Well, here we are less than 48 hours before pant-gate. I know we are all dying to go to church to see who wears what.
There are many interpretations on this Sunday’s event, or possibly non-event. Here are a few I gleaned.
- It’s not about the pants, it’s about equality.
- It’s not about the pants, it about disrespecting the sanctity of Sacrament meeting.
- It’s not about the pants; it’s a show of solidarity among Sisters.
There are certainly enough opinions to go around and any position you likely take will make someone else mad. And there is always the proverbial back and forth about who is nasty, snarky and disrespectful. But it almost always comes down to “if you don’t agree with me, you are nasty, snarky and disrespectful.”
My own observation is this. Come Monday morning, nothing will have changed. Some women will wear pants to Church, some ward members will be surprised, and most won’t care. Some will achieve some level of satisfaction at doing it; some will realize it might not have mattered. Still others will be upset and never understand why it happened.
And we will move on to the next thing.
Wheat & Tares 
I think there’s room for everyone to be right on this one.
At its best (IMO) it’s a show of solidarity that all women are welcome, and that the church allows pants even if some of the members have historically been judgmental (and apparently not just historically).
I totally agree that a “protest” done with anger, even righteous indignation, isn’t proper for church where we come to repent and take the sacrament. The focus is on Jesus. But the focus is also on welcoming all to join us. If it’s done as a protest, there’s probably a better protest forum. But pants are allowed anyway, so yawn.
For those who say it’s about equality, the Pharisaical approach at church with unwritten dress codes is oppressive to everyone, not just women. So I agree that there is inequality at church. Wearing dress pants to church is about challenging cultural norms to conform to the church’s actual stated guidelines, not about creating equality, IMO. But I’m for more equality and less treating women like children.
I think what has surprised me most about Pantsgate, is the sheer level of the lunatic fringe that have come out in protest at it. Its a given that any liberal progressive move will encounter opposition and debate. Its to be expected. But it has been the level of it that has taken me back.
I don’t think anyone is right. I believe the actual and ONLY real purpose of the entire thing is to sow contention.
And no, I don’t believe that the group who started the movement had that purpose in mind. But then, I don’t believe they are the real authors of it, either…just the pawns.
This time it’s a swish from half-court:
“I totally agree that a “protest” done with anger, even righteous indignation, isn’t proper for church where we come to repent and take the sacrament.” – a good point. We should dress as if we’d find the Savior sitting on the rostrum. Of course, were THAT to actually occur…well, speculate!
I recall teaching, a tad over thirty years ago, an Italian girl who was decidedly modern. She showed up for meetings in a tank top and shorts (but they weren’t that revealing and fairly nice). We all in the branch just took it in stride.
“For those who say it’s about equality, the Pharisaical approach at church with unwritten dress codes is oppressive to everyone, not just women. So I agree that there is inequality at church”. I’ve experienced this myself. I was actually once refused entry into the Temple (Sacramento) on the basis that I wore a RED dress shirt. I did finally get in that evening…the Temple President chuckled at my borrowing Erin Brokovich’s similar rejoinder about dress codes: “As long as I have ONE (backside) instead of TWO, I’ll wear what I like.”
I totally agree that a “protest” done with anger, even righteous indignation, isn’t proper for church where we come to repent and take the sacrament.
Sometimes, I’d love to have the ability to wave a magic wand and take away the ability of LDS people to use the words “proper,” “improper,” “appropriate,” and “inappropriate.” I have to say, the use (overuse) of those words are among the most grating, sanctimonious aspects of LDS culture in existence.
That said, I understand there was a decided focus to the activities taking place in the temple at Jerusalem, too. It certainly called for “proper” and “appropriate” behavior from all those who entered the temple precincts.
Then some long-haired hippy-looking guy, wearing sandals and a robe, came in with a braided whip, throwing over tables and telling the administration they were doing something wrong! How “inappropriate,” and “improper” he was, for disturbing the focus of the activities there! 😉
The fact that this is an issue makes it an issue God doesn’t give a rat’s ass what anyone wares to church.
I will be shocked if anyone in my ward had even heard of this protest. Nobody has even heard of the bloggernacle, so this will be a non event.
It seems the whiners on both sides may have taken over the Church. It is sad.
Note this year:
1. The missionary age was lowered for YM AND YW – they complained
2. The YM and YW lessons were changed to modernize and get rid of those hideous manuals – they complained.
3. The church is moving in the right direction toward Gays – They complained.
And now this.
Well, I may be wrong. My wife just announced that she heard some people may wear pants to church. But she plans on wearing a dress….
I like how Michael Keaton’s character dealt with this in “Gung Ho”(1985)…the American workforce at the Japanese-owned and managed auto plant (they’d taken over a former American plant, firm unspecified, which closure was threatening the town’s economic viability) was resistant to the Japanese managerial style. In particular, they didn’t like the calisthenics at the beginning of the shift. Keaton’s character, who serve’s as management’s workforce liaison, convinces his charges to go along with it. In particular, he counsels a somewhat sloppy and obese friend (George Wendt)..”Hey, this is like the first day of school…they got upset if you wore jeans. By Thanksgiving, they didn’t care if you weren’t wearing pants…and sometimes, you DIDN’T!”
This is another reason why my fave scripture is D&C 58:42…it’s truly not good to be commanded in all things.
in light of the shooting in Connecticut this becomes a very trival thing.
“I will be shocked if anyone in my ward had even heard of this protest. Nobody has even heard of the bloggernacle, so this will be a non event.”
Ditto my ward, MH. We formerly had a member of our ward who was a convert of a few years that alternated between nice slacks and dresses regularly and nobody batted an eye that I know of. The convert status thing may have been on her side in people not reacting. My wife very much dislikes (I won’t use the “H” word) wearing dresses, so I am going to bring this to her attention (she doesn’t read the bloggernacle either) and see if she has any interest in taking this opportunity to wear dress pants.
On the pharasaic note, I was just cringing in a PEC meeting that discussed a new teenage male convert with the Aaronic Priesthood. After a few weeks of wearing the white shirt, do you know what happened? He came to church wearing a nice button up black shirt. (Oh the horror).
Our Bishop was counseling the Young Men president on ways to bring him around to wearing a white shirt without offending. I jumped on that to say that “not offending” was far more important than a piece of clothing.
The High Councillor in the meeting read from the handbook, and I had hopes that the working there would further downplay the need to push this new convert into our cultural standard of conformity.
He read that the wearing of the white shirt is not recommended but not required. That it is not required that all priesthood holders delivering the sacrament dress alike. The emphasis was on being clean and performing the ordinance with dignity.
Then his conclusion: If you have everyone with a white shirt except one with a black shirt, he will ‘stick out like a sore thumb’ and decrease the dignity associated with the ordinance. ‘The ideal bearer of the sacrament should be invisible.’
I was astonished how this conclusion could be so different from what I conclude from reading the same handbook instructions. I would think that with cleanliness and dignity, one could administer the Sacrament wearing any color shirt, an Aloha shirt, or even a non-button up shirt.
I think of the Visa commercial:
A white shirt on sale at Ross Dress For Less: $7.00
A teenage convert who respects the missionaries and other church leaders and is inspired to be like them in manner and dress in preparation to wear a white shirt for fulltime missionary service: Priceless.
I’m confused:
Am I suppose to care that women are wearing pants to church or am I suppose to not care that women are wearing pants to church?
If the point is that we should not care, aren’t we then assuming that someone cares and we’ll be making a point? What if that person doesn’t care- then isn’t this protest whatever for naught? In order for it to have any effect, don’t we have to care that women are wearing pants? But we don’t want them to care….
These are the things I do not miss about Utah (but I missing the snow- that sweet precious snow…)
@Jeff Spector- this was trivial before today’s tragedy- now it’s absurd.
Salt – I agree 100%. How do they react now?
Jeff, I get what you are saying about it never being enough. Personally, I’m really optimistic about the leadership in SLC on this one which has been consistently on the side of right, despite some members going off the rails and turning this into Custer’s Last Stand. The absolute perfect response to this event would be no response at all, just acceptance of women regardless of what they are wearing and staying focused on our reason for being at church.
Interestingly, a bishop in CO pulled an emergency meeting and was planning to pull every woman who came to church in pants in for a worthiness interview and prevent them from taking the sacrament (as reported by someone in the meeting). Fortunately, he called Salt Lake who told him to cool his jets and that there’s nothing wrong with women wearing pants to church.
Completely agree with Jake. I have been very surprised at the level of protest against the wearing pants movement and the anger/indignation in the comments I have seen.
I just can’t believe how surprised I am. How do people not see that it likely does need to be addressed? There’s no reason for women to not wear pants. In fact, pants on women as often as not look just as nice and respectful as many of the dresses/skirts I’ve seen, so that whole argument, which I’ve been hearing a lot of, just has no merit.
I also agree with Doug that the entire ‘dress code’ really is oppressive, and frankly, I think needs to be changed, or backed off of, because the reality is that it has no bearing on spirituality or ‘righteousness’. That is a point I really didn’t think about before. It is both men and women. For men, it’s about being righteous in their specifically white shirt, but for women it’s about being righteous in their non-pants.
I have a FB friend who is ‘friends’ with both myself and my very LDS sister in law, and has therefore been reading some of the FB comments. He is not LDS, nor does he live in Utah. He quite literally can’t believe that women wearing pants is even being discussed as an issue. He said, this is a 1960s issue.
I kind of see this as a multiple issues thing, as it has played out.
The wearing of pants per se, is for me, a non-starter. Wearing pants is no big deal. I was just in a Ward in Germany two weeks ago, which is next to the Europe Area office. It is considered the International Ward and it surely was. There were so many senior missionaries, one might have mistaken it for the MTC. It was cold that day and there were a few Sisters in pants. None of the Missionary Sisters, of course. I didn’t seen anything unusual about that, as I haven’t in my ward or other wards I have attended.
I have noticed when folks are dressed as though they are headed out to the beach or to some other activity on Sunday after Church. This is the new normal at most other Churches I’ve seen, because, in fact, they are headed to some other activity after Church. They do not, usually, view the Sabbath the same as we do.
So, in my mind, the dress code thing is really about showing respect to the Savior and not necessarily conforming, though most of us do it more for the latter than the former. I’d hate to see us become super casual in our worship, though that happens today, no matter what someone is wearing.
The wearing pants thing this particular Sunday has become a source of contention because of the protest nature of the act. Since we know it is not about wearing pants. So I think we see the kind of visceral reaction to it from that point of view. Some will just view it as a lack of respect, while some will see it as against conforming, which is a ridiculous way of looking at it.
Now, those with the uber strong reaction should be taken in the proper context, as the nutjobs they are. Clearly a very super small minority of members would have a supposed violent reaction because they are seeking attention or are plain crazy. They should be discounted and not used as a rallying cry. Perhaps not totally ignored in light of recent events, though.
This whole thing will play out as I described in the OP.
KT, if you think the issues against wearing the pants is about wearing pants then you are gravely mistaken. Not that I think you can see beyond the issue because you have already made up your mind what kind of people those “anti-pants” protestors are. No, lets get to the heart of the matter; this is about the role of women in the Church for both sides. Feminists are trying to flex their muscles with this pants non-issue while orthodox members see it as a political takeover attempt counter to the teachings of God about gender roles.
Jeff,
If it is so trivial, why did you find the need to write a post about it?
I see your reaction as saying “Don’t care about stuff I don’t care about.”
Saying that wearing pants is no big deal and then seeing how much people on both sides care about the issue doesn’t jive. Maybe you just aren’t perceptive enough about the culture to see that it is a big deal. If it weren’t a big deal people would feel so much judgement for doing it and women wearing pants would be much more common. The fact that thousands said they would wear pants and thousands criticized them for it speaks volume about who it is anything but trivial.
It degrades into pharisaical pettiness because as a church we are marching in place instead of being led to higher and higher levels of spirituality. Who are our spiritual visionaries, the “Let’s go shopping!” guys? The younger missionary guys? God has nothing more important to say to the world in 2012? Church and Temple acts out mortal metaphors for something spiritual. It is a mistake to conflate the two. When they can be understood individually it is easy to see how people can have a more spiritual experience elsewhere waring anything or nothing at all.
Jettboy: I don’t think it’s only about wearing pants, but I do think it’s also about wearing pants. It’s all encompassing, and I realize that. Trust me, it IS also about wearing pants, because I’ve seen the commenters on the other side, and they are certainly indignant about that sole issue….Oh the absurdity – they feel feminine in their skirts; it shows respect to wear a skirt; they have been blessed with eternal feminity and should revel in it. These are actual comments I’ve seen, so yup -I get that it’s about more than that, but trust me when I say, it’s moste definitely also about that!
I’ll probably wear a purple shirt, but I wore a purple shirt last month too. I probably only wear a white shirt to church every month or two.
The best thing – no one cares.
A third of the men in my ward wear non-white shirts. One in ten doesn’t wear a tie. Probably a quarter have some version of facial hair. And we live in the heart of the Wasatch Front with general authorities, stake presidents, bishops, etc. in the ward.
So, I’ll probably wear a purple shirt. It won’t be in protest or anything like that. And no one will care.
Jeff S — You ended your original posting with:
My own observation is this. Come Monday morning, nothing will have changed. Some women will wear pants to Church, some ward members will be surprised, and most won’t care. Some will achieve some level of satisfaction at doing it; some will realize it might not have mattered. Still others will be upset and never understand why it happened.
That’s probably a good assessment. However, there will be a few persons whose hearts will be more hardened, and there will be a few persons who think they scored some victory. That will be sad.
Either way it’s silliness.
At least no one’s starting a nudist movement…
ji, people at both extremes you are envisioning have cause to repent of their attitudes. But neither really has the right to kick the other out. But I’m convinced that neither of those extremes is common. I also think this is primarily a political difference. Conservatives and liberals care about different things. They interpret the gospel through the lens of their own moral compass. Both sides are defending something on moral grounds in their own mind. They are talking more than listening. Hopefully this will begin to change. Many feminists have finally got reluctant friends and family members to question how welcoming the atmosphere has been. That’s hearts softening, not hardening. Only those in an echo chamber or on a crusade will match your description.
anonlds,
” Maybe you just aren’t perceptive enough about the culture to see that it is a big deal. ”
Silly you. 20 children are killed by a crazed gunman (including one little LDS girl) and this, in comparison, is trivial and even, as someone else said, absurd in light of real life.
I am truly surprised you can’t see that.
“I see your reaction as saying “Don’t care about stuff I don’t care about.”
I am always surprised when folks such as yourself worry more about what they think I think than just what they think.
Scott Trotter (giving the official church position) is saying (I’m paraphrasing) that there is no dress code in the LDS church. However, when you have BKP giving a talk at BYU about the unwritten order of things (white shirts, facial hair etc.)or Pres. Hinckley talking about earrings and Elder Bednar reemphasizing their importance to the point of breaking off an engagement to marry, is it any wonder that there is confusion about whether there is a dress code or not and that members are looking askance at each other?