- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Roy, in my area, if a woman wore pants to church before this and especially if she is a strong woman, she was already being branded an activist and on the road to apostasy. I did not read their FB page but have heard that different women involved had different goals. For me if the end result is the removal of this stigma for women who wear pants to church, I am happy. People already sit there in the chapel and stew over a woman defiling the chapel with her pants. That disruption of sacrament meeting is in their own heads and their problem. Another good thing I think has come out of this is the exposure of the stinky attitudes and judgments that people weren’t afraid to post publicly, feeling totally justified with their own harshness and not even seeing themselves at all. I have been shocked, and I don’t shock easily, to see how far some of them went in their comments in numerous places. Quite frankly, I see this as a bit of cleaning up for the church at this point. We can’t be out there with our I am a Mormon. org advertisements and then treat people this way. I hold this kind of stigmatizing very responsible for why many women investigate our church and run away. I know many RS presidents are instructed to work with new convert women as quickly as possible to get them into compliance on the dress issue. If our policy is as truly stated by our LDS spokesman, many in leadership are out of compliance with this. It’s time for our local leaderships to communicate from the top down what the policies really are and stop building up the extra hedges. As it goes further down the line, maybe the regular membership will strive to look beyond appearances and truly strive to be Christlike and welcoming to all. ( Take time to read through all the comments and note how many of the 300+ comments call for these women to go find another church. No matter what the different goals of these women were/are, there are many many other women who want the stigmas gone, once and for all. I’m sure they want all of us to go find another church too. This is the opposite of our doctrine.) Sister Susan and several other sisters in the ward were wearing them today… but then again, they normally do. It was pretty quiet in my ward today. I didn’t see any women wearing pants. The instructor in HPG managed to bring up the school shooting and wear pants to church day but failed to effectively tie it into the lesson. There wasn’t any discussion either. Thoreau wrote:The instructor in HPG managed to bring up the school shooting and wear pants to church day but failed to effectively tie it into the lesson. There wasn’t any discussion either.
Because they are related? What was the point?
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?
IMO the organizers blew it because this whole event got bigger than they were expecting. They
didn’thave a clear message. It got covered by multiple media outlets but they didn’t have a clear picture of the point. To some people it was just about being able to wear pants to church. Well the church solved that right quick, they said OK, no one ever said you couldn’t.
To some people it was about women getting the priesthood.
To some people it was about equal treatment in other ways. You could ask what it was about and get a handful of responses, mostly based on what resonated with the individual answering, but it wasn’t one clear meaning. They got the stage, the spotlight a microphone and said
nothing.I chose not to wear pants because I didn’t know what message I would be sending by doing so. (Maybe I will wear pants another day, I am not opposed to it generally.) If they had come out and said “wear pants on Sunday if you think women should be able to pray in General Conference” for example, I would have been all over that.
rebeccad wrote:They got the stage, the spotlight a microphone and said nothing.
Ditto!
I actually thought about checking to see who was wearing pants, but then I realized I didn’t want to look and end up making assumptions about people based on appearance – which would have been an ironic result, if you think about it. cwald wrote:Thoreau wrote:The instructor in HPG managed to bring up the school shooting and wear pants to church day but failed to effectively tie it into the lesson. There wasn’t any discussion either.
Because they are related? What was the point?
I have no idea what the point was unless it was because the lesson was on living righteously in perilous times. In mentioned the two things and then moved on without any discussion.
People in my geographic area needed to hear it. So, even if they didn’t accomplish what they wanted to, it’s a win for women in my area who now have backup to counter the lack of respect to the Lord attitudes! Even though very few wore them in our area today, many have said they are now going to be wearing them when they want since the policy has been publicly clarified. I wore pants – a Vietnamese Ao Dai, which I have worn before. 6 women in my ward wore pants, 2 not associated with the event but because Indian women almost always do. 3 men wore purple shirts. I agree the message could be different for different people. That’s always true. At minimum, I think it was a show that we want all to be welcome, not just those who conform to the unwritten cultural rules: women in pants, men in colored shirts, feminists, those outside or new to our faith. In short, those who are often ostracized by others and kept out of positions where they have a voice or are treated with equal respect. To me, it was also saying we can be our athentic selves, we can be unique, and we will still be accepted in the community and let God judge what is in our hearts.
Perhaps a “wear no pants to church day” might have got better media coverage… Seems at least one small member of our church was doing that the other day…
😆
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.