I know that Wear pants to church day was a long time ago but I wasn't blogging back then so I'll write something about it now.
My first thought is disapproval. Such cultures and traditions might not be eternal but in this day and age they are in place. However I believe if a women wants to follow this there is probably not anything that anybody can or should do about it. She should just be treated like any other member and if treated with love hopefully she will decide to make the right decision. The ward council and any other member has got bigger things to deal with than a women wearing pants. I think this might be a problem where ignoring it is a more practical solution than solving it.
Doctrine and Covenants 46 says that nonmembers and even those who have received church discipline should be welcome in church meetings. I believe this means not just allowing them inside but also being happy of the fact that they're with you in church. This may not extend to a woman showing her breast but someone who is disfellowshipped is to be welcomed into church meetings why should we be more stingy with a women who is wearing pants.
The modesty wearing pants to church
When we think of modesty in church discussion what normally comes to mind is women who don't cover enough of their skin. Wear pants to church day is obviously not immodest in this sense but there is more to modesty than just that.
Here is one official church definition of modesty
Modesty is an attitude of propriety and decency in dress,
grooming, language, and behavior. If we are modest,
we do not draw
undue attention to ourselves. Instead, we seek to “glorify God in
[our] body, and in [our] spirit”
(—See True to the Faith (2004), 106-8; emphasis added)
Could there be a day when wearing pants to church for women was not considered to be differing from the norm. Perhaps, but this is not that day and that is the reason for wear pants to church day. I believe that wearing pants to church is immodest in the sense that the women participating are trying to draw undue attention to themselves.
A recent article in the church's youth magazine, the new era, addressed the question of how to know what counts as an extreme hair style. I'll include the entire response because it's in the spirit of what I'm trying to say.
What is considered extreme may vary from culture to culture and
time to time, so it would be difficult to say exactly what hairstyles
are too extreme for everyone. So how do you know whether a hairstyle is
“extreme”? Ask yourself, “Why am I doing this?” If you’ve gone out of
your way to give yourself unusual hair color(s), length(s), and styling
solely for the purpose of “making a statement” or getting attention,
then you may have gone to the “extreme” referred to in For the Strength of Youth.
Do
Church leaders ask you to avoid extremes just because they want you to
look plain and ordinary, without any style or personality? Of course
not. They’ve given this counsel because your appearance says something
about you. “Through your dress and appearance, you can show that you
know how precious your body is. You can show that you are a disciple of Jesus Christ.” Extreme hairstyles might overshadow this message and send a more worldly message about you.
(https://www.lds.org/new-era/2013/03/to-the-point?lang=eng; Emphasis added)
Sacrament Meeting
During high school I was in the pit orchestra for the school's production of Pirates of Penzance. The uniform required black pants and a black shirt. Because a black shirt was new and cool to me I decided to wear it to church one week. Looking back I wish I hadn't. In this phase of life I was often taking some part of the sacrament ordinance. I was not necessarily trying to make a statement. I was just trying to do something new and cool. I don't know if anyone remembers that meeting but the black shirt does distract from the sacrament. It is true that there is no scripture or church policy saying the ordinance does not work. the officiator is not wearing a white shirt but the sacrament meeting (especially the sacrament) is supposed to draw attention to only Christ and his Atonement.
Related. There is technically no such thing as a missionary farewell or homecoming meeting. It is just a sacrament with a departing or returning misssionary speaking. My understanding for this is that it's because a "missionary farewell meeting" distracts from the saviour who's meeting it is.
From
Churchhandbook 2, 18.2.2
The bishopric usually invites missionaries to speak in sacrament meeting just before they depart and when they return (see Handbook 1, 4.8.1 and 4.10.3). The bishopric makes it clear that this is a regular sacrament meeting and is not to be a missionary farewell or homecoming. The bishopric plans and conducts these meetings. Family members and friends of the missionary are not invited to speak. However, other departing or returning missionaries or other members may be invited to speak.
Is it appropriate to use church meetings to make a statement? The three hour church block isn't really about us and the unique opinions we wish to express. It's about the the saviour and his teachings.
What are they trying to say
I'm curious about what these mormon feminists are trying to say. I think there are very few mormon feminists who want the church to give them the priesthood. I think if a mormon wants to describe herself as a feminist then she likely doesn't know or appreciate the value of womanhood in the church. A really good example of the value of women comes from a talk
Elder Cook of the quorumn of the twelve gave in Aprill 2011
Several years ago I attended a stake conference in Tonga. Sunday morning the three front rows of the chapel were filled with men between 26 and 35 years of age. I assumed they were a men’s choir. But when the business of the conference was conducted, each of these men, 63 in total, stood up as their names were read and were sustained for ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood. I was both pleased and stunned.
After the session I asked President Mateaki, the stake president, how this miracle had been accomplished. He told me that in a stake council meeting reactivation was being discussed. His stake Relief Society president, Sister Leinata Va’enuku, asked if it would be appropriate for her to say something. As she spoke, the Spirit confirmed to the president that what she was suggesting was true. She explained that there were large numbers of wonderful young men in their late 20s and 30s in their stake who had not served missions. She said many of them knew they had disappointed bishops and priesthood leaders who had strongly encouraged them to serve a mission, and they now felt like second-class members of the Church. She pointed out that these young men were beyond missionary age. She expressed her love and concern for them. She explained that all of the saving ordinances were still available to them and the focus should be on priesthood ordinations and the ordinances of the temple. She noted that while some of these young men were still single, the majority of them had married wonderful women—some active, some inactive, and some not members.
After thorough discussion in the stake council, it was decided that the men of the priesthood and the women of the Relief Society would reach out to rescue these men and their wives, while the bishops spent more of their time with the young men and young women in the wards. Those involved in the rescue focused primarily on preparing them for the priesthood, eternal marriage, and the saving ordinances of the temple. During the next two years, almost all of the 63 men who had been sustained to the Melchizedek Priesthood at the conference I attended were endowed in the temple and had their spouses sealed to them. This account is but one example of how critical our sisters are in the work of salvation in our wards and stakes and how they facilitate revelation, especially in family and Church councils.
I never met the people involved in this story but what I see is a Stake President understands the vital role women can play and was humble enough to find help from his relief society president and to implement her inspired idea. I believe he understood that his position was a position of service to others and that he relied the assistance of others, men and women. The relief society president I believe was a women who also knew she was in a position of service (including inderect service to men) and that the stake president was the presideing priesthood authority. This story shows humily. It shows that there are differences between men and women. It says that women are important. It shows the men have the priesthood which includes the authority to make the decisions directing the work of the stake.
The bigger problem at hand
I think the biggest problem at hand is not that some women showed up to church on Dec 16th and were wearing pants. The biggest problem might not even be the message these women are trying to promote. I think the bigger problem is whatever causes some women to feel this way. In 2005 Elder Oaks of the quorumn of the twelve gave a talk about how the priesthood functions differently in the church than in the family. Entitled
Priesthood Authority in the Family and in the Church This talk may help us understand where some feminist feelings originate.
About this same time, [the time his mother became a widow] we had a neighbor who dominated and sometimes abused his wife. He roared like a lion, and she cowered like a lamb. When they walked to church, she always walked a few steps behind him. That made my mother mad. She was a strong woman who would not accept such domination, and she was angry to see another woman abused in that way. I think of her reaction whenever I see men misusing their authority to gratify their pride or exercise control or compulsion upon their wives in any degree of unrighteousness (see D&C 121:37).
I have also seen some faithful women who misunderstand how priesthood authority functions. Mindful of their partnership relationship with their husband in the family, some wives have sought to extend that relationship to their husband’s priesthood calling, such as bishop or mission president. In contrast, some single women who have been abused by men (such as in a divorce) mistakenly confuse the priesthood with male abuse and become suspicious of any priesthood authority. A person who has had a bad experience with a particular electrical appliance should not forego using the power of electricity.
Unrighteous dominion or verbal or physical abuse are all much bigger problems than a woman wearing pants to church. There is an idea out there that in a dispute between a man and his wife that if they are in a draw the husband wins because he has the priesthood. This idea is false. For a good example of this teaching see
Elder Larry Y. Wilson's general conference talk. I've known good men who have either made this mistake or almost made it. This is where forgiveness comes in.
Differences between men and women can be blown out of proportion but they are not trivial things that do not matter. A man does not rule over his wife and a wife does not rule over her husband. However a man does preside over his wife but a woman does not preside over her husband. The Lord himself acknowledges that there are differences in section 83 of the Doctrine and Covenants verse 2 which reads
Women have claim on their husbands for their maintenance, until their husbands are taken; and if they are not found transgressors they shall have fellowship in the church.
Verse 4 of the same section acknowledges some similarities
All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.
No feminist has ever complained about verse 2 of this scripture.
