|
Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,600
Members1,323
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
6 registered members (Karen Y, dedication, ProdigalOne, Kevin H, Daryl, 1 invisible),
3,116
guests, and 20
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Daryl]
#89725
06/09/07 11:30 PM
06/09/07 11:30 PM
|
|
|
Here is a clear quote in relation to the dress reform, which also speaks about the pants part of this reform dress:
The Reform Dress.--The reform dress, which was once advocated, [THE "REFORM DRESS" ADVOCATED AND ADOPTED IN THE 1860'S WAS DESIGNED BY A GROUP OF SDA WOMEN IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE A HEALTHFUL, MODEST, COMFORTABLE, AND NEAT ATTIRE IN HARMONY WITH THE LIGHT GIVEN ELLEN WHITE, WHICH WAS MUCH NEEDED AT THE TIME. SEE PP. 252-255. IT CALLED FOR LOOSE-FITTING GARMENTS HUNG FROM THE SHOULDERS WITH A HEMLINE ABOUT NINE INCHES FROM THE FLOOR. THE LOWER LIMBS WERE CLOTHED WITH A TROUSERLIKE GARMENT PROVIDING COMFORT AND WARMTH. SEE STORY OF OUR HEALTH MESSAGE, PP. 112-130.--COMPILERS.] proved a battle at every step. Members of the church, refusing to adopt this healthful style of dress, caused dissension and discord. With some there was no uniformity and taste in the preparation of the dress as it had been plainly set before them. This was food for talk. The result was that the objectionable features, the pants, were left off. The burden of advocating the reform dress was removed because that which was given as a blessing was turned into a curse. {3SM 253.2}
It seems like there was quite a stir over the wearing of the pants part of the reform dress back then. There definitely isn't such a stir about this today! I think it would create the same stir today, Daryl, if women wore the same kind of pants, under dresses as they did then. Again, in that quote, the pants were worn for "comfort and warmth". Today, when it is cold, we have "leggins", which are very warm and comfortable, and they serve the same purpose as did the pants under the dresses then.
Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own. {COL 69}
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Tammy Roesch]
#89730
06/10/07 05:27 AM
06/10/07 05:27 AM
|
SDA
Active Member 2023
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,583
California, USA
|
|
Did women wear short sleeves back then? You know, Arnold, I have never seen a picture of women back then with short sleeves...but...there is so much counsel about covering the limbs for protection from the cold and chilliness, that it makes me wonder, "Why would there have been the need for all this counsel if the women were wearing long sleeves?" And I did post that quote about a book that EGW read as a child that had a picture of a little girl with short sleeves...so if they made clothes for children with short sleeves, I would imagine they also made adult clothes with short sleeves. But, that is all speculation, as I really don't know. Do you know?  I don't know. I just realized that I have never seen pictures of adult women wearing short sleeves. So I wondered if anyone has any info. But even if children wore short sleeves, that doesn't say anything about adults. There are suits for little boys that come with short pants, but I have never seen an adult wear one.
By God's grace,
Arnold
There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. RH 12/20/1892
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Tammy Roesch]
#89733
06/10/07 06:48 AM
06/10/07 06:48 AM
|
Active Member 2011
3500+ Member
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,965
Sweden
|
|
I think you are adding the part about "the dangerous UV rays in the summer". I only see where she says that the long sleeves protects from "chilling", which would imply winter and cold weather. So it is the letter of her instruction that is important, no matter what the principal behind it might be? Interesting. Of course not...but in ALL the quotes I could find, not ONE of them mention dressing the limbs because of HEAT...rather it is the opposite...it is because of the COLD... We should adhere to the principle, not twist the principle... And if Ellen had lived in a time when people where aware that such a thing as UV light existed, would she then have mentioned it? I don't know...I doubt there was near the problem in her day as in our day, because there were not near as many people exposing so much of their body to the sun. Even the world was a whole lot more modest. Imagine what the beach looked like in her day, compared to our day? But much more people where exposed to the sun through farm work. And in todays world, protection from the sun is most certainly a health issue as people are dying from skin cancers. But you made more than clear that the health aspect of dress reform limmits itself to keeping warm in cold weather so I guess it is pointless to further discuss this. Meanwhile, the world is moving on...
Galatians 2
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
It is so hazardous to take here a little and there a little. If you put the right little's together you can make the bible teach anything you wish. //Graham Maxwell
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: asygo]
#89734
06/10/07 09:30 AM
06/10/07 09:30 AM
|
|
|
Did women wear short sleeves back then? You know, Arnold, I have never seen a picture of women back then with short sleeves...but...there is so much counsel about covering the limbs for protection from the cold and chilliness, that it makes me wonder, "Why would there have been the need for all this counsel if the women were wearing long sleeves?" And I did post that quote about a book that EGW read as a child that had a picture of a little girl with short sleeves...so if they made clothes for children with short sleeves, I would imagine they also made adult clothes with short sleeves. But, that is all speculation, as I really don't know. Do you know? I don't know. I just realized that I have never seen pictures of adult women wearing short sleeves. So I wondered if anyone has any info. But even if children wore short sleeves, that doesn't say anything about adults. There are suits for little boys that come with short pants, but I have never seen an adult wear one. That is true about suits with shorts for little boys... You may be right...I've never seen a picture of adult women with short sleeves either....but why then, would all the counsel be for covering the limbs?
Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own. {COL 69}
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Tammy Roesch]
#89735
06/10/07 09:40 AM
06/10/07 09:40 AM
|
|
|
I did search for "bare arms" and found this statement... The Medical Reporter, under the caption of "Dress of Children," has the following lucid and pointed remarks:-- {HR, January 1, 1872 par. 1}
"THE CHIEF CAUSE OF INFANTILE MORTALITY IS NOT MORE THE WEATHER OR FOUL AIR THAN THE IGNORANCE AND FALSE PRIDE OF THE MOTHERS. CHILDREN ARE KILLED BY THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY ARE DRESSED, AND BY THE FOOD THAT IS GIVEN THEM, AS MUCH AS BY ANY OTHER CAUSES. INFANTS OF THE MOST TENDER AGE, IN OUR CHANGEABLE AND ROUGH CLIMATE, ARE LEFT WITH BARE ARMS AND LEGS AND WITH LOW-NECKED DRESSES.THE MOTHERS, IN THE SAME DRESS, WOULD SHIVER AND SUFFER WITH COLD, AND EXPECT A FIT OF SICKNESS AS THE RESULT OF THEIR CULPABLE CARELESSNESS. AND YET THE MOTHERS COULD ENDURE SUCH A TREATMENT WITH FAR LESS DANGER TO HEALTH AND LIFE THAN THEIR TENDER INFANTS. {HR, January 1, 1872 par. 2}
"A MOMENT'S REFLECTION WILL INDICATE THE EFFECTS OF THIS MODE OF DRESSING, OR WANT OF DRESSING, ON THE CHILD. THE MOMENT THE COLD AIR STRIKES THE BARE ARMS AND LEGS OF THE CHILD, THE BLOOD IS DRIVEN FROM THESE EXTREMITIES TO THE INTERNAL AND MORE VITAL ORGANS OF THE BODY. THE RESULT IS CONGESTION, TO A GREATER OR LESS EXTENT, OF THESE ORGANS. IN WARM WEATHER THE EFFECT WILL BE CONGESTION OF THE BOWELS, CAUSING DIARRHEA, DYSENTERY, OR CHOLERA INFANTUM. WE THINK THIS MODE OF DRESSING MUST BE RECKONED AS ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT CAUSES OF SUMMER COMPLAINTS, SO CALLED. IN COLDER WEATHER, CONGESTION AND INFLAMMATION OF THE LUNGS, CONGESTION AND INFLAMMATION OF THE BRAIN, CONVULSIONS, ETC., WILL RESULT. AT ALL SEASONS, CONGESTION, MORE OR LESS IS CAUSED, THE DEFINITE EFFECTS DEPENDING UPON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHILD, THE WEATHER, AND VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES. {HR, January 1, 1872 par. 3}
"IT IS PAINFUL, EXTREMELY SO, TO ANY ONE WHO REFLECTS UPON THE SUBJECT, TO SEE CHILDREN THUS DECKED LIKE VICTIMS FOR SACRIFICE, TO GRATIFY THE INSANE PRIDE OF FOOLISH MOTHERS. OUR MOST EARNEST ADVICE TO ALL MOTHERS IS TO DRESS THE LEGS AND ARMS OF THEIR CHILDREN WARMLY AT ALL EVENTS. IT WOULD BE INFINITELY LESS DANGEROUS TO LIFE AND HEALTH TO LEAVE THEIR BODIES UNCOVERED, THAN TO LEAVE THEIR ARMS AND LEGS AS BARE AS IS THE COMMON CUSTOM." {HR, January 1, 1872 par. 4} It looks like, from this quote, that the mother's arms were not bare, but for fashion, they clothed their children like that. Again, though, it seems like from everything I read, the counsel to cover the arms & legs had everything to do with the cold climate. I've not seen one statement that says to cover them because of heat or the sun. That was the purpose for the pants in the dress reform, as well as modesty. Now women have leggins that serve the same purpose...especially if they wear long enough dresses...which, from what I understand is about 9" from the floor.
Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own. {COL 69}
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Tammy Roesch]
#91651
09/01/07 02:18 AM
09/01/07 02:18 AM
|
Charter Member
SDA
Active Member 2020
Senior Member
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 719
East Coast Canada
|
|
I might get in trouble now (not a fist for me LOL ) I wore a traditional Bermudian suit to my neice's wedding here in Cap-Pele New Brunswick (fairly Conservative region as far as the SDA population which is about 1 in 3,000) and I really was comfortablem and my wife really likes the look on me, and that is all that counts for me. The suit consists of a short sleeve button down shirt with a tie that matches my socks. Bermuda shorts (beige for this event) and with knee high socks and a pair of brown oxford shoes. I was in Bermuda recently and this outfit could have cost about $400 to put together but thankfully we have an amazing clothing store here (Frenchy's) and I put this outfit together for under $20 in total (all new clohes except for the lightly used shoes! )
-SO: I had bare arms and bare knees! The shame of it all!!??
-IMAGINE if I would wear my Welsh National roots KILT to Church, would this be considered inappropriate? fyi DM Richards created the Natioanl WELSH Tartan in 1967! (not me though, I was born in 1967!)
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: D R]
#91656
09/01/07 05:24 AM
09/01/07 05:24 AM
|
|
|
The look didn't sound to bad until I came to the knee high socks.  But as long as your wife approves, why not. 
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: crater]
#91862
09/15/07 12:39 AM
09/15/07 12:39 AM
|
Charter Member
SDA
Active Member 2020
Senior Member
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 719
East Coast Canada
|
|
Crater:  Ya the socks i was not so crazy about, BUT the guys that dress this way in Bermuda did look sharp!
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: D R]
#91926
09/19/07 06:32 PM
09/19/07 06:32 PM
|
|
|
So were you the hit or main attraction at the wedding?
|
|
|
Re: A Christian Guide to Dress--Part One
[Re: Daryl]
#91966
09/22/07 12:23 AM
09/22/07 12:23 AM
|
Charter Member
SDA
Active Member 2020
Senior Member
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 719
East Coast Canada
|
|
daryl, Ashley and Josh were the Main attraction and as long as I am a hit with my wife then all is well! -Just wait untill i wear a kilt to church!
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
