Women will pray in April Conference?

[Wingnut]

While I disagree with the way All Enlisted seeks change (and with some of the things they want to change), I can conclude nothing else but that this can only have a positive, however minor, effect on people.

Thank you for this.

[Vort]

Most women I know who identify as Mormon Feminists have absolutely no problem with their equality with men in God's eyes. They have a problem with it in the Church's eyes, which is not the same thing.

"Mormon" feminists deny the reality that the Church is Christ's, and is in fact God's very kingdom. They may occasionally pay lip service to the idea, but their actions speak much louder that they have no real belief that it's true.

Which raises the question: Why do they stay? If the Church is not what it claims to be, why be a member? Membership dues are pretty steep, after all, and what you get for your money is a bunch of assignments and requests to help people.

"Mormon" feminists are fundamentally illogical. Whether this is dihonesty or stupidity is in question, but the illogic is not:

• If the Church is false and you know it, you're a fool to stay a member. Worse than a fool, you're a liar and a hypocrite.
• If the Church is true and is what it claims to be, then attempting to use social pressure to effect general change is evil. Not just wrong, not just misguided -- evil.

This appears to be the same mentality that the traitor Judas Iscariot had in mind, when he "outed" Jesus in an apparent hope to force him (Jesus) to free Israel or denounce the Sadducees or evict the Romans or something. For his oh-so-sincere efforts, his name is now a synonym for treachery. And such are the so-called "Mormon" feminists who bang this drum.

[carlimac]

You seem to be relying on the argument that a desire for women to pray in Conference is exclusive an unrighteous desire, or at least a desire that can develop only from a lack of faith, liberalism(?), or a shallow form of belief. I don't think that assumption and judgement is valid. I never said that women praying in Conference is a requirement for faith or a testimony: the two main points I was trying to say are these:

• Seeing women pray in Conference can have a positive effect on the testimony of certain people, and
• That desiring that women be allowed to pray in Conference is not inherently sinful and doesn't necessarily imply a lack of faith

You can assume pride, sign seeking, and disbelief all you want, but saying that a desire for women to pray in Conference implies all these things is completely false. While I disagree with the way All Enlisted seeks change (and with some of the things they want to change), I can conclude nothing else but that this can only have a positive, however minor, effect on people.

I guess I'm too narrow minded or unimaginative to see how a woman praying in GC

would have a positive effect on someone's testimony. Why does the gender matter? Give me a hypothetical or and example.

[Wingnut]

Give me a hypothetical or and example.

He already did.

[Backroads]

The only strong feeling I have on the subject is that it's very sad the possibility of a female saying a prayer at conference causes such drama.

I'm fine with a woman saying the prayer. I really don't spend a lot of time thinking about the matter, though.

But when it becomes the subject of a champion cause... there's a problem.

[Guest]

If I turned on conference not knowing anything about this movement to compel change in the Church, and a woman said the opening prayer, I wouldn't have given it a second thought.

It's not about women praying. It's about turning our places of worship and instruction into places of protest and revolution. It's how it all came about.

[carlimac]

He already did.

Need more details on the inner workings of the mind in all of those cases. What was described doesn't merit a tantrum about women not getting to pray in conference, or even a hope that they will. If they are hanging their hopes and testimony on it they're hanging it on the wrong tree. If women are already speaking in conference, why would a woman being asked to say a prayer make any more difference at all.

I think it's hogwash. It's nothing more than what's been more eloquently and bluntly described by Vort, et al.

What's that saying we tell kids? "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit."

Edited March 20, 2013 by carlimac

[Just_A_Guy]

It's easy for you to say that if it's something you've never struggled with yourself. It's not really very fair for you to judge other people's emotions when you can't (or perhaps refuse to) empathize with them.

How do you know this about Carlimac or anyone else, Wingnut? Do progressive Mormons have a monopoly on thoughtfulness? Are conservative Mormons somehow supposed to be exempt from having Church doctrine, policy, and culture conflict with their own lifestyles, sympathies, and social connections in thoroughly gut-wrenching ways? (Because if that's supposed to be the case, I've got some serious complaints for someone!)

[carlimac]

The only strong feeling I have on the subject is that it's very sad the possibility of a female saying a prayer at conference causes such drama.

I'm fine with a woman saying the prayer. I really don't spend a lot of time thinking about the matter, though.

But when it becomes the subject of a champion cause... there's a problem.

Well said. I don't have a problem with women saying a prayer at all. It's the begging for it that is so annoying. I've never put up with whining from my kids at all! It's worse coming from grown women.

[Backroads]

I believe we can certainly empathize, at least sympathize with someone, without agreeing with their conclusion.

[Backroads]

Well said. I don't have a problem with women saying a prayer at all. It's the begging for it that is so annoying. I've never put up with whining from my kids at all! It's worse coming from grown women.

In bold. So totally all I wanted to say on the matter! You are the one who said it well right there!

[MorningStar]

I'm angry that men with mustaches and broken noses never pray in General Conference. Time for a letter-writing campaign! Who's with me?

You want Geraldo to pray in Conference?

[Just_A_Guy]

And . . . MorningStar wins the thread.

[Suzie]

I do have an opposition to All Enlisted, their tactics, and the spirit they do it in. I do not believe they care about women praying in conference as much as they are on a path to protest until women have the priesthood.

In what spirit do you think they do it? Have they said they are on a path to protest until women have the priesthood? How did you reach such conclusion?. These are honest questions. I am not defending the group, I don't even know them well enough but I do want to know how people feel about this.

I sympathize a lot with Eowyn; but these latter-day Godbeites will get what's coming to them.

What is coming to them and why?

Those trying to force or embarrass or cajole the Brethren into changing Church policy to suit their social and political ideals are wrong. Period. Even if their goal is laudable, they are wrong. They ought not ever be supported in their wrong efforts.

Vort, women not praying in Conference is Church policy? If so, I would love to read where is that stated.

Selected Church PoliciesÂ*

This link doesn't say anything about being a Church policy.

I'm afraid I don't see the difference.

A policy is a decision taken in this case by the Church,with a long-term purpose. The Church as an organization is presently quite clear about its policies (free and available for all to read). Women not praying in Conference has never been a Church policy.

Tradition by the other hand, is "a long-established custom or belief that has been passed on in this way". .

Why exactly does it matter if women's voices are heard (in prayer in General Conference) on earth? Women give talks from the pulpit in almost every meeting except priesthood meeting.

The only reason I can see that this would matter to anyone is the need to be seen, pride, feelings of inferiority to men ( a tool of the devil), insecurity. WHY does it matter ...really? I haven't heard a single explanation that satisfies me.

All this sound quite familiar to me (as someone who studied the topic of the Priesthood ban), I could replace perfectly the word "women" with "African American" because prior to the 1978 revelation, many members of the Church felt that African American brothers AND sisters (since they were also directly affected by the ban) should be quite satisfied with justbeing baptized and quite a good number of them didn't want them to ask for "more". The comparison may seem an exaggeration, but the point I am trying to make is that unless we put ourselves in other people's shoes we would never really and fully understand.

My issue isn't who is right or who is wrong, my issue is why so many people assume intentions (although I must admit that perhaps it seems to be an LDS hobby).

Why can't we just accept (which isn't the same as agree) that for some sisters this IS important? Why does it seem like we are in a rush to be first at the rameumptom by trying to proclaim loudly our faithfulness and obedience to our leaders and attempt to call others out on our perceived failure in their part to do so?

Edited March 20, 2013 by Suzie

[Backroads]

Why can't we just accept (which isn't the same as agree) that for some sisters this IS important?

This is a very fair question. To answer, I don't think that too many have a problem with them valuing this topic, but do have a problem with them valuing it above so much else in the gospel and Church.

Why does it seem like we are in a rush to be first at the rameumptom by trying to proclaim loudly our faithfulness and obedience to our leaders and attempt to call others out on our perceived failure in their part to do so?

I suppose this may be where both groups are blind. Perhaps I'm just as noisy in my "is it really a big deal?" view as I view them to be.

[Suzie]

but do have a problem with them valuing it above so much else in the gospel and Church.

Bu that's the point. Why the assumption that they are valuing it above Church and the Gospel? Unless we know the specific situations of each one of these sisters, and know their hearts and intentions, what we are actually doing (perhaps unintentionally) is judging them unrighteously.

[ADoyle90815]

Maybe it's because I'm not LDS, but I don't see what's wrong with women being able to pray in church, as plenty of churches that have male only clergy do allow women to at least give prayers.

[Vort]

In what spirit do you think they do it? Have they said they are on a path to protest until women have the priesthood? How did you reach such conclusion?. These are honest questions. I am not defending the group, I don't even know them well enough but I do want to know how people feel about this.

I agree with Eowyn. The actions of such people are despicable. There is no softer word that adequately describes them.

Vort, women not praying in Conference is Church policy? If so, I would love to read where is that stated.

Since when does "policy" necessarily mean formal, written documentation?

A policy is a decision taken in this case by the Church,with a long-term purpose.

Wait a minute. Weren't you just pining for the written or otherwise stated version of a claimed policy? Your definition above says nothing about statement. Clearly, the Church has historically taken the decision to ask men, not women, to pray in General Conference. And clearly, there was a purpose, even if that purpose was merely that Priesthood-holding men offer the prayers.

My issue isn't who is right or who is wrong, my issue is why so many people assume intentions (although I must admit that perhaps it seems to be an LDS hobby).

I attempted to explain that in some detail, but perhaps you missed that post. In a nutshell: If the Church is false, you're a liar and a hypocrite to remain a part of it and try to get meaningless privileges and/or nonexistent authority into the hands of women (or blacks, or gays, or left-handed redheads). And if the Church is true, you're a fool and a disloyal oathbreaker to agitate for change as if it's some sort of social cause instead of the very kingdom of God that it is.

Why can't we just accept (which isn't the same as agree) that for some sisters this IS important? Why does it seem like we are in a rush to be first at the rameumptom by trying to proclaim loudly our faithfulness and obedience to our leaders and attempt to call others out on our perceived failure in their part to do so?

You attribute an awful lot to those with whom you disagree. Are you trying to set the standard by which we judge those with whom we disagree?

This has nothing to do with proclaiming one's own faithfulness. This has to do with recognizing and naming deceitful treachery when it is seen, even in something as seemingly innocuous as wearing "protest pants" to a holy meeting or deigning to instruct the apostles and very First Presidency of God's kingdom in who should or should not pray.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Maybe it's because I'm not LDS, but I don't see what's wrong with women being able to pray in church, as plenty of churches that have male only clergy do allow women to at least give prayers.

You clearly have no idea what is being discussed here.

[LittleWyvern]

Need more details on the inner workings of the mind in all of those cases.

Uh... ok. When I learn how to mindread, I'll get back to you on that one.

What was described doesn't merit a tantrum about women not getting to pray in conference, or even a hope that they will.

[snip]

What's that saying we tell kids? "You get what you get and you don't throw a fit."

If anybody (pro or con) is throwing a tantrum or a fit over this, they're entirely missing the point. Yes, the actions of a small minority may warrant that description (and I've made it clear that I oppose these actions), but I don't think that merits pronouncing a judgement of pride or unrighteousness over the entire thing and all who think it might be A Good Thing.

If they are hanging their hopes and testimony on it they're hanging it on the wrong tree.

Um,

I never said that women praying in Conference is a requirement for faith or a testimony:

And it shouldn't be.

If women are already speaking in conference, why would a woman being asked to say a prayer make any more difference at all.

It's possible that hearing/seeing a fellow woman pray in General conference can strengthen someone's testimony of prayer, or help her feel like her prayers are important. Perhaps someone's testimony on the equal eternal relationship between men and women is weakened, and hearing a woman pray in General Conference would help solidify this concept. Maybe somebody who lives far away from SLC wonders if the LDS Church in America shares their views.

Note that I've stopped short of saying any definitives: just as nobody can say for sure this will have a positive effect on someone, I don't think we can then conclude that it will not make any difference for everybody.

[carlimac]

Maybe it's because I'm not LDS, but I don't see what's wrong with women being able to pray in church, as plenty of churches that have male only clergy do allow women to at least give prayers.

There is nothing wrong with a woman praying in church.

The problem lies in women ( sometimes referred to as Mormon feminists) with a chip on their shoulders about percieved inequality of women in the church making a stink about it to the leaders of the church. Essentially saying, " It's not fair." It's the questioning and the pushy nature of these groups that is annoying and actually serves to make the church look bad in the eyes of the world. "The world", media, antis, whoever dislikes the church hears this noise and gets on the bandwagon about how patriarchal and demeaning the church is to women. It's just nonsense. And that nonsense turns people away from Christ rather than bringing them to Christ.

[Wingnut]

You attribute an awful lot to those with whom you disagree.

As do you.

Are you trying to set the standard by which we judge those with whom we disagree?

If you can, why can't Suzie?

[MorningStar]

And . . . MorningStar wins the thread.

Yes! This is the second time I have won a thread!

[Suzie]

I agree with Eowyn. The actions of such people are despicable. There is no softer word that adequately describes them.

What exact actions are despicable and what makes them despicable? Again, I am really trying to understand this position.

Vort, I suppose my definition of policy doesn't seem to be as casual as the one you give. The Church has never stated that women not praying in Conference is a policy, as a matter of fact they have stated that women can pray in "all" church meetings.

I attempted to explain that in some detail, but perhaps you missed that post. In a nutshell: If the Church is false, you're a liar and a hypocrite to remain a part of it and try to get meaningless privileges and/or nonexistent authority into the hands of women (or blacks, or gays, or dog rapists, or left-handed redheads). And if the Church is true, you're a fool and a disloyal oathbreaker to agitate for change as if it's some sort of social cause instead of the very kingdom of God that it is.

I must be really tired and sleepy because I really don't get what you are talking about, it isn't addressing the issue of assuming.

Vort, honestly is it asking for consideration and empathy a whole lot? Again, I am not saying we have to agree but why is it so hard to accept that for some sisters this is important?

This has nothing to do with proclaiming one's own faithfulness. This has to do with recognizing and naming deceitful treachery when it is seen, even in something as seemingly innocuous as wearing "protest pants" to a holy meeting or deigning to instruct the apostles and very First Presidency of God's kingdom in who should or should not pray.

Well, I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this and I am not sure if we can carry the discussion further because we seem to be looking at this issue from a completely different standpoint. I am trying to see the issue through "innocent until proven guilty", but you and others seem to go by "guilty until proven innocent" and I just don't see it that way.

Let me share something very personal with you if you don't mind. As I shared a few times on this board, I am raising children with long life disabilities. It is a very hard life. They all look perfectly normal but they have serious challenges. If I take one of them to the grocery store and something doesn't go as planned and my son has a huge meltdown in the middle of the place, I get people looking at me like if I am the worst mother in the world and they look at him like he is just a "brat in need of serious discipline". The thing is, they don't know and they don't know me, and they don't know his condition. I don't blame them. Before having my children, I was like that. I would look at some people and quickly assume things about them, including intentions and pass judgment that way.

But it seems like God had other plans for me and my family and I see things a little differently now. I am not asking for people to agree with this, I would just like for people to give the benefit of the doubt and to understand and accept that for some people this IS important. That's all.

[MorningStar]

I think the issue is that some women are assuming some things are a manmade policy rather than a policy the Lord has set (at least for the time being). Or maybe when they pray about who should speak or pray at Conference, their answer has never been a woman for the prayer for some reason? Who knows?

If we sustain our leaders, why don't we trust that they can do what they have been called to do without others making a stink?