Wear Pants to Church Day

A group of Mormon women has decided to designate this Sunday (December 16th) as Women Wear Pants to Church Day. This, and the reaction to it has made me do a lot of thinking and I have a few things to say.

In the quiet heart is hidden
Sorrow that the eye can't see.
Who am I to judge another?
-Susan Evans McCloud

Some women are discontent with what they see as sexism in the church (for ease I will call them feminists). They have concerns based on their experiences. Other women, who have had different experiences, do not believe there is sexism in the church (for ease, traditionalists). People are different and that’s okay. However, some traditionalists made statements like, “they (the feminists) don’t truly understand the Gospel and they don’t really have faith in God.” That is not okay. It is wrong to marginalize and dismiss others because they disagree with you. These issues are painful for some people, they struggle constantly. When someone is going through a hard time, don’t make things harder for them by attacking their faith and belief.

There is disagreement in the church. There always has been. There always will be. I don’t think it’s a bad thing. We have the Word of Wisdom because Joseph Smith didn’t like clouds of smoke at church and Emma Smith didn’t like cleaning filthy tobacco spit off the floor.  A problem was observed and something was done about it. Disagreements can make things happen.

We need to try harder to understand each other.

I have been disturbed by statements like, “if you don’t like the church, why don’t you leave and find one you like.” The prospect of that is sometimes tempting. I have stopped going to church several times because I found it intolerable. I always end up going back. Why? Because I have had profound spiritual experiences within the framework of the church. This does not mean I like everything about the church. It especially does not mean I like all the people in the church, or all of its leaders.

The “love it or leave it” attitude traps people in two scenarios.
1. They “love it” by keeping their mouths shut and holding all of their pain inside or -
2. They “leave it” and then have to endure active members trying to get them back to church and/or members fearing for the lost souls and wondering what sin made them leave the true path.
Do you want to be in that situation? Don’t subject others to it.

Many will argue that this is “a problem with the culture in the church and not the church itself.” Fine, I understand that. If a problem is just cultural, why not have a discussion and get things resolved? Why tell these feminists that their concerns are not valid when we could be listening to them and trying help them resolve their issues?

I may be overly sensitive to these issues. Lately, a personal dichotomy has been growing in me. Half of me loves the church (the spiritual aspects, the sense of community) and the other half is repulsed by it (the sexism, views on homosexuality, history of racism). I have discovered I am not alone in this. Many struggle to reconcile the way they feel and the way they think they should feel. Some members who attend church each week are actually agnostic and go because they want to support their family or they like the social interaction. Some don’t believe the scriptures are true, but believe in redemption and like what the church has to offer. We think the church is homogeneous because we are scared to talk about it. Mormonism is a much bigger tent than I originally thought. Diversity will make us stronger, not weaker.

The Thing About Mormons Being Christian

We’ve all heard about the comments made by Robert Jeffress - labeling Mormonism as a cult and as not being in line with “Historical Christianity”. By saying this, I feel that Jeffress is acknowledging one part of history and ignoring several others.

I have heard three basic arguments for why Mormons are not Christians. Two of them are based in ignorance and one has some merit, but creates the historical problem that I feel Jeffress has.
#1 Mormons don’t believe in Jesus at all. Any Mormon will tell you that Jesus is the Son of God and Savior. This argument is clearly false.

#2 Mormons worship a different Jesus than other Christians. This doesn’t really make sense and it makes me think of the praying-to-baby-Jesus argument from Talladega Nights.
Christ is Christ.

#3 Mormons are not Christians because they don’t believe in the Trinity. This point has validity. Mormons reject the 3-in-1 concept for a “Godhead” in which Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate beings that function as one God. Since belief in the Trinity is considered one of the defining characteristics of Christianity, the argument can be made that Mormons are not Christian. (I’m assuming that’s what Jeffress means by “Historical Christianity”.)

Here’s my problem with that: This definition of Christians as Trinity worshipers was solidified during the First Council of Nicea (AD 325). The issue came up because of debates about Arianism (named for the Egyptian presbyter Arius and completely unrelated to Aryans, who are racist bastards) One of the core beliefs of Arianism was that if Jesus was begotten by the Father, then the Father existed before Jesus and they cannot be the same being. They also believed that the Father created the Holy Ghost through Jesus and that it was subservient to both of them.

So what’s the problem? Arianism was heresy and the council crushed it. No big deal, right? Well, my question is why did they crush it? There is a lot of history to show that the church in Rome was less concerned about spirituality than they were about consolidating their power through politics. This was certainly the case with Arianism. Arians were all over Egypt and, at the time, Egypt was where the world went to be educated. Arians were enjoying a huge amount of influence because of this. Influence that threatened the supremacy of the church in Rome. This wasn’t the first time a council had done this. The Gnostics had been condemned just 40 years earlier.

Seems to me that “Historical Christianty” is somewhat based on a series of power grabs. This is not to say that everything about Christianity is terrible and wrong, I just don’t think it’s completely authoritative.

My point: People should be able to believe whatever the crap they want. 1700 year old Bishops are not the boss of me.

My other point: Labeling confessed Christians as non-Christian for political gain seems a bit un-Christian.