Wear Pants To Church Day; And Other Cultural Dress Standards

[Calm]

This link has a number of thoughtful and interesting and informative blogs on it, I am posting part of one that is informative about some of what has been discussed here:

While feminist and feminist sympathizers across the church had varying reasons to participate in the “Wear Pants to Church” event, All Enlisted, the group behind the protest, took the time to articulate their purpose and the message people would be sending with their pants and purple ties: “The creators of this event are feminists who recognize pants are a symbol of much larger issues that require addressing. ... We believe that much of the cultural, structural, and even doctrinal inequality that persists in the LDS church today stems from the church's reliance on — and enforcement of — rigid gender roles that bear no relationship to reality.” (Emphasis added)

I have now talked to many of the event’s participants and considered several of their thoughtful articles and blog entries. As I’ve tried to understand the individuals who have supported this event, I have become convinced that many of them either do not fully see or are not concerned with the true desires of those from whom they are taking their cues. The genius of the “Wear Pants to Church” day is that it easily serves as a catchall protest against any kind of sexism people see either in the church or among its members. What’s more, this is done with something as innocuous as wearing pants to church. Feminists get the benefit of sending a bold message against inequality (a message ranging from “Why don’t women wear pants to church?” to “It is unjust that women don’t hold the priesthood!”) and at the same time being able to rebuke their challengers by saying “Geesh! They’re only pants! What is this?! The Taliban?!”

Make no mistake; those at the head of All Enlisted do not share a similar confusion about the mission. All Enlisted co-founder Stephanie Lauritzen told Utah’s CBS affiliate, KUTV, that if the group was successful and the LDS Church lifted the restrictions that have been placed on her because of her gender, the first thing she would do is give her child or husband a priesthood blessing. Thus we begin to see what the group means by doctrinal inequality.

If women wore pants to church because they have a firm testimony of the gospel and the church, but think women having a greater voice in ward decisions would better the kingdom, then I encourage them to rethink the wisdom of associating with and even taking direction from those with more radical objectives.

I do not mean to say that Lauritzen or any other person should not ask tough questions about the priesthood, its role and why God has seen fit to only confer it to men. I do, however, think it is important that members see the end goal of the people they might follow. This goes double because I do not think Lauritzen has been honest in her statements about her relationship to the church and what she is trying to accomplish. She has painted herself to media as a faithful and active member of the LDS Church who is gently nudging church practices in a more egalitarian direction. Writing on her own blog, however, she chronicles her decision to become “an awesome apostate” when she could no longer manage the cognitive dissonance between the doctrines of the gospel and her feminism. As late as Dec. 5, she writes that she likes to call herself a Mormon feminist “because I consider myself a Mormon by birth, culture, and tradition, and a feminist by common sense and self-respect.” But not a Mormon who has a testimony of the restored gospel or who sustains her church leaders, including President Boyd K. Packer whom she blames for placing the final straw that broke her testimony and caused her to leave full activity in the church.

Again, Lauritzen and other feminists can ask questions or start a conversation, but they should do so honestly, without deceiving others about who they are and what they want. Undoubtedly, Lauritzen discovered that devout members refuse to take counsel from apostates (even the awesome ones), and that so describing herself would be a non-starter in most LDS circles. Better to call herself a faithful member simply raising awareness and sparking dialogue, all without violating the teachings of the church.

I’m sure Lauritzen is an intelligent and capable woman, and the fact that she feels she has lost her conviction of the gospel does not mean she does not have anything important to say or that members of the LDS Church do not need to answer her questions — not just for her, but for themselves and other Mormons who are troubled by and even leaving the church because of these questions. Latter-day Saints should remember that they are commanded to love and be one with each other, and this is impossible if members feel ignored.

http://www.johnadamscenter.com/2012/12/a-matter-of-pants-feminism-mormonism-and-gender-inequality-in-the-church-a-jac-symposium/

[bluebell]

This link has a number of thoughtful and interesting and informative blogs on it, I am posting part of one that is informative about some of what has been discussed here:

http://www.johnadams...-jac-symposium/

Thanks for sharing that Cal. It is really interesting to see deeper in this group.

[wenglund]

Who would have thought that Hillary Clinton would have been a fashion trend-setter for even a seemingly small, vocal segment of the LDS population?

Perhaps it would be best if we all became a church of Pats (note the white shirt);

[media=]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited December 24, 2012 by wenglund