Third Hour

Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church

Recommended Posts

So you know you are not Christ, you know it is awfully presumptuous, you know it is damaging but at the end of the day is all about Grunt...and wanting to be right? That's actually quite sad.

Share this post


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

So you know you are not Christ, you know it is awfully presumptuous, you know it is damaging but at the end of the day is all about Grunt...and wanting to be right? That's actually quite sad.

No.  At the end of the day it’s all about Heavenly Father and an individual’s path back to him.  It’s about not being led astray by wolves in sheep’s clothing.  It’s about honesty and accuracy.  That’s not sad.  That’s love.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We help others back to Christ with LOVE. We help them through our own example, through our actions. Otherwise instead of worrying about being led astray by wolves in sheep's clothing, we will have to worry about ourselves becoming pharisees in disciple's clothing... with or without us knowing. A kind suggestion: You might want to rethink your approach in your quest to help others because as I mentioned and you admitted,  it is coming across as presumptuous and statements like that can be damaging.

Share this post


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

We help others back to Christ with LOVE. We help them through our own example, through our actions. Otherwise instead of worrying about being led astray by wolves in sheep's clothing, we will have to worry about ourselves becoming pharisees in disciple's clothing... with or without us knowing. A kind suggestion: You might want to rethink your approach in your quest to help others because as I mentioned and you admitted,  it is coming across as presumptuous and statements like that can be damaging.

I agree that my delivery may be flawed.  I don’t agree with the assessed results, nor do I believe the poor delivery negates the truthfulness of the message.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one was writing in a private journal or even venting to friends the flaws of this article could be excused... But when one chooses to publicly say to the world  "Stop and listen to what I have to say and then do it." well then one better have some pretty solid arguments...  or you will fail miserably, only convincing those that already believe and looking like a fool to everyone else.

There are two path a person can take to try to persuade others. Logically and emotionally  This article fails on both counts.

The logical argument is pathetic.  It can be summed up as "Telling some one what to wear violates their agency and there ability to express themselves." The article makes no defense, and offer no support for this argument.  We are expected to simply agree and accept it. However the argument is childish and ultimately leads to a satanic place.   Let me demonstrate with an example.

I am a t-shirt and shorts kind of guy, per the article that is how I express myself and an act of agency. and there is a nugget of truth to that claim.  However there are many times I do not get what I want. Work requires me to be in 'Business Casual', Church 'Sunday Best', the weather makes requirements of me, and even when I am home chilling my wife might state 'Your wearing that' (Well clearly not any more).  Per the article work, church, weather and even my spouse are all robbing me of my agency and my ability to express myself.

It takes very little thought to realize how absurd that is.  Point of fact I can choose to wear a t-shirt to work, to church, when there is a foot of snow on the ground, and when my wife is giving me the look.  I can totally use my agency and express myself. But there will be consequence and they could be very damaging. The argument the article makes is not about agency or expressing even if that is how she phrases it... It is about avoiding consequences of how we choose to express ourselves.  That is the argument of a child.

God is the great defender of agency.  God is the great lawgiver who warns of punishment for disobedience.  These are not conflicting statements.  In the gospel we have agency, and the consequences of our actions all have to be dealt with. (Either by ourselves or through Christ). The only place I have ever heard of the idea of 'consequence free' actions is from some members when describing what they think Satan's plan was..  That is not a good endorsement.

Then there is the emotional argument made in the article.  "Being told what to wear is oppressive"   This is another argument that is not supported.  The article claim it is oppressive of women and then expects me to jump to end the oppression.

Do not get me wrong... oppression of anyone is horrible and needs to stop, but she fails to make the case that is it oppressive.

The standard of the Church for clothing for worship is "Your best."  We know this we accept this.  What we need to be very clear about is that this standard is about attitude.  It is attitude that is expressed through clothing, but it is not clothing.

In the article she uses her bishop as an example of this oppression.  The bishop by her own words is focused on her attitude, her clothes are of no import except as a way for her to express herself and her attitude.  Which the bishop asks for clarification on.  All the posters in this thread who have express problems with her position have also been focused on attitude. 

Yet in spite of article declaring that clothes can be used to express ones self, and therefore show ones attitude.. if some member is concerned about what someone might be expressing such member is being oppressive.  This makes no sense as outline.  The only way it makes sense is a a sly way to be free from the logical and fully reasonable consequence of ones expressions of agency.  That is not oppression .

Finally by trying to play on the emotional oppression theme... she forgets that large the membership of the church by the standard she endorses suffers under even greater oppression.  That group is the priesthood holders who since the age of 12 is expected to wear a white shirt and tie.  Where is the talk about this oppression?  Where is the support for 'Wear Hawaiian shirts to church day?'  Where is the full throated support to help the men of the church throw off the shackles of the oppressive white shirt and tie regime?

She does not address the very real issues that the men of the church would clearly have if her claims are true.  Which means she did not think it though or she does not really believe it and is trying for something else.  Here is a pro-tip for her... If you want play the oppression card you need to 'Check your Privilege'...Because when a large number of your audience says "We wish we had your problems" you are not going to get the support you desire.

Share this post


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

Sure, she said that. Here's what else she said:

His perspective proves no such thing. It proves that Sister Coppersmith doesn't understand what a bishop is supposed to do.

Yes. The question was, "Do you look differently than everybody else because you're rebelling?" That is a perfectly appropriate question for a bishop to ask someone in a temple recommend interview. Why doesn't Sister Coppersmith (or you, for that matter) realize this fact?

Here, Coppersmith goes well beyond talking about principles. She is clearly cheerleading what happened seven years ago, portraying it as a worthy, righteous thing. This, despite the clear evidence (as referenced by JAG) that the principal organizers and participants were antagonistic toward the Church.

The more I read Coppersmith's column, the less likely I feel to give her the benefit of any doubt. I rather suspect Coppersmith knew full well what the whole stupid "pants" thing was about, and that she simply agrees with such public desecration of sacred activities in order to pursue a sociopolitical end.

THIS.

MODERN FEMINISM IS CANCER.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't lock threads that go off topic, but we will lock a thread that gets personal and doesn't get back to non-personal discussion...

Remember, folks:

Quote

2. Please be conscious of the fact that although Third Hour is aimed towards an LDS audience, that the membership of this site consists of friends from an array of different backgrounds, beliefs, and cultures. Please be respectful and courteous to all, and know that everyone who is willing to follow the Rules and Terms of Third Hour are welcome to participate and be a member of Third Hour. Keep in mind that anything posted, uploaded, or otherwise displayed on the site should be understandable to friends of other faiths as well as to members. Please define any LDS vocabulary that friends of other faiths may not understand (i.e. Mutual, Relief Society, and Deacon.)

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Realize that sometimes it is very difficult to be able to express how one feels through written words. Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Suzie said:

We help others back to Christ with LOVE. 

Exactly this. If we are so set on proving a point or if we have any motive in responding to someone other than loving God and loving each other, what are we trying to accomplish?

Where is the love? 

maxresdefault.thumb.jpg.e5882c335e48636ae7ac900ba1aa7dbe.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, clbent04 said:
15 hours ago, Suzie said:

We help others back to Christ with LOVE. 

Exactly this. If we are so set on proving a point or if we have any motive in responding to someone other than loving God and loving each other, what are we trying to accomplish?

This sounds good, and it's difficult to refute directly. But something is off. We may say that God is love, but that does not mean that love is God.

(NOTE: I'm not talking directly about the interchange between clbent04 and Grunt, on which I render no public judgment. I'm responding to ideas that have been brought up and even flung about in that discussion.)

There is the obvious point that at the moment Jesus was beating the moneychangers with a whip he made himself especially for the purpose, at the moment he was excoriating the Pharisees and scribes and openly condemning them as hypocrites and children of hell, at the moment he as Jehovah was destroying the faithless, and at the moment when he will pronounce adverse eternal judgment upon the wicked, in every case, he was showing and will show perfect love. So to claim someone bereft of love because you don't like what he's doing or saying doesn't really withstand scrutiny.

But I think there is another, perhaps deeper, reality at work here. Sometimes we are expected or even required to show love and mercy; other times, we must stand by principle and demand justice. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course, but they sometimes appear to be at odds. Much of what we consider "mercy" and "love" has to do with how we phrase things and whether we are using sufficiently benign wording—which I suspect most of us will agree has little to do with actual mercy and love. Sometimes (almost always, actually), we need to stand firm by our principles even when we risk offending others by our seeming inflexibility. And when you refuse to condemn evil with the excuse that you're "showing love", that is simply cowardice under another name.

Share this post


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

This sounds good, and it's difficult to refute directly. But something is off. We may say that God is love, but that does not mean that love is God.

(NOTE: I'm not talking directly about the interchange between clbent04 and Grunt, on which I render no public judgment. I'm responding to ideas that have been brought up and even flung about in that discussion.)

There is the obvious point that at the moment Jesus was beating the moneychangers with a whip he made himself especially for the purpose, at the moment he was excoriating the Pharisees and scribes and openly condemning them as hypocrites and children of hell, at the moment he as Jehovah was destroying the faithless, and at the moment when he will pronounce adverse eternal judgment upon the wicked, in every case, he was showing and will show perfect love. So to claim someone bereft of love because you don't like what he's doing or saying doesn't really withstand scrutiny.

But I think there is another, perhaps deeper, reality at work here. Sometimes we are expected or even required to show love and mercy; other times, we must stand by principle and demand justice. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course, but they sometimes appear to be at odds. Much of what we consider "mercy" and "love" has to do with how we phrase things and whether we are using sufficiently benign wording—which I suspect most of us will agree has little to do with actual mercy and love. Sometimes (almost always, actually), we need to stand firm by our principles even when we risk offending others by our seeming inflexibility. And when you refuse to condemn evil with the excuse that you're "showing love", that is simply cowardice under another name.

Point taken. But at the end of the day if you get on this site looking for fight, does it even matter if you're arguing on the right side of the debate?  No, it doesn't, at least not in terms of you coming unto Christ because you are not allowing the Spirit to act through you.  Your discussions and talking points are being fueled by animosity.  The motive for why we say what we say is also important.

Edited by clbent04

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Point taken. But at the end of the day if you get on this site looking for fight, does it even matter in terms of us coming unto Christ if you're arguing on the right side of the debate?  No, it doesn't, because you are not allowing the Spirit to act through you.  Your discussions and talking points are being fueled by animosity.  The motive for why we say what we say is also important.

I do not disagree. Please note what I wrote earlier:

20 minutes ago, Vort said:

(NOTE: I'm not talking directly about the interchange between clbent04 and Grunt, on which I render no public judgment. I'm responding to ideas that have been brought up and even flung about in that discussion.)

I really am not talking directly about your conversation with Grunt. My thoughts are more general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Point taken. But at the end of the day if you get on this site looking for fight, does it even matter if you're arguing on the right side of the debate?  No, it doesn't, at least not in terms of you coming unto Christ because you are not allowing the Spirit to act through you.  Your discussions and talking points are being fueled by animosity.  The motive for why we say what we say is also important.

I haven't really paid attention to the last week of this thread, so I am truly speaking in generalities here. 

If you are that person you describe, fix your attitude.  If you're thinking someone else is that person, well, looking into someone and trying to prove their motives for posting, is unrighteous, a waste of time, and against forum rules.

If someone breaks the forum rules, you are free to report the post and the mods will take whatever action they figure is necessary.

Again, the relevant site rules, which we all agreed to when seeking an account here:

Quote

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Realize that sometimes it is very difficult to be able to express how one feels through written words. Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I haven't really paid attention to the last week of this thread, so I am truly speaking in generalities here. 

If you are that person you describe, fix your attitude.  If you're thinking someone else is that person, well, looking into someone and trying to prove their motives for posting, is unrighteous, a waste of time, and against forum rules.

If someone breaks the forum rules, you are free to report the post and the mods will take whatever action they figure is necessary.

Again, the relevant site rules, which we all agreed to when seeking an account here:

 

That last conversation did get carried away. I'm to blame for that just as much as anyone. You mods don't always have an easy job. Thanks for regulating and keeping what's so great about this site intact 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 9:39 PM, Suzie said:

So you know you are not Christ, you know it is awfully presumptuous, you know it is damaging but at the end of the day is all about Grunt...and wanting to be right? That's actually quite sad.

Particularly the emphasized portion:

How then does a person interpret the conversation between three brothers. Let's review the conversation between these brothers:

1) "Thou hast declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear."

2) "I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center."

3) "And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us."

How does a person distinguish between the hard reality of truth (which some find damaging and hurtful and leave) or simply damaging words?

If a person speaks a truth, and that truth is damaging, then the person dissenting against the truth is doing exactly what Grunt specified (generally speaking) -- turning away from Christ (in that thing -- I would add -- as some deny some truth and yet still keep their faith). Nephi's words have the same meaning in our modern day, "If ye were righteous..."

I do find the Book of Mormon very prophetic regarding our modern day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I grew up in California and the first time I saw a woman wear pants (I think they were called dress pants) was when I was a teenager. A young woman wore these skirt pants. These pants were made in such a way that when she stood still you thought it was a dress, but when she walked you could clearly see they were pants. I remember pointing it out to her (as she was my friend) and then she specified they are formal wear (meaning they are "Sunday Best" for church attendance). I never thought much about it. What is the difference now in comparison to then:

1) This wasn't a young woman trying to make a political statement at church.
2) This wasn't a young woman using "Sacrament" as a means to make a statement or advocate anything
3) No one, not even our bishop, cared she was wearing dressier pants that looked like a dress when standing still. But I bet you they would have cared if she went around setting herself as a "light" to the world/members to wear pants on Sunday. Hmmm...I wonder why that would be...I just can't imagine why.

When people seek to make themselves as "the" light, well, then you have problems. What I have seen from this thread is that there are people who still do not understand what it means to have "agency." Some of this thread reminds me of BYU students who use their "agency" to come to BYU and accept rules, and then once admitted think somehow BYU is denying them their agency.

There are people who misunderstand what it means to "Love." As in my post previous, I am pretty sure that Nephi "loved" his brothers, but his love for his brothers did not supersede his love for the Lord.

I do find it intriguing that the Lord himself said to us that we should be like Him. That we should pattern our lives after his example (which makes sense right, he was perfect), and yet I can't find anything from his life that showed "dissent" to His Father (that some have said it shows great loyalty). If "dissent" was such a show of loyalty why didn't Christ ever show this dissent?

If "dissent" is a form of great loyalty how did this turn out for Oliver Cowdery (he lost a foreordination due to his dissent), Sidney Rigdon, and others? How did "dissent" turn out for the children of Israel? How did "dissent" turn out for Lucifer?

I haven't been bothered by a man or woman who comes to church in jeans and white t-shirt if that is their Sunday best, or simply they woke up and had a feeling they needed to get to church and so they come.

I am bothered by members who think the Lord's house is a place to make a statement, particularly a political one. Sorry, not sorry, I don't offer understanding, compassion, or empathy toward any act by any member (male or female) who wants to set themselves as a light and use the Lord's house for political agendas or to make statements of opposition (pride).

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


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

How does a person distinguish between the hard reality of truth (which some find damaging and hurtful and leave) or simply damaging words?

I would like to spin off this point(I am not attempting to disagree but rather to expand on this)...   There is an answer to this question.  But is not answer that outsiders to the one speaking can usually tell.

In the Doctrine and Covenants we are told what it takes to Righteously and Correctly exercise priesthood power.  The scriptures also talk about putting on the Armor of God.  In both cases the scriptures describe our weapon of 'Sharpness'.  In the Armor of God it is the Sword of the Spirit.  In the instruction on Priesthood it is when 'moved upon by the Spirit'.

Note what the weapon is not... It is not Righteousness, it is not Faith, it is not even Truth...  Our weapon is the Spirit (Although Spirit can contain all that and more).

If we think we are OK because we have the truth.  And we work with sharpness without the Spirit we are simply using damaging words (no matter how truthful they are).  The Spirit of the Lord is Grieved and the Heavens withdraw themselves.

Now externally it can be very hard to tell if a person 'Sharpness' or 'Hardness' is spiritually guided.  (as the example of Nephi shows those getting cut are going to protest either way) All I can say is from my own experience and guidance from Church leaders is that we are very likely using 'Sharpness' or 'Hardness' without spiritual directions more often then we are.  And that calls for individual introspection and repentance.

Share this post


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

I would like to spin off this point(I am not attempting to disagree but rather to expand on this)...   There is an answer to this question.  But is not answer that outsiders to the one speaking can usually tell.

In the Doctrine and Covenants we are told what it takes to Righteously and Correctly exercise priesthood power.  The scriptures also talk about putting on the Armor of God.  In both cases the scriptures describe our weapon of 'Sharpness'.  In the Armor of God it is the Sword of the Spirit.  In the instruction on Priesthood it is when 'moved upon by the Spirit'.

Note what the weapon is not... It is not Righteousness, it is not Faith, it is not even Truth...  Our weapon is the Spirit (Although Spirit can contain all that and more).

If we think we are OK because we have the truth.  And we work with sharpness without the Spirit we are simply using damaging words (no matter how truthful they are).  The Spirit of the Lord is Grieved and the Heavens withdraw themselves.

Now externally it can be very hard to tell if a person 'Sharpness' or 'Hardness' is spiritually guided.  (as the example of Nephi shows those getting cut are going to protest either way) All I can say is from my own experience and guidance from Church leaders is that we are very likely using 'Sharpness' or 'Hardness' without spiritual directions more often then we are.  And that calls for individual introspection and repentance.

100% correct.  That's why it's rarely correct to judge a person's motives.  However, as we've seen here when the person being targeted is speaking the truth that person's motives is usually the only thing that is targeted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Grunt said:

100% correct.  That's why it's rarely correct to judge a person's motives.  However, as we've seen here when the person being targeted is speaking the truth that person's motives is usually the only thing that is targeted.

Its the only thing that can be targeted...  Truth is a impossible target to disprove... it can only be blurred and distracted from.

That being said it is not always the will of God that truth be spoken with sharpness.  The are cases in the scriptures were the Lord tells his prophet to shut up. (Yes that is a crude expression but you know what I mean.)

Edited by estradling75

Share this post


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

Its the only thing that can be targeted...  Truth is a impossible target to disprove... it can only be blurred and distracted from.

That being said it is not always the will of God that truth be spoken with sharpness.  The are cases in the scriptures were the Lord tells his prophet to shut up. (Yes that is a crude expression but you know what I mean.)

I agree 100%.  My point was nobody except the speaker knows if that's the case.  That's why targeting motive is rarely anything except a personal attack.

Share this post


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

I agree 100%.  My point was nobody except the speaker knows if that's the case.  That's why targeting motive is rarely anything except a personal attack.

Or they are simply playing the odds.  Their is only one way to have the correct motivations...  There are thousands and millions of wrong ways.  Yet all of them can claim that they are speaking the truth.

And we are also counseled against taking the word of another person spiritual experiences as truth. (Unless we get our own spiritual confirmation which is how missionaries work).  So even if a person was to claim Spiritual guidance we are instructed to discard it (Again unless we get a spiritual confirmation for ourselves).  Thus motivation can be a valid defense specifically if the one using sharpness have shown the possibility of other motives (say like repeated expressions of frustration)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 3:34 PM, 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. 

Just those of you who never check the board early enough to see his 2AM drunk posts telling everybody how much he loves them before the mods get around to deleting them. 

Share this post


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

Just those of you who never check the board early enough to see his 2AM drunk posts telling everybody how much he loves them before the mods get around to deleting them. 

 I've wondered before if I would be a nice drunk or a mean drunk. Honestly, I think I'd be at nice drunk. If I had to make a bet one way or the other, I'd go with nice. But I wouldn't bet very much.

Share this post


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

Or they are simply playing the odds.  Their is only one way to have the correct motivations...  There are thousands and millions of wrong ways.  Yet all of them can claim that they are speaking the truth.

And we are also counseled against taking the word of another person spiritual experiences as truth. (Unless we get our own spiritual confirmation which is how missionaries work).  So even if a person was to claim Spiritual guidance we are instructed to discard it (Again unless we get a spiritual confirmation for ourselves).  Thus motivation can be a valid defense specifically if the one using sharpness have shown the possibility of other motives (say like repeated expressions of frustration)

That doesn't invalidate my point.

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