Let Women Pray in General Conference

[Anddenex]

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

The letter is to change the current proceeding of General Conference.

Wingnut, are you sure their is no doctrine behind why women don't pray at General Conference?

Are you positive it is just a tradition? Are there more important matters our Prophet should attend to?

[Wingnut]

The letter is to change the current proceeding of General Conference.

Yep, and that doesn't sound doctrinal to me.

Wingnut, are you sure their is no doctrine behind why women don't pray at General Conference?

Are you positive it is just a tradition?

I'm convinced that there is no foundation for it, other than tradition. The CHI specifically states "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings." (CHI 18.5)

I feel confident in saying that there's no doctrinal reason for it. I also don't believe there's a doctrinal reason for Conference at all -- it's a commandment, but not all commandments are doctrine.

Are there more important matters our Prophet should attend to?

Probably. But I see how this small thing could create a paradigm shift for generations to come. I don't think that's insignificant.

[Finrock]

Would you have said the same thing in 1977?

If I would have then it would have been pure wisdom uttered from the mouth of a babe.

I guess I don't understand the implications of your question. Why would the utterance of my words be affected by time?

Regards,

Finrock

[Vort]

I also don't believe there's a doctrinal reason for Conference at all -- it's a commandment, but not all commandments are doctrine.

I don't understand this comment. Can you explain?

[Wingnut]

If I would have then it would have been pure wisdom uttered from the mouth of a babe.

I guess I don't understand the implications of your question. Why would the utterance of my words be affected by time?

Regards,

Finrock

The priesthood ban was lifted in 1978. To those who sought change in existing policy, would you have said the same thing?

[Vort]

The priesthood ban was lifted in 1978. To those who sought change in existing policy, would you have said the same thing?

I most certainly would have. Such people deserved to be (and were) excommunicated when their actions constituted rebellion. They should have kept their big, fat, useless mouths shut until their betters received the needed revelations. I have no patience whatsoever for such ark-steadiers.

[Wingnut]

I don't understand this comment. Can you explain?

The word of wisdom is a perfect example. By itself, I don't believe it is doctrine. Rather, it is an application of the doctrine that our bodies are temples.

Attending church and holding General Conference similarly are applications of doctrine. We are to meet together as saints, partake of the sacrament, teach one another, have our hearts knit together, and fellowship one another. I believe those are closer to actual doctrine than is the commandment to attend church every week.

[Anddenex]

Yep, and that doesn't sound doctrinal to me.

I am lost at this point being made. What particularly doesn't sound doctrinal? The letter is seeking to change church proceedings horizontally instead of vertically.

Please expound, unless the answer is given in your response previously.

I'm convinced that there is no foundation for it, other than tradition. The CHI specifically states "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings." (CHI 18.5)

I think it important to point out that Chapter 18 in the Church Handbook emphasizes in the beginning of the section that the Church meetings are in reference to organizations at ward and stake levels.

Chapter 18 doesn't specify General Assemblies.

I feel confident in saying that there's no doctrinal reason for it. I also don't believe there's a doctrinal reason for Conference at all -- it's a commandment, but not all commandments are doctrine.

I would then say we part ways pertaining to this thought, but no surprises :)

General Assemblies have been apart of the gospel since Adam. Adam called all his sons and daughters before him and taught them.

King Benjamin called all his people to hear his words. These assemblies are applications of doctrine that the gospel of Jesus Christ offers.

Probably. But I see how this small thing could create a paradigm shift for generations to come. I don't think that's insignificant.

Yes, more people will bombard the prophet with insignificant changes that bear no weight on a person's salvation

[Anddenex]

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

Personal revelation!

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.

Let me first be very clear LP. I am in no way condemning your decision as a member in writing to the First Presidency.

I personally feel there is a huge difference between the two options. On one hand you have covenant members rallying the troops. Some of these members have already decided the "right thing" to do is for the Church to change policy - shaky ground. They have already made the "right decision" for the prophets. The axe is swinging against its master.

On the other hand, you have a sole member acting according to the spirit within them, without rallying troops, and sending the letter off.

These are two different attitudes.

[Finrock]

Hi! :)

The priesthood ban was lifted in 1978. To those who sought change in existing policy, would you have said the same thing?

OK, thanks. To answer your question; yes, I would have said the same thing.

Here is my statement again:

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.

What is implicit in my statement is the idea that the Church is the church of Jesus Christ. Meaning, it is literally Jesus' church. Jesus is the Master, we are not. Let the Master run His Church the way He sees fit and let us "lift where we stand" (Source).

Finally, let me offer this emotional appeal. Consider this oath and testimony made by President Monson:

"I pledge my life, my strength—all that I have to offer—in serving Him and in directing the affairs of His Church in accordance with His will and by His inspiration, and I do so in His holy name—even the Lord Jesus Christ—amen" (Source 2).

I believe President Monson and I will trust him. If there are real injustices in the Church, they will be made right in God's time and in God's way.

Regards,

Finrock

[Wingnut]

Hi! :)

OK, thanks. To answer your question; yes, I would have said the same thing.

Here is my statement again:

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.

What is implicit in my statement is the idea that the Church is the church of Jesus Christ. Meaning, it is literally Jesus' church. Jesus is the Master, we are not. Let the Master run His Church the way He sees fit and let us "lift where we stand" (Source).

Finally, let me offer this emotional appeal. Consider this oath and testimony made by President Monson:

"I pledge my life, my strength—all that I have to offer—in serving Him and in directing the affairs of His Church in accordance with His will and by His inspiration, and I do so in His holy name—even the Lord Jesus Christ—amen" (Source 2).

I believe President Monson and I will trust him. If there are real injustices in the Church, they will be made right in God's time and in God's way.

Regards,

Finrock

Thank you for expounding on your thoughts. I also trust President Monson. I don't necessarily think that that means that he understands the honest desires of so many members of the Church, though.

One more thing. I asked if you would have said the same thing in 1977. In clarifying, you left off addressing the first part of your comment, which was:

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.

Would you have said the same to those who sought change and equality for men of African descent before the Priesthood ban was lifted? Perhaps it's that I'm of a younger generation (born in 1980), but I really have a hard time seeing that as an unrighteous desire.

Thank you!

[Wingnut]

These assemblies are applications of doctrine that the gospel of Jesus Christ offers.

Agreed, but not the doctrine itself. I see differences between doctrine, practice/application, policy, and tradition. I understand weekly Church meetings and General Conference to be practice/application. I understand women not praying at Conference to be tradition.

[PaPa]

Now that the pants protest has passed, the latest Facebook thing going around is, "Let women pray in General Conference". Funny because I was talking to a friend and she and I never noticed that women don't pray during conference.

I've also heard that only men used to pray during sacrament meeting. Is that true? I'm curious about the reason for these things, but I know they don't ask just any guy to pray during General Conference.

I never noticed either...by all means women should be allowed to pray in GC.

[Wingnut]

I most certainly would have. Such people deserved to be (and were) excommunicated when their actions constituted rebellion. They should have kept their big, fat, useless mouths shut until their betters received the needed revelations. I have no patience whatsoever for such ark-steadiers.

Okay. So when Elder Hugh B. Brown openly opposed the priesthood ban in the 60's (maybe earlier?), should he have kept his big, fat, useless mouth shut, too?

Edited January 16, 2013 by Wingnut

[Finrock]

Good afternoon Wingnut. I hope you are well! :)

One more thing. I asked if you would have said the same thing in 1977. In clarifying, you left off addressing the first part of your comment, which was:

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.

Would you have said the same to those who sought change and equality for men of African descent before the Priesthood ban was lifted? Perhaps it's that I'm of a younger generation (born in 1980), but I really have a hard time seeing that as an unrighteous desire.

Thank you!

Well, I did address it. Yes, I would say the same thing because the same principle still applies. This is God's church. He has established the rules and the bounds. We have made covenants to live within those bounds. It is not our place to direct the affairs of the Church as a whole. If we ever feel the tendency or urge to start correcting, through acts of rebellion, those God has placed to correct us, then this ought to set off the alarm bells in our minds that perhaps it is our pride that needs to be corrected. I believe that in almost every case, when we are intellectually honest, we will find that it is our pride that needs to be corrected. But, even if we are right, we become wrong when we begin to rebel against the apostles and prophets.

Regards,

Finrock

[Wingnut]

If we ever feel the tendency or urge to start correcting,

But is this "correcting," or merely seeking change?

through acts of rebellion,

Is it rebellion? It's letter-writing.

Here's what I have a hard time with. Last month everyone was up in arms about women wearing pants to church. They said it was a protest, and that it had no place in church meetings. I understand that argument. It was suggested that conversations with church leaders, and letter-writing would be more appropriate. Conversations with church leaders, and letter-writing are now being attempted, and now that's being called rebellion as well.

Which is it?

[Vort]

Here's what I have a hard time with. Last month everyone was up in arms about women wearing pants to church. They said it was a protest, and that it had no place in church meetings. I understand that argument. It was suggested that conversations with church leaders, and letter-writing would be more appropriate. Conversations with church leaders, and letter-writing are now being attempted, and now that's being called rebellion as well.

Which is it?

For me, I think it's the calculating premeditation in the effort to try to garner popular support to cause change from the bottom up. It smacks of faithlessness and feels like the polar opposite of how things are to work. Such things seem to me exactly the wrong way to go about things.

You don't agitate for change in the Church. That's the world's way. It's telestial, and it's ugly. It is necessary in a telestial sphere; my political leaders are often clueless and sometimes liars, so such tactics are not only allowable but necessary in a democracy. But the Church is not a democracy.

[Vort]

Okay. So when Elder Hugh B. Brown openly opposed the priesthood ban in the 60's (maybe earlier?), should he have kept his big, fat, useless mouth shut, too?

I don't believe this ever happened, Wingnut. I suspect you are misremembering or misunderstanding something. Can you give a reference for this belief that Hugh B. Brown openly opposed the Priesthood ban?

[Finrock]

Last month everyone was up in arms about women wearing pants to church.

I wasn't. :)

They said it was a protest, and that it had no place in church meetings. I understand that argument. It was suggested that conversations with church leaders, and letter-writing would be more appropriate. Conversations with church leaders, and letter-writing are now being attempted, and now that's being called rebellion as well.

Which is it?

I don't know about all of this. I simply know that we ought not to correct Church leaders through acts of rebellion. We shouldn't be trying to affect change through means that directly contradict revealed truth. So, what constitutes acts of rebellion? It is impossible to list every act, but we can certainly be guided to know when we are in danger if we have an eye single to the glory of God. This is where our intellectual honesty comes in to play. Those who are rebelling, know they are. Those who are not, know they are not. No amount of sophistry will ultimately change what is actually the case in any given situation.

This is why I choose to err on the side of the Church, because there is safety there.

Regards,

Finrock

[Guest gopecon]

Writing a letter might be okay (depending on the spirit/tone of the letter), organizing a letter writing campaign crosses the line into rebellion. Sometimes when GA's visit stakes they have Q & A sessions. A respectfully presented question there might be an appropriate way to raise the issue.

[mtnbikemom]

I don't believe this ever happened, Wingnut. I suspect you are misremembering or misunderstanding something. Can you give a reference for this belief that Hugh B. Brown openly opposed the Priesthood ban?

In the 1963 General Conference, Hugh B. Brown stated: "it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship". He continued: "We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man."[73]

Right or wrong I know this quote is often referenced in regards to Brown asserting that the priesthood ban be overturned. I think Brown also suggested that revelation was not required to end the ban because revelation was not used to initially institute the practice. I will try to find that reference.

[Vort]

In the 1963 General Conference, Hugh B. Brown stated: "it is a moral evil for any person or group of persons to deny any human being the rights to gainful employment, to full educational opportunity, and to every privilege of citizenship". He continued: "We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man."[73]

Right or wrong I know this quote is often referenced in regards to Brown asserting that the priesthood ban be overturned.

It's pretty clear that any such assertion is wrong. The term "full civil equality" obviously does not apply to an ecclesiastical setting.

I think Brown also suggested that revelation was not required to end the ban because revelation was not used to initially institute the practice. I will try to find that reference.

This I could believe. But making such a pronouncement or stating such an opinion is a far cry from open opposition, which was the claim.

[mtnbikemom]

It's pretty clear that any such assertion is wrong. The term "full civil equality" obviously does not apply to an ecclesiastical setting.

This I could believe. But making such a pronouncement or stating such an opinion is a far cry from open opposition, which was the claim.

Thus the qualifier-"Right or wrong". No doubt I articulated that point in clumsy fashion.

[Vort]

Thus the qualifier-"Right or wrong". No doubt I articulated that point in clumsy fashion.

No, you stated it perfectly. I wasn't arguing with your wording, but with the claims of those who suggest Elder Brown's statement somehow constitutes a voicing of disagreement with the Priesthood ban.

[Guest gopecon]

To Vort's point, "full civil equality" could be used to say that he was also advocating for women in the priesthood, which I doubt. A modern example could be the new LDS/gay website. The church is advocating for loving treatment of gays - not the anti-family agenda that many in the gay rights movement support.