a lot of members banding together to wear pants or purple as rebellious or apostate is unfathomable to my way of thinking. And the fact that these people felt much safer for doing this "activity" in a group (with many members), speaks volumes as to how strange Latter-day Saints bands together to "follow tradition or else". This group was not advocating for something that was against morality or something that was unethical, it was just bringing to everyones attention that this "Sunday best" tradition might need some expanding and less rigidity.

M.

I am sorry your "way of thinking" has a hard time discerning between "unnecessary" and its connection to a rebellious apostate movement. I am a little dumbfounded your "way of thinking" has a hard time discerning between coming to church to worship or to use a sacred worship service to make a point. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

Share this post


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

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

. . . Yes, all two of them. 😜 

I’m not sure what Sister Coppersmith meant to convey with her choice of attire on any particular occasion.  But to the extent that she wants us to think she didn’t mean to convey anything—by the terms of her own column, she’s not being honest.  And she’s also being more than a little disingenuous about what a substantial number of her peers mean to convey when they do it (especially now, weeks after the article’s initial publication, when she has had more than ample time to correct her initial mistake—if a mistake it truly was—but has let her article stand uncorrected). 

There may not be a temple recommend question about attire; but there is one about honesty.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, dprh said:

I quoted it.  You claimed that the author lied when she told her bishop that she wasn't rebelling when she wore pants.

Did you actually read the article? All the way to the end? Let me help you:

Quote

My bishop meant well, but his perspective proves that we have a problem.

The bishop's "perspective" was as follows, as written by the author herself:

Quote

In the middle of the interview, he looked at me concernedly and said, “Now, I have another question…it’s about your slacks. It’s fine if you wear them, but please tell me, are they a sign of rebellion?

[...]

I said no. [...] He nodded his head and finished with the scripted recommend questions.

It is the author's contention that the fact that the bishop was concerned about a potential temple recommend recipient harboring a rebellious spirit—his "perspective", in her words—is itself "a problem".

Digest that fact for a moment, @dprh. The mere fact that a bishop is concerned about a potentially rebellious attitude is "a problem". Yet that is the bishop's whole job, to determine someone's worthiness.

Please note: The author did not complain that the bishop denied her a temple recommend; he did not. She did not complain that he harassed her or acted unkindly; he did neither. She didn't even say that he didn't like her choice of dress; the opposite was the case, as she reported that he said it was "fine if you wear them."

So what was the author's complaint about the bishop? What did he do that she considered problematic? He asked a question—a question completely appropriate to the situation. THAT, the asking of an appropriate question, is what the author considered "a problem".

Do you agree with her? Is it problematic for a bishop to try to determine someone's worthiness before giving them a temple recommend?

Let's continue with the article:

Quote

As a woman, referenced in this article from December 2012 said, “When a rule is this pointless and this scary to break, it NEEDS to be broken.” [...] And so they did in 2012, and in 2013. Maybe they’ll do it again. And maybe, dear Reader, we’ll all understand a little more and react a little differently.

Here, the author openly condones, praises, and even advocates for the stupid "pants protest". She praises and advocates something that even she admitted was an act of rebellion.

So it's not mindreading, dprh. It's called "critical reading", also known as "carefully reading what someone wrote to find out exactly what she's saying in her own words, without improper inferences". Consider adding it to your arsenal of rhetorical intellectual weapons. (Warning: Critical reading requires practice and some considerable mental effort, much more than mindlessly questioning why someone's careful analysis doesn't qualify as "mindreading" even though the analysis was pretty much open for anyone to reproduce by, you know, critical reading. So though it's a worthwhile skill to develop, it doesn't come just by asking.)

Edited by Vort

Share this post


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

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.

Quoted for context.  You said She lied in her response.  The only thing she said in response to the bishop was 

Quote

I said no. “I just think they are cute and comfortable to wear. And church wardrobe standards only require that you wear your best. These pants are as formal as any of my dresses.” 

I don't see a lie in there, unless she is not writing her true thoughts that she is rebellious. Which would require mind-reading to know.

Her contention is not that the Bishop is trying to find rebellion. her issue is that women wearing pants are seen as rebellion.  Do you see the difference.  I don't think the author would mind if the bishop knew a member was a supporter of Ordain Women and asked specifically about that.  

For your last quote, when I read it, I focused more on the part you ellipsed. 

Quote

If in every ward, a woman feels this uncomfortable using agency to express herself, there is a problem. And if this problem prevents people from feeling safe and accepted at church, we should do all we can to fix it, right?

She isn't supported or against the pants movement.  Her call was that we would react differently if it happens again. 

Quote

And maybe, dear Reader, we’ll all understand a little more and react a little differently.

Thank you for the suggestion of developing my critical reading skills.  I will try to do that better in the future.  I've said before, that I am not the best at communicating my thoughts and this thread has helped me exercise that skill (or lack thereof).  Since we're giving helpful tips, I'd suggest that you try to be less condescending in your posts. :) 

Share this post


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

this "Sunday best" tradition might need some expanding and less rigidity.

How exactly do you "expand" Sunday best, or make Sunday best "less rigid"? Best dress is best dress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dprh said:
2 hours ago, Vort said:

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.

Quoted for context.  You said She lied in her response.

You actually quoted me, yet you couldn't correctly identify what I said? How is that even possible?

1 minute ago, dprh said:

The only thing she said in response to the bishop was 

Quote

I said no.

And that is apparently a lie, as the final three paragraphs of her column demonstrate.

2 minutes ago, dprh said:

I don't see a lie in there, unless she is not writing her true thoughts that she is rebellious. Which would require mind-reading to know.

Again, did you read her column? Or my post to which you're ostensibly responding? I explained it most carefully. No ESP involved.

4 minutes ago, dprh said:

Her contention is not that the Bishop is trying to find rebellion. her issue is that women wearing pants are seen as rebellion.

Now who's engaged in mind-reading, dprh? She defined the bishop's "perspective" and then said it was problematic. Now you're trying to revise her words. I quoted what she said. And the fact that she wrote what she did indicates that the bishop was onto something.

8 minutes ago, dprh said:

For your last quote, when I read it, I focused more on the part you ellipsed. 

Quote

If in every ward, a woman feels this uncomfortable using agency to express herself, there is a problem. And if this problem prevents people from feeling safe and accepted at church, we should do all we can to fix it, right?

And this changes the validity of what I wrote...how?

8 minutes ago, dprh said:

She isn't supported or against the pants movement.  Her call was that we would react differently if it happens again. 

She referenced an undisguisedly anti-Mormon LA Times article. She quoted an unnamed source from it to buttress her position. And, directly within the context of women wearing pants to Church in order to explicitly signal rebellion against established customs, she wrote: "If in every ward, a woman feels this uncomfortable using agency to express herself, there is a problem. And if this problem prevents people from feeling safe and accepted at church, we should do all we can to fix it, right?"

If you honestly claim this is not an overt support of the "wear pants to Church" movement, then I must question your ability to read critically.

14 minutes ago, dprh said:

Since we're giving helpful tips, I'd suggest that you try to be less condescending in your posts. :) 

Indeed, you are right. It's my natural reaction when accused of hypocrisy. But we all know about the status of the natural man.

Share this post


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

Indeed, you are right. It's my natural reaction when accused of hypocrisy. But we all know about the status of the natural man.

I apologize.  I was too quick and insincere in that post.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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.

 

3 hours 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.

 

2 hours 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.

Hey Maureen.  You're just as bad as @Suzie's YW Stake President.

You're stuck on the pants.  IT IS NOT THE PANTS.  IT IS THE ATTITUDE.  And THAT is what the Bishop in the article was asking during the temple recommend.  And THAT's the attitude the writer is displaying in her article.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE PANTS.

And by the way... It's not about the alcohol either.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


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

Indeed, you are right. It's my natural reaction when accused of hypocrisy. But we all know about the status of the natural man.

I apologize.  I was too quick and insincere in that post.  

Perhaps. Only you can judge that. But you were right about many things. I do not believe I was a hypocrite in what I wrote, but I certainly was sarcastically condescending. In that, I would do well to take an example from many of my betters here on this list.

Here's a little private introspection that I'll offer up publicly. Please skip it as soon as you find it boring.

I tend to be very sympathetic and patient toward those Latter-day Saints who are young in the gospel (regardless of age) and who are fragile from painful experiences (and those non-Latter-day Saints who are sincerely seeking to understand what this "Mormon" stuff is all about). I have far less patience toward those self-proclaimed Latter-day Saints who openly defy their covenants or who seek to undermine the Church or the revelatory testimonies of its members (and those non-Latter-day Saints who seek to pull down the kingdom of God and its leaders or who feign interest in the gospel so as to ask disingenuous and often biased and flawed "questions" to further their efforts to destroy the Church and its members).

But what about when you can't really tell a person's motives, which, let's face it, is most of the time? What of those who are less than pure in all their motives, but who sincerely (to some degree) wonder and question some things, and who sincerely (to some degree) do want to understand some points of doctrine that trouble them? Are they to be fully accepted at face value with the truly sincere, or are they to be ignored and discredited along with the antiMormon riffraff? I think the Christlike thing is to bias oneself toward the former. I sometimes think I might be generally biased toward the latter, especially with those I don't know well (like others on a near-anonymous internet-based discussion board). I admit this as a possible one of my many imperfections.

But that is not without reason. When I was much younger, I had sincere questions, based in profound ignorance, that I struggled to resolve. I listened to many of these voices and, as a result, formed a sort of "protective shell" of prideful beliefs which I believe did me significant and lasting spiritual harm. I was one who might well have made fun of "sheeple", had that term been coined when I was a teenager. At 19 years old, while preparing to serve a mission, I came face to face with the choice of how I would live my life, and I decided to give the gospel and the Church (which I foolishly separated in my mind) a real chance, thus allying myself with those very people I had long considered foolish, immature, and unthinking. Only my discovery of real scripture study on my mission, my attendance at BYU, and the efforts of my leaders and teachers, along with significant effort and humbling on my part (for which I can take only partial credit), allowed me to rise out of the quagmire I had been in. Today, I see many of my loved ones caught in that same quagmire, and after decades of their struggles, I see the evil fruit borne from such actions and attitudes in their own lives and magnified in the lives of their children. It breaks my heart.

So when I see people who seem to be promulgating such attitudes, I get my dander up. It's a defensive reaction toward my loved ones of my generation, toward my own children and those encountering such trials now, and maybe even to some degree for my younger self. I'm okay with honest ignorance, as it's the common condition of all men and women. I'm much less okay with deception, lies, and half-truths masquerading as sincere questions, and with those arguments (and the people who make them) that tend to pull away from the pure gospel teachings and instead encourage rebellion and pridefulness.

If Sister Coppersmith had been my own sister or daughter, I would never have publicly berated her column or called out its many flaws. Doubtless the fact that I don't know her personally played a big part in my reaction here. Doubtless the fact that I'm fairly anonymous to the casual reader (though not to anyone really committed to finding out who I am, which wouldn't be very hard for someone who really wants to know) plays a big role, too, since I would probably be much more judicious in what I write if my name were openly attached to it. So there is certainly some amount of self-serving bias in what I write here. Perhaps I have done real harm to Sister Coppersmith, or Amy Keim, or David Snell, or other TH columnists whom I've occasionally taken to task here. I certainly hope not; even at my least pleasant, my intent was never to cause personal harm (emotional or otherwise) to the authors, but rather to warn others not to take to heart ideas that I considered dangerous and counterproductive.

Share this post


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

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?"

It is perplexing to think that if you are a Bishop you will be going around checking if women are wearing pants and ask them if they are rebelling. What? It is absolutely absurd.

And... your ward must be doing really well if as a Bishop you have that kind of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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. 

Doubt it but if there are...maybe their wards are doing really well to actually have the time to be checking if women are wearing pants to Church. It is so silly, it is not even funny.

Share this post


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

It is perplexing to think that if you are a Bishop you will be going around checking if women are wearing pants and ask them if they are rebelling. What? It is absolutely absurd.

And... your ward must be doing really well if as a Bishop you have that kind of time.

It’s the theological equivalent of “broken windows” policing.

(I’m being tongue-in-cheek, but now I’m starting to wonder . . .)

Share this post


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

It’s the theological equivalent of “broken windows” policing.

(I’m being tongue-in-cheek, but now I’m starting to wonder . . .)

 

pants.jpg

Share this post


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

I’m assuming that pic is from a movie, but I don’t know what movie it’s from, so it kind of loses its impact on me. ;) 

Are you Amish? :P

Edited by Suzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Doubt it but if there are...maybe their wards are doing really well to actually have the time to be checking if women are wearing pants to Church. It is so silly, it is not even funny.

Agree totally. If things are going so well in your ward that women wearing pants is your biggest problem....then count your blessings and move on! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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.

As someone who has given lots of media interviews...have some sympathy with the writer whose job it is to write articles. Part of the job is to stir up controversy. Well she did that didn’t she? She is quite likely a volunteer.  If you read some fluffy magazines, you can see instances where the writer is desperate to make an article out of a nonissue. Poor person is trying to meet a deadline not start World War 3.  Chill.

Edited by Sunday21

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