Let Women Pray in General Conference

[Backroads]

Actually I think the voice of common consent is the Lord's preferred model. Read about how decisions were made in Joseph's day. Fascinating stuff.

I'm sure we're all familiar with sustaining votes and whatnot. I personally do not care how decisions were made back in the day other than out of interest in church history. Calling for common consent on something is different than people getting together to work for a change. Not saying the latter is necessarily bad or never works, just saying that is not how 100% of decisions are made these days.

[Wingnut]

The primary difference is that withholding the Priesthood and temple covenants from black people delayed their reception of a great many important blessings, while withholding women from offering invocations and benedictions at General Conference denies or delays no one from any blessings.

This is a fair point.

Honestly, I can't believe this has gone on for 22 pages.

Me neither, though I've certainly pushed it that way. I'm just impressed with the level of civility (I think) we've managed to maintain. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

Actually I think the voice of common consent is the Lord's preferred model. Read about how decisions were made in Joseph's day. Fascinating stuff.

I have. It wasn't the flawless democracy it's been made out to be. To quote myself from a previous post to another thread, in which I asserted that Common Consent as prescribed continues to function in the modern LDS Church:

What about the Joseph Smith who set up a Quorum of the Twelve and "rolled off" the keys to them - but didn't publicly announce it? What about the Council of Fifty, whose activities we don't fully understand even today? What about secret endowment ceremonies? What about polygamy? What about the decision to shutter the Kirtland Safety Society? Smith's decision to leave Kirtland for Missouri, or to cross the Mississippi River into Iowa at the end of his life? How about when Joseph filed for bankruptcy even though his financial affairs were integrally wrapped up with those of the Church--did that ever make it to a vote? . . . .

. . . let's get our history straight. Yes, there was a "more democratic spirit" in the application of Common Consent; but it was not some democratic Utopia. Smith did not like to be gainsaid and frequently confronted (and even threatened) people who contradicted him publicly. Again - read Bushman's biography of him. The democratic application of common consent was a rough-and-tumble that frequently resulted in politicking (including public shaming on Smith's part, and secret alliances with the Church's avowed enemies on the part of his adversaries), fistfights, lawsuits, armed confrontations, and death threats.

The doctrinal developments and organizational features that make the Utah LDS Church what it is and uniquely distinguishable among restorationist as well as Christian sects, are not by products of the common-consent-as-democracy model. Restorationist churches that insisted on that model drifted into apostasy - every single one of them.

Edited January 17, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[missionary0204]

‘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.

I am afraid that if a woman does not pray during general conference, then many of our brothers and sisters will miss out on spiritual growth due to resentment or whatever technical term is correct. This type of desire/will can do more damage than good.

[john doe]

I'm not going to go back and read 230 posts mainly because it's not a topic that particularly interests me, but I wasn't aware that there was a prohibition on women praying in Conference. If someone would be so kind as to provide a link to where that prohibition is stated in official church statements, I would appreciate it.

[pam]

I am afraid that if a woman does not pray during general conference, then many of our brothers and sisters will miss out on spiritual growth due to resentment or whatever technical term is correct. This type of desire/will can do more damage than good.

Unfortunately if someone would leave the church or lose their testimony because women aren't asked to pray in general conference there is more going on than just that.

Have people perfected themselves so much in the basic principles of the gospel that they now feel inclined to worry about women praying? I have noticed just in the last year more and more worried about things that have absolutely nothing to do with their salvation and more and more against the policies of the church. I truly feel we are seeing a separation of the wheat and tares that has been prophecied to occur in the last days.

[Vort]

I think we should all wear pants to Church in protest. I know I'm going to.

[pam]

I think we should all wear pants to Church in protest. I know I'm going to.

Thank goodness. I'd hate to think of the alternative.

[Maureen]

I think we should all wear pants to Church in protest. I know I'm going to.

Vort, I thought you were against protesting in church. Why not just wear your pants to keep your legs warm.

M.

[MorningStar]

It does seem there is a neverending list of complaints about policies the church should change. It's getting old. Heavenly Father is offering us the blessings of exaltation for all of eternity and we're going to whine about who gets to say the opening prayer at conference?

I've had friends say that maybe women should get to hold their babies when they are blessed so they can feel a part of it. Why? Because me and my uterus haven't monopolized the baby enough already? I get to hold the baby all day long, every day, and every night. Everyone in the chapel is quite aware by then that I gave birth and that it was awesome. Let my husband have his special moment!

[Backroads]

Unfortunately if someone would leave the church or lose their testimony because women aren't asked to pray in general conference there is more going on than just that.

Have people perfected themselves so much in the basic principles of the gospel that they now feel inclined to worry about women praying? I have noticed just in the last year more and more worried about things that have absolutely nothing to do with their salvation and more and more against the policies of the church. I truly feel we are seeing a separation of the wheat and tares that has been prophecied to occur in the last days.

I know one can make the argument that we need to be caring, kind, and respectful to those who are struggling with even what-we-might-consider-trivial issues.

And yet... it's hard to maintain one-sided assistance. If they aren't willing to work on their devotion to the gospel, how much point is there in bending over backwards?

[pam]

I know one can make the argument that we need to be caring, kind, and respectful to those who are struggling with even what-we-might-consider-trivial issues.

And yet... it's hard to maintain one-sided assistance. If they aren't willing to work on their devotion to the gospel, how much point is there in bending over backwards?

I realize we should be more caring, however, it gets increasingly more difficult as time goes on because there just appears to be more and more of it. I have noticed a trend just on this site in the last year.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

And yet... it's hard to maintain one-sided assistance. If they aren't willing to work on their devotion to the gospel,

How do you know they aren't? I am not trying to be argumentative. I just think it is a highly individual thing. I suspect that people involved in this sort of thing have many different motivations. I have read a few blogs of Mormon Feminists, just trying to figure out what they were about (I do not think of myself as a Mormon Feminist). A couple I have read seemed a little more rebellious than anything, others seem to be deeply concerned and hurt and trying to find their place in the church.

I do have one friend that I would guess is a Mormon Feminist. We have lost touch, except for Facebook, but in her case I would say her concerns are genuine, but misguided. I don't make that claim about everyone though. As I said it is highly individual.

[Backroads]

How do you know they aren't? I am not trying to be argumentative. I just think it is a highly individual thing. I suspect that people involved in this sort of thing have many different motivations. I have read a few blogs of Mormon Feminists, just trying to figure out what they were about (I do not think of myself as a Mormon Feminist). A couple I have read seemed a little more rebellious than anything, others seem to be deeply concerned and hurt and trying to find their place in the church.

I do have one friend that I would guess is a Mormon Feminist. We have lost touch, except for Facebook, but in her case I would say her concerns are genuine, but misguided. I don't make that claim about everyone though. As I said it is highly individual.

It's true, I don't know they aren't trying. But it still seems to me that we could do better things to fellowship them and build their faith than give into all sorts of requests.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

It's true, I don't know they aren't trying. But it still seems to me that we could do better things to fellowship them and build their faith than give into all sorts of requests.

I didn't say anything about giving into requests. I am really thinking more about one on one, people that we know in real life...listening and caring about their concerns. Listening doesn't mean you have to agree, or give in.

ETA: in case it wasn't clear...I agree with you.

Edited January 18, 2013 by LiterateParakeet

[Wingnut]

I'm not going to go back and read 230 posts mainly because it's not a topic that particularly interests me, but I wasn't aware that there was a prohibition on women praying in Conference. If someone would be so kind as to provide a link to where that prohibition is stated in official church statements, I would appreciate it.

There isn't a prohibition on it. In fact, Suzie provided a quote/announcement from 1978 which stated that women are permitted to offer prayers in all meetings they attend. Yet, a woman has never prayed in General Conference in the 34 years since that announcement.

[Suzie]

When it all started, it was started by a group of Feminist Mormons who wanted a "Pants to church" day to basically protest the inequalities of the gender within the church. That's what started it. As Vort has tried to say, using church as a place of protest is inappropriate.

I suppose that's where the two sides of the issue disagree. I didn't see it as a protest, neither I see this petition as one.

The example was one for over reasoning. In other words an example of an extreme in which people do something wrong. This is to illustrate what we have to beware of when engaging in empathy. That we can do some things in the name of empathy that go too far and commit sin or put us on a path the leads to sin.

It makes sense. Having said that, I fail to see exactly how it relates to this particular scenario.

It was a protest. As I wrote, "Misusing sacrament meeting as a stage for protest is very, very wrong indeed."

Believe me or not, I'm not trying to be difficult but I didn't see the pant's issue as a protest, I saw it as an act of empathy towards those who ever felt or feel ostracized for wearing pants.

Imagine you are in high school and a friend of yours (Tim) is wearing this shirt that a lot of people think is ugly and talk about it negatively and makes your friend feel very uncomfortable because he happens to really like to wear this shirt.

The school has no prohibition about that shirt, as a matter of fact, the school openly states that they kindly request their students to wear their best shirts but they don't counsel beyond that so your friend isn't breaking any school rules, he just happens to like that shirt. So because you are a good friend and you want him to have a good time in school and enjoy the experience, you decide to call your other friends and say, hey why don't we all get the same shirt Tim has and support him and let him know it is okay to wear it and he shouldn't feel bad or ashamed.

Ladies and gentlemen, that's how I have seen the issue. I can only speak for myself.

I'm not going to go back and read 230 posts mainly because it's not a topic that particularly interests me, but I wasn't aware that there was a prohibition on women praying in Conference. If someone would be so kind as to provide a link to where that prohibition is stated in official church statements, I would appreciate it.

That's the point. There is no such prohibition.

I know one can make the argument that we need to be caring, kind, and respectful to those who are struggling with even what-we-might-consider-trivial issues.

And yet... it's hard to maintain one-sided assistance. If they aren't willing to work on their devotion to the gospel, how much point is there in bending over backwards?

Who are we to determine if they are willing or not? All I know is that I personally do not give a darn about how others think I dress, but I'm also aware that not everyone is like me. When you see someone, you just don't see a person, you see a life story. There are people who went through a lot in life and go through a lot still, and what some people may consider to be an "stupid" issue, isn't stupid for them because the way they feel about things is different and related to their experiences. As brothers and sisters in the Gospel, shouldn't we be sensitive to their needs and perhaps somehow stop trying to measure people's spirituality and commitment by our very own imperfect standards?

[pam]

Believe me or not, I'm not trying to be difficult but I didn't see the pant's issue as a protest, I saw it as an act of empathy towards those who ever felt or feel ostracized for wearing pants.

That's definitely where we differ. I saw it as an outright protest.

[pam]

Honestly I think this thread has gone on long enough. I'm not sure what else can be said that hasn't already been said. But I will give some time for those that still want to post and I will be closing this in 1 hour.

[Suzie]

That's definitely where we differ. I saw it as an outright protest.

Yes I realized that's the issue.

[Suzie]

I'm not sure what else can be said that hasn't already been said.

The part where everyone says they agree with Suzie.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Honestly I think this thread has gone on long enough. I'm not sure what else can be said that hasn't already been said. But I will give some time for those that still want to post and I will be closing this in 1 hour.

I don't understand the need or rush to close it. It has been very civil. Why can't people just discuss or not and the thread will die it's on natural death?

[pam]

These threads don't die. It started as women praying and we're now back to pants to church again. I will be closing the thread in a few minutes.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Pam, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if it is not contentious, then I don't see why it matters. Of course, I understand it is your choice.

[pam]

Closed