Third Hour

Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

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. 

Awwww man.....puts away rusty and dull butter knfe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mores said:

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?

I am advocating empathy which I think will help put the situation in perspective.

Volunteer writer needs some experience and needs to put something on their cv. Writes article about women wearing pants at church. Yes the article needs to stir up controversy but...

1) Writing such an article is a ploy. Newspaper headlines often pose a question to which the answer is generally ‘No’. Eg should you always allow your relatives to stay at your home? The answer is ‘No’. The purpose is to: raise eyebrows, get you thinking, have you explore the possibility of an unusual situation. Eg Grandma is a pyromaniac. Don’t let her stay! These ploys are not intended to be taken entirely seriously. The silliest instance that I have encountered recently was an article that asked if you should break up with your significant other if they are rude to their electronic personal assistant eg Alexa. No one would actually believe that anyone would actually break up with someone for this reason. The article seeks to entertain by being a bit silly. In the article it discusses the importance of habitual politeness so that we don’t become accustomed to rudeness. This last is a good point immersed in a solution of silliness.

2) The writer is a volunteer, an amateur. She is learning. Of course the article is a bit amateurish. This is job experience and she is desperately trying to meet a deadline while commuting, going to school, working a number of jobs. Have some compassion

3) It is unlikely that she feels any opinion expressed as strongly as is being interpreted. She is ondeadline and is doing the best that she can.

4) Pitting one group against another is a cheap ploy like using baby pictures or kittens in ads. Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated. Let it go. These types of articles are a bit tongue in check like Phone ads that ask ‘When was the last time you phoned Mom?’ or Hallmark card commercials that tug at the heart strings. They are exaggerated views of reality. It is expected that you are in on the joke. You are not meant to take the controversy entirely seriously. 

Edited by Sunday21

Share this post


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

...The silliest instance that I have encountered recently was an article that asked if you should break up with your significant other if they are rude to their electronic personal assistant eg Alexa.... 

That's hilarious. My daughter has an "Alexa" and when I'm at her place babysitting my granddaughter I can ask it (her?) to turn on certain lights or play certain music. And when I do I always say please and thank you. It's weird in a way but it's just habit too. 😊

M.

Share this post


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

That's hilarious. My daughter has an "Alexa" and when I'm at her place babysitting my granddaughter I can ask it (her?) to turn on certain lights or play certain music. And when I do I always say please and thank you. It's weird in a way but it's just habit too. 😊

M.

We have them and I do the same thing.  

Share this post


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

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."

Hmm... that is actually a reverse of the point I was making.  Do you believe that is what the author was saying?

Share this post


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

1) Writing such an article is a ploy. ...

Yeah.  got it.

Quote

2) The writer is a volunteer, an amateur. She is learning. Of course the article is a bit amateurish. This is job experience and she is desperately trying to meet a deadline while commuting, going to school, working a number of jobs. Have some compassion

Yes.  Agreed.

Quote

3) It is unlikely that she feels any opinion expressed as strongly as is being interpreted. She is ondeadline and is doing the best that she can.

Wrong.  Because she is young, she no doubt feels very strongly about everything she writes.  Most people that age have only one level of emotion: Strong.  And it is pretty evident that she believes what she wrote.

Quote

4) Pitting one group against another is a cheap ploy like using baby pictures or kittens in ads. Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated. Let it go.

Now, this is where you're changing your tune.  It is one thing to say 

1. It's just a ploy.
2. Don't let it bother you.

Yes, I could buy that and go along with it.

It is another to say

1. They did their job to stir controversy.
2. They didn't really write anything controversial.  (I believe your words were: "It's no big deal" or something similar)  I don't have time right now for checking the exact wording.  Gotta go.

Edited by Mores

Share this post


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

Hmm... that is actually a reverse of the point I was making.  Do you believe that is what the author was saying?

Maybe I was not clear... The most likely reason the bishop asked her about her pants being a sign of rebellion is because of the "Wear Pants to Church" movement founded by apostates... (Which is a perfectly valid reason in my mind).  Thus the movement becomes directly responsible for the behavior it claims it is trying to change.  The author of the article instead of critically thinking about "why " the bishop asked the question.  Instead she jumps to her own conclusion.

So the irony is the movement causing the behavior they are say they are against.  And the irony of some one demanding people not to make assumptions of her behavior and actions while clearly making her own assumptions about the actions and behavior of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2019 at 8:58 AM, estradling75 said:

So the irony is the movement causing the behavior they are say they are against.  And the irony of some one demanding people not to make assumptions of her behavior and actions while clearly making her own assumptions about the actions and behavior of others.

Ok.  I guess I was thinking of a different point in the timeline.

The movement was specifically designed and premeditated to create the controversy where there never would have been one, thus making them justified in shaking their fingers at others.  So, to me, this was not "irony".  It was a purposeful manipulation.  It is social extortion.  i.e. they create the situation that they warn you against, so they can extract some concessions from you.

As far as the author's contradictory behavior, yes, I suppose that fits the definition of irony in a way.  I'd call it hypocrisy or outright deceit.

Share this post


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

Anyone notice that since this article caught so much fire that they stopped posting 3rdhour articles to the forum page? 

I did when they posted the one about watching R rated movies.  I was looking forward to seeing people's take on that one. :D 

Share this post


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

I did when they posted the one about watching R rated movies.  I was looking forward to seeing people's take on that one. :D 

Exact same thought!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 6:00 PM, Third Hour said:

. 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. 

No women in my Ward wore pants and in checking with a couple of friends no one in their wards did either - It may have been an "event" in the mountain west but it was ignored most other places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mnn2501 said:

No women in my Ward wore pants and in checking with a couple of friends no one in their wards did either - It may have been an "event" in the mountain west but it was ignored most other places.

It was definitely a small group of angry woman. focused in the Utah area

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 12:40 PM, dprh said:

I did when they posted the one about watching R rated movies.  I was looking forward to seeing people's take on that one. :D 

Here is the link for anyone wanting to read it: https://thirdhour.org/blog/buzz/movie-ratings/

Overall, once again, the article is seeking to make a good point; although, misinterpreting a prophet's counsel isn't the best way to go but not new to the Third Hour Aritcles (i.e. the prophet's counsel was only to the youth. This would be an inaccurate interpretation of a prophet's counsel).

The Strength of Youth is not mentioning rating because we are a world church and other countries do not have a rating system. Example, when my wife, in her youth, went to EFY they became friends with a young man from Holland. The young women were talking about movies and he chimed in talking about all the movies he watched that were good. All the movies he mentioned were rated-R in the US. So, poor guy, in his hopes to join the conversation he didn't show himself well. He had no clue what a R-rated movie was. So, it is obvious why the Church in the Strength of Youth pamphlet doesn't focus anymore on ratings.

So, I would say, nothing new, same concept we often see on Third Hour now with articles. A more liberal approach as if the prophets/apostles (not just Benson) who spoke on R-rated movies. If the article just simply focused on content I think it would have been great. But trying to interpret a prophet's words because it was only given to the "youth" -- which they weren't -- isn't the best approach at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of weeks ago, our sister missionaries showed up at my door unexpectedly. 😓  I noticed that they were wearing pants. I thought this was great, but I also thought pants were only approved for sisters in locations where the Zika virus was present. Apparently that's not the case. In light of all the pants discussions that have been going on, I decided to be a good Mormon for once and ask my bishop about wearing pants to church. I'm not trying to start a revolution, I don't want to protest, I just wanna know. Long story short, he doesn't care. Just come to church. I specifically asked if I had to dress up for tithing meetings and temple recommends, which I have always done, and he said no. Thank goodness. It gets cold here. Sometimes I'd like to wear dress pants, as that is what I usually wear.

We've always been welcoming to new people, no matter what they had on. I can't imagine anyone saying anything to my face if I wore pants one Sunday, but I wonder if people would talk amongst themselves?  

Share this post


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

We've always been welcoming to new people, no matter what they had on. I can't imagine anyone saying anything to my face if I wore pants one Sunday, but I wonder if people would talk amongst themselves?

Maybe I'm naive, but I doubt anyone would talk. I frankly doubt most people would notice. Those who did would tend to be the women, only because women are much more likely to notice anything about clothing than men are (in my experience), and would probably be more inclined to comment on style or color than on the fact that they were pants. People would have to be leading truly sad, dismal lives to sit around gossiping about a women who wore pants to Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2019 at 11:40 AM, dprh said:

I did when they posted the one about watching R rated movies.  I was looking forward to seeing people's take on that one. :D 

Here is the distillation of this and almost all other articles that pooh-pooh the counsel not to watch R-rated movies:

We cannot afford to just see a PG-13 rating as a green light, and an R-rating as a red—it just isn’t that cut and dry.

Perhaps this is true. But the logic is glaringly deficient. "Some PG-13-rated movies are awful and shouldn't be watched"—true enough. But the other side, "Some R-rated movies are wonderful and should be watched" is just plain false. No movie should be watched. It's entertainment. Nephi didn't watch any movies, R-rated or otherwise. I don't think that fact affected his eternal salvation, except possibly for the good.

The fact is this: Prophets have said on more than one occasion to avoid R-rated movies. Orson Scott Card, Jane Ballif, and anyone else can try to dismiss that counsel, but their rantings don't change the fact that the prophets said what they said. And Ballif's suggestion that the R-rated movie counsel was only given to youth and applies only to them is blatantly dishonest and shameful.

Watch R-rated movies if you want. No skin off my nose. But don't lie by pretending that the prophets have not specifically counseled against doing exactly that, or by claiming that their teachings suddenly don't count any more after you reach your 18th birthday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, dahlia said:

A couple of weeks ago, our sister missionaries showed up at my door unexpectedly. 😓  I noticed that they were wearing pants. I thought this was great, but I also thought pants were only approved for sisters in locations where the Zika virus was present. Apparently that's not the case.

Dress codes were changed late last year (2018)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/all-sister-missionaries-now-have-option-of-wearing-slacks?lang=eng&_r=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two observations:

1). My understanding was that sister missionaries are still expected to wear skirts to conferences and Sunday services.  Am I mistaken?

2). The thing about “We cannot afford to just see a PG-13 rating as a green light, and an R-rating as a red—it just isn’t that cut and dry” is that if you then say “OK, name five PG-13 movies that Mormons shouldn’t watch and that you haven’t watched”—they’ll hem and haw and sputter something about “personal revelation” and “not within my stewardship”, but they won’t name the movies.  ProgMos, like their secularist exemplars, may theorize about principles that may have conservative as well as liberal/libertine applications; but in practice, the ratchet only turns one way.  The simple fact is that yes, many PG-13 movies are trash—but easily over 95% of R rated movies are also trash; and the other 5% are not worth nearly the attention that this issue usually gets.  Most  ProgMos who make this point aren’t trying to enrich your life by giving you an “out” to see Schindler's List or The King’s Speech; they’re just trying to make themselves feel better for having watched The Godfather and Animal House and American Pie.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I met a temple sealer while at the temple and we had a little down time waiting for a witness and he spoke about the media today and how he refuses to watch anything with any amount of immorality or amorality. He did this to the point of walking out of a PG movie a friend suggested that used the Lord’s name in vein. He then Began to speak of his disappointment in his friend.

Its moments like this that I think of the stake leader that told a doctrine class “I think there are a lot of saints that will be surprised they didn’t qualify for exaltation” and wonder if I am one of those. I can’t fathom seeing this sealer achieve the same glory as many of the forum members here (all of whom I look up to) who openly share their experiences watching pg-13 and R movies. 

I also think of apostles quoting Les Mis and Starwars and wonder how that all fits into appropriate media. Everyone will cry “it’s art” but that doesn’t change the fact their are mild amounts of sexual, drug, cursing, and violence in them.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


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

I met a temple sealer while at the temple and we had a little down time waiting for a witness and he spoke about the media today and how he refuses to watch anything with any amount of immorality it amorality. He did this to the point of walking out of a PG movie a friend suggested that used the Lord’s name in vein. He the. Began to speak of his disappointment in his friend.

Its moments like this that I think of the stake leader that told a doctrine class “I think there are a lot of saints that will be surprised they didn’t qualify for exaltation” and wonder if I am one of those. I can’t fathom seeing this sealer achieve the same glory as many of the forum members here (all of whom I look up to) who openly share their experiences watching pg-13 and R movies. 

I also think of apostles quoting Les Mis and Starwars and wonder how that all fits into appropriate media. Everyone willing cry “it’s art” but that doesn’t change the fact their are mild amounts of sexual, drug, cursing, and violence in them.

Some people judge other people harshly who do watch R-rated movies. For me personally, I judge harshly people who do NOT proofread and therefore do NOT correct typos on anything they may write. 😉

M.

Share this post


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

Its moments like this that I think of the stake leader that told a doctrine class “I think there are a lot of saints that will be surprised they didn’t qualify for exaltation” and wonder if I am one of those.

It was an eye opener when the arrogant little missionary (speaking of myself) realized how oft I quoted the following, "Lord, Lord...," and then realized it was more pointing to covenanted members.

The parable of the Ten Virgins all the more points to this idea taught by your stake leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall, I don't have much to add to the debate on whether or not to watch R rated movies. Generally, if I find I have to justify doing something I'm usually about to do something wrong. Not every time, but maybe 98% of the time. So if I find myself justifying a film, I force myself to take a closer look at why, because it usually means I want to do something I shouldn't.

I'm more concerned with this idea that there will only be a few of us attaining exaltation. I know the scripture says strait is the way and narrow is the path, and I do believe that if you are refering to the world at large this is true. But I wholeheartedly believe that there will be more, not less of us that are going to be exalted. Too many times we become obsessed with spirtual minutia, and act like somehow we will save ourselves by being perfect. Christ teaches us how much we rely on him all throughout the scriptures, although here is a specific example in D and C 68:9

"And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned."

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. I'm not trying to justify sin, quite the contrary it's also crystal clear that repentance is absolutely neccessary to receive exaltation, but since all of us fall short of the glory of God, and only those cleansed by the Blood of Christ will be brought into the presence of our Father, I don't understand why sometimes we try to limit, even in many cases limiting ourselves, who Christ can save. If even a man like President Nelson, a man who is 1000 times better at living closer to Christ than me, falls short of God what possible chance do I have? I don't believe that God would have told us that we are that we might have joy if he was only planning on exalting a handful of his Saints, and casting the rest of us out of his presence. I would argue that Christ's power is great enough to exalt a lot more of us than we sometimes give him credit for, and that while we should be careful and repentant in nature, we should also trust that he can exalt regular joes like me who fall on their face all the time. If he was limited in this regard, Christ's gospel would not be good news.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2019 at 1:51 PM, Fether said:

I also think of apostles quoting Les Mis and Starwars and wonder how that all fits into appropriate media. Everyone will cry “it’s art” but that doesn’t change the fact their are mild amounts of sexual, drug, cursing, and violence in them.

Mormons can't watch Star Wars????

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