Author Topic: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform  (Read 18531 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« on: January 16, 2013, 04:01:10 PM »
The Theology of Ordination Committee will be considering if God approves of the ordination of women ministers in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, with no differentiation between made between male and female pastors.

As a church, we believe that Ellen White is a messenger of the Lord, providing divine instruction and counsel for God’s people in these last days. Therefore, her writings will no doubt be carefully considered regarding this matter.

The movement to ordain women is closely connected with women’s rights issues, not just in our church, but in society at large. Women’s rights have been a politically-charged issue since the first women’s rights convention in Seneca Falls, NY in 1848. The “equal rights” that the leaders of the movement pushed for included ordination as church leaders and pastors. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a spiritualist who organized the first convention, and also promoted the “so-called reform dress” writes in a publication Elizabeth Cady Stanton as revealed in her letters, diary and reminiscences: “Again, I urged my coadjutors by speeches, letters, and resolutions, as a means of widespread agitation, to make the same demands of the Church that we had already made of the State. They objected, saying, ‘That is too revolutionary; an attack on the Church would injure the suffrage movement.’ But I steadily made the demand, as opportunity offered, that women be ordained to preach the Gospel and to fill the offices as elders, deacons, and trustees. A few years later some of these suggestions were accepted. Some churches did ordain women as pastors over congregations of their own, others elected women deaconesses, and a few churches allowed women, as delegates, to sit in their conferences. Thus this demand was in a measure honored, and another ‘step in progress’ taken.”

Satan’s age-old ploy is to mingle good and evil so the evil is not easily discerned. Only through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit can we sort out which “rights” are God-approved, and which are tactics of the devil to lead us away from God’s plan. That is one reason the Spirit of Prophecy is so valuable to God’s church, because through Ellen White’s writings God does reveal many finer details regarding this important subject.

Although the women’s rights movement was being organized during the same era that our church was being organized, Ellen White, for the most part, ignored the issues being debated. She spoke strongly against racial prejudice, but not about the “gender war” being waged then and now. The most clear-cut statement that we have in the Spirit of Prophecy regarding women’s rights is as follows:
“Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women.”

This particular statement is quoted two times in Volume 1 of the Testimonies, pages 421 and 457. It is couched in the context of dress reform. Just prior to this quote, she states, “God would not have His people adopt the so-called reform dress. It is immodest apparel, wholly unfitted for the modest, humble followers of Christ.”  {1T 421}  In order to understand the statement condemning women’s rights and the “so-called reform dress,” this particular style of dress must be fully understood. This will require a careful study of the topic of dress reform. To downplay or ignore this portion of the quotation will give a slanted view of the whole topic of women’s rights, and thus of the ordination of women. When the issues of dress reform that were developing at that time are clearly understood, the issue of women’s ordination could be seen in a new light through spiritually-discerning eyes.

I am appealing to all those on the Theology of Ordination Study Committee who have been entrusted with the weighty responsibility of studying this matter in behalf of our church to seriously consider how closely linked dress and women’s rights are. The topic of dress must be carefully studied! As someone who has devoted over 4 years to the study of dress reform and its history, I would like to make my extensive research available to this committee.

colporteur

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6512
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2013, 05:41:11 PM »
 Linda, not only was the first women's meeting held in 1848 that was a forerunner of the feminist movement, but the same year and only about 30 miles away was  the infamous "rapping" and the Fox sisters. This was also the same year in which later in the year EGW had a vision where God made the call to begin the publishing work. Many things were happening that year. Incidently, that year the Niagara Falls stopped flowing for 30 hours do to an ice jam. Its hard to imagine the flooding that must have occurred.
It's easier to slow a fast horse down than to get a dead one going.

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 40071
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2013, 10:01:40 PM »
Amen, Linda.  It would be a blessing for them all to read your study. For those who have spiritual discernment, it is just as we read "The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women.” Those on the study committee who have discernment will understand. Those who do not, will not. We pray that in the process of their study, some will be drawn to Christ and make the right decision regarding the role of women in the home and in the church.

In European society, there are few who love God and keep His commandments. Therefore, they are deceived on this subject as well as many others. They are mandating "parity" between men and women as if men were women and women were men. They would have our daughters and wives fighting on the front lines of battle. And, they demand that homosexuality be recognized as moral. When Romania was applying for entrance to the E.U., they were told they must bring their laws regarding homosexuality into harmony with the immoral E.U. if they wanted the E.U. to consider their application.

Now, the United States is falling down the same path. Obama might as well be a European. He has made the pope look moral. So, modern dress is indeed indicative of the worldly culture that turns women into men and men into women. The world calls evil good and good is called evil. The world has come into many churches. The diversity of culture is extolled and in this battle for faithfulness to God and His Word we find ourselves once again fighting against those who greatly esteem their culture over God's ways.  It is always the "heathen" culture that is extolled as so much better than Bible morality. It is so very sad that we find this in our church, in God's church.
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2013, 10:33:46 AM »
The connecting links between women's rights (and the push for female spiritual leaders) and spiritualism (the ones who promoted the "so-called reform dress) are so obvious to those willing to take a closer look. I will be posting some articles written by spiritualists that make the clear connection:

Humanity Together (Excerpts from the main article)
By Janet Hosmer

The religion now known as 'Modern Spiritualism' officially and literally burst through to the world in the small village of Hydesville, New York, late in March of 1848. The phenomena that began when young sisters Maggie and Kate Fox reported 'rappings' on the walls of their home, has grown into a religion that currently, according to the International Spiritualist Federation, has both individual and group members in over 35 countries worldwide. The National Spiritualist Association of Churches, (NSAC) describes the religion on their website as follows, "Spiritualism is the Science, Philosophy, and Religion of continuous life, based upon the demonstrated fact of communication, by means of mediumship, with those who live in the Spirit World. Spiritualism is founded upon a Declaration of Principles, nine in number, received from the Spirit World by means of mediumship. …

Now back in 1848, and not twenty five miles away from the initial rappings heard in Hydesville, the feminist movement had their First Women's Rights Convention at the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York on July 19 and 20 - just a few short months after spirit began communicating with women in that same geographic area. From the handful of women who began to stand up for themselves, grew a cohesive network of individuals who were committed to changing society in the United States by demanding rights that were equal to those of their male counterparts in all areas. A group of strong and outspoken women who this paper will show, were regular attendees at séances given by the many mediums in the area, and were pivotal to the beginnings of a movement that ultimately led to a woman's right to vote in this country.
Is it coincidental that these two major events in the history of the United States occurred at the very same time? Did women finally find their voices and the strength to use them only after counsel with spirit? Did the readings from the Fox sisters, and readings from other women who found that they also had mediumship qualities give the women of that era the strength to finally stand up for equality in that Victorian male dominated world? Although the women's uprising in most circles is attributed to 'Renegade Quakers', a deeper look reveals that it was indeed spirit communication that played a key role in the unprecedented social change events taking place in the mid to late 1800's in Upstate New York, and throughout the world.…

Ann Braude tells us in Radical Spirits - Spiritualism and Women's Rights in Nineteenth-Century America (2001), "What distinguished spirit mediums from other religious women who rose to public roles at certain moments of enthusiasm within their religious communions was their commitment to women's rights." Braude also states, "At a time when no churches ordained women and many forbade them to speak aloud in church, Spiritualist women had equal authority, equal opportunities, and equal numbers in religious leadership. While most religious groups viewed the existing order of gender, race and class relations as ordained by God, ardent Spiritualists appeared not only in the women's rights movement, but throughout the most radical reform movements in the nineteenth century."

In Other Powers-The Age of Suffrage, Spiritualism, and the Scandalous Victoria Woodhull (1998), Barbara Goldsmith writes, "By the 1850s, a group of female trance speakers were among the first women permitted to speak in 'promiscuous assemblies,' which meant gatherings of both sexes. Speaking with the authority of the spirits but without personal responsibility for what they said, these women could not be censored for their statements. Since the spirits were guiding them, they had courage, for they spoke the truths of a greater power. Women, no matter how ill-educated, could now transmit the wisdom of spirits as diverse as Socrates and Benjamin Franklin: Not surprisingly, the rights of women were very much on the minds of these great thinkers." Robert Egby, in an article found on his online Parapsychic Journal entitled, 'The Footsteps of the Foxes', states the following, "The events at the Corinthian Hall promoted the cause of Spiritualism and clairvoyants and mediums who had been quietly working in private came out into the open adding to the growing power of this fledgling religion -- Modern Spiritualism." And as spirit continued to speak, women began to speak as well. They learned to trust their own feelings, and stand up for the equality that they felt was their right.

When talking about the Women's Movement, Todd Jay Leonard in Talking to the Other Side: A History of Modern Spiritualism and Mediumship (2005) says, "From the very beginning of the movement, Spiritualism has served to empower women to be independent and has given them a platform in which to pursue a professional life as clergy, mediums, and businesswomen. The movement has always treated women equally, and many Spiritualism women were instrumental in demonstrating to get the right to vote for women during the Suffrage Movements in the United States." Nancy Rubin Stuart tells us in The Reluctant Spiritualist - The Life of Maggie Fox (2005), "Several Quaker abolitionists had gathered first at the home of Jane and Richard Hunt and than at the M'Clintock's fine brick house in Waterloo. The organizers, who included Mary Ann McClintock, Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Matilda Wright, formalized their ideas for women's suffrage around the mahogany parlor table where the raps would later reportedly be heard." She continues, "The subsequent meeting at the Seneca Falls Universalist Wesleyan Church on July 19-20 would ignite the women's suffrage movement, setting the stage for a seventy-two year battle that resulted in the 1920 passage of the Twenty-First Amendment. Among the hundred men and women who ultimately supported its resolutions, some were already sympathetic to Spiritualism - Amy Post, Sarah Post Hallowell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Ann and Thomas M'Clintock, and Sarah Burtis." The name that is most associated with regards to the women's movement in later years is of course Susan B. Anthony. Although not a Spiritualist herself, she was a close friend of Elizabeth Cady Stanton for years, and was a frequent speaker at women's conventions in LilyDale, New York, a Spiritualist community founded in 1879.

Additional confirmation of how spirituality and spirit communication played a large part in the women's movement is found in Judith Wellman's The Road from Seneca Falls (2004). She writes, "In their search for wholeness, the M'Clintocks and several other Congregational Friends went beyond worldly concerns. In the new spiritualist movement, they explored the permeability of boundaries between life and death. As early as 1841, they had experimented with 'animal magnetism,' a kind of clairvoyance which transported them to other places within this world. Now impressed by the rappings heard by the Fox sisters outside Rochester, New York, they began to hold regular séances in their home. Other women's rights supporters, especially among the Quakers, also joined this movement. Isaac Post, Amy Post's husband, collected testimonials from people who had attended the Fox sisters' séances and concluded that, indeed, the rappings they heard came form the spirit world. By 1851, Isaac Post himself had become a medium."

Interestingly enough, information on the Women's Rights National Park website makes no reference to Spiritualism or spirit communication, although many of the names listed on the site as leaders and visionaries in both the women's movement and the anti-slavery movement in that time were regular attendees at séances, if not mediums themselves.

Unfortunately, the dark shadows that were cast upon Spiritualism at that time, and even in current times, are more than likely the reason. We do know that Kate and Maggie Fox were interrogated and tested over and over again to prove the legitimacy of their supposed communications with spirit. From their first public demonstration in Corinthian Hall in Rochester, the two young girls - led by their older sister Leah, were continually sought after for readings and at the same time harassed and tested relentlessly by those who believed they were frauds. And the public had good reason to worry! The greedy and less than honorable of the people of the time saw an easy way to prey on those who had recently lost a loved one and wanted to believe in proof of the afterlife.


Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2013, 10:34:17 AM »
(continued)

In later years, Maggie, after living an adult life plagued with alcoholism and harassment, told the world that the rappings heard in Hydesville when she was just a child were all a charade cooked up by her sisters and herself. She later recanted her admission of fraudulent behavior, but the damage had already been done. It all started out with disagreement among the sisters after alcohol abuse had become a part of their lives some thirty years after the initial spirit communications from Mr. 'Splitfoot'. The atmosphere during those years of turmoil where blame-casting and revenge, and a break in the family finally ensued. Much like any family quarrel, each of the women wanted only peace for herself. Arthur Conan Doyle states when referring to how the women behaved throughout the more difficult times, "Let it then be clearly stated that there is no more connection between physical mediumship and morality than there is between a refined ear for music and morality. Both are purely physical gifts." What Doyle meant I believe was that the women's public embarrassments had nothing to do with their ability to transmit spirit communication.

Regardless, even though Spiritualism claimed to have two million followers by the late 1800's, it was condemned by leaders of organized religions, and there were attempts to get laws passed to prevent mediums from practicing. Todd Jay Leonard in Talking to the Other Side: A History of Modern Spiritualism and Mediumship (2005) writes about the troubles encountered, "Many mediums were ostracized by family and friends, mainly because of the religious ban. Starting in the late 1850's in Great Britain, and in the 1880's in America, investigators began looking into and exposing the many fraudulent mediumship schemes that were operating in both countries, further sullying Spiritualism's image."

It's understandable that historians wanted to keep any connection to spirit communication limited or completely out of our history books and classrooms. Most always the strange happenings occurring during that time in our history were attributed to the craziness and religious frenzy of the era, or just plain fraudulent behaviors and fame seekers. It is truly unfortunate however, that spirit isn't given more credit for having had such an integral role when making these great strides in equality for humanity. Strides not only based on gender, but on race and creed as well.

We'll never really know what went on inside those dark séance rooms in Upstate New York in the mid 1800's. Were the attendees only asking to communicate with loved ones who had passed to the other side, or were they asking for advice from powers that they realized were greater than themselves? Were they made aware of 'who they really are' and given the confidence to move forward? Were those Victorian women led by the spirits of women who had gone before them and wanted to share their own voice as well? We really don't know.

But, we do know that Amy and Isaac Post, strong in the anti-slavery movement with a busy house on the Underground Railroad, and signers of the Declaration of Sentiments in Seneca Falls, were close friends of the Fox family, and brought the girls to their home regularly. We also know that Elizabeth Cady Stanton was a strong voice in the movement, a regular at séances, and a good friend of Susan B. Anthony, one of the most prominent leaders of the women's movement. And we know that the M'Clintocks, also very active in both the women's as well as the anti-slavery movement were many times found around a table in a darkened room waiting for spirit to speak. Putting all of the pieces together certainly suggests that spirit and Spiritualism, although not totally responsible, can be touted as a considerable catalyst in the movement that gave women the right to vote in this country.

And where are Spiritualism and Feminism now? Some religious scholars believe that a Fifth Great Awakening, (the Third and Fourth happening in the 1880's - 1900 and 1960's - 1970 respectively) is imminent in the foreseeable future, as these periods of heightened spiritual activity are typically seen during times of social unrest and confusion. There is a growing list of events occurring simultaneously at this time in our history, all of which unfortunately are too extensive to be covered fully here. However, they include, but certainly are not limited to, the ongoing translations and interpretations of the Dead Sea Scrolls found in the middle of the 1900's; the uncertain role of Mary Magdalene in Christian history - and Christian history itself - based on recently uncovered gospels; the massive changes to our planetary environment through global warming and the depletion of its resources; the discovery by Quantum Physicists that there is indeed an unseen controlling force at the very core of our being; and the predictions of the changes to come in 2012 by the ancient Mayans. Without a doubt, the time is definitely ripe for an Awakening. And, interestingly enough, as we move into 2009 we've already had a female candidate for the office of Commander in Chief of these United States. The women who fought hard and long for their equal rights in 1848 must be so very proud. Who do you think will hear their rappings this time?

Janet Hosmer, Ph.D., has spent over 25 years studying spirituality and the metaphysical sciences. Her vision is to bring about a rise in global consciousness by assisting those who wish to help change their path and live a more meaningful and abundant life. Visit her website athttp://www.theseekersplace.com to find numerous articles and resources designed specifically for those who wish to change their lives and our planet.
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Janet_Hosmer


Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2013, 10:34:49 AM »
Spiritualism Ushering in Women Emancipation (excerpts)
by Kathleen Meadows, M.A.

Kathleen has a Master's degree in Religion & Culture from Wilfrid Laurier University. Her academic focus was women's spirituality, and the writings of Carl Jung. Kathleen is a full time practicing psychic and Spiritualist in Kitchener Ontario where she lives with her life partner Erich Rock. You can read more about Kathleen's relationship to Spiritualism at www.psychicanada.com.

Introduction
Many spiritualists today don't know that the mid-19th century spiritualist movement was the axis and engine of the feminist movement. In manner of dress, rights to speak in public forums, to own their own money, to be spiritual leaders, and to declare a woman's right to equality, the spiritualists cleared the path.

Spiritualism burst into the western world, spreading throughout western global society faster than any religion in her/his tory. "The only religious sect in the world...that has recognized the equality of women is the Spiritualists." History of Women's Sufferage, edited by Elizabeth Stanton and Susan Anthony. Not all feminists were Spiritualists, but all Spiritualists advocated women's rights, and women were equal to men within Spiritualist practice, polity, and ideology. By providing a form of spiritual inspiration in which truth revealed itself to individuals without recourse to external authority, Spiritualism became a magnet for social and political radicals throughout the nineteenth century.

At its peak, Spiritualism had more than eleven million followers out of a population of twenty-five million in the US alone by the mid 19th century. Almost fifty per cent of the US population were Spiritualists.

The messages from spirit repeatedly exhorted listeners to bring equality between the sexes, to acknowledge the primary directive of SELF salvation, and further described a different afterlife scenario.

God is both Mother and Father in spiritualism. In all nine major religions, which also suited the imperatives of state, God is a father. This means that the male human has been given divine sanction for his privileged access to resources, opportunity and power.

Women rather than men became the message bearers, the voice of spiritual authority and the access to divine inspiration. Equality between the sexes was forwarded from the spiritualists as a spiritual imperative from the spirit world meaning that it was divinely inspired. Spiritualists said, as one advocate put it, that "woman's freedom is the world's redemption." As investigation of the manifestations swept the nation, Spiritualism became a major - if not the major - vehicle for the spread of women's rights ideas in mid-century America. Making it institutionally public enemy number one.

"Spiritualism has inaugurated the era of woman," Mary Davis proclaimed. She recalled the common birth date of the new religion and women's rights in 1848. Spiritualist conventions called for the "Emancipation of women from all legal and social disabilities." Consistently those who assumed the most radical positions on woman's rights became Spiritualists. Spiritualism and woman's rights spread simultaneously through the network of Quaker abolitionists that produced the first supporters of both movements.

Spiritualism's greatest contribution to the crusade for woman's rights lay in the new role of spirit medium. While reformers spoke of woman's autonomy, mediumship cast women in the central public role in the new spiritual message. Far from requiring guidance from men, mediums led both men and women on the path to spiritual truth. In mediumship, women's religious leadership became normative for the first time in the her/history of western civilization.

The seeds of modernism, psychoanalysis, communications, human rights, longevity were all brought from the unseen world to the seen in this most glorious age which had been prophesied for thousands of years.

The her/his tory of religion has taught us that the further we move in time away from the original spiritual message, the more it morphs, disintegrates, and ultimately decays. Spirituality is a dynamic force and has the power to alter the consciousness of humans, the course of our collective destiny and ultimately our ability to thrive. It's temple is the heart, its expression is in the actions we take every day of our lives. As spiritualists today let us honour our legacy by standing up against the winds of conformity. Let us rally around and fiercely support those gifted mediums amongst us and continue to lead the way forward to an equitable and spiritually centred world.

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #6 on: January 17, 2013, 10:57:28 AM »
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, spiritualist and women's rights leader was one of the first women to wear the "so-called reform dress" that is called an abomination in the Spirit of Prophecy. She is the ringleader, and her influence lead to the very movement that is now promoting women's ordination. 

Here is more evidence of the connection between Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Feminism/Spiritualism/American Costume influence leading to women's ordination:

"Elizabeth Cady Stanton was one of the most influential public figures in nineteenth-century America. She was one of the nation’s first feminist theorists and certainly one of its most productive activists. ....
Although Stanton’s efforts in The Woman’s Bible did not match the increasingly rigorous standards of her contemporaries in theology who were beginning their own critical examinations of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, neither did it fail as an intellectual exercise. This was simply a groundbreaking work, which called into question a number of widely accepted claims about the nature of God, God’s esteem for and relation to women, and women’s place within faith communities. It also paved the way for future work for and by women in religion in the twentieth century. Second wave feminists in the 1960s and 1970s, who were struggling for the full ordination of women in the Christian and Jewish traditions, relied heavily on this early work of early feminist criticism by Stanton. Academic women in the same era were inspired by her example and produced more modern and academically rigorous works that scrutinized sacred texts and religious traditions from a feminist perspective as well. Despite her own religious skepticism, Stanton would have been heartened to have seen a future in which over half of the students in mainstream Protestant seminaries are women, and the ordination of women is commonplace in liberal Protestant and Jewish traditions."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/stanton/

God said:"Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message." 1T 421

Is it not clear that God is opposed to the influence that is leading to the promotion of women's ordination and of women wearing clothing that is similar to men's? Why has our church completely ignored the dangers of androgynous fashion? You can't separate these two issues. One paves the way for the other. And they both pave the way for the approval of homosexuality. To only deal with the ordination issue without considering all this history is not wise.

Richard Myers

  • Servant
  • Posts: 40071
  • A glorious sunset teaches of trust and faith.....
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2013, 03:10:21 PM »
The White Estate has perverted and published gender neutral books written by Ellen White, inspired books.  It is impossible to make inspired books gender neutral. In some of what Linda has quoted we find this:  "Far from requiring guidance from men, mediums led both men and women on the path to spiritual truth. In mediumship, women's religious leadership became normative for the first time in the her/history of western civilization."  This is a revelation of how far removed are some, generally women, from reality. Their whole life is centered around their need to prove themselves worthy of life.  We who have accepted Christ as Saviour understand that none are worthy of life. Can you imagine a woman so blindly deceived that she could not bring herself to speak the word "history" because it has "his" in it?  The only reason why she uses her/history is because if she just said herstory no one except a fellow feminist would understand what she meant. I guess she could have written "personstory".

How long before such creatures will produce a substitute for woman?  Woperson?  To undo what God has done is impossible.  They just do not realize how silly they appear to normal people, if there is such a thing any more.
Jesus receives His reward when we reflect His character, the fruits of the Spirit......We deny Jesus His reward when we do not.

Mimi

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 27796
  • www.remnant-online.org
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2013, 04:37:00 PM »
Amen!

Excellent paper, Linda. Thank you!
  For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89 

jjeanniton

  • Guest
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2013, 04:02:57 PM »
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, spiritualist and women's rights leader was one of the first women to wear the "so-called reform dress" that is called an abomination in the Spirit of Prophecy. She is the ringleader, and her influence lead to the very movement that is now promoting women's ordination. 

Here is more evidence of the connection between Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Feminism/Spiritualism/American Costume influence leading to women's ordination:

"Elizabeth Cady Stanton was one of the most influential public figures in nineteenth-century America. She was one of the nation’s first feminist theorists and certainly one of its most productive activists. ....
Although Stanton’s efforts in The Woman’s Bible did not match the increasingly rigorous standards of her contemporaries in theology who were beginning their own critical examinations of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, neither did it fail as an intellectual exercise. This was simply a groundbreaking work, which called into question a number of widely accepted claims about the nature of God, God’s esteem for and relation to women, and women’s place within faith communities. It also paved the way for future work for and by women in religion in the twentieth century. Second wave feminists in the 1960s and 1970s, who were struggling for the full ordination of women in the Christian and Jewish traditions, relied heavily on this early work of early feminist criticism by Stanton. Academic women in the same era were inspired by her example and produced more modern and academically rigorous works that scrutinized sacred texts and religious traditions from a feminist perspective as well. Despite her own religious skepticism, Stanton would have been heartened to have seen a future in which over half of the students in mainstream Protestant seminaries are women, and the ordination of women is commonplace in liberal Protestant and Jewish traditions."
http://www.iep.utm.edu/stanton/

God said:"Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message." 1T 421

Is it not clear that God is opposed to the influence that is leading to the promotion of women's ordination and of women wearing clothing that is similar to men's? Why has our church completely ignored the dangers of androgynous fashion? You can't separate these two issues. One paves the way for the other. And they both pave the way for the approval of homosexuality. To only deal with the ordination issue without considering all this history is not wise.


These spiritualists are a menace and a pest wherever one goes. I have read that Sojourner Truth was a member of this modern Spiritualist movement you are talking about! Yet I find other SDA recordings indicating that she was the first documented female African-American to join the Seventh Day Adventists!!! I don't understand! What was Sojourner Truth trying to do? Dissemble?

I invite you to see my new topic: ON THE COMMON LIMITATION OF 1 CORINTHIANS 14:34/35 TO FORMAL WORSHIP SERVICES! See http://remnant-online.com/smf/index.php?topic=14770.0.

But on this topic, i am going to cover more than just the issue of women speaking in church! It will also be a matter of what makes Reformed old-school presbyterian worship distinct from so-called "evangelical" worship, and the preliminary conclusions I make about the relationship between the speaker and the hearers in formal worship service are not going to make a lot of even of the ultra-fundamentalists and conservatives very happy! On the contrary, I prove on the old-school presbyterian Directory of Public Worship's own professed candid testimony, that in formal worship services, if the mere act of speaking out in formal worship services is an element of headship, then it is every bit as anti-Biblical for ANY unordained adult male (without an extraordinarily and miracuously inspired spiritual gift) to speak out in formal worship services, as for any WOMAN to attempt the same (even for the purposes of using her extraordinarily and miracuously inspired spiritual gifts if she has them), nor are the ordained "clergy" at liberty to invite him to speak: unless he is a candidate actively and sincerely seeking to enter into the ordained "clergy". And I endeavor to vindicate this position of the old-school Presbyterians using the Scriptures against all objections and complaints and murmurings and repinings that may arise from time to time.



jjeanniton

  • Guest
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2013, 12:08:20 PM »
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, spiritualist and women's rights leader was one of the first women to wear the "so-called reform dress" that is called an abomination in the Spirit of Prophecy. She is the ringleader, and her influence lead to the very movement that is now promoting women's ordination.

You have heard much about how the distinctive tenets of Spiritualism constituted the ringleader of the Woman Suffrage Movement. But there is a chapter in the history of Woman Suffrage you NEED to hear about.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm:

Quote
When the American colonies began their resistance to English tyranny, the women—all this inherited tendency to freedom surging in their veins—were as active, earnest, determined, and self-sacrificing as the men, and although, as Mrs. Ellet in her "Women of the Revolution" remarks, "political history says but little, and that vaguely and incidentally, of the women who bore their part in the revolution," yet that little shows woman to have been endowed with as lofty a patriotism as man, and to have as fully understood the principles upon which the struggle was based. Among the women who manifested deep political insight, were Mercy Otis Warren, Abigail Smith Adams, and Hannah Lee Corbin; all closely related to the foremost men of the Revolution. Mrs. Warren was a sister of James Otis, whose fiery words did so much to arouse and intensify the feelings of the colonists against British aggression. This brother and sister were united to the end of their lives in a friendship rendered firm and enduring by the similarity of their intellects and political views. The home of Mrs. Warren was the resort of patriotic spirits and the headquarters of the rebellion. She herself wrote, "By the Plymouth fireside were many political plans organized, discussed, and digested." Her correspondence with eminent men of the Revolution was extensive and belongs to the history of the country. She was the first one who based the struggle upon "inherent rights," a phrase afterward made the corner-stone of political authority. Mrs. Warren asserted that "'inherent rights' belonged to all mankind, and had been conferred on all by the God of nations." She numbered Jefferson among her correspondents, and the Declaration of Independence shows the influence of her mind. Among others who sought her counsel upon political matters were Samuel and John Adams, Dickinson, that pure patriot of Pennsylvania, Jefferson, Gerry, and Knox. She was the first person who counseled separation and pressed those views upon John Adams, when [Pg 32] he sought her advice before the opening of the first Congress. At that time even Washington had no thought of the final independence of the colonies, emphatically denying such intention or desire on their part, and John Adams was shunned in the streets of Philadelphia for having dared to hint such a possibility. Mrs. Warren sustained his sinking courage and urged him to bolder steps. Her advice was not only sought in every emergency, but political parties found their arguments in her conversation. Mrs. Warren looked not to the freedom of man alone, but to that of her own sex also.

England itself had at least one woman who watched the struggle of America with lively interest, and whose writings aided in the dissemination of republican ideas. This was the celebrated Catharine Sawbridge Macaulay, one of the greatest minds England has ever produced—a woman so noted for her republican ideas that after her death a statue was erected to her as the "Patroness of Liberty." During the whole of the Revolutionary period, Washington was in correspondence with Mrs. Macaulay, who did much to sustain him during those days of trial. She and Mrs. Warren were also correspondents at that time. She wrote several works of a republican character, for home influence; among these, in 1775. "An Address to the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland, on the present Important Crisis of Affairs," designed to show the justice of the American cause. The gratitude American's feel toward Edmund Burke for his aid, might well be extended to Mrs. Macaulay.

Abigail Smith Adams, the wife of John Adams, was an American woman whose political insight was worthy of remark. She early protested against the formation of a new government in which woman should be unrecognized, demanding for her a voice and representation. She was the first American woman who threatened rebellion unless the rights of her sex were secured. In March, 1776, she wrote to her husband, then in the Continental Congress, "I long to hear you have declared an independency, and, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention are not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound to obey any laws in which we have no voice or representation." Again and again did Mrs. Adams urge the establishment of an independency and the limitation of man's power over woman, declaring all arbitrary power dangerous and tending to[Pg 33] revolution. Nor was she less mindful of equal advantages of education. "If you complain of education in sons, what shall I say in regard to daughters, who every day experience the want of it?" She expressed a strong wish that the new Constitution might be distinguished for its encouragement of learning and virtue. Nothing more fully shows the dependent condition of a class than the methods used to secure their wishes. Mrs. Adams felt herself obliged to appeal to masculine selfishness in showing the reflex action woman's education would have upon man. "If," said she, "we mean to have heroes, statesmen, and philosophers, we should have learned women." Thus did the Revolutionary Mothers urge the recognition of equal rights when the Government was in the process of formation. Although the first plot of ground in the United States for a public school had been given by a woman (Bridget Graffort), in 1700, her sex were denied admission. Mrs. Adams, as well as her friend Mrs. Warren, had in their own persons felt the deprivations of early educational advantages. The boasted public school system of Massachusetts, created for boys only, opened at last its doors to girls, merely to secure its share of public money. The women of the South, too, early demanded political equality. The counties of Mecklenberg and Rowan, North Carolina, were famous for the patriotism of their women. Mecklenberg claims to have issued the first declaration of independence, and, at the centennial celebration of this event in May, 1875, proudly accepted for itself the derisive name given this region by Tarleton's officers, "The Hornet's Nest of America." This name—first bestowed by British officers upon Mrs. Brevard's mansion, then Tarleton's headquarters, where that lady's fiery patriotism and stinging wit discomfited this General in many a sally—was at last held to include the whole county. In 1778, only two years after the Declaration of Independence was adopted, and while the flames of war were still spreading over the country, Hannah Lee Corbin, of Virginia, the sister of General Richard Henry Lee, wrote him, protesting against the taxation of women unless they were allowed to vote. He replied that "women were already possessed of that right," thus recognizing the fact of woman's enfranchisement as one of the results of the new government, and it is on record that women in Virginia did at an early day exercise the right of voting. New Jersey also specifically secured this right to women on the 2d of July, 1776—a right exercised by them for more than a third of a century. Thus our country started into governmental life freighted with the protests of the Revolutionary Mothers against being ruled without their consent. From that hour to the present, women have been continually [Pg 34] raising their voices against political tyranny, and demanding for themselves equality of opportunity in every department of life.

Thus de facto joining the movement in favor of women's rights - even half a century BEFORE the main Woman's Rights Movement of Seneca Falls occurred! Yea, even half a century BEFORE the birth of the Modern Spiritualist Movement and Bloomerite so-called Dress Reform! Does that therefore make these very same women of the Revolutionary War guilty of practicing Spiritualism or Androgyny?

It is about time one realized this:

A Southern Antebellum Secesh Presbyterian clergyman stated this:

http://www.wlhn.org/topics/abolition/church/1860_smyth.htm:

Quote

The Sin and The Curse [1860]
Rev. Thomas Smyth
Second Presbyterian Church, Charleston, S. C.
My brethren, I am not here to speak to you as a politician, or as a philosopher. I am here in God's name and stead to point out to you the causes of His anger, the sources of all our past and present dangers, the proper ground for humiliation and repentance, and our present and future course as Christian patriots.
Now, to me, pondering long and profoundly upon the course of events, the evil and bitter root of all our evils is to be found in the infidel, atheistic, French Revolution, Red Republican principle, embodied as an axiomatic seminal principle… in the Declaration of Independence. That seminal principle is this: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted by God, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and so on to inevitable consequences.
Thus the woman’s rights movement of 1848 – and the axiomatic seminal principles in favor of the equality of the sexes that the Spiritualists were for that time and age of the world’s history, virtually UNIQUELY (by virtue of the very DISTINCTIVES of Spiritualism) disposed to accept and favor – : are all part and parcel of the natural and probable consequences of the axiomatic seminal principle found in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal …!

Mimi

  • Regular Member
  • Posts: 27796
  • www.remnant-online.org
    • The Remnant Online
Re: Women's Rights and the So-Called Dress Reform
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2013, 12:17:25 PM »
Nice find. Thanks, jj!
  For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89 

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #12 on: February 09, 2015, 03:23:50 PM »
Shocking Gender News: Compiled by Linda Kirk

Shocking Gender News/February 2015

Do you OPPOSE women’s ordination? Are you a faithful Seventh-day Adventist? If so, you NEED to read this!
We have become gradually conditioned to a situation that should astound us. The development of GENDERLESSNESS is shocking! This breaking news is shouting at us to wake up! Society is at war with God! The world is fast becoming ripe for destruction. Are we paying attention to the signs of the times? Mark this point: FASHION is working hard to change all of our minds regarding gender. If we think women’s ordination is wrong, what’s ahead is most certainly an abomination to God. It is not only about women’s rights but gay rights as well. The world is becoming a vast Sodom. Let’s make sure we are not pulled, inadvertently, into this abomination of “gender equality” as defined by society today.
First, read Deuteronomy 22:5 and then read the following news, which should be tremendously distressing to all of God’s people. Where should we, who oppose identical roles in the church, stand in this matter?

From the web: "In Milan, Hail the Femminiello, January 2015: The gender-bending trend, seen on the Gucci runway in Milan, is about to get huge, reports Angelo Flaccavento. Strangely enough, both the Gucci and Prada shows, albeit dramatically different, had a lot in common. They both pointed clearly, though in opposite manners, toward genderless fashion, resolutely blurring the masculine-feminine divide with neutral clothing. And they both enforced the message by sending men and women together down the catwalk, dressed more or less in the same way."

From the web:
Genderless fashion trend emerges:
Sept. 2014. Stealing from the opposite gender’s closet is a pastime at this point. The fashion industry has been marketing a more loose and relaxed fit called “The Boyfriend” jeans or shirt to the women’s section of clothing stores. . . . But the fashion industry is now breaking down all gender-related titles and creating a new title: Everyone. “Everyone” is a genderless section of clothing. Whatever the consumer considers themselves, they can find something in the everyone section. Collections of genderless clothing include loose silhouettes of shirts, pants, kilts and skirts. . . . With the fashion industry constantly evolving, this seems like the right next step. I’m proud of designers who put things on the runway they think everyone can wear. With “everyone” clothing, there will be no debate on whether this was originally meant for the men’s or women’s section or if it can be adapted into the opposite gender’s wardrobe. Genderless clothing will allow the consumer to decide if it personally works for them and how they would adapt it into their clothing collection.

From the web:
Genderless Fashion - The New Appear for the Future:
In the early 1900s, the concept of gals wearing pants had surprised the community. It was the defining minute that lead to the revolution of apparel. The separation of apparel by gender was on its way out at the very least for the ladies. . . . And lately, we have been noticing a spike in the evolution of the idea of gender and id in style. This is the development of a market of genderless model.

From the web:
Selfridges is introducing a unisex shopping concept:
For six weeks, Selfridges will be introducing a gender neutral shopping experience. The Oxford Street store will be merging its separate women’s and men’s departments over three floors. ‘The project will act as a test bed for experimentation around ideas of gender — both to allow our shoppers to approach the experience without preconceptions and for us as retailers to move the way we shop fashion forward.’

From the web:
In case you haven’t noticed, genderless is the new thing, in fashion and otherwise. It is not about men dressing like women and women like men, though: That is androgyny, or maybe unisex, and it had its heyday in the progressive ’70s, at the peak of counterculture. It is the less-ness that makes genderless a thing of the moment—not caring how gender is represented through clothing and experienced in life.


Linda Kirk again: These fashion news articles portray Satan’s agenda. What is God’s plan regarding our clothing?
"God designed that there should be a plain distinction between the dress of men and women, and has considered the matter of sufficient importance to give explicit directions in regard to it; for the same dress worn by both sexes would cause confusion and great increase of crime.” {1T 460.1}

Genderlessness – removing the gender divide, both in roles and in dress—this is the obvious agenda of society today. However, God has designed that there be a plain distinction in both the dress and roles of men and women. How distinct should this distinction be? Where is the line? Where do you stand on this matter? Have you studied the biblical principles of dress for yourself? How can we, as His people, show our loyalty to Him by our opposition to genderless fashion?

Now is the time to be shocked! Now is the time for action!

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2015, 03:26:33 PM »
This article is written for a specific audience: Seventh-day Adventists conservatives, or to be more descriptive, those Seventh-day Adventists who hold in high regard the counsel found in the Spirit of Prophecy, and who have not accepted the “progressive” agenda that tends to be moving away from foundational Adventism.

As a faithful Seventh-day Adventist, you know where you stand on the current issues that are being agitated among us. You are opposed to “celebration” worship styles and music, you understand the subtle dangers of spiritual formation and contemplative spirituality. You hold a firm position on the literal six-day creation, and you are not afraid to agree with the Bible that homosexual practices are sinful. You value the biblical standards that have long been upheld by faithful Seventh-day Adventists. And, you believe that the Bible teaches that women should not be ordained as pastors.

As we very well know, the issue of women’s ordination in the Seventh-day Adventist Church has become huge, and tends to separate us into opposing camps. While we believe in the unity of the body of Christ, we also believe that upholding biblical principles and remaining faithful to God is of higher importance. Therefore, we take the position of the reformers:

“If unity could be secured only by the compromise of truth and righteousness, then let there be difference, and even war.”  {GC88 45.2}
The purpose of this article is not to rehash our reasons for opposing the ordination of women for leadership roles in the church. Much has been written and preached which well establishes our position. Rather, this article aims to take a closer look at the popular idea of “gender equality” as it exists in society today, and discover the historical roots of this philosophy. We will take a closer look at how women’s ordination, historical women’s rights, and evolving fashion over the last 150 years have worked together to create the current culture which promotes “gender equality.”
Huffington Post declares: “Gender equality continues to be one of the largest movements of our generation.”

“Gender equality” is defined by the United Nations this way:
“Gender equality means that women and men have equal conditions for realizing their full human rights and for contributing to, and benefiting from, economic, social, cultural and political development.”

While we, as conservative Seventh-day Adventists affirm many of the positions which are included in the movement for “gender equality” such as the protection of women against violence and sexual abuse, there is one area in which we stand in opposition, and that is in the area that deals with the biblical principle of the headship of man. Again, we will not elaborate on this principle, but refer you to the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy, as well as that which has been written and preached by conservative Seventh-day Adventists who oppose the ordination of women in headship roles in the church.

According to society, gender equality embraces the concept of women’s ordination.  We need to come to terms with the reality that our position is at odds with society. We are outside of the acceptable beliefs of current culture. We cannot possibly “fit in” with the mainstream. And this is as it should be. We are not “of the world.” When this is true, we will find that the world hates us for our opposition to their ways, just as Jesus said they would.

We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, to guide us in all our beliefs and practices. We believe that the writings of Ellen G. White, which is the testimony of Jesus—the Spirit of Prophecy—magnifies and clarifies the Word of God, and is a safe and reliable guide as well. Because we have such confidence in inspiration, we are willing to stand apart from society, no matter the cost.

We must thoroughly study this issue of egalitarianism and all that it entails. When we do, we will understand how it departs from biblical truth. While Ellen G. White does not have a lot to say about the women’s rights issue, what she does say is very plain. Notice this statement:
“Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message. The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other. The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women.” Testimonies to the Church, vol. 1, page 421

This is actually the only statement in the Spirit of Prophecy that makes it absolutely clear whether God would approve or disapprove of His people joining the women’s rights movement. It is a strong statement, basically declaring that if one chooses to join the women’s rights movement, they might as well part ways with the Seventh-day Adventist message. They are irreconcilably incompatible.

But that’s not all this statement says. It also refers to the “so-called dress reform.” What is this style of dress that she refers to here, which is to be shunned by Seventh-day Adventists? We need to read the quotation in context, and read from other similar statements to make sure that we understand what she is saying. Here is the connecting link between fashion and women’s rights. While conservative Adventists have elaborated upon the women’s rights part of the statement in many sermons and books, there is comparatively very little written on the need for God’s women to avoid the “so-called dress reform.”

The two paragraphs before this statement make it more clear what the “so-called dress reform” is:
“I saw that God's order has been reversed, and His special directions disregarded, by those who adopt the American costume. I was referred to Deuteronomy 22:5: "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." God would not have His people adopt the so-called reform dress. It is immodest apparel, wholly unfitted for the modest, humble followers of Christ.  {1T 421.2} 

“There is an increasing tendency to have women in their dress and appearance as near like the other sex as possible, and to fashion their dress very much like that of men, but God pronounces it abomination. "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety." 1 Timothy 2:9.  {1T 421.3} 

Ellen White made it clear that God’s people should shun the American Costume, because it violates the biblical principle found in Deuteronomy 22:5.

Now, I do not know of any Seventh-day Adventist women today who wear the American Costume as it appeared in the 1860’s around the time when this quotation was written. Neither can we join the women’s rights movement as it was in the 1860’s. So, do we just write off this quotation as completely irrelevant and not applicable to us today? Rather, should we not take the approach that God has given us timeless principles in the Spirit of Prophecy that are very pertinent and helpful for us today? Is it not our duty to study out these principles so that we may apply them in a way that will help us conform our lives to His will and remain separate and distinct from the world?

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2015, 03:29:16 PM »
In studying the history of the women’s rights movement to which Ellen White referred, we find much fascinating information. The very woman, more than any other, who was responsible for starting this women’s rights movement, was Elizabeth Cady Stanton. We will clearly see how her spirit was incompatible with Seventh-day Adventism, and how it spread in the women’s rights movements to the full development of “gender equality” we see today. In studying history, we learn that Spiritualism played a significant role in the spread of the women’s rights movement.

In an article, Bible and Woman Suffrage, in the Los Angeles Herald, June 9, 1901, an unnamed author, who agreed with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, wrote:

"The greatest block today in the way of woman's emancipation is the church, the canon law, the Bible and the priesthood." That is the dictum of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the venerable exponent of woman's rights. Mrs. Stanton suggests a plan for partly surmounting the block of which she complains. She thinks the Bible should be expurgated, so as to eliminate objectionable allusions to women. She makes specific objection to the idea that woman is responsible for primeval sin, that she is "the weaker vessel," etc. This attitude of Mrs. Stanton is consistent and logical from her standpoint in the van of the movement for the universal uplifting of woman. It is difficult to find fault with it, even from the general standpoint of twentieth century enlightenment. It is a matter of surprise, in fact, that such expurgation as Mrs. Stanton suggests has so long been omitted in biblical revision. Certain teachings of the Bible cannot be reconciled with the cause of woman suffrage, nor with any movement aimed at equality of the sexes. The greatest difficulty in the way of adopting Mrs. Stanton's suggestion is the fact that it would cut a very wide swath through the Bible. It would practically eliminate the work of the most prolific author in the New Testament. Paul was such an inveterate woman-hater that none of his writings would be likely to escape Mrs. Stanton's expurgating pencil. How can an advocate of woman suffrage tolerate this Injunction; "Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection." And again: "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." No doubt many thoughtful persons will agree with Mrs. Stanton in the idea that expurgation of the Bible would be desirable in the direction indicated. The Bible has at various times been subjected to changes and revisions. All sorts of corrections have been made as a result of presumed mistakes in early translations. Possibly Mrs. Stanton's protest may start a movement In favor of another revision, releasing woman from the culpability for original sin and saving her from the abuse of the scriptural woman-hater.”

Can you see the incompatibility of women’s rights as defined above with the position of biblical authority? In referring to the Bible, Elizabeth Cady Stanton declared, “I know of no other book that so fully teaches the subjection and degradation of women.”-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Eighty Years and More (1898), page 395. She basically hated the Bible so much that she revised it to suit her own rebellious beliefs in 1895, calling her commentary “The Women’s Bible.”

Let’s consider some more comments by Elizabeth Cady Stanton:
“We must demand an equal place in the offices of the Church, as pastors, elders, deacons; an equal voice in the creeds, discipline, and all business matters, in synods, conferences and general assemblies.”

Does this sound at all like what we’re hearing today, even within our Seventh-day Adventist Church? Elizabeth Cady Stanton demanded “gender equality” before the term was even coined. No doubt if she were alive today she would be invited to be a special speaker at the gatherings of those promoting women’s ordination.

But what of her spirit? She opposed the Bible, especially the writings of Paul, she demanded that women be allowed to be ordained as pastors, and she violated Deuteronomy 22:5 by wearing the “so-called dress reform” which was so similar to men’s clothing that God pronounced it abomination.

If you are interested in knowing just what the American Costume looked like, and how it differed from the dress reform promoted by Ellen White, please refer to the links at the end of this article.

What else did Mrs. Stanton have to say?
“I fully agree with you that woman is terribly cramped and crippled in her present style of dress. I have not one word to utter in its defense; but to me, it seems that if she would enjoy entire freedom, she should dress just like man.” From The Political Thought of Elizabeth Cady Stanton: Women's Rights and the American Political Traditions, by Sue Davis

Does God want women to dress just like, or even similar to men, or is it an abomination to Him? We really do need to study the history of this women’s rights movement in all its details so that we can understand the position God would have us hold on these matters. The history of women’s dress, women’s rights and women’s ordination are all intertwined. These issues developed simultaneously, and all three originated in the minds of rebellious women.

There were also a few men who supported the woman’s rights movement. One of them was Gerrit Smith, the father of Elizabeth Smith, who first wore the pants under a short skirt. Amelia Bloomer and Elizabeth Cady Stanton saw her and copied the style, which came to be called the American Costume. Gerrit Smith wrote a rather long letter to Elizabeth Cady Stanton in 1855 for the purpose of explaining to her why he didn’t have more “faith” in the woman’s rights movement. The bottom line was, he said that until women changed their dress to be more like what men wore, they would not succeed in convincing society that women should have equal rights. He said the real battle-ground was women’s dress.

We now know that women did change their dress to be more like men over the years, and the women’s right’s movement has been tremendously successful. He was right, the real battlefield was the dress.

Granted, Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s opposition to the unhealthful and impractical fashions, such as the hoop skirts and dragging dresses popular in the mid 1800’s was also echoed by Ellen White. But, in Stanton’s rebellion against the biblical principle of headship, she carried the dress reform so far as to be an abomination to God. While Ellen White spoke of dress reform during the same time period, she upheld the biblical principles of making a plain distinction between the dress, rights and roles of men and women. God gave Ellen White specific counsel, so clear that she referred to God’s special directions, and said, “I saw . . .” showing that this was a direct revelation.

She received a vision showing her three styles of dress, two which were unacceptable to God, and one which met His approval.  {See 3SM 278}  The American Costume, promoted by Elizabeth Cady Stanton was shown in the vision to be abomination to God. Thus it was that Ellen White said that those who joined the women’s rights movement, which promoted women’s ordination, and wore the American costume could not really be true Seventh-day Adventists.

I believe that Ellen White’s position on theses sensitive subjects of dress and women’s rights provides evidence of her divine inspiration. While she did not approve of the women’s rights movement, she spoke out against the evils of unhealthful, impractical and prideful fashion. She clarified the role of women in the church, and went so far as to say this about women’s position: “We may safely say that the dignity and importance of woman's mission and distinctive duties are of a more sacred and holy character than the duties of man.” {3T 565.2} It is obvious that she recognized women’s role as distinctively different from that of men’s, but she did not believe it was an inferior and less important role.

Now let’s consider another lady who promoted the American Costume. This one was an acquaintance of Ellen White’s. Dr. Harriet Austin was a physician at Our Home in Dansville, where Ellen and James White went in the 1860’s, before there was a Seventh-day Adventist Sanitarium. Dr. Austin was a strong proponent of the American Costume. She wrote in the California Farmer and Journal of Useful Sciences, Volume 20, Number 10, 16 October 1863:

“Aside from those ladies who have been directly under my care as patients, or who have come to me for examination, simply, I have given advice by letter to thousands. Of late years, my prescriptions invariably include the direction, "Adopt the American Costume." There are at least a thousand women, in the United Suites, wearing this dress to-day, in compliance with that advice.”

Dr. Austin wrote from a perspective of health, and most of what she said was in harmony with Ellen White. However, what did Ellen White have to say about the style she promoted? In 1864 Ellen White wrote, "We do not think it in accordance with our faith to dress in the American costume . . ."  {1T 458.2}  “We shall never imitate Miss Dr. Austin or Mrs. Dr. York. They dress very much like men.”  {5MR 380.4} 

You can see actual photographs of these ladies, showing what they wore in a historical presentation that will help you to better understand the counsel given in the Spirit of Prophecy. (See the links at the end.)

The American Costume of the 1860’s, which consisted of a knee-length “short skirt” over trousers eventually morphed into the Bicycle bloomer costume of the 1890’s which consisted of puffy bloomers without a skirt.

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2015, 03:31:53 PM »
But the general sentiment against bloomers was strong. Notice this conversation between two women from The San Francisco Call, July 20, 1895:
“The Friend—Do you approve of Bloomers? Mrs. Tupper— decidedly not (this very emphatically). I think it unsexes a woman and reduces her charm to nothing. No woman should attempt to imitate men in attire. Let them use their brain all they choose. But to depart from the flowing robes to adopt a halfhearted masculine costume — oh, horrors! There can be no redemption. Let me live a woman as I am, for I would prefer death in bloomers.”

The San Francisco newspaper published these comments because they represented the sentiments of the majority of society. Most women would not be “caught dead’ in bloomers. Today, San Francisco reveals the advanced manifestations of the theory of “gender equality.” We see how it has progressed from women’s rights to homosexual’s rights. How did culture change so drastically in just a little over 100 years? Could it have possibly started with changes in fashion? Here is an interesting article called A Ladies’ Strike, from The San Francisco Call, July 9, 1894.

“The Woman's Club to Move Against Skirts and Appear in ‘Divideds’ This City Will Not Be Behind the East. ‘EQUALITY’ IS THEIR MOTTO. The Woman's Club of San Francisco has work on hand that may be as far reaching in its effects as the present railroad strike. It is going in fact to make a strike of its own, in a gentle and feminine way however. There are many people In San Francisco who have never heard of the Woman's Club, for it is not an organization that courts notoriety. It is built upon one maxim: ‘Every member must believe in the equality of the sexes.’”

The article goes on to explain that the members of this women’s club planned to devise outfits that included a divided skirt, or trousers, as a way to declare their belief in equality of the sexes. It describes the American Costume this way: “The 'American' dress has knickerbockers and leggins to meet a short skirt.” The common bond was that they all believed in equality of the sexes, and they wanted to show it by what they wore. “Divideds” are chosen because the skirt “forms such a barrier to equality between the sexes.” The plan was to make the skirt smaller by degrees, in other words, shorter and shorter until it fades away entirely. It seems like their plan has succeeded quite well over the course of time.

The women’s rights movement in early years often addressed women’s dress, along with their disdain for the Bible:
“‘ST. PAUL WAS WOMAN'S WORST ENEMY’ says Mrs. E. P. Fremont Addresses Liberal Club on Subject of ‘Equality of the Sexes’
“‘St. Paul was the greatest enemy woman ever had,’ declared Mrs. E. P. Fremont In an address before the Los Angeles Liberal Club last evening.
“‘The annals of history show no man who has done more to keep women In the bondage In which she is now held than that great apostle of the Christian religion,’ continued the speaker, as she addressed the audience on the subject of ‘Equality of the Sexes.’

“‘I detest his very name; not so much on account of what he has written, but because of the Influence It has had with man in keeping my sex in bondage. He declares that a woman should not be seen in public with her head uncovered and says that a woman should go to her husband for all Information which she may desire. She has done this so long, under the advice- of this saintly man, that now she is slow to awake to the fact that she is held in slavery by her so called protector and helpmate.

“‘The greatest obstacle in the way of woman's advancement today is her manner of dress,’ said Mrs. Fremont. In speaking of the progress of her sex. ‘While we have been making rapid strides in other forma of civilization within the last 5OO years our dress has continued the same.
“‘It remained for the theater and not the church to give women the privilege of baring her head in a public assembly, thus giving her an equal footing with man in public places. The church has been and always will be the greatest obstacle in the way of woman obtaining her proper rights and being placed on an equal plane with man. It is the teaching of the Apostle Paul that has caused the church to take this attitude toward womankind.’”

Even though pants under short skirts were introduced in the mid 1800’s, women in general continued to wear long skirts and dresses until 1915 at least. At that time, fashions were introduced from Paris, little by little, that were deliberately designed to blur the distinction between the sexes. One significant fashion designer was Coco Chanel, who played a huge role in popularizing pants on women. She is also credited to promoting “gender equality.” Notice these statements:

“Trousers (or pants in Australia and United States of America) were considered to be inappropriate for women until the late nineteenth century. Partially as a result of women entering the workforce, the popularity of the bicycle and the women's movement, the resistance against women in trousers gradually vanished. . . The French designer, Gabrielle "Coco" Chanel (1883–1971), loved wearing trousers herself, often dressing in her boyfriend's suits, and she began designing pants for women to wear while doing sports and other activities. Chanel designed horseback riding trousers for women, who had previously ridden sidesaddle in heavy skirts.

“During the 1930s pants continued to be stylish, although they were still shocking to many. Audiences were both fascinated and horrified by glamorous actresses of the time, such as Marlene Dietrich (c. 1901–1992) and Katharine Hepburn (1909–2003), who wore trousers regularly. Though some designers created tailored slack suits for women, wearing pants was still not widely accepted. Some conservatives considered women in pants unnatural and masculine. However, by 1939 Vogue, the respected fashion magazine, pictured women in trousers for the first time, and many women wore pants for playing golf or tennis and riding or bicycling.”

This acceptance of masculine styles on women was a gradual process. People become familiar and conditioned to the styles introduced by fashion over time.
“By loosening waistlines, shortening hemlines and embracing pants, Chanel redefined women's style.” 

Coco Chanel is credit with redefining women’s style. Can fashion promote “gender equality?” Apparently it does play a significant role in conditioning the minds of the public to change their views.
“Coco Chanel had an astounding impact on balancing the scales and promoting gender equality. She defied the fashion standards of her time by incorporating masculine articles of clothing.”

While Coco Chanel, Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn were the pioneers of the pants-on-women fashion, society as a whole had not yet totally embraced the idea. But the women’s rights movement, which morphed into the women’s liberation movement, pushed it over the edge so that it became wholly received by society:

“Other than a brief Capri pants fad during the early Sixties, women rarely wore pants in public. It was dresses and skirts only. Then the Women’s Liberation movement hit its stride in the Seventies, and the ladies started to get in on the pants action. Just as the miniskirt had been a proclamation of the youth culture, pants became a proclamation of gender equality.”



Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2015, 03:33:50 PM »
Again, we see masculine-style fashion connected with the women’s rights movement. Pants on women became the uniform of the women’s libbers.
“Designers tapped into the Women’s Liberation Movement, infusing their collections with the all-empowering pant, which had become yet another symbol of equality between the sexes.” Fashion Design Essentials: 100 Principles of Fashion Design, p. 138, by Jay Calderin

Those who wore the “uniform” identified themselves as accepting the philosophy of the movement.
“The pants, a symbol of women's liberation, equality, power and rebellion; iconic garment, it has the characteristic to conquer the hearts of women of all ages around the globe.”


How did the Mormon feminists promote their agenda recently?

“Mormon feminists wore pants to church services on Sunday, rather than their usual dresses or skirts, as a symbol of gender equality and inclusiveness in the traditionalist faith.”

While the following statement is quite crude, it reveals a connection between the current trend of androgyny and cross-dressing.
“Androgyny and cross-dressing go together. Cross-dressing is hardly new. There has been a long tradition of female cross-dressing throughout history - has it been forgotten? Women wearing men's clothes - Hollywood stars such as Garbo, Hepburn and Dietrich did so - have an erotic edge and a sexiness that stems from their being able to play with their gender identity, appearing to be men but not quite men.”

Much has happened in history since the seventies that has further blurred the distinction between both the roles and the fashions of the sexes. The Unisex fashions morphed into androgyny. Feminism and androgynous fashion have worked hand in hand to prepare society for “gender equality” across the board. It is politically correct to accept women in all roles in society. To stand up and say that women should not be ordained as pastors in headship positions in the church is very unpopular. But that is the position of conservative Seventh-day Adventists.

Recent developments push the idea of “gender equality” even further. In January this year, during Paris Fashion Week on “Boulevard Chanel” which is named after the famous Coco Chanel, a “feminist riot” fashion show took place. Coco Chanel is honored as having “tied her fashion to the feminist cause.”
Ellen White wrote about the fashions from Paris, and says that society at large has chosen the laws of fashion that originated from Paris:
“In these last days fashions are shameful and immodest. They are noticed in prophecy. They were first brought in by a class over whom Satan has entire control . . . ”  {1T 188.3} 

Is it not clear how Satan has had a hand in designing the fashions which blurred the distinction between the sexes, which helped to lead society to the unbiblical philosophy of “gender equality?” Fashion is declared to be a tool for the feminist movement.

“As increasing gender-blurring fashion flourishes, there are many different ways of being feminine and no right idea of femininity. Fashion is constantly changing, and it’s not only a tool that women use to define themselves, but also a tool the entire feminist movement can embrace. This tool gives women the power to decree corsets inhibiting and to claim typical male garments as their own.”

We see how feminism has blended the idea of androgyny, both in philosophy and in fashion. See how women’s ordination fits into the mix:
“In the 1960s Christian feminists set themselves on a course parallel to that pursued by feminists in secular society. They—together with their counterparts—began to seek the de-differentiation of male/female roles. The dominant theme was that women needed to be allowed to name themselves. Feminists believed that women should be allowed to do everything that men could do, and in the same manner and with the same recognized status as men. This, they believed, constituted true equality.

“Unfortunately, Christian feminists began to pursue the inclusion of women in leadership hierarchies without a clear analysis of whether or not the hierarchies themselves were structured and functioning according to a biblical pattern. They merely judged the church to be sexist and implemented a course of action in response. Christian feminists, alongside their secular counterparts, began to demand ‘equal rights.’ They decided to seek androgyny in the church by pursuing women’s ordination and the obliteration of structured roles in marriage.”—The Feminist Mystique, by Mary Kassain, p. 32.
The progression of the unisex/androgynous fashion matches the progression of women’s rights/women’s liberation/feminist movement.  When it began in the early 1900’s with the introduction of pants on women, women copied the men. We can clearly see this by observing photos of the fashions over the years. Then came the unisex fashions of the 70’s, where men and women dressed the same in bell bottom jeans. Then came the pantsuit or power suit, and the 501 style boot cut jeans. Baggy jeans turned into boyfriend jeans, then came the skinny jeans. Before long men’s skinny jeans showed up. Now, men are copying women. Skirts and leggings (called meggings) are now being introduced for men. All these unisex/androgynous fashions are deliberately endeavoring to blur the distinction between the sexes. But we see a change coming. While previous gender blurring focused primarily on women dressing similar to men, the reverse is now taking place:

“Fast forward three decades, we are seeing a vastly different approach to androgynous fashion. Unlike their staid peers, some designers have marched beyond putting women in tailored men’s clothing or conventional sportswear borrowed from the men’s. Instead, they are taking bold steps to blur the boundaries of gender binary in dress, either by removing gender marking (Rad Hourani) or creating ambiguity that subverts traditional notions of masculinity and femininity in dress (e.g., Rick Owens, Thamanyah, Craig Green, ReiKawakubo and Haider Ackermann). By doing that, these designers are attempting to address, and even equalise the power imbalance between genders, while at the same time adopting feminine symbols for menswear, hence reversing the direction of flow of borrowed symbols, i.e., from women’s to men’s.

“While there are indeed unisex clothing pieces in the market, such as the T-shirt, unisex aesthetic is almost always inconceivable. Designers such as Rad Hourani challenged this almost impossible task by producing collections seasons after seasons that can be shared between men and women - i.e., all the garments can be worn by both genders. Unlike the conventional offerings of unisex clothing, which is men wearing men’s clothes and women wearing said men’s clothes to appear less feminine, his clothes de-emphasises biological differences between genders.”

This removing of gender marking also helps further the LGBT agenda. What society wears reflects society’s ideology. Notice the connection of fashion to homosexuality:
“Fashion is queer and we know it. So why don’t we talk about it? From Christian Dior to Alexander McQueen, Yves Saint Laurent and Jil Sander many of the world’s greatest designers have identified as LGBTQ. And for centuries, fashion has been an instrument of expression and experimentation for this community. The sex-charged creations of designers like Walter Van Beirendonck, and the androgynous looks flooding fashion week’s runways, prove that sexuality and the way we style ourselves are inextricably entwined.”

This year, the 2015 SYMPOSIUM of Fashion & Gender will take place at the University of Minnesota on May 1 and 2. Here are some comments regarding the symposium:

“Crane (2000, p. 16) noted that ‘fashionable clothes are used to make statements about social class and social identity but their principle messages are about the ways in which men women and men perceive their gender roles or are expected to perceive them.’

“There are also questions addressing the role of fashion in the development of gender roles. Fashion can be used to enable establishment of one’s gender and support or refute genderism. Genderism is the belief that gender is a binary and that there should be only two genders.  This belief can reinforce negative attitudes and discrimination towards people who display gender variance or those whose gender identity is incongruent with their birth sex. There has been long debate concerning fashion and gender and what it means not only to appear and dress in a means that reflects expected gender ideals but what it means to reject typically masculine or feminine ways of appearing. Fashion is a device to break though gender boundaries, it provides a canvas upon which to portray, establish, question, or confirm gender identity.”


Did you notice the last sentence? “Fashion is a device to break though gender boundaries, it provides a canvas upon which to portray, establish, question, or confirm gender identity.”

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #17 on: February 09, 2015, 03:35:53 PM »
Here is another comment that says basically the same thing:
“Fashion is a way to reduce barriers between men and women, we already see a lot of women adopting tomboy style without being homosexual, fashion allows expression and freedom. Nowadays feminism is very present to allow women being equal with men but it is important to not forget other fights, it is still rare seeing heterosexual men wearing feminine clothes in the street, this is usually only on catwalks. And do not forget transgender who want to be considered by society as a person when society try to fix them to join male or female side.”

Again and again this theme is repeated:
“Unisex clothing has become more common and popular through the rising idea that men and women now tackle similar tasks and therefore require similar clothing to take on this. . . . This revolution of equality in modern society is iconic and is portrayed in the clothing production and even on the catwalks as both genders now take on the same catwalk rather than in different shows in many cases now.. . . The gender-neutral take on fashion is set to be an iconic step for equality within fashion.”

A homosexual blogger, in an article “Out of the Closet: Fashion's Influence on Gender and Sexuality” puts it this way:
“The way we dress gives an immediate impression of who we are to the world. Throughout history, from fairy tales to historical figures, fashion has undoubtedly played a major role in defining and exemplifying our gender roles in society. . .  Fashion and clothing are an essential part of the gender transformation movement. . . Feminists have long been debating the notion of the fashion and gender conundrum, and what it means in society to dress in not only socially expected gender ideals, but also what it means to reverse or reject typically female or feminine ways of dressing. In this instance, many women have taken on a more masculine way of dressing in order to exhibit to society their personal feelings about gender categories. . . . However, the use of clothing as a means to express these different gender identities remains a constant factor in all regards to transgressing gender. . . Androgyny muddles the societal gender equation, by adding a third variable to the male/female binary. . . . If we can start to understand fashion as a means to influence our own gender understanding and step outside the binary implications of gender, we can better recognize the importance of the power that fashion has on societal gender views, and its control over not only individuality, but culture as well. It is through fashion, clothing choice and personal style, that we can manipulate the gender binary and carve out our own personal stylized gender identity.”

To the fashion bloggers of today, it is no mystery how the current “gender equality” mindset developed:
“Clothing has also proven an effective means of traversing the gender divide. For men and women, gay and straight, who sought to explore new identities as members of the opposite sex (whether temporarily or with a long-term objective in mind), cross-dressing could provide the answer. . . .  Female stars of the 1930s, '40s, and '50s like Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn incorporated pants and other traditionally "male" clothing into their wardrobes for a mysterious and alluring (if sexually ambiguous) effect.”

The fashion industry and “gender reformers” understand the power of fashion to change society regarding gender roles.
“Only when the greater world has accepted the insignificance of gender roles can we finally hope for acceptance of all people, regardless of their gender identity. But if anyone has the power and influence to get this movement going, it’s the fashion industry.”

These are just a few of the multitude of comments that historians, gender “experts” and fashion bloggers are writing that clearly show the connection between gender roles and fashion. For those who know their history of culture and fashion, it is very clear that feminism and gender blurring fashion are closely linked. Statements such as the following shows a clear connection:

“The good news is that as attitudes about gender have changed, and as women and homosexuals have won political and social freedoms we should’ve had all along, the rigid distinctions between clothing styles for men and women have blurred.”

All of this talk about gender equality is leading to some absurd conclusions, such as this one about clothing equality. This shows how far humanity’s thoughts can be from God’s ideal:

 “Today, the clothing trend is starting to reverse. It is now acceptable for the female to wear all traditional male styled clothing. However, there is still a real bias against the male wearing any traditional female styled clothing (skirts, dresses, blouses, underwear, lacy and frilly items). To have true equality all clothing must be acceptable for all.”


A major store in London is launching the Agender Project where they will strive to erase all gender distinctions, so the men’s and women’s departments will be merged. Some are hoping this will be the trend of the future, so that all clothing will be genderless.

“With all the blurring of gender lines on the men’s fall runways, Selfridges is set to match that mood with a gender neutral shopping experience.”

The progression of women’s rights (which included the American Costume & bloomers), women’s liberation (which included unisex jeans & power suits,) and feminism (which includes androgynous gender blurring fashions) has led society into our current “gender equality” agenda which includes gay rights, and identical roles for men and women. Today feminism has successfully obliterated most gender norms regarding dress and roles for men and women.
“Perhaps Lena Chen, an activist and media commentator for Salon, Glamour and her own blog, put it best. ‘In my lifetime feminism has evolved far beyond the binary identity politics of women vs. men,’ she wrote in an e-mail. ‘To me, feminism is one part of a larger global movement for liberation. Gender norms dictating how you ought to behave, dress, marry, or work are oppressive regardless of what body you inhabit or how you identify yourself.’”
 
Society now scorns the idea of biblical male headship, and fashion flaunts its rebellion against patriarchal values. God has always called His people out of the worldly mindset, warning us not to be followers of fashion. We simply cannot to go along with the customs of the world and be among God’s true remnant. “The spirit which attends the one cannot be in harmony with the other.”

The culture of the world is under the influence of the god of this world, the enemy of all that is holy and righteous. The influence of popular culture or “pop culture” is what God has warned Seventh-day Adventist to shun:

“As the truth is brought into practical life, the standard is to be elevated higher and higher, to meet the requirements of the Bible. This will necessitate opposition to the fashions, customs, practices, and maxims of the world.” {FE 288.2}

Are conservative Seventh-day Adventist women opposing pop culture (the fashions, customs, practices and maxims of the world) in their appearance? If so, we will show by our apparel that we oppose what fashion and feminism is forcing on the world.

A worldly fashion blogger writes how pop culture strives to use gender blurring fashion to promote gender equality:
“Another explanation for the enthusiasm toward menswear in womenswear is pop culture. Pop culture continues to erase the lines between men and women in society. . . . Evidently, closing the disparity between male and female roles in society has been the talk of the town so it makes sense that fashion would reflect such a socially and politically affecting topic on the runway. By eliminating wardrobe barriers between men and women, fashion takes a step toward placing males and females on an equal platform. It reinforces the classic Chanel idea of ‘dress like a man, live like a man.’”

Dear conservative Seventh-day Adventist, are you listening? By putting the pieces together, we should be able to see how the devil has tricked us into ignoring the principle found in the second part of the statement from the Spirit of Prophecy:

“Those who feel called out to join the movement in favor of woman's rights and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with the third angel's message.” Testimonies to the Church, vol. 1, page 421

Unfortunately, Seventh-day Adventist women have increasingly accepted the gender blurring fashions of society. Most of our female members have accepted the fashions of feminism. With very few exceptions, our sisters wear the American Costume of today, “the so-called dress reform,” which is based on the same ungodly principle which God condemned in the 1860’s. The older women wear the baggy jeans and slacks while most of the younger women wear whatever pant style is currently “in.” Would this counsel be applicable to the women in the church today?

Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #18 on: February 09, 2015, 03:37:35 PM »
“Some, I saw, had departed from God, and were united with the spirit of the world. As different fashions are introduced, one after another have fallen back from their steadfastness, and have lost their peculiarity. It is crossing to come out from the world and be separate. As soon as individuals cease warring against the spirit of the world they are Satan's easy prey. Our efforts are too feeble to resist an influence which leads us from God, and which brings us in union with the world.”  {RH, November 26, 1861 par. 1} 

With all the evidence shouting at us, how can we deny that the pant/jean/slack styles that have evolved over the last 100 years have been introduced as a feminist inspired fashion designed to remove gender barriers? Can an honest person hold the position that the wearing of pants by women today has nothing to do with the unbiblical influence of the women’s rights movement throughout the last 150 years?

We may be standing strong in opposing the ordination of women as pastors, and opposing homosexual practices, but have totally accepted the gender blurring principle behind the “so-called dress reform.” In other words, by accepting the fashions which declare our connection with the world, we may actually be promoting the world’s unbiblical philosophy of “gender equality” which embraces the ordination of women. What we wear makes a statement—a very visible and loud statement. If we accept fashions that the devil has devised, we are shouting to the world that we have accepted the world’s philosophy.

One worldly writer puts it this way:
“Fashion is about creativity, making a statement and being unique. It offers us a simple way to let the world know what we believe and provides us with an ability to communicate a message in a medium that few other industries can rival. It's clear that fashion is altering the messaging of gender and that that people are increasingly choosing to wear clothes no longer specific to a given gender - as such it's becoming increasingly difficult for society to categorize fashion by gender alone.”

This is something for you to seriously consider. Are you announcing to the world that you agree with society’s viewpoint regarding gender equality through your clothes? The following worldly blogger tells how androgynous fashion has made a serious impact on the perception of gender roles. The gender twisting fashion becomes a statement of belief.

“The counter-culture revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s changed the way society thought about gender roles. By the time the 1980’s and 1990’s came around androgyny had become mainstream. There was a large amount of evidence that the androgynous lifestyle was finally accepted by society.  . . . Each decade that passes society evolves as a whole. Think about today’s society compared to that of your parents and your grandparents. Brave men and women using their personal fashion choices have made a serious impact on how society perceives gender roles. With evolution comes the promotion of creativity, the acceptance of sexual identity, and the equality of both sexes. In summary, androgyny identifies with both genders and no gender at the same time. So why do I think this topic is important? Because it’s more then a fashion statement. It’s a statement of freedom, self-expression, status, and beliefs.”

Since our beliefs influence how we choose to dress, therefore our dress confirms our beliefs. The bottom line is, what do we really believe about women’s ordination? How can we wear the clothing that promotes gender equality, and then claim to oppose women’s ordination? Those who understand the history of fashion as it relates to the feminist movement see the inconsistency behind such a practice. It’s like declaring that you are loyal to one government, while you are dressed in the military uniform of the opposition. Who is really going to take you seriously?
This adopting of the gender blurring fashions by conservative Seventh-day Adventists has weakened our position regarding God’s plan for the distinction between the sexes. How can we call the world out of Babylon if we wear the styles inspired by the world?

“We are called upon in these perilous times to elevate the standard. It has been left to trail in the dust. The fashions of the world hold God's people in bondage.”  {RH, November 26, 1861 par. 5}

In the 1880’s God warned His people against the danger of wearing worldly fashions. In fact, we are told that it was Satan’s most effective tool in separating church members from God.

“Fashion is deteriorating the intellect and eating out the spirituality of our people. Obedience to fashion is pervading our Seventh-day Adventist churches and is doing more than any other power to separate our people from God.” {4T 647.2} 

Since the devil was so successful in using fashion to extinguish spirituality in those days, do we presume that he is no longer using fashion to destroy God’s church today? To be sure, women today are not being tempted to wear corsets and dragging, heavy dresses or hoop skirts. We are not being tempted to spend many hours and dollars adding extra trimmings and decorations to our dresses, or to wear hats full of feathers and flowers. But we are being tempted to wear the popular fashions of today so we can fit in with the world.

This article has clearly revealed that the trend of fashion has been to increasingly confuse and remove gender distinction, both in appearance and roles. Fashion trends also demoralize society through increasing immodesty. Mark this point: Satan hasn’t laid down his most successful tool to destroy us. When we ignore God’s counsel and follow today’s fashion, we are separating from God and denouncing His divine order for humanity.
While the conservative Seventh-day Adventist woman may abhor and shun the current extreme fashions which remove gender barriers, she needs to remember that, in the 1930s to 1950s, conservative Seventh-day Adventist women, as well as many other women, abhorred and shunned jeans and slacks on women because of their gender blurring effect. But as they gradually became accepted by society, Seventh-day Adventists accepted them as well. Then the unisex clothing of the 1960s to the 1990s became so common that jeans were worn by almost everyone.

“A century and a half later, blue jeans are an international symbol of independence, equality, freedom, and youth.”

Fashion is now moving beyond just jeans. The androgynous fashion of the 2000s has mixed things up so much, it’s hard to know what clothing is specific to which gender.
One fashion designer has made it her goal to study the sexes “to take them away from the roles that history makes them play”.
“But the fashion industry is now breaking down all gender-related titles and creating a new title: Everyone. “Everyone” is a genderless section of clothing. Whatever the consumer considers themselves, they can find something in the everyone section.”

And the gender confusion will continue to increase. In order to oppose this fashion gender-blurring, we must quit following right along with the crowd, and be deliberate about opposing this gender confusion in both roles and dress. We must stop wearing the fashions that defy God’s order.
The proponents of women’s rights and feminism through the last 150 years all recognized and utilized the impact that gender-blurring fashion has on promoting the philosophy of gender equality. The power of appearance is more profound than words. Why have we missed this point in our church?
Perhaps in times past, God winked at our ignorance and our blindness. But as we recognize the seriousness of the times, and see these gender issues fomenting in our midst, and sense a rebellious spirit among us, isn’t it time to make it clear upon which side we are standing?
“Our only safety is to stand as God's peculiar people. We must not yield one inch to the customs and fashions of this degenerate age, but stand in moral independence, making no compromise with its corrupt and idolatrous practices.”  {CG 449.3} 

If we are to please God, we must know what he wants. We must study the biblical requirements of dress. God’s people should be asking:
“Wherein does our dress conform to the Bible requirements? . . .  God has said: ‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil.’”  {4T 647.1}
 
“It is the duty of every child of God to inquire, Wherein am I separate from the world?” {1T 277.1}

Either we uphold the biblical principles found in Deut. 22:5 and the writings of Paul, or we don’t. If we are upholding the principles of the Spirit of Prophecy, we will not pick and choose which of God’s standards we want to obey, and then ignore the ones that disturb our comfort zone. We will be open to close investigation, and be willing to examine and renounce any long-cherished practices that may not bear up under scrutiny of God’s Spirit.

“Let us suffer a little inconvenience, and be on the safe side. What crosses do God's people bear? They mingle with the world, partake of their spirit, dress, talk, and act like them.”  {1T 277.1}

Sisters, don’t allow your clothing to agree with the unbiblical philosophy of gender equality/women’s ordination while you endeavor to oppose it with your voice. Our clothing shouts louder than our voice. I encourage you to study this matter out, so that, as you stand against the tide of worldliness flooding into our beloved church, you may give a consistent testimony in favor of the truth by the grace of God.


Linda K

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 909
    • Wordkeeping
Re: Women's Ordination, Women's Rights and Fashion
« Reply #19 on: February 09, 2015, 03:40:14 PM »
If you would like the complete article, with all the links, sent to your email address, please message me. I will also send you some additional links that make an obvious connection between the current "gender equality" agenda and the wearing of gender-blurring fashions. Things are going crazy in the world of fashion, and these genderless fashions are furthering the feminist agenda. It is time for us to speak out against the fashions of the world!