Let Women Pray in General Conference

[mnn727]

The usage of Amen, meaning "so be it", as found in the early scriptures of the Bible is said to be of Hebrew origin

I've always liked "So let it be written, so let it be done"

OR as an alternative "So say we all"

[Gwen]

My mom and I were discussing this recently. She had been a member of the church for several yrs when she was asked to give a prayer in sacrament mtg and she responded "Am I allowed to do that?". The priesthood leaders looked at her confused and she told them she had never seen a woman give a prayer in a meeting of mixed company (they did for RS but everything else that was combined was a man). They didn't even realize they had been doing that, it was a cultural thing. The leaders made a point to ask more women after that.

On the other hand the ward I grew up in always asked couples, wife did the opening prayer and husband did the closing. I grew up thinking that's how it was. It wasn't until the stake pres came around and told them to stop it and that wasn't how it was supposed to be and they were excluding singles and youth from the blessings of participating that things changed. lol

[Traveler]

The problem with this rationale is that it is not rational. Those who offer the invocation and benediction do not do so by the authority of their Priesthood. They simply offer the prayer in the name of Christ, as they have been instructed, and as can be done by anyone -- specifically, by any baptized member of the Church, male or female. I suspect that the "men-only" tradition of prayer in General Conference is just that: tradition. I doubt there is any doctrinal need for it.

I am not sure you understood the rational concerning the priesthood. The rational I referenced came from my missionary handbook concerning official meetings presided over by the priesthood. Obviously the rational was in error. But in understanding the error we need to be careful not to diminish the importance the priesthood plays in establishing how we address the opperations and affairs of the church and kingdom of G-d (Zion).

As the presiding priesthood authority in my home, I will often ask (instruct) the home teachers (or someone else holding the Melchizedek priesthood) to provide a "priesthood blessing" on our home before leaving. I believe that I have that authority. But, and this is not intended to be a criticism - but according to my understanding. That in a home without presiding priesthood authority a priesthood blessing can be "requested" but it is not proper for the presiding parent authority to "give instruction" or demands.

The other point I wish to make is that I believe we have created an era where the blessings and authority of the priesthood are not appreciated or utilized as often and to the extent that they should be. I am not just talking about priesthood blessings. But sadly my small vial of concatenated oil seems to become rancid before even coming close to being use up. And sadly I am usually without my oil such that should there be a request - I am unprepared and must obtain some before I could honor a request.

When we as a society fail to live by faith it is usually because we have developed the rational and the belief that it really is not that important and certainly not necessary. Sometimes I think we do not experience miracles - not because we could not be so blessed but because we do not even want or expect such blessings.

The Traveler

[slamjet]

Should we sit in the back of the chapel, too? Maybe we can string a velvet rope between the men and women, or put up a screen? Maybe SLC will start directing chapels to add a choir loft and we can sit up there, away and unseen by the men?

I'm going pretty far afield here (though that is how women and blacks are/were treated depending on the culture and the era), but you can see where 'isn't it enough' can be problematic for those who are supposed to be satisfied with the crumbs.

I knew there was going to be a mild excoriation for my question. But as a matter of explanation (and more excoriation)...

My mom is a Mormon feminist so I was raised with the idea of equality, which has served me well with so many daughters. But there is one point that still sticks in my head whenever I hear/read about the whole issue of women equality in the church; How sincere is the movement, really, if they're reaching for the big things that get a lot of attention, but are not willing to walk the talk for it locally? I'm willing to take it more seriously (as though my opinion would shake things up) as soon as the Relief Society sisters no longer ask the Elders to pick up the chairs for them after church on Sundays, that they no longer request that the Priesthood set up and take down the tables and chairs for their activities, that they no longer call the Elders whenever they move in/out of a ward, That they no longer require that the priesthood monitor the parking lot, etc. This is where the rubber meets the road. If equality means what is being advocated, then the discussion needs to include the whole ball of wax, not just what is expedient or attention getting.

[dahlia]

If we become more meek, humble, submissive, willing to cherish and fulfill our roles of nurturing and motherhood ...

Whoa. You know they used to tell black people to sit down and shut up and change will come somehow. Take a look at King's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' if you want to see what being meek and submissive got black people and why King had to go out and march.

I don't consider myself a Mormon feminist (though I expect that, based on my comments in RS, some of the ladies probably think I am). I don't want the priesthood. I love the priesthood for men. But I'm not going to be meek and submissive for anybody in the hopes that one day their hearts will change.

btw- with the focus on "willing to cherish and fulfill our roles of nurturing and motherhood," where do single and/or childless women come in? Or aren't they included?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

And yet, how do we effect change?

I had/have a great concern about something in the church. I prayed (over a long period of time...at least months). I felt that I needed to write to one of our General Leaders. Then I prayed and thoughtfully considered, which one? After more time had passed, I decided whom the right person was.

Then I carefully wrote and rewrote a letter. I made certain I was not angry when I wrote it. I found the correct addriess and popped in in the mail. (Yeah, snail mail, old school, LOL!)

AFTER I sent the letter (because I felt strongly about it and didn't want anyone to try and dissuade me), I talked to my husband and my Bishop about it. They were both concerned at first (I could see it in their faces), but then I shared the actual letter with them and they became very supportive.

Within two weeks after sending my letter, I received a very kind, thoughtful reply...that said just what I had hoped for...that my letter would be forwarded to other leaders and they would talk about it.

I was thrilled. I'm content with that. Whatever happens, I will accept. Now I have directed my attentions at other ways I can be the Lord's hands to help with this issue.

My concern had nothing to do with women praying in General Conference. It was/is about something that in my mind is far more important--but the point is, in my opinion it is appropriate to approach our Leaders with our concerns, if we do it prayerfully and humbly.

[Vort]

But I'm not going to be meek and submissive for anybody in the hopes that one day their hearts will change.

Yet this is the very challenge extended to every Christian. It is exactly what we have been called to do.

[ploomf]

I sincerely appreciate all of your thoughts from this post. I want to point out about this paragraph that there certainly are women in the feminist Mormon movement that do want the priesthood, and will stop at nothing short of having it. But I agree that it's probably not "most" of them.

Oh I agree there are definitely some that want the priesthood (I know and am related to some of them). I just doubt most of them do. I could be wrong, I am more often than not, but I suspect most of them would be happy with more visibility and if they felt like they could use their talents to benefit the whole church, not just the woman's only part of it.

[ploomf]

I think they are confused about what a good role model is. The world praises people who have power/money/intellectuals/popularity/successful careers/beauty..... God praises people who are meek/humble/kind/repentant/teachable/loving/submissive. I know many women in the church that I look up to because they are doing what God would have them do. These women give me strength and confidence, because they are living examples and living proof that our worth is not defined as the world would define it.

None of the women I listed that I looked up to had any sort of worldly money/power/popularity. They were all nuns in fact. Some of them were absolutely brilliant and all of them were strong and faithful women, but they used their talents to do great things for God, not for the world.

[MorningStar]

I feel like we do a lot of things for the whole church and not just for women. Women give talks, we teach seminary (to boys and girls), Gospel Doctrine (to men and women), we are missionaries, etc.

[Vort]

I feel like we do a lot of things for the whole church and not just for women. Women give talks, we teach seminary (to boys and girls), Gospel Doctrine (to men and women), we are missionaries, etc.

Primary teachers are primarily (heh, heh) women. The Primary presidency is always women. Primary is the single largest organization in most wards. The second-largest is usually Relief Society. The Relief Society president is often compared with the elders quorum president and high priest group leader, but the scope and depth of her calling are probably more comparable to the bishop than to the quorum/group leaders.

Those who claim women are powerless in the Church are blind, either through ignorance or through the haze of their own axe-grinding.

[Iggy]

<<snip>>--but the point is, in my opinion it is appropriate to approach our Leaders with our concerns, if we do it prayerfully and humbly.

Amen to that. I agree 100% with LiterateParakeet - and wish to add one other statement. Once that is done, I would then let it go and let Father, through His Priesthood here on earth, handle it.

[annewandering]

Yet this is the very challenge extended to every Christian. It is exactly what we have been called to do.

Ahhhh but to whom? Arent we asked to be submissive to God and God's will? How can that be interpreted as being submissive to policy that has not been thought out with regards to women? Policy is not necessarily good or God given and is sometimes based on wrong tradition.

Given that we are to be submissive to God not man how do we work to change things we feel are wrong? I would say lots of prayer and being willing to talk to the right people, not to tell them to change but to ask them to think about why it is iike it is now and to explain why you feel it is wrong.

Perhaps prayfully worded letters to the Gemeral Relief Society presidency asking that they bring it up in meetings with general authorities would make sense. That has to be part of their job, to make sure that women are given opportunities, same as men.

On the other hand, I bet the women would rather not give prayers. Or anything in that big an audience. Maybe that is why they never brought it up! :)

[Guest]

I can't help but feel like I'm listening to my kids fight. "He got more fries than me!"

Edited January 15, 2013 by Eowyn

[Anddenex]

How does an individual define what is God given and what is not?

What happens if a person decides a policy is not God given, but in reality it is, and then they begin to fight, or disturb their spirit, by "kicking against the pricks"? Would it be good that God's children find themselves happily fighting against Zion?

How do we make changes when the changes result from God to prophets, from prophets to members? We don't. We recognize the loving statement of our Lord, "Be still and know that I am God."

We allow those who have been given leadership, in God's kingdom, to progress us forward.

Seriously imagine, if every disgruntled member decided to write a letter to the First Presidency, the Apostles, the General Authorities etc... for some assumed injustice, or policy that wasn't correct in their minds. Do they really have this time to take away from their important callings to address every members plight, or what they think is wrong, when it may not even be wrong?

[annewandering]

How does an individual define what is God given and what is not?

What happens if a person decides a policy is not God given, but in reality it is, and then they begin to fight, or disturb their spirit, by "kicking against the pricks"? Would it be good that God's children find themselves happily fighting against Zion?

How do we make changes when the changes result from God to prophets, from prophets to members? We don't. We recognize the loving statement of our Lord, "Be still and know that I am God."

We allow those who have been given leadership, in God's kingdom, to progress us forward.

Seriously imagine, if every disgruntled member decided to write a letter to the First Presidency, the Apostles, the General Authorities etc... for some assumed injustice, or policy that wasn't correct in their minds. Do they really have this time to take away from their important callings to address every members plight, or what they think is wrong, when it may not even be wrong?

I do see your point but for things like giving prayers its kinda hard to see that as Doctrine. Our leaders are just people and not protected from not seeing traditional things as being a problem. In truth it isnt a problem by itself. Its is a way of thinking that would be good to consider its validity. To most men it probably would never be noticed. Our GA are men. So should we just let it go?

If we are equal in value in God's eyes then why would we want it to continue? So if we would llike to see change then what would be the way to seek it? Prayer and talking to people who are in a position to consider the problem seems like the proper way to me.

It might be easy for us to ignore but consider this. I have a friend on facebook. She thinks LDS women are discriminated against. Even knowing me. Now when I talk to her, politely, I tell her we are not. Then she brings this kind of thing up. So it is important to her and its not even doctrine. How can I defend it when there is no reason for it? Is it worth continuing when it stops people from listening to anything about the church? Sure I can say if you believed in the church you would understand but no. I dont understand continuing this sort of thing and I am not going to lie nor am I going to be critical of the church. I am left ignoring her concern and those that read our posts. Now I am willing to go to bat for not having gay marriages but why should I go to bat over women not praying in general conference? Let me add that if we are told its doctrine I will be right there defending it.

Edited January 15, 2013 by annewandering

[Finrock]

Good afternoon all. I hope everyone is doing well today! :)

I'd be in favor of only allowing the RS and YW general presidencies to speak in Conference, and relegating the baby-talking (you know it's true!) Primary presidency to offering prayers.

/ducks

It's the vocal intonation. I'm fine if I read them, but I cannot listen to them.

Oh man, I thought I was the only one who thought that way. We can run out together.

For the most part, I dislike the women speakers as they mostly sound like kindergarten teachers. I can't hold a room of grad students or a court room speaking that way and I don't expect women in leadership positions to speak that way, either. It just grates.

I don't really care if women pray in conference or not. I probably wont' be listening anyway as the tone of just about everyone at General Conference makes me check out (something about the teleprompter diction). I much prefer the transcripts to the actual speaking.

"I have thought, and still think, that our being edified does not so much depend upon the speaker as upon ourselves.

When we come together … , it becomes our privilege to receive instruction from those persons that address us, and if we do not, the fault, generally, is in ourselves.

I have noticed on the part of the people what I have attributed to weakness. They come together, some of them, more for the purpose of being pleased with the oratory of their speaker, for the purpose of admiring the style in which he may address them, or they come together more for the purpose of seeing the speaker or speculating in regard to his character … than for the purpose of receiving instructions that will do them good and build them up in righteousness. …

… If we do not exercise those faculties given us and get the Spirit of the Lord, but little information will be received from speakers, even though ideas may be communicated of great value and worth. Notwithstanding ideas may be communicated in a very broken style, if the people will exert themselves, … they will soon learn that they will never return from meeting without their minds being benefited by the speakers" (President Snow).

Regards,

Finrock

[annewandering]

Good afternoon all. I hope everyone is doing well today! :)

"I have thought, and still think, that our being edified does not so much depend upon the speaker as upon ourselves.

When we come together … , it becomes our privilege to receive instruction from those persons that address us, and if we do not, the fault, generally, is in ourselves.

I have noticed on the part of the people what I have attributed to weakness. They come together, some of them, more for the purpose of being pleased with the oratory of their speaker, for the purpose of admiring the style in which he may address them, or they come together more for the purpose of seeing the speaker or speculating in regard to his character … than for the purpose of receiving instructions that will do them good and build them up in righteousness. …

… If we do not exercise those faculties given us and get the Spirit of the Lord, but little information will be received from speakers, even though ideas may be communicated of great value and worth. Notwithstanding ideas may be communicated in a very broken style, if the people will exert themselves, … they will soon learn that they will never return from meeting without their minds being benefited by the speakers" (President Snow).

Regards,

Finrock

I seem to recall other prophets telling God they are not any good at speaking but God insisted anyway. Voice has little to do with message.

[dahlia]

Yet this is the very challenge extended to every Christian. It is exactly what we have been called to do.

Vort, I like you. I really do. I understand what you are saying about meekness and Christianity. But I also understand that meekness can get women abused and killed. It relegates minorities (color, gender identification, ethnic origin, etc.) to dependence upon other people to give them their rights, when they already have those rights as people and as citizens.

So how meek should I be? Does that extend to self protection? Am I not 'meek' if I decide to carry a weapon?

I enjoy debate and argumentation. None of this is personal toward anyone here.

[Anddenex]

I do see your point but for things like giving prayers its kinda hard to see that as Doctrine. Our leaders are just people and not protected from not seeing traditional things as being a problem. In truth it isnt a problem by itself. Its is a way of thinking that would be good to consider its validity. To most men it probably would never be noticed. Our GA are men. So should we just let it go?

If we are equal in value in God's eyes then why would we want it to continue? So if we would llike to see change then what would be the way to seek it? Prayer and talking to people who are in a position to consider the problem seems like the proper way to me.

It might be easy for us to ignore but consider this. I have a friend on facebook. She thinks LDS women are discriminated against. Even knowing me. Now when I talk to her, politely, I tell her we are not. Then she brings this kind of thing up. So it is important to her and its not even doctrine. How can I defend it when there is no reason for it? Is it worth continuing when it stops people from listening to anything about the church? Sure I can say if you believed in the church you would understand but no. I dont understand continuing this sort of thing and I am not going to lie nor am I going to be critical of the church. I am left ignoring her concern and those that read our posts. Now I am willing to go to bat for not having gay marriages but why should I go to bat over women not praying in general conference? Let me add that if we are told its doctrine I will be right there defending it.

I agree Annewandering, our leaders are men, imperfect men, who are doing their very best to serve God and to magnify their callings.

Prayer is a wonderful avenue to address our concerns, however when we pray I think these words regarding prayer should be at the forefront of our minds also:

Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. ( Bible Dictionary )

I don't, personally, believe writing letters to our Church leaders regarding something as simple as this is necessary. It assumes they haven't even thought about it. My guess, this has been discussed more than once, and I would assume they are basing their decision from a doctrinal stand point, and not just a policy. I think it is very interesting that prayers are only given by Seventies, why would the prayers only be offered by Seventies? If the subject was "men" alone, then Seventies wouldn't be the only people praying.

As pertaining to your friend, there is nothing a person can do to help. You can only do your best. I have found with these type of individuals, if it wasn't prayer, if it isn't jeans, then it will be something else.

:)

[Wingnut]

I don't, personally, believe writing letters to our Church leaders regarding something as simple as this is necessary. It assumes they haven't even thought about it. My guess, this has been discussed more than once, and I would assume they are basing their decision from a doctrinal stand point, and not just a policy. I think it is very interesting that prayers are only given by Seventies, why would the prayers only be offered by Seventies? If the subject was "men" alone, then Seventies wouldn't be the only people praying.

There was an area in my mission that had a really successful baptismal rate. As far back as anyone in the mission could remember, sisters hadn't served there. It was also a dangerous city. But my companion and our roommates decided one day that we wanted to serve there. It started out as a bi of a joke, but the more we thought about it, the more we really felt that we should serve there. For an entire transfer, we wrote about this city in our weekly letters to the mission president -- all four of us. We didn't expect much, but we "campaigned" anyway. Transfers came. I, one of my roommates, and another sister from a different area were transferred to that city! We were so happy. Later during that transfer, I asked my mission president in an interview if he had sent us there because we'd asked, or because we were supposed to be there. He answered that we were absolutely supposed to be there, but he wouldn't have thought about or considered it if we hadn't asked.

He then taught me a lesson that I don't think I'll ever forget. He taught me that not revelation just happens. Sometimes it does, but more often than not, revelation comes from the field. I've since seen that applied in many areas of my life -- family, church callings, etc.

I know the Brethren love the members of the Church -- all of them, including the sisters. And I know that they wish happiness for all of us. But I don't assume that they've already thought of everything we've thought of.

ETA: I served in that city for three months -- the absolute best of my entire mission. I worked harder there than I had up to that point (a year). I had my best companionship, and the most measurable success (in pure numbers). I also experienced a tremendous amount of personal growth. And by the time I was transferred, I was sad, but also satisfied.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Wingnut

[annewandering]

Only 70's give the prayers? Interesting.

My friend does listen. :) She has a big problem with women being demeaned and to be honest so do I. I grewup with it from my grandfather next door. I have six daughters. It is important to me.

Now if 70s are the only ones giving the prayers in Conference meetings there is a reason for that. Maybe along the same line as Sunday meetings tend to be more directed to missionary type discussions. See now that is what we need to know isnt it?

Edited January 15, 2013 by annewandering

[Wingnut]

My take on why it's only Seventies is because there's so darn many of them that it's just trying to give as many opportunities as possible. Why have an Apostle give a prayer when all the Apostles speak every Conference?

[annewandering]

My take on why it's only Seventies is because there's so darn many of them that it's just trying to give as many opportunities as possible. Why have an Apostle give a prayer when all the Apostles speak every Conference?

Maybe but 70's are responsible for missionary work last I heard. Of course seminary was so long ago!!

[Wingnut]

Maybe but 70's are responsible for missionary work last I heard. Of course seminary was so long ago!!

General Conference can be a missionary opportunity, but primarily it is a meeting of the saints, for the saints.