There was a woman in my former ward who wore pants every time she came, but I believe it was for reasons of disability and didn’t have much, if anything, to do with politics. I’ve worn pant suits to church functions where all the women were in dresses, and no one has ever batted an eyelash. Actually, I’ve been complimented. I think as long as we look respectful, no one has any reason to complain.

As far as Hillary Clinton ruining the pant suit, I would say a definite nay. She is always dressed impeccably–I’d say there’s a far better chance she’s legitimized the pant suit.

I don’t have an ideological stance against pants…I personally wish women wore skirts and dresses more nowadays in general…I generally just think they look more beautiful in a nice dress or skirt.

Hey, DCcLemon – I think you should try wearing pants and start a trend. Then again, you do live in Utah :) A few years ago, I started wearing pants to Church in the winter. Two or three other women in our ward do, too.

Besides keeping you warm, pants are so much more functional than skirts – especially for chasing after children. And I can sit on the floor and play with them without worrying about my underwear showing.

I just think it’s important to wear a skirt/dress to show respect to Heavenly Father. You wouldn’t wear pants to the temple would you? Or on your wedding day? It’s just a different type of clothing than the rest of the week… a way to set the sabbath apart

RE: 8

A couple months back I saw a very nicely dressed woman in the DC Temple wearing pants and heels. She looked very professional, respectful, reverent, etc-way more so than the women trailing behind her in very large denim skirts/jumpers and birkenstocks. Going strictly on appearances and making an unfair, ill-informed and snap judgment, the woman in slacks looked much, much better and respectful than the denim skirt and birkenstok sisters in her immediate vicinity-it wasn’t even close.

From what I’ve observed over the years, the majority of modern American LDS women wear the pants in their families, so they might as well wear a dress or skirt to church, just for the change of pace. ;-)

ESO, #13- If dry cleaning is holding you back, you should try Dryel. It’s a dry cleaning bag and sheet system that lets you do your dry cleaning in the dryer. It’s way cheaper and works just as well.

AYW- (2) I too have worn nice pants to a relief society function and not thought anything of it. It feels like a different atmosphere than sacrament meeting.

PaulW (#4)- I like skirts here and there too, but in general I find pants much more functional and comfortable. I think it is very possible to look beautiful in nice slacks.

ECS- I think I will try it out this winter. I hate tromping to church in a skirt and heels in the snow.

MAC (#7) – I have to agree that Hillary is doing a number on the Democrat’s chances. Is this race ever going to end? They both look exhausted, and there is only so much make-up can hide when you are that tired.

Jessica -(8)- How is a dress more respectful to God? I think it is very possible to look respectful wearing a nice pair of pants and a sweater/shirt, or a pantsuit. If the argument is it is more respectful to wear a special type of clothing on the sabbath, then the men are being disrespectful by wearing the same outfit to the boardroom during the week as they wear to sacrament meeting. A suit for a man goes anywhere – why should women have to dress differently on Sunday if they can look respectful and neatly dressed in a pair of pants?

rbc – (10) I completely agree that it sounds like the woman dressed in pants and heels was dressed appropriately.

DKL – (11) What? Obama ruined the perception of black people? I think you should explain.

Nick Literski -(12) With that line of thinking men should wear skirts to church too.

ESO -(13)- It was working in the nursery a few years ago that got me thinking about this issue. It is ridiculous to be on the ground playing with kids and cleaning up after them in a skirt. I should have worn pants then.

Recently our High Counsel speaker made the comment during his talk that there is never a time that women should be wearing pants during sacrament meeting. Shortly thereafter, a less-active woman wearing pants got up and left the chapel. I don’t know if she was embarrassed, offended or humbled- but, I was offended. Maybe those slacks were the nicest thing she had to wear (much like the Widow’s Mite).

In my previous branch there were a couple of sisters that did wear pants and they were not necessarily feminists, just recent converts and wearing pants to their former church was totally acceptable.

I personally always wear skirts or dresses, although I would love to wear pants sometimes, but I’m too chicken. I’m a leader in YW and I’m afraid my bishop might call me in and ask me why I’m leading the YW astray. :)

It would be interesting to correlate the stakes who have issues with pantsuits with those that also prevent sisters from giving invocations.

I live in a part of the U.S. where winter temperatures regularly get down to -20F. Either pants or long skirts are essential to cover the long underwear everyone is wearing. It’s a given.

AYW #2,

Suppose we were to play a word association game with 100 people. If I said, “Pant suit!” at least 80 people would immediately say, “Hillary Clinton.”

Now let’s play word association with 100 Mormons. I say, “Hillary Rodham Clinton!” What do the Mormons say? You can bet that most of what you hear won’t be positive.

I have little doubt that the strong association between Hillary and pant suits has made them more taboo than they otherwise would be.

I’m a hypocrite. I have facial hair and only wear a white shirt to church 20% of the time, but I think women should wear dresses to church. I have no reason that will makes sense to you graduate degreed, intelectual elitists, but I think your clothes make a statement whether you want them to or not. The fact that this post exists indicates that a pantsuit makes a statement. What statement a pantsuit makes may vary due to a variety of factors, but it is usually quite loud.

I almost always wear dresses to church, but sometimes I wear nice dress slacks and a blouse. Three to five years ago, it would have been a statement, but now it’s just about what I feel like doing. I’ve never dressed like a slob, and I don’t think there’s anything about a dress that’s inherently more “respectful.” For that matter, in my navy blue dress pants and coordinating silky blouse, I look more dressed up than the woman in a jean skirt and t-shirt.

If anybody thinks anything of it, I really don’t care. Their problem, not mine. But I really don’t think anybody thinks anything of it.

That said, if you can’t wear a pantsuit without feeling awkward within yourself, then don’t bother. Aside from a few micromanagers, nobody is telling you that you MUST wear a skirt. But if it feels “wrong,” even though you want to, then just wear a skirt. You probably wouldn’t feel comfortable in pants under the circumstances – and what’s the point if your MORE uncomfortable.

I have no reason that will makes sense to you graduate degreed, intelectual elitists, but I think your clothes make a statement whether you want them to or not. The fact that this post exists indicates that a pantsuit makes a statement. What statement a pantsuit makes may vary due to a variety of factors, but it is usually quite loud.

I’m not sure my graduate-level neural networks classes had any opinion on pantsuits … but in my experience, the only people who thinks it makes a statement are the people who are against them. Most people who wear slacks to Church just think they look nice, IMHO.

The people I saw in a couple of weekends ago, who wore tracksuits to sacrament meeting, weren’t making a statement. They were worshipping.

I was chatting with a bishop friend tonight, who made the observation that there is a big critical mass of people in our society who didn’t grow up Mormon, who didn’t grow up thinking white shirts and dresses were important, who work in environments where slacks and a golf-shirt is considered “dress up”, for whom our worship style is considered “high church”, who didn’t grow up liking to go on camping trips, who didn’t participate in Scouting, who don’t recognize the letters “Y” and “U” as having any special significance, who have no idea who the Osmonds are, and … who are starting to investigate and join the Church.

He had the thought that as these people turn their hearts to the savior and join the Church, the effect will be that the culture of the Church changes to integrate them, not that their culture will change to integrate to an monolithic ideal of “church culture”.

queuno (32)- I agree that things will change as more and more people join the church. I always enjoy talks or prayers by new members, because they often lack the entrenched language we use. It is refreshing.

DCcLemon – I remember being laughed at when I was at BYU for suggesting that the membership of the Church should prepare themselves for the day when the “average” suburban ward had dozens of families that had no priesthood holders — not because the husbands had left the ward, but because families with single or divorced moms had joined the Church. There was this weird belief amongst some people I knew that the Church is really just designed for nuclear families.

The best thing about missionary-minded wards who successfully bring people into the fold is that they tend to strip away all of the excesses of Mormon culture — they don’t worry about how it was done 50 years ago; they worry about how it needs to be done next week.

My ward is not a missionary-minded ward, but we are a very dynamic ward — lots of growth (80% or more per year; we’re burgeoning at the seams again this year). The wonderful thing about rapid growth — either organic or artificial — is that you have to focus intently on the essentials. You can’t worry about petty traditions that don’t matter to the lives of the members you have today. It doesn’t matter if so-and-so served a mission 15 years ago; it matters if he’s the right person to accept a call to teach the 9-year-olds. It doesn’t matter if a brother works on Sunday, as long as he and his family is in Church when his shift ends. It matter if Sister X is a Democrat (gasp), because the bishop’s wife might have been a McGovern supporter (and still is).

The most “preserve the traditions of our fathers” ward I’ve ever seen was my wife’s parents’ old ward in SLC. It’s a dying ward, clinging to its mores and traditions from two generations past. But in a young (not talking about member age), dynamic, chaotic ward, people focus on the worship and the service and eschew concerns over things that don’t matter.

We had a ward clerk working on a Saturday night in the clerk’s office wearing shorts and a tee-shirt. A member thought it was inappropriate. The bishop made the comment that at least the work was getting done.

“I mostly noticed the vast economic disparity (the tracksuit was really a symbol of that)…. Tracksuits weren’t a statement, despite your desire to turn them into one.”

I would suggest that that poverty and/or ignorance are statements. I never said statements had to be intentional.

I read these posts with great interest because my daughter-in-law, who is a convert and from a non-Western culture, was chastised by the Primary president last Sunday for wearing pants to church and told her she was ungodly and a bad example to the children. (My d-i-l is first counselor in the Primary). It just broke her heart,and now she is seriously considering not going back to church.

My husband, who is in the Stake Presidency, agrees with the Primary president, although he concedes she couldn’t have been more tactful!

There is nothing in the Handbook of Instructions stating that a woman must wear a dress to church.

Although I am a “hose-and-heels” person at church and work, I feel that church members need to be more tolerant of differences.

Regina,

I feel horribly for your daughter-in-law. That was a very insensitive thing to say, and I don’t understand why people feel it is their responsibility to “set people straight” on things that don’t matter. I think people should try to look respectful, but exactly what that means varies from person to person and culture to culture.

guy, I’ll admit that if you’re Jesus shopping based on abstract characteristics, you’re Jesus wins. Geeze, if we’re gonna’ make up a Jesus from scratch, then why not go hog wild and just say that she saves everybody no matter what? Seriously. What kind of Jesus cares if you attend this or that church or have conversations about modesty? The problem with your Jesus is that — as good as she sounds in the abstract — she has the same ontological status as the imaginary friends you played with as a child. Drop me an email when you’re ready to worship the real Jesus.

Guy, The Golden Rule actually isn’t adequate to guide one’s actions in very many situations. For example, let’s examine a situation that involves special obligations, like that of a university president to her students. She has certain obligations to her students. The Golden Rule provides no way of differentiating these obligations according to whether they’re owed to her students or to students of another university. Imagine that she’s courting a donor who will donate some amount of money to one university and that the amount of money donated depends on the number of students attending the university that would receive the donation. She has an obligation to her university students and alumni and staff to get that money for her own university, even that means that another university would be denied a much larger sum if she gets it. There’s no way to define the moral calculus involved using the Golden Rule. This same problem arises with almost all moral obligations that result from loyalty or duty resulting from special positions — like that of a parent, sibling, CEO, etc.

Furthermore, the Golden Rule underdetermines the outcome in many situations. In such situations, defining the desirable behavior according to the Golden Rule requires one to presuppose a desirable moral outcome, which renders the Golden Rule redundant. For example, let’s say that you’re old and retired, and a thief steals your life savings. If you don’t get it back, you’ll have to return to work at a wage that is substantially less than what you might have earned in the prime of your working life. Let’s suppose you have the opportunity to catch the thief and get your money back. Let’s further suppose that doing so would require you to involve law-enforcement, so that the thief would spend the rest of her life incarcerated. You could compute the Golden Rule outcome two ways. First, you could say, “If I stole all of that money, then I’d want for the person to show mercy on me and not put me in jail.” Second, you could say, “If I stole all of that money, I’d want someone to hold me accountable, because it could turn my life around.” You can’t choose between these outcomes unless you presuppose that one is desirable quite apart from the Golden Rule.

I conclude that the Golden Rule isn’t actually an effective moral maxim.

(top of this thread)
What IS the “LDS” perception of pants suits???
to me, that would be mostly a contrived construct…
Isn’t having a policy on this level of matters an indication of how anal some people can be, -or- does every matter, each ‘issue’ that some one individual in the Universe faces ‘deserve’ “gospel” implications?
to me, that very thought is Scary….

Expletive deleted.

I’ve never worn pants to sacrament meeting. I see it every so often now, but it bothers me. It’s probably some ingrained myopic bias.

I’m not bothered when girls wear flip flops or denim skirts. And women in pants doesn’t bother me enough to make an issue of it. I really don’t think God cares as long as we have clothes on.

Elder Holland gave a wonderful talk to the young women in 2005 general conference. I don’t know how to make the fancy quote thing you all know how to do, but there was a brief mention of sunday clothing:

“I make a special appeal regarding how young women might dress for Church services and Sabbath worship. We used to speak of “best dress” or “Sunday dress,” and maybe we should do so again. In any case, from ancient times to modern we have always been invited to present our best selves inside and out when entering the house of the Lord—and a dedicated LDS chapel is a “house of the Lord.” Our clothing or footwear need never be expensive, indeed should not be expensive, but neither should it appear that we are on our way to the beach. When we come to worship the God and Father of us all and to partake of the sacrament symbolizing the Atonement of Jesus Christ, we should be as comely and respectful, as dignified and appropriate as we can be. We should be recognizable in appearance as well as in behavior that we truly are disciples of Christ, that in a spirit of worship we are meek and lowly of heart, that we truly desire the Savior’s Spirit to be with us always.”

In re-reading it, it doesn’t outline specifics, but rather suggests respectful, dignified clothing.

My favorite part of the talk counsels mothers and daughters to avoid focusing on outward appearance. I love this part:

“In this same vein may I address an even more sensitive subject. I plead with you young women to please be more accepting of yourselves, including your body shape and style, with a little less longing to look like someone else. We are all different. Some are tall, and some are short. Some are round, and some are thin. And almost everyone at some time or other wants to be something they are not! But as one adviser to teenage girls said: “You can’t live your life worrying that the world is staring at you. When you let people’s opinions make you self-conscious you give away your power. … The key to feeling [confident] is to always listen to your inner self—[the real you.]” 8 And in the kingdom of God, the real you is “more precious than rubies.” 9 Every young woman is a child of destiny and every adult woman a powerful force for good. I mention adult women because, sisters, you are our greatest examples and resource for these young women. And if you are obsessing over being a size 2, you won’t be very surprised when your daughter or the Mia Maid in your class does the same and makes herself physically ill trying to accomplish it. We should all be as fit as we can be—that’s good Word of Wisdom doctrine. That means eating right and exercising and helping our bodies function at their optimum strength. We could probably all do better in that regard. But I speak here of optimum health; there is no universal optimum size.”

Women are expected to wear dresses in the same way that men are expected to wear white shirts.

None of the talks you cite specifically mention white shirts, I don’t believe. You talk of the expectation of a white shirt — it’s more properly described as a tradition in my opinion.

I don’t care what you wear to church- and I think that a man wearing a colored shirt wouldn’t be looked at the same as a woman in slacks. I believe there was a talk about ‘the uniform of the priesthood’ which did specifically say that to participate in priesthood ordinances you should be wearing a white shirt. Personally I don’t think Heavenly Father cares- but I know in several wards we’ve been in the ym haven’t been allowed to bless or pass the sacrament without white shirts. I have a friend who was specifically called out by a stake president in sacrament meeting after passing the sacrament in a light green shirt (in a singles ward). I know that when my husband was in the YM presidency the bishop stated that the presidency needed to wear white shirts to set an example to the boys. I don’t get the importance and I agree it’s more tradition than anything else. I don’t think it’s disrespectful personally- but I know most church leadership disagrees. Personally I prefer my husband wear his dark blue shirt because it’s a much better color for him then white. It depends on the ward and his current calling if he’ll do it though.

I think it’s an expectation BECAUSE of the tradition. I don’t believe any of it is relevant to Heavenly Father. He sees our hearts- not our clothing. If those around us are distracted because we’re wearing nice slacks instead of a skirt then Heavenly Father sees their hearts as well. ;)

Guy: I ’sometimes’ wonder why LDS leadership doesn’t make a delineation between the essentials and the non-essentials of Christ-Like living.

You obviously don’t know anything about Jesus, because this statement reflects the outlook of those whom Jesus reviled in the New Testament. There’s a whole series of Jesus couplets in the formula, “The law says…., but you should do….” where the should-do’s are much more strict than the law’s requirements. The idea of Christ-like behavior is to avoid compartmentalizing and reducing morality, so that Christ is reflected in everything that you do. There is not minimum or “essence.”

Only someone who had made up their own Jesus out of whole cloth could ask for a reduction of of Christ-like living to its essentials. The real Jesus is still there if you’re interested in doing anything more than stealing Jesus’s name to attach it to your own personal prejudices.

Guy, did you even understand what DKL just wrote?

Try again. And read real closely this time.

M (#63) – Well stated! I agree

Well, not that wearing anything less than a tent will protect you, it is your esteem while wearing it. Women shouldn’t have to go to church feeling prying eyes on them. Lord knows I wore presentable slacks and blouses.
I think it is all in a woman’s demeanor while she wears her outfit. I think me wearing my pants and blouse every Sunday left a bad impression. I was too weak and searching for proper direction in the church, and am hurt that just the way I presented myself could have changed some events. I am deeply saddened that we are back in the 40′s discussing pants. May be if the church wishes castity so hard, I just have to wear a chastity belt out of the house, to church, and while I sleep at night.