Can adventist women wear pants?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Nancy Sinatra

[Guest]

Is that who it was?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

**back to topic**

[Gail]

Talking about dress reform... :)

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Dress reform.. styles come and go. There's always a fringe element.

[Rasor11]

Here is the quote:

" 543. Many have become lifelong invalids through their compliance with the demands of fashion. Displacements and deformities, cancers and other terrible diseases, are among the evils resulting from fashionable dress.-- T., V. IV, p. 635. {HL 123.2}"

[John317]

The principle is that men and women shouldn't be wearing the same kinds of clothes. God wants there to be a clear distinction between women and men, and one of these is in the clothes they wear. The Bible does speak against men looking like and acting like and dressing like a woman. Cross-dressing and homosexuality (or bisexuality), confuse the image of God in mankind and are Satan's instruments to lead people to practice sins that God detests.

There are very good reasons for what the Bible and Ellen White teach on this subject. I've written something about this in the following link:

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...s.html#comments

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

" 543. Many have become lifelong invalids through their compliance with the demands of fashion. Displacements and deformities, cancers and other terrible diseases, are among the evils resulting from fashionable dress.-- T., V. IV, p. 635. {HL 123.2}"

Quote:

Cancer causes: Theories throughout history

From the earliest times, physicians have puzzled over the causes of cancer. The Egyptians blamed cancers on the gods.

Humoral theory: Hippocrates believed that the body had 4 humors (body fluids) -- blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile. When the humors were balanced, a person was healthy. Too much or too little of any of them caused disease. An excess of black bile in various body sites was thought to cause cancer. This theory of cancer was passed on by the Romans and was embraced by the influential doctor Galen’s medical teaching, which remained the unchallenged standard through the Middle Ages for over 1300 years. During this period, the study of the body, including autopsies, was prohibited for religious reasons, thus limiting knowledge.

Lymph theory: Among theories that replaced the humoral theory of cancer was cancer's formation by another fluid, lymph. Life was believed to consist of continuous and appropriate movement of the fluid parts through solids. Of all the fluids, the most important were blood and lymph. Stahl and Hoffman theorized that cancer was composed of fermenting and degenerating lymph varying in density, acidity, and alkalinity. The lymph theory gained rapid support. The eminent surgeon John Hunter (1723–1792) agreed that tumors grow from lymph constantly thrown out by the blood.

Blastema theory: In 1838, German pathologist Johannes Muller demonstrated that cancer is made up of cells and not lymph, but he believed that cancer cells did not arise from normal cells. Muller proposed that cancer cells arose from budding elements (blastema) between normal tissues. His student, Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902), the famous German pathologist, determined that all cells, including cancer cells, are derived from other cells.

Chronic irritation theory: Virchow proposed that chronic irritation was the cause of cancer, but he falsely believed that cancers "spread like a liquid." A German surgeon, Karl Thiersch, showed that cancers metastasize through the spread of malignant cells and not through some unidentified fluid.

Trauma theory: Despite advances in the understanding of cancer, from the late 1800s until the 1920s, trauma was thought by some to cause cancer. This belief was maintained despite the failure of injury to cause cancer in experimental animals.

Parasite theory: In the 17th and 18th centuries, some believed that cancer was contagious. In fact, the first cancer hospital in France was forced to move from the city in 1779 because of the fear of the spread of cancer throughout the city. Although human cancer, itself, is not contagious, we now know that certain viruses, bacteria, and parasites can increase a person's risk of developing cancer.

source

[Gail]

I thought it the same as how John described, that men should not appear effeminate nor women manly.

[Liz]

Here is the quote:

" 543. Many have become lifelong invalids through their compliance with the demands of fashion. Displacements and deformities, cancers and other terrible diseases, are among the evils resulting from fashionable dress.-- T., V. IV, p. 635. {HL 123.2}"

[Gail]

Hence the call for hanging the clothing from the shoulders to allow space for the abdominal organs.

That makes sense to me.

[Paula]

obviously EGW speaks of the health problems that come from following fashion she was speaking of things such as tight corsets, and removal of one RIBS!!! Never in the text does she even imply that she is speaking of pants!!

[Gerr]

Here is the quote:

" 543. Many have become lifelong invalids through their compliance with the demands of fashion. Displacements and deformities, cancers and other terrible diseases, are among the evils resulting from fashionable dress.-- T., V. IV, p. 635. {HL 123.2}"

Here is the larger context of the above quote:

Satan is constantly devising some new style of dress that shall prove an injury to physical and moral health; and he exults when he sees professed Christians eagerly accepting the fashions that he has invented. The amount of physical suffering

635

created by unnatural and unhealthful dress

cannot be estimated. Many have become lifelong invalids through their compliance with the demands of fashion. Displacements and deformities, cancers and other terrible diseases, are among the evils resulting from fashionable dress. {4T 634.4}

Many a style of dress that was inappropriate and even ridiculous has been generally adopted because it was the fashion. Among these pernicious fashions were the large hoops, which frequently caused indecent exposure of the person. In contrast with this was presented a neat, modest, becoming dress, which would dispense with the hoops and the trailing skirts, and provide for the proper clothing of the limbs. But dress reform comprised more than shortening the dress and clothing the limbs. It included every article of dress upon the person. It lifted the weights from the hips by suspending the skirts from the shoulders. It removed the tight corsets, which compress the lungs, the stomach, and other internal organs, and induce curvature of the spine and an almost countless train of diseases. Dress reform proper provided for the protection and development of every part of the body. {4T 635.1}

To those who consistently adopted the reform dress, appreciating its advantages and cheerfully taking their position in opposition to pride and fashion, it proved a blessing. When properly made, it was a becoming and consistent dress, and recommended itself to persons of candid mind, even among those not of our faith. {4T 635.2}

The question may be asked: "Why has this dress been laid aside, and for what reason has dress reform ceased to be advocated?" The reason for this change I will here briefly state. While many of our sisters accepted this reform from principle, others opposed the simple, healthful style of dress which it advocated. It required much labor to introduce this reform among our people. It was not enough to present before our sisters the advantages of such a dress and to convince them that it would meet the approval of God. Fashion had so strong a hold upon them that they were slow to break away from its

636

control, even to obey the dictates of reason and conscience. And many who professed to accept the reform made no change in their wrong habits of dress, except in shortening the skirts and clothing the limbs. {4T 635.3}

As I see it, the debilitating effects of fashion mentioned is not from the wearing of pants, but rather from unhealthy fashions.

[Gordon1]

Here is the quote:

" 543. Many have become lifelong invalids through their compliance with the demands of fashion. Displacements and deformities, cancers and other terrible diseases, are among the evils resulting from fashionable dress.-- T., V. IV, p. 635. {HL 123.2}"

Restrictive clothing and uncovered limbs are likely the main culprits here.

[lazarus]

As Gerry stated, pants on women is (now) a cultural norm in the West, but still seen as immodest in other regions.

Traditional Muslim apparel probably better reflects the Biblical ideal for both men and women. It's no wonder some Muslims rail against our licentiousness. Though their religious tradition covers much error and oppression, I admire the chaste deportment of the muslims I meet (and Orthodox Jews as well).

Ahem!!!

Have you ever heard of a Salwar Chemise?

Pants! Pants! Pants! all over the "other regions" of the world. I think more pants would be a good thing in our churches.

[lazarus]

Thanks Gail. George Knight is a great detractor of Ellen White and her testimony.

Since I've heard GK speak a few times over the years I have to say that the opposite is true. I have always heard him speak in positive terms about EGW and her writings. He has done much to advance our understanding and application of her writings. He has done more than most to keep the church receptive to her ministry. Gordon I believe your statement could not be further from the truth.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

Thanks Gail. George Knight is a great detractor of Ellen White and her testimony.

Since I've heard GK speak a few times over the years I have to say that the opposite is true. I have always heard him speak in positive terms about EGW and her writings. He has done much to advance our understanding and application of her writings. He has done more than most to keep the church receptive to her ministry. Gordon I believe your statement could not be further from the truth.

Agreed!

[Gordon1]

Pants! Pants! Pants! all over the "other regions" of the world. I think more pants would be a good thing in our churches.

Hi Lazarus,

I stand somewhat corrected. Pants within the reform outfit are covered by a dress, as in some of these illustrations. The important principal is modesty. Not sure if your chemise is traditional Muslim attire.

Proper clothing will not advertise the form of a man or woman, nor draw one's attention where it should not rest.

Muslim men often wear long shirts (chemise) to cover their buttocks and below, out of respect for their fellow men when all bow to pray in the mosques. Would that Christians were so aware, concerned and considerate.

[Gordon1]

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

Thanks Gail. George Knight is a great detractor of Ellen White and her testimony.

Since I've heard GK speak a few times over the years I have to say that the opposite is true. I have always heard him speak in positive terms about EGW and her writings. He has done much to advance our understanding and application of her writings. He has done more than most to keep the church receptive to her ministry. Gordon I believe your statement could not be further from the truth.

Hi Lazarus,

I was ashamed to watch this presentation by George Knight. Apart from focussing on himself and playing the stand-up comic, he disparages the prophetic office of a Christian sister. You may find this acceptable behaviour - cheap humour and anecdotes are commonplace in the pulpit these days. But if I had spoken so lightly with such a widespread influence I would feel the frown of sorrow from heaven.

George Knight at the Ellen White Summit, June 2005:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9085323260620531077#

[lazarus]

Watched the first 10 minutes. It was great! There was nothing in it that was disparaging or cheap. Clearly, we see things very differently but perhaps it's the 4 chicken nuggets that I ate tonight.

[Overaged]

If my wife stops wearing "pants" in public; I would be VERY upset. God would surely strike her down.

[mrsducky]

The reason I ask is that the church that I attend recently had a seminar in which it was made pretty clear that women should not wear pants. They went on to further state that the wearing of pants was the cause of diseases in women including cancer. I was stuned when I heard this. The person leading the seminar quoted something from Ellen G White to support what they were saying. I am wondering if they misunderstood her writings or if Mrs. White did make statements to this effect but later changed her view.

This pants or no pants for women discussion has been going on forever! Maybe we should all adopt the clothing style depicted in pictures of the Bible patriarchs. Of course the way we will be able to tell the difference between men and women is that the men MUST grow beards--long, flee infested ones! Seriously, it seems to me that this dress "controversy" is really a red herring. It is a way to claim to be Christian by saying there are external behaviors that can and must be controlled as a means of qualifying for heaven rather than focusing on matters of the heart. Just a thought. . .

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Watched the first 10 minutes. It was great! There was nothing in it that was disparaging or cheap. Clearly, we see things very differently but perhaps it's the 4 chicken nuggets that I ate tonight.

I thought the video was pretty good, too! But then, I was munching on Cheez-Its at the time..

[Overaged]

What country do you live in? I don't think they have "Cheez-Its" here in Canada, but it sounds like something I would buy if I was to visit your area.

[Taylor]

I am not sure what I did wrong in this post but I am quoting Gordon1 and his distaste for George Knight's writings and preaching on EGW. My response is below.

Hi Lazarus,

I was ashamed to watch this presentation by George Knight. Apart from focussing on himself and playing the stand-up comic, he disparages the prophetic office of a Christian sister. You may find this acceptable behaviour - cheap humour and anecdotes are commonplace in the pulpit these days. But if I had spoken so lightly with such a widespread influence I would feel the frown of sorrow from heaven.

George Knight at the Ellen White Summit, June 2005:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9085323260620531077#

I am SO grateful there are scholars in our denomination that can let us see the human side of EGW and to gain courage from her struggles with her kids etc. The humor that interlaces it is great!

It shows that even God's representatives can have joy in the midst of embarrassing situations. This is a phenomenal video and in now way is trite or bringing sorrow from heaven. It shows the deep love that EGW had for her son and how she agonized over his salvation. Nothing could be more serious.

So far as anything these being "self focused" on the part of George Knight is truly a judgment not based on fact as we can't judge an Indian till you have walked in their moccasins. Since none of us are privy to the speaker's thoughts it would be impossible to know what his private motivation is.

On the contrary it shows a deep solemnity in how much EGW loved her son, unto death, and how much she wanted him to be saved. It showed how she never gave up on her problem son.

The insight into her marriage is fabulous. Thankfully her and her husband were real people with real struggles. Thankfully this was the case because if their marriage had been perfect at all times, most of us would have perhaps lost hope for the problems in our marriage even if they were minor.

I for one am SOOOO GRATEFUL to George Knight and the deep support he gives to EGW's writings while at the same time showing her very real struggles which is an encouragement to all of us. (That is the same reason that we see the "human side" of every prophet in the Bible, to give us courage and insight into how God can work in our lives.)