Third Hour

Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Are you Amish? :P

Well, I’ll bet you’ve never seen an Amish woman wearing pants to church . . . :nownow:

12 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Oh we agree, and it's dishonest of you (generic) to think that women who wear pants are doing so just to rebel agaisnt a tyrannical empire, so...

 

I don’t think “dishonest” is quite the right adjective.  “Suspicious”, maybe even “paranoid” (assuming one’s memory doesn’t go back to 2012-2013) . . . But “dishonest”?  I’m not seeing it.  

Share this post


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

Well, I’ll bet you’ve never seen an Amish woman wearing pants to church . . . :nownow:

I don’t think “dishonest” is quite the right adjective.  “Suspicious”, maybe even “paranoid” (assuming one’s memory doesn’t go back to 2012-2013) . . . But “dishonest”?  I’m not seeing it.  

it's accusing them of something that you don't have evidence of because you aren't a mind reader. No matter what we call it, it's wrong. 

Share this post


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

it's accusing them of something that you don't have evidence of because you aren't a mind reader. No matter what we call it, it's wrong. 

Correct in a general sense... However in the case of the article she convicts herself with her own words... No mind reading required. 

And it swings both ways... accusing bishop (or other church leader) of wrong doing because they asked a contextually relevant question when we do not why... is just as wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

A bishop doesn't need to go around looking, remember, the article is referring to a temple recommend interview. It is very easy to recognize manner of dress when a person comes to a temple recommend interview. ;)

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


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

it's accusing them of something that you don't have evidence of because you aren't a mind reader. No matter what we call it, it's wrong. 

If it were publicly accusing, I’d be more inclined to agree.  But I believe we’re taking specifically about internal thoughts.  

Knowledge of truth comes after investigation, which comes after suspicion borne of an observation of an idiosyncratic event.  If a parent comes to court, and they’re a little wobbly on their feet and keep falling asleep and have slurred speech, and I wonder if they’re high on heroin (or even ask the judge to order them to take a drug test)—I may be right or I may be wrong; I may be mean; I may be mistrustful; I may be heartless; I may be unforgiving.  But I’m not sure I’m a liar.  

And I realize you found the Nazi comparison problematic; but the underlying principle is the same:  when you see someone acting like, or displaying the preferred insignia of, members of a problematic group; you’re naturally going to want to investigate to see whether the person in fact associates or agrees with with that group.  

The AllEnlisted ruckus was an absolute game-changer on the pants-to-church issue; and not for the better.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

As someone who has given lots of media interviews...have some sympathy with someone whose job it is to write articles. Part of the job is to stir up controversy. Well she did that didn’t she? [...]  Chill.

I don't get it. She tried to stir up controversy and succeeded, so therefore I'm supposed to "chill"?

Share this post


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

I don't get it. She tried to stir up controversy and succeeded, so therefore I'm supposed to "chill"?

Yep. This is a nonissue. No white shoes after Labor Day. Who cares? 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

Yep. This is a nonissue. No white shoes after Labor Day. Who cares? 

I rather suspect that MGF wants us to care.  They did their initial Facebook link as usual, but just a week or so ago they came up with a new poll that referred back to the same article.  

MGF has sort of morphed into Mormon Clickbait Central, in case you haven’t noticed.  I daresay they know what they’re doing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

As I have said in the past, I do not care at all if a sister wears pants. If sweet ole sis. Jones comes into my office looking for a temple recommend and she is wearing pants, I will give it to her.

If rebellious sister Johnson comes in for an interview, regardless of if she is wearing pants or not, I will question her on her views of the church and make sure she isn’t against the church.

It is incredible how incapable you and others are of seeing past the silly topic of wearing pants to church. 

Share this post


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

I rather suspect that MGF wants us to care.  They did their initial Facebook link as usual, but just a week or so ago they came up with a new poll that referred back to the same article.  

MGF has sort of morphed into Mormon Clickbait Central, in case you haven’t noticed.  I daresay they know what they’re doing.  

Ok I do not know who MFG is. Looked at original article no info on that...but honestly I’d they DO care, they need to get a life or even better  a demanding calling. These people need something to worry about that actually matters. How is that genealogy coming? Any elderly neighbors who need a ride to the doctor? Do something real.

Share this post


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

I rather suspect that MGF wants us to care.  They did their initial Facebook link as usual, but just a week or so ago they came up with a new poll that referred back to the same article.  

MGF has sort of morphed into Mormon Clickbait Central, in case you haven’t noticed.  I daresay they know what they’re doing.  

Ok I do not know who MFG is. Looked at original article no info on that...but honestly if they DO care, they need to get a life or even better  a demanding calling. These people need something to worry about that actually matters. How is that genealogy coming? Any elderly neighbors who need a ride to the doctor? Do something real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Ok I do not know who MFG is. Looked at original article no info on that...but honestly if they DO care, they need to get a life or even better  a demanding calling. These people need something to worry about that actually matters. How is that genealogy coming? Any elderly neighbors who need a ride to the doctor? Do something real.

MGF. I believe that is the More Good Foundation, who run and/or own the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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. ;) 

The Sixth Sense, 1999. Awesome movie, actually. I saw it for the first time only a few years ago, and it totally worked on me. I didn't even like Bruce Willis, but I have to admit he did an outstanding job. And the little boy was heartbreaking. Very much worth a watch. It's not a horror movie at all, but there are tinges of that. More of a psychological thriller.

It's on Netflix, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

MGF. I believe that is the More Good Foundation, who run and/or own the site.

I imagine that MFG is trying to promote the site by having interesting articles. A marketing plan. Sensible to keep numbers up. I doubt they care about pant wearing women. 

Share this post


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

 But I believe we’re taking specifically about internal thoughts.  

And those can be just as dangerous as external thoughts, because they could influence your external actions. 

Don't get me wrong, I agree 100% that there is a huge difference between thinking that you want to kill me and actually killing me, but you do need to control your thoughts because they eventually can change your behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, estradling75 said:

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)

Unfortunately, there was no irony.  It was planned.

The rebellion was brewing.  They saw the social winds were already moving the women of the Church in that direction.  So, they decided to call it their own.  Then when we saw more women wearing pants (as a natural fashion evolution) they can then declare victory and say that all women wearing pants to Church are part of their rebellion.  "See how powerful we are?!?!"

So, if the movement calls all women who wear pants as part of their rebellion, is it not the natural course for bishops to ask if a woman wearing pants is in open rebellion against the Church by wearing pants?

Share this post


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

Why? 

Sunday,

I think you're missing Vort's observation that you're making a contradiction.

1) It's their job to stir up controversy.
2) Vort reacted to the controversy as if it were, you know, controversial.
3) Your reaction is to say:

  • They did their job by writing a controversial article.
  • It isn't really controversial, so why do we care?

Do you see your contradiction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mores said:

So, if the movement calls all women who wear pants as part of their rebellion, is it not the natural course for bishops to ask if a woman wearing pants is in open rebellion against the Church by wearing pants?

That is the irony I was pointing out.  "Oh no the bishop is oppressing me by asking a question because I wore pants.. So I need to support or otherwise join a rebellion who very existence is the reason the bishop asked his question in the first place."

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