very surprised at the reaction at church.

[CDNSushi]

Speaking as an LDS Kilted member of this forum, I find your comments uncalled for and rude. It is rude to make light of things that others consider sacred, especially when you don't know what you are talking about.

Speaking as a non-LDS kilted member of this forum, I agree with Marshal.

From the forum rules:

Rule #2
– Posts by ‘Trolls’, posts known as ‘Feeding the Troll', any ‘Flaming’, direct attack against another member, or inciting a Vendetta, are serious disruptions of pleasant discussion and cannot be tolerated.

Rule #3
– Pornography, nudity, sexually explicit material of any kind, or embedded links to such material, have no place on this forum. Profanity in the form of abusive, vulgar or irreverent language is also not acceptable.

Rule #4
- Intolerance for our fellow human beings, of any kind, is inexcusable behavior in today’s world.

(highlights=mine).

[McClef]

Yes indeed an uncalled for statement.

And it is clear that LDS kilted members do not experience the problems alleged as the garments are compatible with knee length attire. Besides which the young man won't have yet undergone the Temple endowment and is thus unlikely yet to be wearing them.

I wish people would read more and learn so they would have a better understanding and knowledge

This discussion is NOT about the pros and cons of a particular religion but about the actions of a certain individual in a position of authority with regard to where a kilt should or should not be worn. In that respect it is similar to other situations where folk experience problems when they wish to wear a kilt.

So please keep comments respectful and within the rules and spirit of this forum.

[Riverkilt]

One thing about my little town of 6,000 out here in the boonies is we have one of the longest "church rows" in the country. When they were building the dam the government built most of the churches in a long row along the main drag, one beside the other, in most every denomination fielded, including the LDS Church. We also have a very strong presence of citizens with Traditional Navajo spiritual beliefs, followers of the Native American Church, folks who follow the traditional Four Directions, and New Age folks.

We all get along spiritually by tolerating each other's spiritual beliefs and ways - even if we think our friend may be crazy or going to Hell in a hand basket for not believing as we do. There is no synagog, but the Episcopal Church opens its doors and lets the local Jewish folks use the facility for their holiday celebrations. When the Episcopal church was remodeled, the Catholic church opened their doors for the Episcopal folks to hold their ceremonies there. It is common for a local Navajo to describe their spiritual beliefs as "Traditional and LDS."

I like to think some of that local tradition of tolerance slops over into acceptance of this old kilted geezer about town. Intolerance from a kiltie seems so out of place.

[Wandering Bruce]

I've worn my kilt to church often with only positive comments, including pastoral comments to wear it more often. These services have been in less formal church surroundings than many (jeans and shorts common.) I DO understand the concern of some that it could be distracting. For that reason I have often NOT worn the kilt to some weddings where the emphasis should be on the couple and not the guests. Wisdom is valuable here.

[Semiomniscient]

This conversation has been very interesting. The bits about the kilt possibly being a distraction I think actually have some merit. Certainly, I do not think there is anything wrong with the kilt, or necessarily wearing it to worship. I however, choose not to wear the kilt to church--I have been specifically asked to for Kirkings of the Tartan (which I don't care for) but other than those rare occasions, I do not.
I'm Presbyterian, not LDS, so I don't know how worship is conducted in the latter. Looking different can be distracting, just as calling attention to yourself with actions can be. My church for instance is very reserved in our style of worship. I used to work at a charismatic pentecostal school where the worship was much more outwardly demonstrated (arms raised etc.) Transplant one congregant into the other church, and they might be a little distracting (at least at first) and perhaps not appreciated.
Same goes with a kilt, except that it isn't going to be an issue of mode of worship, just mode of dress. As some have said, their church appreciates it by and large. They are accustomed to it, but it might have been distracting for some members at first... but now that that's been dealt with or gotten over, it's all okay.
The initial reaction seems to have been bad here. Consider the most respectful manner in which to deal with it. Going behind your immediate authority's back without giving them a chance to change their mind is probably bad form and could cause issue. I'm not entirely sure how the LDS governing body works on the individual church level... so I'm not much help there.

[auld argonian]

I can accept that the kilt might be a distraction but how long until the novelty wears off and it becomes "just part of the scenery"? Not long...

People who continuously claim that it's a distraction seem to have their own pre-occupations with things...most people get over the novelty rather quickly.

Best

AA

[jeremy j starche]

I can accept that the kilt might be a distraction but how long until the novelty wears off and it becomes "just part of the scenery"? Not long...

People who continuously claim that it's a distraction seem to have their own pre-occupations with things...most people get over the novelty rather quickly.

Best

AA

That assumes that the congregation is static ... that you see the same people week after week with few (if any) new faces.

In a church that frequently (constantly?) has new visitors, there will always be people there to whom the kilt is a novelty. These visitors are the people who might benefit most from hearing the message and pondering upon it later.

[wildrover]

Come on, gentlemen...if you can't laugh at yourselves......well, if you can't, I'm going to hang my head in disappointment, and walk away in my plaid skirt, man-purse hanging off the front and fingernail tool stuffed down one sock, and go back to tending to my herd of sacred cows .

I'd like to hear how the OP resolves the situation. Many here have recommended turning the other cheek. My experience has been that turning the other cheek often only results in getting smacked on that cheek too, particularly when the problem is coming from someone in a position of authority with absolutely no incentive to change.

Another way to think of it...it is not possible to compromise with an absolute point of view. Those of you who have attempted debate with a member of a substantially different religion have undoubtedly realized this. Any attempt to compromise with an absolute point of view results in the compromising party sacrificing their beliefs to reach a position closer to the absolute...and the more they "compromise", the more their point of view is quite simply corrupted or ignored, and the result is they either accede or capitulate to the absolute. Think I'm wrong? Ok...there are probably shades of gray in this...but try debating with the next guy who knocks on your door...you know, the one in the white shirt, black slacks, black tie, talking about saving your immortal soul. Nice guys, usually...but they hold an absolute point of view, and unfortunately it isn't often worth the time to talk, for the same reason that I'm dubious that talking will solve the OP's dilemma.

If my religion examples aren't working for you, try talking to an ex...you know, the one you split with because you just couldn't ever compromise on anything.

Those of you who advocate talking to the guy...as the more aggressive of us have made our suggestions, I'm genuinely curious what you would say--or write, were it a letter--to the individual in question. It will undoubtedly help the OP, and it may very well help me when I'm in a similar situation someday.

-Sean

[Mike_Oettle]

Auld Argonian wrote: “I can accept that the kilt might be a distraction but how long until the novelty wears off and it becomes ‘just part of the scenery’? Not long . . .”

Pree-cisely!
Regards,
Mike

[Dixiecat]

Geoff, Ron, call me silly, but your two posts actually put a little tear in my eye. That is what true faith and religion should be about.