- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think we can agree that the obsession with appearance, nitpicky unofficial rules, and strict grooming and dress expectations for church suck for both men and women. There are stories of women being tut-tutted for pants or sandals or supposed immodesty. Men are chastised for facial hair, colored shirts, or lack of a tie. It’s not doctrinal and it’s completely pointless. “The worst sinners, according to Jesus, are not the harlots and publicans, but the religious leaders with their insistence on proper dress and grooming, their careful observance of all the rules, their precious concern for status symbols, their strict legality, their pious patriotism… the haircut becomes the test of virtue in a world where Satan deceives and rules by appearances.”- Hugh Nibley
Our ward recently called a new convert to be a greeter at church. She hasn’t been “schooled” about the proper attire.
My guess is, she doesn’t have the means to change her wardrobe.
I want to believe that this was done deliberately.
She could easily sit in the back & blend in, like I do.
This way, everyone sees & talks to her as they take their seat for sacrament meeting.
And, she does it with such “gusto”. She feels like she is part of the congregation &
has a job to do. It’s very refreshing.
A two/three year old boy in our ward decided to have a “wear no pants to church day” the other day. He kept on running up to the sister missionaries too.
😆 Yeah, a FB friend (who was an elder that served in the ward where I finished my doctorate) had some interesting things to say about it. He was angry that anyone would protest at church, since that detracts from his spiritual experience. Well, now he knows what liberals feel like every Sunday! 
Anyway, I got to thinking about his perspective. I don’t really think he even recognizes the existence of stifling cultural norms in the church, and the boundaries they create. These boundaries are fiercely defended in many wards by shame, guilt, and social ostracism. He and I are both men, and only have to deal with the white shirt and facial hair thing. But women, they’ve got it rough. Some of the grooming and dress norms for women in the church make absolutely no sense. They are norms from the 1950s. I can’t believe we are still having the women/pants conversation. But here we are. I understand the desire to maintain the sanctity of Sunday worship, but where else are women going to protest dress standards for Church attendance if not at Church?!?
I thought I needed a good cry so I went to read all of the hate being posted on the Facebook event page. I tried to refresh the page and the event was no longer anywhere to be found on Facebook. I wonder if it was pulled?
Or my computer is broken.
**** Update: Yup, Facebook pulled it due to complaints. The organizers are working on getting it back up.*****
Canucknuckle wrote:**** Update: Yup, Facebook pulled it due to complaints. The organizers are working on getting it back up.*****
Yep. “Look away. Nothing to see here.”
There was 2100 responses on the SLT article…mostly in outrage. And we (LDS Church) think we are better than the Israelites, who spent their lives wandering in the wilderness….looking beyond the mark.
Canucknuckle wrote:I thought I needed a good cry so I went to read all of the hate being posted on the Facebook event page.
I tried to refresh the page and the event was no longer anywhere to be found on Facebook. I wonder if it was pulled?
Or my computer is broken.
**** Update: Yup, Facebook pulled it due to complaints. The organizers are working on getting it back up.*****
And people wonder why I’m not on Facebook. You’re not just being spied on, on Facebook, you’re actually handing your details out to commercial (and government?!) spies.
Google and Yahoo are bad enough.
Bring back privacy, all is forgiven.
Facebook site was down, but they created a new one. There was one kid (a BYU employee) who said all activists should be shot point blank in the face. Clearly there are some people who missed the point of church. But I heard one encouraging story about this. A bishop in CO was frantically reacting to the idea of women coming to church wearing pants (which the church had quickly clarified is not prohibited anyway). He was going to pull any pants clad females in for a worthiness interview and also prevent them from taking the sacrament. Apparently he hadn’t entirely lost the spirit because he called church HQ for advice, and they told him to cool his jets, that women are allowed to wear pants to church, and all are welcome.
Hawkgirl, when you say the church quickly clarified that pants are not prohibited for women, where is that published? I need that link. I see nothing in the Newsroom section about it. This may not be a big deal in some parts of the country but there was much backlash going around on our local FB pages. I am dismayed and terribly sad. I was not surprised by some of the men….I actually already had some of their numbers, but by the younger women. However, I have come to the realization that they are naive and have had no leadership experiences to see the side of some of these local male leaders. I say some because we have some men who are not threatened by women and totally realize their capabilities. I know that many men are trying to move the women’s position in the church forward in their own ways. They see the wrong attitudes as much as women see them and are just as bothered. Women who have been routinely wearing pants in our area do get looks and are judged by some and unfortunately, that includes some in leadership. I had more than one female friend explaining that women don’t wear pants into the chapel. It’s a sign of respect to God not to. How can women wear pants in the chapel on Saturday to clean it and not defile it and then it’s flipped on Sunday? Why do people think women in pants defiles the chapel? I have been bewildered for years and am becoming even more so after seeing this backlash. Is it because some are afraid this is a sign the Church is losing its yes women or will, if enough women figure this out? Someone hinted to me I am on the slippery slope to apostasy. Even though this has been said to me in the past and I always shrugged it off, I am not shrugging it off so easily this time. I haven’t figured out what it is all about or what the original intent was. Was it to “protest” the unwritten dress code or to protest something bigger, gender inequality for instance? It has been interesting to read some the passionate postings by rigid members of the Church. I can see wanting to wear your Sunday best as a sign of respect but if some of the old movies are any indication of what Sunday best is then your best set of overalls should suffice. I do see what appears to me to be some hypocrisy in what members wear to church. How is a skirt made of faded denim more respectful than a nice pair of dress slacks and a nice blouse? Why is it OK for men to wear jeans and a bolo tie in the Southwest but jeans are frowned upon in other areas of the country? What about native dress outside of North America and the majority of Europe? Is the worldwide church going to continue to impress its North American values and culture on the rest of the membership?
I don’t get it but I’m probably going to wear my gray dress shirt like I usually do and if I have a tie with purple I might wear it. It depends on what my wife wears. She picks out my ties to color coordinate with her. If I do wear purple it’s because of the dress code and the judgmental pharisees, not inequality.
Me, Dave, who lives in the Corridor.
Quote:It depends on what my wife wears. She picks out my ties to color coordinate with her.
That is adorable. What a sweet thing to do.
Thank you rebeccad. It’s December and I wear Christmas ties in December. Guess I won’t be wearing purple tomorrow.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=1016&sid=23355976 Scott Trotter is church spokesman and says what women wear is not specified:
“Attending Church is about worship and learning to be followers of Jesus Christ. Generally Church members are encouraged to wear their best clothing as a sign of respect for the Savior, but we don’t counsel people beyond that.”
Hawkgirl, thank you so much! Maybe with that statement print, some of our fellow members will stop and think about their attitudes. We can only hope! Thoreau wrote:I haven’t figured out what it is all about or what the original intent was. Was it to “protest” the unwritten dress code or to protest something bigger, gender inequality for instance?
I had a good conversation about this with DW. This group is quite ambiguous about what they are wanting. How should the church recognize the “similarities” between men and women specifically? Issue a statement that all people are children of God? DW has read statements to the effect that these women want the priesthood and want a woman called to the Q15. If that is their mission, then I agree that it should not be grandstanded at church. Stage a march or a petition or something, but I don’t want church service to be divisive. Especially about things that will be seen by many as an attack on the brethren and the priesthood itself.
Now I also believe that DW is getting her information third hand form those that would love to twist the original meaning. But even us Stayers that would give this group the benefit of the doubt can’t quite fathom the point. DW and I would be much more receptive if this group was making the point that women who wear pants should not be made to feel inferior or even that women should be considered for such traditionally male roles as SS pres. or ward clerk.
afterall wrote:Maybe with that statement print, some of our fellow members will stop and think about their attitudes. We can only hope!
My sister (a lawyer) has said that she has felt uncomfortable at church in a pant suit. I fear that rather than making it more acceptable for women to wear pants to church, this groups efforts may result in making wearing pants to church a sign of activism – casting suspicion on any woman in pants. “What exactly is she trying to say?…I wonder what her agenda is?”
:crazy:
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.