Let Women Pray in General Conference

[Wingnut]

We shouldn't be trying to affect change through means that directly contradict revealed truth.

Where is it a revealed truth that women should not be allowed to pray in General Conference?

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?

McKay was blindsided by his second counselor, Hugh B. Brown, who went public in his attempt to reverse the ban on priesthood ordination. Wallace Turner published an interview with Brown in the New York Times on June 7.

<snip>

The top leadership of the Mormon church is seriously considering the abandoment of its historic policy of discrimination against Negroes....One of the highest officers of the church said today that the possibility of removing this religious disability against Negroes had been under serious consideration. "We are in the midst of a survey looking toward the possibility of admitting Negroes," said Hugh B. Brown..."

Source: David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, by Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright, pp 87-888

In the same book, pages 98-101, you can also read about how Elder managed to get a successful vote on reversal of the ban, in 1969. Elder Lee was out of town at the time, and managed to undo that action when he returned.

I was also going to cite the quote above, which Elder Brown gave in Conference in 1963.

[Wingnut]

We shouldn't be trying to affect change through means that directly contradict revealed truth.

Where is it a revealed truth that women should not be allowed to pray in General Conference?

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?

McKay was blindsided by his second counselor, Hugh B. Brown, who went public in his attempt to reverse the ban on priesthood ordination. Wallace Turner published an interview with Brown in the New York Times on June 7.

<snip>

The top leadership of the Mormon church is seriously considering the abandonment of its historic policy of discrimination against Negroes....One of the highest officers of the church said today that the possibility of removing this religious disability against Negroes had been under serious consideration. "We are in the midst of a survey looking toward the possibility of admitting Negroes," said Hugh B. Brown..."

Source: David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, by Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright, pp 87-888

I was also going to cite the quote above, which Elder Brown gave in Conference in 1963.

In 1969 Hugh B. Brown actively lobbied to allow blacks to receive the priesthood. This was supported by a majority of the apostles. They formed a “special committee was to report on the Negro situation”. The change was approved while Harold B. Lee was absent. Upon his return he rejected the decision and persuaded the quorum to rescind the vote. The reaffirmation of the restriction was a collaborative effort of Neal A. Maxwell, Gordon B. Hinkley and G. Homer Durham.

Source: Michael D. Quinn Mormon Hierarchy Extensions of Power p. 14

[Finrock]

Where is it a revealed truth that women should not be allowed to pray in General Conference?

"We shouldn't be trying to affect change through means that directly contradict revealed truth" ≠ "It is a revealed truth that women should not be allowed to pray in General Conference"

Regards,

Finrock

[Bini]

What?

Wow.

That is all.

[Anddenex]

I think it important to note who Hugh B. Brown was. He was a member of the First Presidency who shared rights with the Prophet of the Church to discuss changes in church practice.

Hugh B. Brown wasn't a lay member of the Church who began writing, rallying troops, of other lay members to change the practice of the Church.

Hugh B. Brown's desire was fully in line with his office and calling.

Hugh B. Brown would be similar to a counselor in a stake presidency speaking with the stake president and high council man to make changes in the stake.

As members of the church we must remember our positions and our lines of authority, and what those lines are. In other words, we must pay special attention to our stewardships, and not cross the bounds of entering into another persons steward.

[MarginOfError]

"We shouldn't be trying to affect change through means that directly contradict revealed truth" ≠ "It is a revealed truth that women should not be allowed to pray in General Conference"

Regards,

Finrock

I'm confused. Are you claiming that writing letters and petitions to the General Authorities is a means that contradicts revealed truth?

[MarginOfError]

I think it important to note who Hugh B. Brown was. He was a member of the First Presidency who shared rights with the Prophet of the Church to discuss changes in church practice.

Hugh B. Brown wasn't a lay member of the Church who began writing, rallying troops, of other lay members to change the practice of the Church.

Hugh B. Brown's desire was fully in line with his office and calling.

Hugh B. Brown would be similar to a counselor in a stake presidency speaking with the stake president and high council man to make changes in the stake.

As members of the church we must remember our positions and our lines of authority, and what those lines are. In other words, we must pay special attention to our stewardships, and not cross the bounds of entering into another persons steward.

So you think that Brown's feelings on the matter magically appeared when he was an Apostle?

That's kind of like claiming that Elder Benson's opinions on communism developed after his call into the Apostleship.

[MarginOfError]

I think it would also be interesting to note that President McKay's opinions on the priesthood ban evolved from believing it was doctrinal to believing it wasn't. In large part because of the conversations he had with people who weren't in the general leadership of the Church. I highly recommend reading the biography of David O. McKay. It's truly fascinating.

[Anddenex]

I think it would also be interesting to note that President McKay's opinions on the priesthood ban evolved from believing it was doctrinal to believing it wasn't. In large part because of the conversations he had with people who weren't in the general leadership of the Church. I highly recommend reading the biography of David O. McKay. It's truly fascinating.

I have read David O McKay's biography, and don't remember reading anything of this nature within it. I openly admit I may not have thoroughly read this part.

Citation please.

[Anddenex]

So you think that Brown's feelings on the matter magically appeared when he was an Apostle?

That's kind of like claiming that Elder Benson's opinions on communism developed after his call into the Apostleship.

Where in my words did I say that they magically appeared to him as an Apostle? FACEPALM.

Let me be a little more elementary for you MoE. He was a member of the First Presidency during his presentations.

As a member, this allowed him authorization within his steward to act and to openly seek to change policies.

This doesn't allow me to make those changes.

[MarginOfError]

I have read David O McKay's biography, and don't remember reading anything of this nature within it. I openly admit I may not have thoroughly read this part.

Citation please.

Honestly, I'd just give chapter 4 ("Blacks, Civil Rights, and the Priesthood") a read.

[Anddenex]

Honestly, I'd just give chapter 4 ("Blacks, Civil Rights, and the Priesthood") a read.

Anything more specific than a whole chapter. I mean, an actual statement where President McKay says he didn't believe it was doctrinal.

Not your interpretation of the statement.

[Guest]

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.

THIS. Yes. Amen.

[MarginOfError]

Where in my words did I say that they magically appeared to him as an Apostle? FACEPALM.

Let me be a little more elementary for you MoE. He was a member of the First Presidency during his presentations.

As a member, this allowed him authorization within his steward to act and to openly seek to change policies.

This doesn't allow me to make those changes.

Does that also preclude you from being allowed to voice your opinion that policies that are in place shouldn't be in place?

The issue with the recommendation you have given (go to your bishop) is that bishops, stake presidents, and other church leaders are very often called because they don't disagree with the policies of the church (hence earning them the recognition of 'good members.' see also 'group think'). So a single voice of dissent in a ward speaks to the bishop and because he doesn't share the same sentiment, it never gets passed up. If you have one single voice of dissent in every ward in the US, you have a very large minority contingent that is being under-represented to the upper levels of church leadership.

Letter writing campaigns and petitions are very efficient vehicles for bringing to light an under represented minority view. It calls attention to an issue that isn't being adequately addressed or represented by local leadership.

Designing a system where changes only come from the top without input from the bottom is positively Dilbertarian.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon MarginOfError! I hope you are having a good day. :)

I'm confused. Are you claiming that writing letters and petitions to the General Authorities is a means that contradicts revealed truth?

No. I am claiming that using petitions, protests, and other such worldly tactics to try and change God's Church, contradicts revealed truth.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited January 16, 2013 by Finrock
Spelling

[MarginOfError]

Anything more specific than a whole chapter. I mean, an actual statement where President McKay says he didn't believe it was doctrinal.

Not your interpretation of the statement.

McKay said, "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse...We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed. And that's all there is to it.

pp 79 - 80.

[Anddenex]

McKay said, "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse...We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the Negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed. And that's all there is to it.

pp 79 - 80.

Thank you.

[Anddenex]

Does that also preclude you from being allowed to voice your opinion that policies that are in place shouldn't be in place?

The moral agency our Lord has given us allows us to choose whatever method we decide to voice our opinions.

The method we choose doesn't negate us from the consequences of our decisions. I should honor my stewardship, and allow others to honor theirs.

I should not think myself more wise than those the Lord has called as prophets, seers, and revelators.

Is it the right of ward members to constantly badger the bishops and stake presidents of things they don't like? No. They have openly sustained these leaders and our Lord expects us to honor those we sustain.

Wards which constantly have members trying to change policies their bishops establish often are filled with less spirit, than those words who have individuals who sustain, but may not agree.

The issue with the recommendation you have given (go to your bishop) is that bishops, stake presidents, and other church leaders are very often called because they don't disagree with the policies of the church (hence earning them the recognition of 'good members.' see also 'group think'). So a single voice of dissent in a ward speaks to the bishop and because he doesn't share the same sentiment, it never gets passed up. If you have one single voice of dissent in every ward in the US, you have a very large minority contingent that is being under-represented to the upper levels of church leadership.

Agreed, but this is the way it is and this is the bounds of stewardships. If another brother looked at your family and wrote a letter to you deciding you weren't an adequate parent, although in his right, or her right, is this correct?

The bound is our stewardship. We should be concerned with our stewardships and allow others to magnify theirs without being bombarded by letters.

Letter writing campaigns and petitions are very efficient vehicles for bringing to light an under represented minority view. It calls attention to an issue that isn't being adequately addressed or represented by local leadership.

Designing a system where changes only come from the top without input from the bottom is positively Dilbertarian.

I agree letter campaigns are an excellent vehicle for democracies. This is the Lord's Kingdom, and top down has always been the method within the Lords Kingdom.

It will be the method when the Lord returns.

[SteveReynolds]

This is the Lord's Kingdom, and top down has always been the method within the Lords Kingdom.

This is simply not true and is easily falsifiable. Sometimes that is the Lord's method. Other times it isn't. See here for example.

[Anddenex]

This is simply not true and is easily falsifiable. Sometimes that is the Lord's method. Other times it isn't. See here for example.

Nothing you provided falsifies the statement. It is the Lord's method. He reveals his secrets unto his servants the prophets.

It is top down, from the Lord to his prophets.

[Wingnut]

This is the Lord's Kingdom, and top down has always been the method within the Lords Kingdom.

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.

[Vort]

McKay was blindsided by his second counselor, Hugh B. Brown, who went public in his attempt to reverse the ban on priesthood ordination. Wallace Turner published an interview with Brown in the New York Times on June 7.

<snip>

The top leadership of the Mormon church is seriously considering the abandonment of its historic policy of discrimination against Negroes....One of the highest officers of the church said today that the possibility of removing this religious disability against Negroes had been under serious consideration. "We are in the midst of a survey looking toward the possibility of admitting Negroes," said Hugh B. Brown..."

Source: David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism, by Gregory A. Prince, William Robert Wright, pp 87-888

A few points:

• Did you read the NYT article you pointed to? It is so riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods that it cannot possibly be relied upon as a credible source. (I assume you don't need me to point out the faults of the article, but if you do, let me know and I will.)
• Asking Greg Prince his critique of the LDS Church is like asking a murderer his critique of his victim. Greg Prince has much less than zero credibility in my eyes. I give him less credibility even than someone like D. Michael Quinn. For example, what evidence (beyond his bare words) does he provide for his analysis that President McKay was "blindsided"? I suggest you listen to or read Nibley's brilliant "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book".
• Even if the highly questionable quote you provide above is perfectly accurate, this is nothing even remotely approaching your assertion of "open opposition".

In 1969 Hugh B. Brown actively lobbied to allow blacks to receive the priesthood. This was supported by a majority of the apostles. They formed a “special committee was to report on the Negro situation”. The change was approved while Harold B. Lee was absent. Upon his return he rejected the decision and persuaded the quorum to rescind the vote. The reaffirmation of the restriction was a collaborative effort of Neal A. Maxwell, Gordon B. Hinkley and G. Homer Durham.

Source: Michael D. Quinn Mormon Hierarchy Extensions of Power p. 14

Huh. Speak of the devil. (Though it's "D. Michael Quinn", not "Michael D. Quinn".) Again, even supposing this were 100% true (which it well may have been), how is this any support of your assertion that Hugh B. Brown came out in "open opposition" to the Priesthood ban? That he "actively lobbied" within the leadership to overturn it is hardly "open opposition", not in any meaningful sense. Did he go about preaching to the Church membership that the ban ought to be done away? Did he organize letter-writing campaigns to the First Presidency to get them to change their opinions? Did he go to the media and tell them that the time had come to change this thing, rather than merely mention that it was under review and consideration?

You haven't yet shown what you claimed: That Hugh B. Brown came out in open opposition to the Priesthood ban. I am not much concerned with internal politics at the highest levels of the Church. They can do things as they see fit, whether by the Spirit or otherwise. That's not my calling, and I happily leave it to them. Rather, I want to see substantiation for your extraordinary claim about Elder Brown.

[Backroads]

I have officially caught up on reading all 15 pages (didn't realize it was 15 pages and was too interested in the subject by the time I realized the thread was going on towards infinity to stop.)

Thoughts:

• I don't recall giving much thought to who was saying the prayers in Conference. Maybe that's a bad thing, but that's that.

• I have no problem with women giving the prayer.

• I assume the reason for such an imbalanced proportion is something akin to a great number of men than women or a simple "didn't think about it before", though I wouldn't balk if it turned out to be something more serious than those.

• I have no problem with the basic of theory of writing letters. I believe that basic theory is as fine a vehicle for change as anything else. I qualify this with situations and attitudes that may or may not be appropriate. To everything there is a season (and a way, and an attitude, and an approach...)

• 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.

• Therefore, while I have no problem with the basic idea of writing letters asking about the lack of female GC prayers and even requesting they be given more opportunities (as long as this is done in a respectful fashion that asks the question/makes the request with humility and realization in the end it's up to Church leadership), I'm a little unwilling to be associated with this particular group.

• And, last but not least, I would be a little bugged to learn undue conference-prep attention was given to (and I hope this comes out correctly) something as trivial as who is saying the prayers*.

(*I realize this is a bigger deal for many than it is for me and I respect that, but I'm just throwing out my opinion here.)

[SteveReynolds]

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.

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.

The temple ceremony has changed A LOT over the years, all in response to how the membership feels about certain elements. In the 90s they even did a survey to make those decisions.

The church's stance on the bedroom activities between married couples, homosexuality, birth control, and evolution have all changed with the times. But you won't find a revelation anywhere dictating the changes, because there wasn't one. It's just the trickle-up effect of our cultural evolution.

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.

I could go on, but I know everyone's going to jump on my case and ask for proof of every one of these, which I'm not going to provide. It's all easily accesible information and not hard to find.

[Vort]

bishops, stake presidents, and other church leaders are very often called because they don't disagree with the policies of the church (hence earning them the recognition of 'good members.' see also 'group think').

My impression is that this quote from MarginOfError perfectly encapsulates his view of Church leadership.