Mormon women plan 'Wear Pants to Church Day’

I never knew the Brits used "trousers" for what we call "pants" here. I thought "trousers" were a particular type of pants, like "jeans" or "chinos" or "khakis" or "cargo pants" or "slacks"... just a type that's common over there but not here. Of course, I also never knew the definitions of some of those words here, either; I just see them in advertising.

I once knew someone who always wore a skirt or dress, never pants/trousers, every day, not just at church. She did have a very religious and restrictive upbringing, but as soon as she was at college away from her family and turned rebellious, she found the skirts & dresses convenient for something else that her church would not have approved of...
 
In the Uk if something is "Pants" it means it's rubbish.
 
Delvo said:
I never knew the Brits used "trousers" for what we call "pants" here. I thought "trousers" were a particular type of pants, like "jeans" or "chinos" or "khakis" or "cargo pants" or "slacks"... just a type that's common over there but not here. Of course, I also never knew the definitions of some of those words here, either; I just see them in advertising.
Click to expand...

Just wait until you come over here and tell some businessman that you like their pants, and ask if they could tell you where they got their suspenders from...
 
The Facebook link in the newspaper article does not seem to go anywhere.

While I admit I'm one to encourage resistance to authority, especially in Mormonism - I'm more inclined to think that this is a sort of fiction that is promoted to make us think that there are actually 500 or so Mormon women who would stand together in a protest like this. I have some skepticism about it being more than wishful thinking on the part of an individual or two.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Click for a picture of someone wearing pants and suspenders, as far as someone from the UK is concerned. Maybe a little NSFW, depending on how strict the policy may be at work.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there.

For those not in the know. The link is to a very attractive black woman in her underthings. This is a subversive thing in a thread about Mormons because it wasn't until 1978 that Mormons "Ensouled" blacks and other minorities. Before then church doctrine was that dark skin meant you were cursed for sins committed before birth. Converts were reported to experience supernatural skin lightening after becoming Mormon. Many splinter groups still consider blacks and other minorities to be cursed or even without souls.
 
The Mormons have a setup that allows them to change official doctrine on a dime, and you give us an example of when that happened.

It now appears that the Mormons are about to reverse course and allow if not endorse same-sex marriages. Since to Mormons a marriage is forever (continues after death), this is significant.

I don't know how the rank and file will take this: such changes tend to bring about split-offs, so they will no doubt prepare the ground carefully.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It's not a meaning I intended. The fact that the woman in the link is black was entirely incidental, as far as I was concerned. However, I'm happy for it to have the added subversive meaning you've ascribed to it.
Click to expand...

Ah, it was a happy coincidence then!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'll be on Holodeck 4.
 
Frank, Despite the hype and misreporting, nothing has changed in Latter-day Saint doctrine regarding same sex attraction, nor will it. The recent announcement was to assure the family of a person who may be struggling with this trial, and the individual themselves, that help is available and providing they do not act on such thoughts they are still welcome within the Church. This has always been the official LDS position.
Frank Merton said:
It now appears that the Mormons are about to reverse course and allow if not endorse same-sex marriages.
Click to expand...
 
Well they changed their mind about black people, maybe one day they will about gay people, or "shudder' gay black people
 
No, this is not in anyway comparable.

That the responsibility of the Priesthood was withheld from worthy males of Negro descent for a short period of time, was for a purpose known only to the Lord. It was His decision and His alone and not for mere mortals to question... nor is it their business how the Lord directs His Church.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom