Let Women Pray in General Conference

[annewandering]

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

I am not sure that is exactly correct. The gospel is directed to everyone. On Sundays the talks tend to be more of a basic nature when non LDS would be more likely to be watching religious programming. The prophet is the president of the church true but he is the prophet for the world. How does the world hear if he only directs his talks to us?

It stands to reason the prayers are also for/from all.

[Finrock]

It seems that a sentiment being expressed here is that meekness and humility are weaknesses. This sentiment is false. Further, the idea that we ought to employ wordly tactics to fix some perceived injustice within the Church is wrongheaded, arrogant, and presumptuous. So, I also wanted to expound a bit more on the following thought from President Snow:

"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" (Emphasis added).

I believe the emphasized portion of the quote above is a key idea to how we handle these perceived or real injustices. We exercise those faculties given us and we get the Spirit of the Lord. We get the Spirit of the Lord by following God's commandments. When we have the Spirit then any exercise of our faculties will be enhanced and our activities will be for our good and the good of others (1 Nephi 1:1–3; Exodus 31:3–5).

God says that we can know the influence of the Spirit because the Spirit..."gives feelings of love, joy, peace, patience, meekness, gentleness, faith, and hope" (D&C 6:23; 11:12–14; Romans 15:13; Galatians 5:22–23).

Further, President Hinckley taught, after reading from Moroni 7:13, 16–17:

“That’s the test, when all is said and done. Does it persuade one to do good, to rise, to stand tall, to do the right thing, to be kind, to be generous? Then it is of the Spirit of God. …

“If it invites to do good, it is of God. If it inviteth to do evil, it is of the devil. … And if you are doing the right thing and if you are living the right way, you will know in your heart what the Spirit is saying to you.

“You recognize the promptings of the Spirit by the fruits of the Spirit—that which enlighteneth, that which buildeth up, that which is positive and affirmative and uplifting and leads us to better thoughts and better words and better deeds is of the Spirit of God”

When we have the Spirit of the Lord, we will be led to use our faculties to do good. We will do things that build up, that enlighten, that uplift, that edify, that are possitive and affirmative. Our actions will be ones that ultimately lead people to Jesus Christ and to doing and being better people. In my experience, the Lord's way of handling difficult situations, once I discover it, is very different from how I would have handled it.

Our challenge as disciples of Jesus Christ is to fight the urge to do things the natural way or the world's way. Our challenge is to do things God's way and God's ways very often defies conventional wisdom.

Regards,

Finrock

[Anddenex]

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.

This is a great example of the mission Wingnut, which is perfectly within guidelines. In our mission, our mission president had us write a letter to him every week. This was part of his duty.

I personally don't think it is necessary to bother our First Presidency with a letter discussing something as simple as prayer. They have greater concerns on their plates, and people for some reason want to bother them with this simple request, that bears no effect on the eternal salvation of any woman or any man.

Now, if there are matters of eternal significance, bearing weight on the salvation of men and women, then I can see the need to write a letter.

[annewandering]

This is a great example of the mission Wingnut, which is perfectly within guidelines. In our mission, our mission president had us write a letter to him every week. This was part of his duty.

I personally don't think it is necessary to bother our First Presidency with a letter discussing something as simple as prayer. They have greater concerns on their plates, and people for some reason want to bother them with this simple request, that bears no effect on the eternal salvation of any woman or any man.

Now, if there are matters of eternal significance, bearing weight on the salvation of men and women, then I can see the need to write a letter.

Stumbling blocks are related to salvation. Who prays is not going to affect my personal salvation but it might have a bearing on others. There are obvious ways around the stumbling blocks, prayer etc, but why leave them standing IF there is no reason behind them? If there is reason then its a whole nother situation.

[Anddenex]

Also, I am not sure if this is counsel only given to our Stake, or if this is general counsel which has been given to the whole body of the Church.

I am in understanding, however, that this is counsel to the Church.

We have been counseled not to write letters to the First Presidency, and our leaders have counseled us to direct our concerns and questions to our local leaders.

I remember I had a question one time, and I wanted to send a letter to our Area Authority. The very next Sunday the Bishop read an announcement from the First Presidency encouraging members to address their concerns and questions to their local leaders.

Thus, I never wrote the letter to the Area Authority.

[annewandering]

Also, I am not sure if this is counsel only given to our Stake, or if this is general counsel which has been given to the whole body of the Church.

I am in understanding, however, that this is counsel to the Church.

We have been counseled not to write letters to the First Presidency, and our leaders have counseled us to direct our concerns and questions to our local leaders.

I remember I had a question one time, and I wanted to send a letter to our Area Authority. The very next Sunday the Bishop read an announcement from the First Presidency encouraging members to address their concerns and questions to their local leaders.

Thus, I never wrote the letter to the Area Authority.

ok. :)

[MarginOfError]

Also, I am not sure if this is counsel only given to our Stake, or if this is general counsel which has been given to the whole body of the Church.

I am in understanding, however, that this is counsel to the Church.

We have been counseled not to write letters to the First Presidency, and our leaders have counseled us to direct our concerns and questions to our local leaders.

I remember I had a question one time, and I wanted to send a letter to our Area Authority. The very next Sunday the Bishop read an announcement from the First Presidency encouraging members to address their concerns and questions to their local leaders.

Thus, I never wrote the letter to the Area Authority.

Which is an interesting bit of counsel, given the fondness with which General Authorities speak of the letters they receive from members.

[Anddenex]

Which is an interesting bit of counsel, given the fondness with which General Authorities speak of the letters they receive from members.

Indeed, and I don't believe the letters which they receive in fondness are in the same tone as the letters being presented by this group of members.

I am sure they love the letter from a child, as with President Monson, about how a child was obedient and served his/her fellowmen.

I am sure they love and are fond of letters which emphasize a doctrine learned, and example of forgiveness, or some other letter expressing the honest efforts of the members.

I believe it is these types of letters, this group is advocating, that they would that they direct toward their local leaders.

[Vort]

I once wrote to President Hinckley. In reviewing my genealogy, I discovered that he was a distant (fifth or sixth) cousin to my grandfather. Thought he would like to know he was related to such fine people. I also included his (and my) relationship to several other well-known Church leaders and other notable Americans. His secretary responded with a brief but polite letter thanking me for the chart I sent.

I also discovered that I am likely an eighth cousin, once removed, to President Obama. Told my family about that. Surprisingly, the responses weren't very positive. I wonder why?

[Finrock]

Good evening dahlia. I hope you have been well and happy!:-)

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.

The comparisons you are using to make your point are extreme and they are a distraction. We aren't speaking about abuse or death.

But, even if the injustice in question was a question of abuse, the one who is meek and humble is the one who has won the conflict, regardless of what happens to their body.

Regards

Finrock

[Finrock]

I served my mission in Finland. While there I focused much of my efforts trying to build up the Stake Missionary program as then instituted by the Church. I did this because I hated tracting...mostly...but I also had a firm belief in the superiority of member missionary work over any other means of finding and teaching people the gospel. In my studies I came across an article by President Benson on member missionary work but in it, President Benson gives a definition of humility that helped me to know what God means when he says, "be thou humble" (D&C 112:10). He writes:

"[H]umility does not mean weakness. It does not mean timidity; it does not mean fear. A man can be humble and fearless. A man can be humble and courageous. Humility is the recognition of our dependence upon a higher power, a constant need for the Lord’s support in His work. Read King Benjamin’s counsel on humility in Mosiah 4:11."

Look, we have before us the scriptures and they teach us how we should live our lives. But, even more the scriptures teach us about Jesus Christ. The life of Jesus Christ settles the question as to whether being meek and humble is a strength.

Regards,

Finrock

[Suzie]

Interesting replies. I started a thread about it two years ago:

http://www.lds.net/forums/lds-gospel-discussion/38420-sisters-praying-conference.html

In my opinion, it's just part of "Church culture"(just like women wearing dresses/skirts to Church). The issue doesn't bother me, it makes me curious though as to the "why" also curious at the attempted "spiritualization" of "tradition".

[Wingnut]

Also, I am not sure if this is counsel only given to our Stake, or if this is general counsel which has been given to the whole body of the Church.

I am in understanding, however, that this is counsel to the Church.

We have been counseled not to write letters to the First Presidency, and our leaders have counseled us to direct our concerns and questions to our local leaders.

I remember I had a question one time, and I wanted to send a letter to our Area Authority. The very next Sunday the Bishop read an announcement from the First Presidency encouraging members to address their concerns and questions to their local leaders.

Thus, I never wrote the letter to the Area Authority.

It's not just a local policy. It can be found in CHI 21.1.24

Consider, though, that this specific issue isn't a local one. It's not something that bishops or stake presidents can actually do anything about. It's General Conference -- that's about as non-local as it gets.

Indeed, and I don't believe the letters which they receive in fondness are in the same tone as the letters being presented by this group of members.

I am sure they love the letter from a child, as with President Monson, about how a child was obedient and served his/her fellowmen.

I am sure they love and are fond of letters which emphasize a doctrine learned, and example of forgiveness, or some other letter expressing the honest efforts of the members.

I believe it is these types of letters, this group is advocating, that they would that they direct toward their local leaders.

Did you click on the link in this post?

The form letter that is part of that petition doesn't have an air of arrogance or contention to me. (Remember, I've said multiple times in this thread that I don't care if women pray in Conference or not.) It sounds to me more like a plea.

[Anddenex]

It's not just a local policy. It can be found in CHI 21.1.24

Consider, though, that this specific issue isn't a local one. It's not something that bishops or stake presidents can actually do anything about. It's General Conference -- that's about as non-local as it gets.

I realize the idea isn't local, but the need to send a letter to the First Presidency is unecessary. At the local level, bishops speak with stake presidents, who in turn speak with Area Authorities, who in turn speak with Seventies, who in turn speak with Apostles and Prophets.

This is the standard line of authority members should follow, otherwise the First Presidency would be bombarded with letters from groups who want to change something, or want something to be changed so they feel better.

Did you click on the link in this post?

The form letter that is part of that petition doesn't have an air of arrogance or contention to me. (Remember, I've said multiple times in this thread that I don't care if women pray in Conference or not.) It sounds to me more like a plea.

I went to the facebook link and read a bunch of quotes by members who are advocating this. One was very disturbing, and it appeared that this type of mentality was in common of those advocating the letter.

This was a brother who said something to this nature, don't remember exact quote, "We know the First Presidency will do the right thing in letting woman pray in General Conference, becaus they believe in equality."

The right thing is whatever they decide. If women pray, wonderful, if woman continue to not pray in General Conference then that is the way it is. It is concerning when a covenanted member seeks to determine for the Presidency what is right and what is wrong.

Note, Wingnut, I am not judging your position in the least. I also wouldn't be bothered by women praying in conference, but I will never write or be apart of a position that esteems the prophet as doing something wrong, or even make a statement that specifies to them, they will do the right thing by letting women pray. They will do the right thing whether women pray in conference, or if things continue as they are now.

[Suzie]

The LDS Church responded Monday evening that the conference lineup was already set, but didn’t say whether women would be praying.

"Decisions on speakers and prayers at General Conference were made several weeks ago and assignments were given to the men and women involved last week," church spokesman Scott Trotter wrote in an email. "Customarily, details of the conference programs are not announced until General Conference."

‘Wear Pants’ group to LDS leaders: Let women pray at conference | Following Faith | The Salt Lake Tribune

Well, let's see what happens next October then or next April.

[Wingnut]

I realize the idea isn't local, but the need to send a letter to the First Presidency is unecessary. At the local level, bishops speak with stake presidents, who in turn speak with Area Authorities, who in turn speak with Seventies, who in turn speak with Apostles and Prophets.

Set aside that the petition letters aren't being sent to the First Presidency. What if I talk to my bishop about my concern that there aren't any women giving prayers at General Conference, and he passes it on to my stake president. My stake president, however, doesn't think it's actually important, so he never shares the information any higher than that. How is change on a general level to be effected if information on how things affect everyday lives isn't received by the people who have the power to make the changes?

I went to the facebook link and read a bunch of quotes by members who are advocating this. One was very disturbing, and it appeared that this type of mentality was in common of those advocating the letter.

This was a brother who said something to this nature, don't remember exact quote, "We know the First Presidency will do the right thing in letting woman pray in General Conference, becaus they believe in equality."

The right thing is whatever they decide. If women pray, wonderful, if woman continue to not pray in General Conference then that is the way it is. It is concerning when a covenanted member seeks to determine for the Presidency what is right and what is wrong.

My link should have gone to a petition on change.org, not to a Facebook page. I know there are people who support this movement who are contentious. I'm referring specifically, though, to the petition (and letter contained therein) that is the official communication from All Enlisted.

[Vort]

The mere fact that there are people agitating for such a change seems reason enough not to make it.

[Guest]

I do not support any and all activities of All Enlisted even if they seem harmless.

If the Westboro Baptist Church would start a petition asking for support for abused women, I wouldn't sign it either. Just for the plain fact that I refuse to be involved in anything Westboro Baptist Church starts.

You will not find my name associated with anything All Enlisted does.

[Finrock]

Good evening Wingnut. I'm happy to be having a discussion with you! :)

How is change on a general level to be effected if information on how things affect everyday lives isn't received by the people who have the power to make the changes?

If you think change is needed in how the church functions on a general level, then you can almost always conclude that the actual change needed is within yourself. If there is an actual need for change in the general church policy, then you can be sure that God will reveal his will to his servants, the prophets, who will then declare and begin to implement the change.

Regards,

Finrock

[MarginOfError]

Indeed, and I don't believe the letters which they receive in fondness are in the same tone as the letters being presented by this group of members.

I am sure they love the letter from a child, as with President Monson, about how a child was obedient and served his/her fellowmen.

I am sure they love and are fond of letters which emphasize a doctrine learned, and example of forgiveness, or some other letter expressing the honest efforts of the members.

I believe it is these types of letters, this group is advocating, that they would that they direct toward their local leaders.

Institutionalized information bias. Even better.

Good evening Wingnut. I'm happy to be having a discussion with you! :)

If you think change is needed in how the church functions on a general level, then you can almost always conclude that the actual change needed is within yourself. If there is an actual need for change in the general church policy, then you can be sure that God will reveal his will to his servants, the prophets, who will then declare and begin to implement the change.

Regards,

Finrock

Behold, the fruits of institutionalized information bias.

[annewandering]

If all ideas for change comes only from the top then how do we learn to rule ourselves? I do not believe that general authorities are only interested in their own ideas. I remember a time when Elder Haight asked my niece who had just come home from a mission in Denmark, if she had any ideas on how to improve the mission work there. He was in charge of it but he wanted input, even from a young recently returned missionary.

The thing is how to approach giving ideas. Do we do it by petitions or letters or only through prayer? We are not a popular vote church. Still we believe in knowledge and learning to lead ourselves dont we? There is an answer there and its not just assuming that it will just occur to someone in authority. Recently I read of a general authority who said that they do consider ideas that are given to them. Dont remember who said it or exactly what was said or the context.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

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.

I love this! Thank you. It illustrates well the point I was trying to make.

I don't, personally, believe writing letters to our Church leaders regarding something as simple as this is necessary.

Just to clarify...in case it is needed, perhaps it isn't?...When I mentioned writing a letter I was responding to Dahlia's question (possibly it was rhetorical) about how do we affect change. I was NOT suggesting that people should write to Salt Lake regarding women praying in General Conference.

How do you know when you should write to Salt Lake (or do something else that could be considered an exception)???

Personal revelation!

I'm sure if Nephi's Sunday School teacher had come along as he was killing Laban, the Sunday School teacher would feel the need to rebuke Nephi. And the Sunday School teacher would have been wrong.

In my situation, I know I made the right choice, precisely because I was directed by the Spirit to do it, and because I received a postive response to my letter. Clearly, our leaders did not think I was inappropriate.

I am not suggesting everyone write to Salt Lake for any trivial thing. I am saying....if you are prayerful and humble and the Spirit guides you to do it, or if you ask and are told YES, then it is something we can do. Our leaders are there for us...being leaders makes them servants.

[Finrock]

Good evening MarginOfError. I hope you have been doing well! :)

Behold, the fruits of institutionalized information bias.

You're right, MarginOfError, I do have biases, but I have those biases by conscious choice. I love everything about the Church. I err on the side of the Church and I don't apologize for that. But, you are unjust in assuming that I do not recognize or understand other points-of-view.

Regards,

Finrock

[Anddenex]

Set aside that the petition letters aren't being sent to the First Presidency. What if I talk to my bishop about my concern that there aren't any women giving prayers at General Conference, and he passes it on to my stake president. My stake president, however, doesn't think it's actually important, so he never shares the information any higher than that. How is change on a general level to be effected if information on how things affect everyday lives isn't received by the people who have the power to make the changes?

That is the purpose of line of authority. Are there more pressing matters by which our leaders should attend to? Yes.

It isn't our responsibility to affect changes at the highest level in the Church. This is why we have General Authorities who handle the affairs of the Church collectively. We share at the level we associate with, and then progress forward in our daily effort to build the kingdom.

My link should have gone to a petition on change.org, not to a Facebook page. I know there are people who support this movement who are contentious. I'm referring specifically, though, to the petition (and letter contained therein) that is the official communication from All Enlisted.

I personally feel the letter is still covenant members who are trying to change the Church horizontally, verses vertically. My personal opinion.

[Wingnut]

If you think change is needed in how the church functions on a general level, then you can almost always conclude that the actual change needed is within yourself. If there is an actual need for change in the general church policy, then you can be sure that God will reveal his will to his servants, the prophets, who will then declare and begin to implement the change.

Would you have said the same thing in 1977?

I personally feel the letter is still covenant members who are trying to change the Church horizontally, verses vertically. My personal opinion.

It's not a change to the Church, merely a plea to reconsider tradition that has no doctrinal -- or even policy-based -- foundation.