Let Women Pray in General Conference

[Anddenex]

Always? Emma had a complaint once, and a legitimate one. From her complaint came the Word of Wisdom. Yes it was a revelation to the prophet, but Joseph first asked because she came to him.

Always Wingnut. Always.

Emma was the wife of the prophet, who shared with her husband her thoughts. This would be similar to Sister Monson, within her stewardship as the prophets wife, sharing some of her thoughts.

However, the revelation will still be confirmed to the prophet from the Lord. Without the confirmation from the Lord to the prophet the change will not take place.

Within stewardships we have the right to act. We do not have any right to act outside of our stewardships without consequence.

Hugh B. Brown, was within his right of stewardship. Emma was within her right, the stewardship of wife to the prophet. Joseph Smith even counseled by the Lord to listen to his wife.

Was Emma the one to deliver the revelation to the body of the Church? No. It was shared with Joseph, Joseph received inspiration, after Joseph received inspiration the body of the Church was informed.

This is top down. Always will be. Especially when the Lord returns and reigns. It is a Kingdom.

[Backroads]

Always? Emma had a complaint once, and a legitimate one. From her complaint came the Word of Wisdom. Yes it was a revelation to the prophet, but Joseph first asked because she came to him.

Which is why I have no problem with approaching church leaders about things--I just think there are appropriate ways to do so.

There is something to be said for the squeaky wheel.

What I do not approve of is the attitude that I'm-right-church-leadership-is-wrong.

In many cases, yes, it can work to mention things and let them be put up for discussion and inspiration. But when we assume that BECAUSE we brought it up it WILL come to pass and we won't take no for an answer, that's when we are rebelling.

On a personal side note... I'm rather grateful for our somewhat non-democratic church way of handling issues. We have a Scout troop in our council that is constantly giving us headaches as they battle amongst themselves. This troop is sponsored by a Presbyterian church. I have a Presbyterian co-worker who gave us some insight into the fighting that happens: apparently Presbyterian churches are quite democratic when it comes to making decisions. A lot of "voting" takes place. I'm sure there are many perks to this and I'm sure there are many points that just aren't up for arguing. But the attitude of "let's vote on it" when voting just isn't right isn't the best attitude.

[Wingnut]

Always Wingnut. Always.

Emma was the wife of the prophet, who shared with her husband her thoughts. This would be similar to Sister Monson, within her stewardship as the prophets wife, sharing some of her thoughts.

However, the revelation will still be confirmed to the prophet from the Lord. Without the confirmation from the Lord to the prophet the change will not take place.

Within stewardships we have the right to act. We do not have any right to act outside of our stewardships without consequence.

Hugh B. Brown, was within his right of stewardship. Emma was within her right, the stewardship of wife to the prophet. Joseph Smith even counseled by the Lord to listen to his wife.

Was Emma the one to deliver the revelation to the body of the Church? No. It was shared with Joseph, Joseph received inspiration, after Joseph received inspiration the body of the Church was informed.

This is top down. Always will be. Especially when the Lord returns and reigns. It is a Kingdom.

I have a hard time with this because it sounds like you're saying that only wives of prophets are entitled to speak up with their concerns. Or at least, to have anything done about them.

[Vort]

This may be extremely judgmental in reference to the group at hand, but this group is largely responsible, if not completely responsible, for any apprehension I feel towards this campaign. This group has left a bad taste in my mouth.

I agree with you, both that this is an unfortunately reactionary way to think, and also that I would not want to be in any way associated with such people, even if their narrow (and trivial) cause happened to be just.

[Backroads]

I don't view the situation as "Emma was just lucky enough to be the prophet's wife". I think she was just in a situation convenient for being heard.

[Guest]

Emma didn't rally every woman willing to complain and have them passing notes to the Prophet or knocking down his door, either.

[Vort]

I have a hard time with this because it sounds like you're saying that only wives of prophets are entitled to speak up with their concerns. Or at least, to have anything done about them.

There is a world of difference between voicing one's concern to a leader and starting a grassroots movement for the purpose of changing existing Church practice.

[Backroads]

I think Emma had a concern and took it to the appropriate party. I assume this was done in humility and faith.

I truly believe that if one has a concern/question and is willing to express it in humility and faith, there is absolutely nothing wrong with going to the appropriate priesthood leader. And I'm sure there are many people who are approaching this campaign that way.

But something about this campaign itself is a little underhanded. It could just be my tainted perception of the group.

[Wingnut]

There is a world of difference between voicing one's concern to a leader and starting a grassroots movement for the purpose of changing existing Church practice.

I agree. Looking beyond the specific issue of women praying in GC, this is part of the problem (as seen by those who have complaints), though. So many women have talked to their local leaders about their concerns. They are either brushed aside or otherwise ignored in many cases. The problems persist and even escalate in many cases. Should they do nothing?

[Anddenex]

I admit I'm highly skeptical that you read the link I provided, but no matter. The church has often been influenced by culture and the erroneous opinions of its leaders over the years. That is a fact, and even a passing familiarity with church history proves it. The church may well do what God wants, but that doesn't mean that everything the church does was prescribed by God. Tradition, culture, and mistakes abound. I fear for the faith of people that have not learned this because it can be very traumatizing to have one's idealized view of the church shattered.

Be as skeptical as you would like, it still doesn't change the fact I read through it twice, and nothing you shared falsifies the statement.

I agree, the Church is definitely influenced by the upbringing of its members, especially the upbringing of those who have been sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Indeed, they are not perfect. I agree, I also fear for the faith of people who think the prophets are infallible. Joseph Smith proclaimed he was a man, with faults and weaknesses of his own.

The membership is a check on the leadership. Membership acceptance or non-acceptance of what the prophet says or asks is what ultimately has the final say -- and there has been plenty of non-acceptance over the years, no matter what anyone would have you believe. Adam-God and Blood Atonement are the easy examples to cherry pick, but they aren't the only ones. Membership initially rejected the Word of Wisdom as well and it wasn't really enforced until the 1920s or so -- and its current incarnation is almost completely unrelated to the word in the D&C. It's more about cultural boundary markers than anything else these days.

Membership is not a check on inspiration. The Lord is the check, and men must obey. If so, polygamy would have never been issued in the beginning of the Church. Despite members protest, when polygamy was no longer practiced, the nullifying doctrine didn't come from members, it was delivered by a prophet, who received revelation from the Lord, and then delivered. It mattered not how the members felt.

I don't believe these are good examples, however this is my personal opinion. It would be like saying tithing wasn't a commandment until President Snow.

Some teachings do not become doctrine, or commandment until the official statement by one of the prophets, accepted by the First Presidency, delivered and accepted by the apostles, and then it is delivered to the members.

Tithing isn't a commandment and doctrine because it was widely accepted. It is a commandment because it was given by the Lord through his prophet, and the Lord expected us to obey.

The church has even become cagey about things like calling the Proclamation on the Family a revelation -- they are very careful to make sure that it is never officially referred to as a revelation (Pres. Packer used the term a couple of years ago in conference and the printed version was careful to change "revelation" to "guide"). The new Gospel Principles book no longer calls the apostles and prophets "special witnesses of Christ," but "special witnesses of the name of Christ." You can drive a train through the difference that makes.

It appears you are splitting hairs, and dealing with subtle nuances rather than recognizing what is being said. Elder Holland on my mission felt the proclamation would be considered cannon one day. Time will tell. If the proclamation becomes cannon, it won't be because members made it possible because they liked it more than other statements given by prophets and apostles, it will be doctrine or cannon once a prophet, the first presidency, declares so.

[Backroads]

I agree. Looking beyond the specific issue of women praying in GC, this is part of the problem (as seen by those who have complaints), though. So many women have talked to their local leaders about their concerns. They are either brushed aside or otherwise ignored in many cases. The problems persist and even escalate in many cases. Should they do nothing?

I believe this is a legitimate question. Tossing aside cases of women who simply didn't like what would be a reasonable answer, an avoidance of the topic or a made-up-cuz-I'm-too-busy-to-find-out answer are not the best examples of good church leadership. (Would better training be a solution?)

Though with the case in point of prayers at General Conference, I believe top church leadership IS the place to go to.

[Guest]

Yes, they should do nothing. Sometimes the answers are "no" or "not right now". They've done what they could by going to the leadership. At that point the ball is in their court, as well as the responsibility of acting, or not, on the request. It's inappropriate to continue to badger leadership when the answer is no, and worse still to start a movement to get one's way. God will work in His time and His order. We're told not to counsel Him.

[Vort]

I agree. Looking beyond the specific issue of women praying in GC, this is part of the problem (as seen by those who have complaints), though. So many women have talked to their local leaders about their concerns. They are either brushed aside or otherwise ignored in many cases. The problems persist and even escalate in many cases. Should they do nothing?

You know, this is a good question, and one I'm probably not qualified to answer. I don't know what the appropriate thing to do is. But I am very sure that the appropriate thing to do is not to organize a widespread letter-writing campaign with the intent to change Church policy.

This is not just women. We are all in the same boat. It's a boat you climb aboard when you are baptized. The idea is that you accept the captain's leadership, trusting that he is guided by the Great Captain, and don't seek to organize little mutinies to get things more to your liking.

For what it's worth, I have never prayed in General Conference. Not once. And I'm pretty sure I will never be asked to do so, either.

[SteveReynolds]

For anyone who doesn't believe the Hugh B. Brown story, it is widely known. It's even in his personal memoirs which you can buy on Amazon. Just to summarize, here is a quote from the afterword (by his grandson):

Theologically, Grandfather had tried for years to effect a change in the Mormon policy that denied the priesthood to blacks. As he explained in his memoirs, he never believed this policy had the slightest doctrinal justification, and he succeeded in initiating a number of administrative changes to mitigate the effects of this ban. He changed the way racial heritage was determined, which smoothed the way to priesthood ordination for thousands of people in nations such as Brazil.

He had many well-documented disagreements about this with senior church leaders, including Harold B. Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith.

[Anddenex]

I have a hard time with this because it sounds like you're saying that only wives of prophets are entitled to speak up with their concerns. Or at least, to have anything done about them.

No, I am saying we speak up with within our stewardships, and allow others the decency and right to their stewardships.

[Backroads]

For what it's worth, I have never prayed in General Conference. Not once. And I'm pretty sure I will never be asked to do so, either.

I had another thought in regards to GC prayers that I couldn't find the right opportunity to say until now.

Even if Elder Vort was called upon to say the prayer in GC, I wouldn't be impressed (other than "Vort! I saw you on the telly!"). Because I have realized I kind of view the prayer (besides the wonderful thing prayer is and how especially wonderful a church-wide prayer is) as "hey, lucky you, you get to participate in conference. By saying the opening/closing prayer, of all things!"

[Guest]

And we can appeal to Heavenly Father as often as we wish over things that are troubling us. Maybe He will change things, maybe He will change us. . either way, He is the one to go to. After that I think the best way is to humbly go to whomever has stewardship over the issue, make our hearts known, and leave the rest to them (still praying, if we need to).

[SteveReynolds]

Despite members protest, when polygamy was no longer practiced, the nullifying doctrine didn't come from members, it was delivered by a prophet, who received revelation from the Lord, and then delivered. It mattered not how the members felt.

On the contrary, polygamy was practiced for YEARS after the manifesto -- plural marriages continued to be solemnized by apostles for quite some time -- and it took a second manifest and a lot of effort to stamp it out. The church had a long tradition of hiding and minimizing the practice on the record and most members simply took the manifesto as another in a long line of attempts to appease the government. Much of the obedience rhetoric we face today is due to efforts to finally end polygamy. Also, the manifesto is a declaration. It's categorization as a "revelation" has grown over the years.

I'm not sure why you don't accept my other examples -- Adam-God was part of the temple ceremony, even. How is that not an attempt to force something from the top-down? There are all kinds of commandments and prophetic counsel that we simply ignore today because it suits us. Let's not even get into things like J.S.'s descriptions of the men who live on the moon and dress like quakers, because those aren't commandments, but the phenomenon is the same. We ignore those aspects of the historical record because we don't like or believe them, so we reject them. Yet many things that were said in identical circumstances we revere as revelation. The only distinction between them is that we accept some and not others.

[Suzie]

"It is a revealed truth that women should not be allowed to pray in General Conference"

Regards,

Finrock

I just edited the post because I didn't read it properly. I'm quite confused about the entire post though. Do you mind to expand?

[Vort]

For anyone who doesn't believe the Hugh B. Brown story, it is widely known. It's even in his personal memoirs which you can buy on Amazon. Just to summarize, here is a quote from the afterword (by his grandson):

He had many well-documented disagreements about this with senior church leaders, including Harold B. Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith.

No one here has indicated disbelief that Hugh B. Brown didn't like the Priesthood ban. That is your own false inference (or else a strawman).

Disagreement is not open opposition. What I have been saying, and others seem to agree, is that Hugh B. Brown never "openly opposed" the doctrine. If you have some historically believable evidence or Hugh B. Brown organizing letter-writing campaigns or sit-ins, or openly preaching defiance of the Priesthood ban, or some other action that would reasonably qualify as open opposition, please produce it. Otherwise, I (we) will continue to disbelieve the assertion that Hugh B. Brown was openly opposed to the doctrine.

[SteveReynolds]

It appears you are splitting hairs, and dealing with subtle nuances rather than recognizing what is being said. Elder Holland on my mission felt the proclamation would be considered cannon one day.

No, it appears you are failing to understand the importance of the nuance. Members often assume that the prophets and apostles speak face-to-face with Christ. However, the admission that apostles are witnesses to the "name" of Christ only is significant because it acknowledges that none of them have seen him for at least a hundred years or more. Many of them are on record as saying so explicitly (not avoiding the question with the "some things are too sacred..." deflection) and even prophetic testimonies from various prophets over the last century amount to nothing more than a story of struggling and praying for years before coming to the realization that they "already knew."

Also, regarding the Proclamation, if it were a revelation, they would have said so to begin with. It could have been canonized immediately. However, even as it gains traction among the membership, leadership is still uncomfortable calling it that because they know it was a document revised over and over with the participation of legal counsel, etc. "Proclamation" is the appropriate word.

[Vort]

However, the admission that apostles are witnesses to the "name" of Christ only is significant because it acknowledges that none of them have seen him for at least a hundred years or more. Many of them are on record as saying so explicitly

This is breathtakingly false. I am stunned that such an obviously false assertion would be uttered by someone who calls himself LDS.

Please provide evidence that "none of [the apostles] have seen [Jesus Christ] for at least a hundred years or more" and that "many of them are on record as saying so explicitly."

[SteveReynolds]

What I have been saying, and others seem to agree, is that Hugh B. Brown never "openly opposed" the doctrine. If you have some historically believable evidence or Hugh B. Brown organizing letter-writing campaigns or sit-ins, or openly preaching defiance of the Priesthood ban, or some other action that would reasonably qualify as open opposition, please produce it.

This is merely semantics. "Openly oppose" does not exclusively mean the methods you mention. Besides, who was he going to write a letter to, himself? He did everything in his power to get the rest of the quorum to change the policy and was on the record as not believing it was doctrinal in public. What more do you want? You just don't want to believe it's true, so I guess no one is going to convince you.

[Vort]

This is merely semantics. "Openly oppose" does not exclusively mean the methods you mention. Besides, who was he going to write a letter to, himself? He did everything in his power to get the rest of the quorum to change the policy and was on the record as not believing it was doctrinal in public. What more do you want? You just don't want to believe it's true, so I guess no one is going to convince you.

I want evidence of open opposition. Saying he didn't like it is not open opposition.

[SteveReynolds]

This is breathtakingly false. I am stunned that such an obviously false assertion would be uttered by someone who calls himself LDS.

Please provide evidence that "none of [the apostles] have seen [Jesus Christ] for at least a hundred years or more" and that "many of them are on record as saying so explicitly."

I cannot prove a negative, but I promise you that you cannot prove otherwise. There is simply no record of it anywhere. Impressions in the mind or hearing the voice of the spirit do not count. Even things we categorize as "great revelations," such as the ending of the priesthood ban, are not associated with any actual visions of Christ. I'm not making this up. (Though I freely admit that "a hundred years" is just a round number because I am terrible with dates. Give or take a decade.) Now could there be one errant account here or there that I was not aware of? Sure, it's possible. I'm open to being wrong. But even one or two such accounts really doesn't change big picture.

Also, you are not the judge of my testimony. To my knowledge, I have made no false statement. That I can still call myself a believing member is my business and a question of faith, and has nothing to do with my meeting your standards of what a member must believe.