Let Women Pray in General Conference

[SteveReynolds]

evidence of open opposition

He opposed it, and was open about it. That's the reality. You want evidence of your personal definition of "open opposition" (letter writing and the like) because you know that didn't happen. If the difference in semantics makes you feel like you've proven a point, more power to you.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

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.

I just wanted to know when the Adam God Theory was in the temple ceremony, how was it explained in the ceremony, and what part of the ceremony was it given?

Also about the differing parts of history. For me, just because I don't give it my attention that much, doesn't mean I've rejected it. I just haven't had the time to move from what I am currently studying. I accept the ones that I have taken time to study and pondered how they fit into the understanding that I already have. Sometimes though I need more information and more study before I figure that out. Such as comments by Brigham Young about the creation, I have only studied briefly about it, but I believe what was taught ties in somehow someway, and if I understand it good, if not then I need a higher understanding through more study and effort, which may come in this life or the next. Nothing to do with whether i like or dislike something. The reality is that stuff is on the fringe of the framework. The message of the Gospel baptism repentance faith and so on, that stuff is the bulk of the framework so why not focus on that. That is all I need to get through this life.

just my thoughts, and I would really like my three questions answered it is quite interesting.

[Suzie]

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.

Also the quote from President Kimball (then an Apostle) stating the "possible error which brought about the deprivation".

[SteveReynolds]

Here, I'll throw you a bone, from the FAIR people:

Today is the first day of our stake conference. I am the executive secretary of our stake. Elder James E. Faust is here to replace our stake presidency. I was sitting in the priesthood leadership session, and Elder Faust was bearing his testimony. It is, without a doubt, the strongest testimony I have ever heard. He said (paraphrasing) ‘I have always believed in the Church; I come from good blood. But through thousands of spiritual experiences, so many now that I have at least one a day–we had one earlier today (referring to meeting with the new stake presidency)–I have gained a testimony to the point I can say, as did the brother of Jared, “I saw the finger of the Lord and the veil could not withhold Him from me, therefore I no longer believed, for I had knowledge.” As the brother of Jared stated, so say I–I know that Jesus is the Christ.’

The problem is that it is vague enough to be take either way. You could probably dig up a handful of comparable statements if you tried. Now, I can understand the wisdom of not shouting it from the rooftops in this day and age. But these carefully worded statements are all pretty contemporary. As I said, before them, there has been nothing conclusive or official for at least a hundred years (give or take a decade).

[Vort]

I cannot prove a negative, but I promise you that you cannot prove otherwise.

I cannot even prove that God exists. But then, I'm not the one making sweeping statements.

Also, you are not the judge of my testimony.

No, I'm the judge of your words. You made a statement far beyond any possibility of knowledge. You stated a negative as fact, and now you admit it's utterly unprovable. Your "opinion" about what Church leaders may or may not have experienced based on what they HAVEN'T said is not merely irrelevant, it's laughable.

[Vort]

I just wanted to know when the Adam God Theory was in the temple ceremony, how was it explained in the ceremony, and what part of the ceremony was it given?

Based solely on what SteveReynolds has posted to this point, it's evident he's not a trustworthy source and cannot (or will not) distinguish between verifiable fact and his own inferences. I would advise you not to worry about anything SteveReynolds says.

[SteveReynolds]

I'll grant you this: I cannot prove that none of them have seen him in all that time. Fine. But it should be far easier to prove that someone did at some point. And the fact remains that there is no evidence of that. To the contrary, even President Hinckley admitted explicitly that he had not seen Christ. Many others have documented their personal struggle with gaining a testimony. This is fact. The Gospel Principles change is perfectly in line with the historical record. They're just trying to temper our expectations.

[beefche]

Moderator warning:

Do not post or link to anything regarding the details of the temple, whether past or present.

[SteveReynolds]

You don't have to believe what I say, Vort, but it doesn't make it true or false. Anyone can look these things up and find out for themselves.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Moderator warning:

Do not post or link to anything regarding the details of the temple, whether past or present.

Sorry, I was curious to know those things from steve because I had not heard this before. In fact my understanding of the adam god theory is that Brigham Youngs words have been taken out of context and manipulated by apostates and other people who fight against God. I've read the text, which is where this theory comes from, a long time ago myself and saw for myself that his words did not mean what people claimed it meant.

So in my mind if I could get evidence from him, then it shows that there is a place at the least to look it up for myself.

[Vort]

He opposed it, and was open about it. That's the reality. You want evidence of your personal definition of "open opposition" (letter writing and the like) because you know that didn't happen. If the difference in semantics makes you feel like you've proven a point, more power to you.

All right, SteveReynolds. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this one time and assume that you have not done due diligence in reading this thread. Please witness the genesis of this conversation -- because, as I am sure you know, context is everything. This particular side discussion began with a statement from Finrock:

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.

Note that Finrock said that for general Church policy changes, God reveals his will to his servants, the prophets, of whom Hugh B. Brown was one.

Wingnut then responded:

Would you have said the same thing in 1977?

Note the context, SteveReynolds. Wingnut is not speaking of "the prophets" such as Hugh B. Brown. She is speaking of people like Finrock, the "rank and file" of the Church, not the top leaders. Finrock then responds, noting his own juvenile age at the time and asking for clarification:

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?

Wingnut then renews her question -- again, in context, explicitly about those who are not top Church leaders:

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

Here, "those" clearly refers not to General Authorities -- "the prophets" -- but to everyday Saints. At this point, I offered my opinion:

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.

Again, keep context in mind. I am not talking about apostles discussing Church policy, those who are authorized to steady the ark. Rather, I am talking about regular old Saints like you and like me whining and moaning about a doctrine or policy they don't like.

Wingnut then appears to lose track of this nuance of the conversation (my inference -- I am not sure what happens with her) and brings up Hugh B. Brown:

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?

She could not have been talking about mere disagreement, because we had already established, AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE SUBTOPIC, that we were explicitly not talking about "the prophets" -- because they would be the ones to be told by God of what was to be done. Rather, we were talking about everyone else.

Thus, I concluded that Wingnut's citing of a General Authority -- a member of the First Presidency, no less -- was not a mere doctrinal or policy disagreement, something we had already implicitly allowed was the venue of the prophets. Rather, there must have been something far more substantial here. Elder Brown must have actually come out in open opposition to and defiance of the Priesthood ban.

This I flatly disbelieved, and asked for evidence. The only credible evidence Wingnut provided was that Elder Brown didn't like the Priesthood ban -- something not in dispute. Since Elder Brown was one of the "prophets" mentioned at the beginning of the subtopic who would be authorized to receive revelation of God's will about the matter, he was not among those covered in Finrock's statement.

What do you suppose it would mean to hear that, in 1970, a stake president or a bishop or a regular member "openly opposed" the Priesthood ban? Do you suppose that would simply have meant that, in private conversation, this leader or member voiced the view that the ban was non-doctrinal? Or do you suppose it would mean much more, that the person actively campaigned to establish his view as correct and the Church's stated policy as wrong?

Hugh B. Brown did no such thing. He offered his private views in appropriate private settings. He worked within the parameters of his calling to establish the practice of the Church as he believed God wanted it. This is nothing at all like "openly opposing" Church policy. To suggest that it is so is less than honest.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Vort
Typos

[Anddenex]

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.

Your admission is as Vort said, blatantly false. I will always remember the words of Elder Scott from my mission when he declared, "I know Jesus is the Christ. I don't speak by faith...I know."

If a person doesn't speak by faith, then what was he speaking by? If not by faith, then he must be speaking by knowledge. The question, how did he arrive to a perfect knowledge regarding Jesus being the Christ, that he no longer speaks by faith regarding the Lord?

I am trying to figure out why you are seeking to discount a prophets testimony and minimizing their witness by suggesting that struggling to discover their testimony somehow nullifies their witness.

I could be understanding your words, and I hope so.

[Vort]

You don't have to believe what I say, Vort, but it doesn't make it true or false. Anyone can look these things up and find out for themselves.

Really? Anyone can look up and find out for themselves whether Jesus Christ has physically appeared to his apostles in the last 100 years?

Tell me more.

[Suzie]

The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that

there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament

meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to offer

prayers in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings, Sunday School

meetings, and stake conferences. Relief Society visiting teachers may offer

prayers in homes that they enter in fulfilling visiting teaching assignments.”

(Marvin K. Gardner, “News of the Church,” Ensign, Nov. 1978, 100)

Just because women don't pray in General Conference doesn't mean there is any "revealed truth" that prohibits the practice and I think there were several quotes provided that totally discards such a theory. Let's also remember that for some time (and still happens in some wards unfortunately), women were not allowed to offer the opening prayer in sacrament meeting and the reason wasn't doctrinal but purely a misinterpretation by a few of President Benson's words and even though there was an official retraction, the comments spread so quickly that became a "false policy".

Is there scriptural support that prohibits women from praying? No. Is there an official statement done by the Church stating that women cannot pray in General Conference because...? No. Is there an official statement that clearly states that women can pray in ALL Church meetings? Yes.

Then, if it is not doctrinal but merely another Church tradition I do not see the problem in a letter-writing petition.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

im just curious, why does it have to be a petition? Why not a simple letter?

Petition is designed to force change. A letter would plant in the mind, then the Apostles can be inspired to make a change because they feel the suggestion is the will of the Lord.

right?

this would fit with someone who mentioned earlier that only until they suggested to their mission president the idea of opening an area, did the mission president feel inspired to do so.

[Suzie]

im just curious, why does it have to be a petition? Why not a simple letter?

It IS a simple letter.

Petition is designed to force change.

Petition is designed to seek change.

[Wingnut]

im just curious, why does it have to be a petition? Why not a simple letter?

Petition is designed to force change. A letter would plant in the mind, then the Apostles can be inspired to make a change because they feel the suggestion is the will of the Lord.

right?

this would fit with someone who mentioned earlier that only until they suggested to their mission president the idea of opening an area, did the mission president feel inspired to do so.

That was my personal story. It was a series of letters over the length of an entire transfer (six weeks), from myself, my companion, and the two other sisters that lived with us. That's 24 letters.

[Wingnut]

Vort, to be clear regarding your context sequence, my inquiry referring to 1977, referred more specifically to telling people that the problems they saw were their own, and they needed to change. It was more along the lines of "was it inappropriate in 1977 to seek change toward equality for black men, and if not, then what is different about seeking change toward equality for women in 2013?"

That was my intent when I posed the question, not to derail the entire thread. Though I'm impressed that with as much disagreement as there has been, that 20 pages in, the conversation has been relatively civil this whole time. :)

[THIRDpersonviewer]

It IS a simple letter.

Petition is designed to seek change.

I understand that a petition is a simple letter in form. A petition though adds a backing of many many people.

Why need so many people? It only takes one mention of something to plant the idea and recieve inspiration.

A simple letter meaning one person writes and the idea gets across and then the inspiration comes.

So that was what I was asking. Why have so many people back the letter/petition, when you can just have one person write it and send it?

[THIRDpersonviewer]

That was my personal story. It was a series of letters over the length of an entire transfer (six weeks), from myself, my companion, and the two other sisters that lived with us. That's 24 letters.

Ah yes, I did enjoy reading your story by the way!

So even though you all wrote a letter every week, is it possible that he read the first letter and then he felt the inspiration right there? Meaning that even though you wrote many times, that all those times weren't necessary?

[bytor2112]

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

Speaking of ducking...I am all for no women speakers or anyone that is not a General Authority.

[Just_A_Guy]

It IS a simple letter.

Petition is designed to seek change.

I'm not sure that's a complete answer. It is a simple letter with multiple signatures, made public. The only reasons I can conceive for doing it that way are 1) to erode the moral authority of the status quo by suggesting that it does not have popular support, 2) to publicly shame the leadership for not yielding to the desires of the self-proclaimed grass-roots, and 3) to suggest that the will of a large portion of the church membership - even, perhaps, a majority - should carry more weight than anything the Lord may have directly revealed on the matter. I am, to put it mildly, very dubious of such reasons.

Look at those who left because they didn't think the Church should gather, didn't think the Church should manage economic affairs, didn't think the Church should routinely get involved in politics, or didn't think the Church should practice polygamy. The Godbeites' initial position, by modern standards, was pretty innocuous; but their antics got them summarily drummed out of the Church. Yet Orson Pratt - who famously clashed with Brigham Young over a variety of theological issues, but never cast any doubt as to Young's calling, inspiration, and prerogatives - stayed in.

For all our talk of "orthodoxy", what gets dissenters into trouble with the Church isn't what they say, but how they say it.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

Why have so many people back the letter/petition, when you can just have one person write it and send it?

Because they are seeking change and since it's not doctrinal or a policy, I really don't see the problem with the number of letters they wish to send.

[Wingnut]

Ah yes, I did enjoy reading your story by the way!

So even though you all wrote a letter every week, is it possible that he read the first letter and then he felt the inspiration right there? Meaning that even though you wrote many times, that all those times weren't necessary?

It's possible, I suppose.

At one point, the APs visited our area, and joked about it with us. They help with transfers, so the mission president had told them about our requests. He, apparently, was getting a kick out of it. On that note, we made a "campaign poster" to send back with them. The following week we re-wrote all the words to "I Will Survive," and recorded a tape for our mission president to listen to. The chorus was changed to "We will baptize." It was more than a simple plea. It was rather an aggressive approach, but I don't think any of us expected the result that happened. We were shocked, but so happy, when it did. We only did the non-letter things once we learned that our mission president "got it."

[Suzie]

I'm not sure that's a complete answer. It is a simple letter with multiple signatures, made public. The only reasons I can conceive for doing it that way are 1) to erode the moral authority of the status quo by suggesting that it does not have popular support, 2) to publicly shame the leadership for not yielding to the desires of the self-proclaimed grass-roots, and 3) to suggest that the will of a large portion of the church membership - even, perhaps, a majority - should carry more weight than anything the Lord may have directly revealed on the matter. I am, to put it mildly, very dubious of such reasons.

I understand your concerns. Having said that, I cannot stop emphasizing the fact that there is nothing scriptural that prohibits sisters from praying in General Conference and we do have an statement where it states that they can do so in "all" Church meetings then why are we talking about the Lord and what may have directly revealed on the matter?

For all our talk of "orthodoxy", what gets dissenters into trouble with the Church isn't what they say, but how they say it.

The cover letter for this petition is well done, there is nothing in the letter that hints a threat or disrespect but merely, a petition. A respectful one.