Peacefully Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I had a Beatles mustache from the time I was 16 until I was called into a position requiring attendance at the PEC meeting. Age 33 I think- 17 years later and 2 years since being baptized. Off it went, and still gone. Sisters would you cut your hair or grow it long for your callings? Just curious to hear some remarks No, and I wouldn’t wax my upper lip, either. 1
Peacefully Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 12 hours ago, Rain said: The speech has also bothered me. This conference I had a huge eye opening. One particular speaker was really bothering me. Then all at once I recognized that her voice was just like the voice of a friend of mine. The friend is amazing, has started a charity, moves furniture for the charity, drives a big diesel truck (not talking about a truck that most consumers buy, but one that is bigger than a uhaul and has the air breaks etc.), isn't afraid to get dirty, surrounds herself from people of all cultures and has such a tender heart. I recognized that the leaders voice may not be a put on voice, but a real voice from a woman who may be every bit amazing as my friend is and suddenly it all changed for me and this woman became much more powerful in my eyes. I wish that could help others, but I don't think I would have got near the picture I did of the leader without my friend. When I first heard Neil F. Marriott speak, I was thrilled. Just hearing someone say “y’all” in General Conference was a breath of fresh air for this Texan:) 4
Bernard Gui Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I know exactly what you mean. I can never go back now. Growing old as a very bizarre experience. I think you need to give that first link a second look OK. So his skirt is above the knee, but he has on pants and tall boots. Modern and modest. Lots of modest ladies around here wear those. Edited October 20, 2019 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 35 minutes ago, Peacefully said: That is an epic beard! A beard contest prize winner for sure. That’s what mine would look like now at my age. I gave up when it got about two inches long. 1
Bernard Gui Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 1 hour ago, Maidservant said: My point. So, it's larger than the Church, yes. So are the GA sisters wrong to follow convention?
Calm Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: OK. So his skirt is above the knee, but he has on pants and tall boots. Modern and modest. Lots of modest ladies around here wear those. Look at the woman figure...her skirt is more than above the knee.... Edited October 20, 2019 by Calm
Maidservant Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: So are the GA sisters wrong to follow convention? I guess we would have to determine if convention was the purpose of what they are wearing. I'm not saying that is the purpose. To the degree that convention is the reason, then, indeed, convention is not a companion of the gospel; and neither is non-convention. But to raise a convention to gospel and virtue; because all women are watching them but if many women cannot see themselves in these women, nor can the women themselves cannot see themselves in what they wear (which I could not know, but ALL of them want solid suits?), then yes, I do think we are missing a greater joy. Ditto for men and what they are required to wear. To say, "Wear this for general conference," not simply because someone would like to follow convention as a personal choice. Yes, they are representing something other than themselves, but why does God come in suit flavor? I don't get it.
Bernard Gui Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) 23 hours ago, Calm said: Look at the woman figure...her skirt is more than above the knee.... Well, I’ll be! There’s a full moon out tonight. Fixed it. Thanks to you and mbski. My bad. I hardly ever read the fine print. Have you heard the one about the Polish Cossack and the farmer’s daughter? They never met. His commander wouldn’t let him go out with a hussy and her father wouldn’t let her go out with a Hussar. Edited October 21, 2019 by Bernard Gui 2
Maidservant Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 You know, if women's bodies are that dangerous, I don't know why clothing is the only solution. I mean, we could do body surgeries and remove offending parts or otherwise modify them to a non-attraction level--face, hair, curves; that would solve the problem permanently if salvation is truly contingent upon this matter. 3
Bernard Gui Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 6 minutes ago, Maidservant said: You know, if women's bodies are that dangerous, I don't know why clothing is the only solution. I mean, we could do body surgeries and remove offending parts or otherwise modify them to a non-attraction level--face, hair, curves; that would solve the problem permanently if salvation is truly contingent upon this matter. Jesus had a solution for men. 1
Bernard Gui Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Maidservant said: I guess we would have to determine if convention was the purpose of what they are wearing. I'm not saying that is the purpose. To the degree that convention is the reason, then, indeed, convention is not a companion of the gospel; and neither is non-convention. But to raise a convention to gospel and virtue; because all women are watching them but if many women cannot see themselves in these women, nor can the women themselves cannot see themselves in what they wear (which I could not know, but ALL of them want solid suits?), then yes, I do think we are missing a greater joy. Ditto for men and what they are required to wear. To say, "Wear this for general conference," not simply because someone would like to follow convention as a personal choice. Yes, they are representing something other than themselves, but why does God come in suit flavor? I don't get it. I’m not sure I understand your criticism of them. Are you proposing that they had no say in what they wore? Maybe they chose color or style, but that they were ordered to wear suits? Is it possible they individually or even collectively decided what they would wear and that there was nothing nefarious about it? Are they projecting some kind of negative vibe to the sisters of the world because of what they wear? in their formal portraits all but one are wearing some sort of suit. Is this objectionable? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leaders/general-auxiliaries?lang=eng Then there is this...https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/emma-hale-smith And this.... https://www.pinterest.com/latterdayarray/women-leaders/ Edited October 20, 2019 by Bernard Gui 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Careful, Bro. When I was studying in American for my master's degree, we were selected by the Twelve to trial a new YSA convention that included priests and laurels. We had a full-time CES employee as our Institute instructor/adviser, and we followed the directions we'd be given carefully. When everything was planned and approved, we sent notifications to all of the stake presidents in an area that included our state and four surrounding states and asked them to promote it. Then, to our surprise, three or four stake presidents wrote back to tell us that we were wrong to be doing this. In every case, they were concerned that their youth were going to be exposed to some kind of immoral behaviour/temptation. We were stunned. Our Institute director sought guidance by contacting the Twelve. He received a reply by telephone from one of the apostles. He assured us that we were doing nothing wrong and urged us not to worry about the handful of stake presidents who'd raised these concerns. 'They are almost certainly wrestling with their own demons', he said. I've never forgot that lesson. 2
MustardSeed Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 10 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Sisters would you cut your hair or grow it long for your callings? Just curious to hear some remarks Nope. It reminds me of the Church of Christ, or polygamist religions, that require no cuts and a bump up top. But women are restricted in so many other ways. I believe the beard rule originated with the hippie era when beards represented rebellion. Women are not allowed tatoos or double piercings or bare midriffs or exposed shoulders. Heaven forbid. 1
RevTestament Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 1 hour ago, MustardSeed said: Nope. It reminds me of the Church of Christ, or polygamist religions, that require no cuts and a bump up top. But women are restricted in so many other ways. I believe the beard rule originated with the hippie era when beards represented rebellion. Women are not allowed tatoos or double piercings or bare midriffs or exposed shoulders. Heaven forbid. Actually beards are frowned upon, because God knew that I would not be able grow a decent looking one, and would have felt left out.... 1
bluebell Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 The women general officers in the church don't always wear jackets, at least not at General Conference. Last time Sister Craven didn't have a jacket on for her April 2019 talk, and in Oct. 2018 Sister Craig didn't either. 2
Rain Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) Some of the jacket thing may be related to the counsel of what looks best in pictures. If you notice, in at least quite a few years, when the choir sings they will all be in solid colors. That isn't the only advice we were given when singing in regional conference when I sang at the conference center. Another was to wear no jewelry or only pearls - things that don't flash in camera light or distract. Also, sleeves should be 3/4 or full length. I don't remember what all the rules were, but they all were things learned after years of camera work. A jacket will help or take care of a lot of the things they talked about with the cameras and give versatility to the outfits they already have. Edited October 21, 2019 by Rain 3
Maidservant Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) 8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I’m not sure I understand your criticism of them. I also mentioned that I don't understand myself yet either. Thanks for giving me a chance to continue to suss it out (not in them, but in me). Quote Are you proposing that they had no say in what they wore? Maybe they chose color or style, but that they were ordered to wear suits? Is it possible they individually or even collectively decided what they would wear and that there was nothing nefarious about it? I guess neither of us knows, but of course there's (theoretically) a range of options for how this took/takes place. I tend to think there would have been direction given, yes. It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that would have been skipped over as an aspect of representation (such as is done for missionaries). And the level of desire and need to follow the direction would have been high, and the consequences for not following also high, even if one also technically retained a choice (which we always do). Quote Are they projecting some kind of negative vibe to the sisters of the world because of what they wear? in their formal portraits all but one are wearing some sort of suit. Is this objectionable? You keep using higher level emotional words that I very deliberately do not. "Ordered", "wrong," "objectionable," etc. I'm talking about how I felt when I realized (this last conference) that in order to be a follower of Christ, the highest kind of woman, I need to be in a suit, in public church leadership at the very least. Lace not allowed (making this up, obviously I don't really have the dress guidelines). Other kinds of dress lines not allowed. Etc etc etc. It's silly really, that it needs to be done, and some must need to see it as a measure of their authority or their reverence or whatever is behind it. What is behind it? That's what I'm asking, so don't ask me. What could possibly be behind it that is of any worth? But why do it at all if there's not an intention behind it that is meant to be gospel connected? Even if it's meant to be benevolent, such as someone suggesting to focus on the message, again, why are we so juvenile as human beings that we can't be trusted to see the message in any case, and that the accepted wisdom is that message is best presented by sameness, not a variety, or either/neither? I said I do not see myself in the suit wearing, and that's what I meant (no more, no less). So then it causes some reflection (which is not a bad thing), is it me or is it them? And, of course, my perspective is my responsibility. But if I could have whoever came up with it (if that's indeed what happened), Jesus included, I would personally tell them. . . "Can you see how attaching a certain kind of clothing to the gospel might not be okay at the deepest [not surface!] level?" For men and women. Quote Then there is this... [Emma] Really? Ha ha. I'm glad we're way past bloomers. When it comes to the requirements of women's clothing (NOT choice), the 1800s is not where we want to go. Shake that dust off my feet. I'm trying to get into the future. Quote And this.... https://www.pinterest.com/latterdayarray/women-leaders/ What do you mean? Edited October 20, 2019 by Maidservant
Maidservant Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Jesus had a solution for men. ? Are you referring to circumcision?
MustardSeed Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: n their formal portraits all but one are wearing some sort of suit. Is this objectionable? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leaders/general-auxiliaries?lang=eng Awesome. I now have the perfect formula (besides my personality) for staying a faithful member but avoiding leadership callings. Keep wearing what I wear and avoid solid jackets. 1
strappinglad Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 I think the leaders choose to wear the least attention getting outfits to avoid the nitpicking nannies .Imagine if Pres. Nelson wore a tan suit with a bright pink shirt and green tie. It would be the talk of the interweb for weeks. What he said in his talks would be totally lost in the noise. I note that in this thread , no one, me included prior to this, has noted the joy the sisters must have felt in bringing another soul to Christ. Instead we focus on the material... 2
bluebell Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 39 minutes ago, strappinglad said: I think the leaders choose to wear the least attention getting outfits to avoid the nitpicking nannies .Imagine if Pres. Nelson wore a tan suit with a bright pink shirt and green tie. It would be the talk of the interweb for weeks. What he said in his talks would be totally lost in the noise. I note that in this thread , no one, me included prior to this, has noted the joy the sisters must have felt in bringing another soul to Christ. Instead we focus on the material... That’s probably because the material is the topic of the thread. 2
mfbukowski Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) Corrected Edited October 20, 2019 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 22 hours ago, Calm said: Are the elders require to wear suit coats, no short sleeves in the meetings? I can see trying to make the dress rule consistent, especially if there was complaining by elders. But if they were told just in the presence of elders, it suggests something else. So if guys go topless at the beach, women should as well? Is there any demarcation whatsoever indicating an unequal status in dress that is politically correct now?
mfbukowski Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 15 hours ago, Calm said: You need to edit where you quote him as well now, lol. Done 2
Calm Posted October 20, 2019 Posted October 20, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: So if guys go topless at the beach, women should as well? Not my rule, would never be for either sisters or elders, and may not be one. Just suggesting possibilities. It may not be about modesty at all. And if true, elders complaining about wearing suit coats because the sisters don’t have to wear jackets so the MP removing that reason to complain has nothing to do with political correctness in my view. Edited October 20, 2019 by Calm
Recommended Posts