"Even doctrinal" sounds like what I and most Mormons think of as revealed stuff.

And it goes without saying that you shouldn't use sacrament meeting for a protest movement.

Thanks! Merry Christmas to you too!

That's really contemptuous of Mormon women who are happy to dress in the customary way. They're "cookie cutter" now? I actually think that its a good thing that Mormons don't dress to draw attention to themselves at church.

I also don't see how having a group of women all wear the same article of clothing on the same day in coordination meaningfully expresses their individuality.

I can’t help but feel like the pro-pants people are talking out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand, they’re saying that it’s merely about a harmless shift in culture, and on the other, they reveal that they are actually looking to make fundamental changes in the roles of men and women because they are unsatisfied with the scriptural worldview of the sexes.

I don’t see anything inherently wrong with pants. Women look good in pants. But one of the dimensions in which I find it inappropriate is that our society does not consider pants to be fancier dress than skirts or dresses. If it did, then there would be no problem. But the problem is that pants on women are perceived as less formal, just as a polo shirt on a man is less formal than a tie and vest. And so on this level it comes down to an issue of respect for the Lord in his Church buildings. I have visited meetings of other churches where the people have worn very casual attire, such as jeans, etc. and I found it highly inappropriate. These people will get dressed up in their best for work, but not for God. Disrespectful.

I would see no problem with this scenario if it were just a matter of drifting fashion trends, a subtle shift in fashion tastes that made dresses or skirts no longer worn. For instance, gone are the days when women wore hats in Church. And there’s no problem with that. But I only wish this whole pants controversy were something as benign as a shift in fashion trends.

Instead, it’s about making a statement, making a protest. This is the other dimension where I find it highly inappropriate. Church meetings are not the proper places for such things. Not at all. Especially protest movements that have such deep implications regarding rebellion against the fundamental doctrines of the Church – the role of men and women, and the authority of Church leadership; the “rigid gender roles” that the pro-pantsies are so against. God has revealed his “rigid gender roles” in the scriptures (Moses 4:22-25) and in the Family Proclamation. If someone doesn’t like them, they are free to leave and practice different beliefs. But to invade the Church in its meetings and attempt to force their social change on the membership and authority hierarchy with these tactics strikes me as very wrong.

The cry seems to be for “equality.” Well, the Family Proclamation already certifies that the roles of man and woman are equal, because they are “equal partners” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, paragraph 7). But this should not be confused with “same responsibilities.” It means that their roles, which are different, are equally special and equally important. The scriptures teach us that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11). What inequality is there in the Church? It is hard to find, unless when you talk about “equality,” what you are really meaning is “same responsibilities.” This confusion of ‘same responsibilities’ = ‘the right kind of equality’ is an unfortunate byproduct of the false but pervasive feminist worldview.

Why do feminists try to imitate men so much? It is because they believe in their hearts that men’s roles are indeed better and superior, and that traditional women’s roles are in fact inferior and demeaning. Feminism is actually demeaning to women, because it teaches them that their traditional roles are worth very little, and that men’s roles are the ones with real value. But this is not what the Church teaches. It is what Satan teaches. No organization praises womanhood and its divine roles more than the Church, and no ideology is more denigrating to womanhood than feminism. And as the poet said, “The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.”

A few points I want to address:

1. Pants aren't as formal: That is entirely an opinion based matter and defined by culture. It IS a matter of drifting fashion, and if a woman feels that a skirt does not fit that way she feels is her best it should be her prerogative to wear pants without being looked down upon as "not formal enough." The Lord doesn't look at our dress, he looks at our hearts, and its not our place to judge someone's relationship with the Church or with God based on an inseam.

2. Mormon feminists want to alter gender roles: My biggest concern is that we throw out the baby with the bath water on this one. There are extremists on both side of this issue, and the key to cooperation and resolution lies in the middle. Admittedly, by immediately declaring "Give women the priesthood!", feminists may be taking things too far. However, in stating that feminists want to be men and should learn their place is dismissive of very real concerns. Too many well-intending priesthood holders put women in a lesser role, and restrict their ability to give input in important decisions. The patriarchal nature of some of the governing aspects of the church are really disturbing, especially when a subset of women are really yearning to contribute more. The Family Proclamation states that man and woman are equal partners in the home, but if you pay close attention to the way a ward is structured you'll notice that their are no positions that contribute any real influence held by women. Every single decision a woman makes, whether its a Relief Society president, YW president, Primary, etc, has to be given the stamp of approval from a man. All of these things may not need to change, but they should be reevaluated and examined for places to improve. I don't think this Pants movement is in any way an attempt to lobby for the Priesthood, it's a lobby for reexamination of what is defined by God and what is defined by our own cultural norms.

3. Making a statement in Sacrament Meeting is wrong: Again, a matter of opinion. Their pants won't drive the Spirit away. Feelings of disdain and contention drive the Spirit away. As for the meetings being the place for, I think it's fine. The Saviour himself overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple, he didn't take his concerns to a different locale. If the specific issue is occurring in the Sunday meetings, that should be the place the concern should be addressed.

4. LDS gender roles are damaged by the Mormon feminist movement, and women who are happy to live within the currently defined roles are damaged by the movement: Yes and no. Again, there are extremists, but that doesn't mean that the Church as a whole should dismiss every concern that is brought up. As we learn in D&C 121, any time anyone gets any bit of authority they begin to use it unrighteously. If a group of women feel the need to be heard, The Lord has commanded that we hear them out with love and seriously address their concerns. I don't think that women are harmed by an extension of service opportunities in the Church, they are blessed. The outcry of joy from young sisters when the date of missionary service was changed was immense, partly due to the fact that they were not going to be as limited by gender-based restriction. They could serve! Nobody argued that they were becoming more like men because they could serve, they were simply given a greater opportunity.

5. If Mormon feminists don't like how things are, they can leave: If you honestly believe this, shame on you. Yes, let's show people the door when they don't feel accepted. Lets show people the door if something we are doing may need to be reexamined. That's how the Saviour taught things. Oh wait...love one another as I have loved you. Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs. He prayed that we would all be one, even as He and the Father are one. He taught that it is our responsibility to love all men and bring them to Christ. NOWHERE in the Saviour's teachings did he say that if we have concerns with the sociocultural aspects of the Church that we should leave. We are to bring our concerns to the Church, and as a group of respectful and upstanding people we are to come to a resolution. If that really is our attitude toward Mormon feminists, I think you'll find that they do just that in bigger and bigger numbers. Not only that, but missionary success will decline because investigators will be put off when they see how women are seen in the Church.

I don't expect that the Church is going to make any really big changes to the way they structure the Church, but I do think that the attitude and interactions between men and women are going to change. We have a lot to learn from them, we just need to stop our backlash long enough to listen. We may be surprised at what they really want in the first place.

My final word on the matter:

1. I know that dress pants look classy. But they’re not as formal as dresses or skirts. And this isn’t just my view, either. Have you ever been to a formal occasion that requires formal attire, like a higher class office party? The women do not wear pants. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

2. I think really you’re overestimating this scenario of ‘chauvinistic’ priesthood holders looking down on women. But if there are ever cases of this, what is the cure? The cure would be to teach the erring men the true doctrine of the scriptures and the order of the priesthood (D&C 121:36-46), not to have some kind of protest to show the angst of feminist Mormons. And why should any member of the Church have a “say” in how the Church is run, outside of their own sphere of individual responsibility? The Church is a Kingdom, not a democracy. And to suggest that the Church is behind the times, unlike the more enlightened “Governments around the world,” or whatever, is a slight to the inspired leadership of the Church and the principle of revelation. It also ignores God’s divine roles for men and women and suggests that these ought to simply shift to and fro with the opinion of society.

3. I am confident that most members of the Church in tune with the Spirit would agree that this pants protest in Church is highly inappropriate on several levels.

4. Actually, there is revelation somewhat relating to this: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” (Deut. 22:5). Of course, we should consider that fashions change and such, and pants have become acceptable for women on a less-formal basis. But the Lord expects more from us when he is approached in worship. He told Moses, “Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground” (Ex. 3:5). The point here is that it makes a difference how we make our appearance to be when we approach the Lord in formal worship. And I have seen no indications of normal women of the Church not feeling “heard.” But I think those pushing feminist propaganda would like to convince the women of the Church that these are their circumstances.

5. Well, you are right when you said, “The orthodox would argue that everyone should give heed to the counsel of the prophets and avoid contention,” but I do not believe as you suggest, that a departure from orthodoxy is the true way. How could it be, in a revealed religion where we are taught the truth from a prophet? Elder Maxwell taught, “Ultimate orthodoxy--and orthodoxy isn't a popular word nowadays--is expressed in the Christlike life that involves both mind and behavior. Christ's manner of life is truly ‘the way, the truth, and the life,’ and he has directed us to pursue his example…. Yet orthodoxy is required to keep all these truths in essential balance. In orthodoxy lies real safety and real felicity! Flowing from orthodoxy is not only correctness but happiness. Orthodoxy is especially vital in a time of raging relativism and belching sensualism.” (Neal A. Maxwell, “The Inexhaustible Gospel,” BYU Speeches, Aug. 18, 1992). So much for that “middle ground” you’re searching for. Why compromise on what is already right to begin with? Yes, the Lord expects us to make decisions and receive revelation for ourselves, but this is only in relation to our personal sphere of responsibility, and also to confirm the truth of what the prophet says to our hearts. As to the teachings of the prophet, “he receiveth them [from the Lord] even as Moses. And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him…. And thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church” (D&C 28:2-3, 6). It is not our place to lobby for change in how the priesthood regulates the Church. That is the doctrine of the Church, all your beliefs and opinions aside.

There has already been a number of talks concerning gender roles and responsibilities in the LDS Church. Please allow me to share a few.

Claudia Bushman, at the 2006 FAIR conference gave a wonderful talk on this topic.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-the-lives-of-mormon-women

Another interesting talk, by Neylan Mcbaine concerning gender in the church can be read here:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-to-do-the-business-of-the-church-a-cooperative-paradigm

Andrea G. Radke, Ph.D, in her talk in 2004 titled "The Place of Mormon Women: Perceptions, Prozac, Polygamy, Priesthood, Patriarchy, and Peace" gives a great discussion on this topic as well.

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-the-place-of-mormon-women-perceptions-prozac-polygamy-priesthood-patriarchy-and-peace