Third Hour

Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

You can label yourself with a religion should you so choose, but @Grunt apparently wants to take it one step further and have people specify their level activity with the Church or what their level of worthiness is.  I'm surprised to see the guy back on this forum since he has such a low tolerance for anyone he perceives as less worthy and faithful than he is. 

I have never once seen @Grunt act all high and mighty in regards to his faithfulness.  It is completely justified for someone, new or old, to be shocked and confused by the nonchalant attitude with which some members claim faithfulness and then speak or act in ways that are understood to be less than.

Suppose someone went to an AA meeting and there were a few alcoholics there who claimed they were going through the program but then admitted in private that they don't really follow all the guidelines and that they still drink a little but consider themselves sober as long as they don't get drunk?  Surely you would assume that they either were not alcoholics in the first place, or that they weren't serious enough about getting clean.  I can't imagine such an environment in such a setting ever being a net positive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, person0 said:

Gotta be honest, Gator.  I also had no idea you were no longer active in the Church, I just thought you were a non-conventional member.  Perhaps other's knew this and I just missed it, but @Grunt wasn't the only one who was unaware.  Doesn't really change anything, just makes me miss you at church (figuratively speaking).

Why is it @Grunt's place to blow up @MormonGator's business?  And you're right, it doesn't change anything. That's my point. A member's opinions are still a member's opinions regardless of their current status or activity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dprh said:

 I don't feel like I'm rebelling or making a statement.  I think the author of this article has a similar view of dresses.

The author frankly wants it both ways.  She insists to her bishop that her pants aren’t making a statement; but then she insists to her readers that they are making a statement about herself (and goes on to hint that any LDS woman who isn’t wearing pants to church, is consciously declining to express herself). 

It seems to me that one of the divisions this discussion exposes, is between the subset of people who dress primarily as a reflection of their opinions of themselves;  versus the subset of people who dress primarily as a reflection of their respect for others.  Saints who insist on the suit-or-dress Sunday getup often get hectored by their more progressive brethren over those BoM verses about people who became puffed-up in their fashion choices—but which subset are those verses really directed towards?

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


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

The author frankly wants it both ways.  She insists to her bishop that her pants aren’t making a statement about; but then she insists to her readers that they are making a statement about herself (and that any LDS woman who isn’t wearing pants, is consciously declining to express herself).

Indeed she pushes really hard on the idea that if people can't wear what they want... then they are being denied their agency and ability to express themselves.  But apparently she can only be bothered to talk about women and pants and how they are oppressed and suffer...  Whereas with but a moment thought I know that the priesthood holders operate just fine under much harsher restrictions.

 

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


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

December 2012?  Wow - I now have almost 7 full years of not really caring about this issue.  I don't pay enough attention to what other people are wearing at church, to know if the women are wearing pants or not. 

I've only had faux rebellious wars with stuff like this.  Part of breaking in my new bishop, was to grill him mercilessly on whether pineapple belonged on pizza or not.  He thought quick, saying the only true position was that pineapple was ok on pizza, but only in the presence of meat, such as canadian bacon or ham.  Those who engage in activities with pizza that have pineapple as it's only topping, are in danger losing their soul.  I told him that I would adopt his position as my own, as one of the ways of sustaining him in his calling.

Far as I can tell, when it comes to doctrinal importance and relevance to personal salvation, women and pants arguments = pineapple on pizza arguments.  If you're all passionate about it, whatever.  I think you're missing the point, but I don't care, you do you.

I suppose I'll draw the line at public nudity (which does sometimes happen with uppity breastfeeders looking for a fight).

@NeuroTypical Did you supply an appropriate pizza for next meeting? Tithing settlement treat? Enquiring minds want to know!

Share this post


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

tl;dr—No one cares if women wear pants to Church, but the Purple Pants People are looking to sow discord. That's the problem.

How I read your response ( Thanks for the tl;dr, the whole quote is long ((and appreciated)) :) )

So in 2011, no one cared.  After 2012, women who want to wear pants shouldn't because it's associated with the One-Eyed, One-Horned Flying Purple Pants Wearers.  

It is unfortunate that the 'rebellious' chose such a simple article of clothing to represent their protest and that pants are now associated with apostasy.  I can see how others are making that connection, although it seems a bigger leap to me.  

This whole thread reminds me of the meme I've seen a number of people post on Facebook about a woman who is going to leave the Church.  She talks to her Bishop and says she can't take all the hypocrisy, back-biting, gossiping, one-up-manship of the other people.  The Bishop asks her to carry a spoonful of water around the whole building without spilling a drop.  She does this and reports back her success.  The Bishop asked if she saw anyone acting in those horrible ways and she says "No, I was too focused on the water."  He then compares that to how she should focus on Jesus Christ at church and not on other people.

Even if a woman wears pants to church in support of the Purple Pants People, what will happen?  Nothing, that I can tell.

Share this post


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

The author frankly wants it both ways.  She insists to her bishop that her pants aren’t making a statement; but then she insists to her readers that they are making a statement about herself (and goes on to hint that any LDS woman who isn’t wearing pants to church, is consciously declining to express herself). 

I worry that I'm coming off as confrontational, and I'm really not trying to.  I am trying to understand this.  I re-read the article a couple times and I don't see it the way you do.  She says she wants to dress how she feels confident and unique.  Apparently that means pants for her.  I don't see her saying that she's making a statement, or that other women should too or those that don't aren't expressing themselves.  

Share this post


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

Indeed she pushes really hard on the idea that if people can't wear what they want... then they are being denied their agency and ability to express themselves.  But apparently she can only be bothered to talk about women and pants and how they are oppressed and suffer...  Whereas with but a moment thought I know that the priesthood holders operate just fine under much harsher restrictions.

 

I bet the people who run this site would love it if you wrote an article expressing a man's view on white shirts (on either side of the 'issue')  I'd read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, person0 said:

I have never once seen @Grunt act all high and mighty in regards to his faithfulness.  It is completely justified for someone, new or old, to be shocked and confused by the nonchalant attitude with which some members claim faithfulness and then speak or act in ways that are understood to be less than.

Suppose someone went to an AA meeting and there were a few alcoholics there who claimed they were going through the program but then admitted in private that they don't really follow all the guidelines and that they still drink a little but consider themselves sober as long as they don't get drunk?  Surely you would assume that they either were not alcoholics in the first place, or that they weren't serious enough about getting clean.  I can't imagine such an environment in such a setting ever being a net positive.

She's my resident troll.   I find it flattering.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dprh said:

She specifically says she wasn't offended.

One of the facets of LDS culture that I’m less attached to, is the way we swear we are “fine” with someone even as we secretly fantasize about that person being disemboweled and devoured by vultures. 

 

(. . . Or is it just me who does that?)

Share this post


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

I worry that I'm coming off as confrontational, and I'm really not trying to.  I am trying to understand this.  I re-read the article a couple times and I don't see it the way you do.  She says she wants to dress how she feels confident and unique.  Apparently that means pants for her.  I don't see her saying that she's making a statement, or that other women should too or those that don't aren't expressing themselves.  

You aren’t coming off as confrontational, just interesting.  That’s why I keep pushing back.  ;) 

Share this post


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

I bet the people who run this site would love it if you wrote an article expressing a man's view on white shirts (on either side of the 'issue')  I'd read it.

Here is it...

I dislike white shirts... they stain and discolor too easily.  (and ties... who thought tying an noose around ones neck to start the day was a good idea?)

From various leaders both local and general it seems clear that white shirts and ties are what is expected from priesthood holders (barring some local exception)

Therefore I express my self and exercise my agency to follow and meet the expectation.

I also realize that not everyone agrees with me, and it is not my place to make any kind of judgment.  (Unless some leader delegates to me [like find worthy priesthood holders in white shirts and ties to help with the sacrament]).

So I totally get the idea of not likening what you are expected to wear, but for me I will try to meet the expectation place on me by those I trust and respect... because that is the kind of person I am, and the kind of person I want to be.

Share this post


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

Seeing as I have had no problem up to this point telling any of my priesthood leaders where to park their ideas, I don't see why I'd be any more hesitant to do it with my son. 

And for the record, telling my leaders where to park their ideas has led to some of the most important and faith building discussions I've had. Likewise, some of the ward leaders I work with telling me where to park my ideas has led to some of the most profound moments of clarity that have opened the doors for all kinds of great revelation. Dissent and disagreement can be among the highest forms of loyalty. 

I agree conceptually, but there are times, places, and manners that set the difference between healthy dissent versus (and I’m sorry to use such a loaded term here) “murmuring”.  

Speaking candidly in a closed council or private conversation is one thing, and it sounds like that is mostly the sorts of experiences you’ve been citing.

But, we Americans (and westerners, really) are so enamored of democracy, that we forget that the forces that make it work are self-interest, greed, envy, suspicion, ego, ambition, shame, and desire for popularity.  It is merely the least-bad system for governance in a fallen world that has explicitly rejected the prophets, and when it works it does so because it so elegantly plays all these human vices off against each other in a way that tends to diminish the chances of any one person or faction creating an outright catastrophe.  

And more to the point—you can’t being about positive change in this Church by using the same sorts of public/populist pressures that we would apply in a democracy to play off of those base instincts; because our mutual covenants and common beliefs make it so that all those human vices come together in a way that is fundamentally different.  If protests, petitions, votes, public shaming, etc ever do work in the Church, it may be a sign that something is really seriously wrong amongst our leadership—to the degree that the institution probably wouldn’t be worth reforming at all. 

I would also note that there’s a difference between merely not receiving confirmation of a prophet’s words (and thus choosing to be obedient as an act of faith), versus receiving confirmation that the prophet is objectively wrong.  It seems like a few recent posts may have been talking past each other on that score.

That said:  do we do some stuff for other people, even when they don’t care?  Sure.  One of the reasons I try to pay attention to my dress and appearance in court, is because I feel like if I’m going to be arguing that a parent’s kid’s should be taken away I at least owe them the respect of showing in every way possible that I take their case extremely seriously.  I’m sure none of those parents notice.  I’m sure they don’t care.  I’m sure they hate my living, breathing guts regardless of how I’m dressed (at least, at the beginning of the case).  But I do it, and I think the attitude it cultivates within me makes me a better lawyer and puts me better in tune with the family’s other needs.  The person I mean to honor may not think my act of honor important—but I do; because it changes me

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


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

One of the facets of LDS culture that I’m less attached to, is the way we swear we are “fine” with someone even as we secretly fantasize about that person being disemboweled and devoured by vultures. 

 

(. . . Or is it just me who does that?)

Not me for sure.  I would use pigs, cause they eat everything and leave no evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, person0 said:

Gotta be honest, Gator.  I also had no idea you were no longer active in the Church, I just thought you were a non-conventional member.  Perhaps other's knew this and I just missed it, but @Grunt wasn't the only one who was unaware.  Doesn't really change anything, just makes me miss you at church (figuratively speaking).

No worries, you need to read my posts more dude. If you didn't put me on your block list, this wouldn't be a problem. (Kidding.) 

Thank you for your kind words, and I'm sorry to make this thread about me (but someone else brought it up  and into this debate. I'm flattered he cares so much. I'll send him an autographed photo for free) but I make no apologies and disagree with @Grunt totally. I made it very clear and haven't hidden anything. Not my fault if you missed it. Just being honest, like you were. 

Sorry I took a long gap from this thread. One of my best friends is in town and @LadyGator and I went out to dinner with him. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


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

Sorry I took a long gap from this thread. One of my best friends is in town and @LadyGator and I went out to dinner with him. 

Gee, and here you told me I was your only friend . . .

Share this post


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

No worries, you need to read my posts more dude. If you didn't put me on your block list, this wouldn't be a problem. (Kidding.) 

Thank you for your kind words, and I'm sorry to make this thread about me (but someone else brought it up  and into this debate. I'm flattered he cares so much. I'll send him an autographed photo for free) but I make no apologies and disagree with @Grunt totally. I made it very clear and haven't hidden anything. Not my fault if you missed it. Just being honest, like you were. 

Sorry I took a long gap from this thread. One of my best friends is in town and @LadyGator and I went out to dinner with him. 

YOU made it about you when YOU said you don't follow the Prophet and nobody cares.  Don't belittle me in your attempt to shift the nature of how you became a topic of discussion.  THAT was my entire point all along.....people acting like they're active members and saying nobody cares when they don't follow the Prophet. You provided a perfect example.

But you're right about one thing.  I DO care.  I care about each and every person on this forum.  I care that they come to love Christ.  I care that they follow the Prophet and support others in their attempts to do so.  I care that they come into the fold and don't lead others astray.  I care that they one day return to live in the presence of Heavenly Father.

I'm so incredibly grateful that I found the true Church.  I'm so incredibly grateful that I have the opportunity to spend eternity with my family and my Father in heaven.  I'm so incredibly sad that Satan has such an influence on some that they chink away at their armor, one seemingly insignificant thing after another, until they are so far from Him that they don't know how to find their way back, settling instead to bring others away with them.  I'm so incredibly sad that we have wolves in sheep's clothing amongst us, leading the unsuspecting astray.

I pray for you all every day.

Edited by Grunt

Share this post


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

YOU made it about you when YOU said you don't follow the Prophet and nobody cares.  Don't belittle me in your attempt to shift the nature of how you became a topic of discussion.

Okay, now I'm charging you for the autograph. 25$! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to add one thing to what someone mentioned.  A few names were mentioned towards the beginning of this thread that insinuated that a few had left because of the articles.  Of those names I can say it wasn't the articles for the majority of them.  It was other things that helped their decision to no longer participate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Your mind, and heart, OBVIOUSLY isn't given to Him as much as it could be. "

Your name is Grunt or Christ? That's awfully presumptuous.  Seriously dude, statements like that are damaging (perhaps not to @MarginOfError but yes to others). You need to get off your little pony.

Share this post


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

" Your mind, and heart, OBVIOUSLY isn't given to Him as much as it could be. "

Your name is Grunt or Christ? That's awfully presumptuous.  Seriously dude, statements like that are damaging (perhaps not to @MarginOfError but yes to others). You need to get off your little pony.

I know.  That doesn’t make my statement less accurate.  

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