Women will pray in April Conference?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I didn't send a letter, nevertheless, I am thrilled to hear this! Really thrilled!

April Mormon conference may make history: women will pray | The Salt Lake Tribune

For Mormons yearning to see women take on more visible roles in their religion, their prayers have been answered:

The Salt Lake Tribune has learned that LDS women are scheduled, as of now, to offer invocations or benedictions at next month’s General Conference. . .

[Guest]

Big whoop. I never noticed in the first place. I wonder which drum All Enlisted will dig up to pound on next.

I don't have an opposition to women praying. 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. I'm actually a little disappointed that the church caved to them. It feels like rewarding bad behavior.

[Guest]

It's also worth noting that the Church has neither confirmed nor denied this report. As such, I've moved this out of the Church News section. It's not official Church News, it's a rumor at this point. Given SL Trib's history of general Mormon Hate undertones, this just seems like so much strong-arming from them.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Eowyn

[LittleWyvern]

Uh... cool!

I'd hate to be the person speaking after this prayer, though: everybody will be too busy discussing the prayer to listen.

[Jenamarie]

Big whoop. I never noticed in the first place. I wonder which drum All Enlisted will dig up to pound on next.

I don't have an opposition to women praying. 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. I'm actually a little disappointed that the church caved to them. It feels like rewarding bad behavior.

On the other hand, if they didn't "cave" it could look like they were digging their heals in on maintaining a tradition that really has no basis in the Gospel.

"You ask, why do we do it? I'll tell you why we do it... I don't know..."

[Just_A_Guy]

I sympathize a lot with Eowyn; but these latter-day Godbeites will get what's coming to them. Meanwhile, among the open-minded and honest in heart, it lends the Church credibility to say "look, we've changed everything we have authorization to change; but we. cannot. change. giving women the priesthood/sanctioning gay sex/whatever other liberal cause du jour may arise.

Meanwhile, the uber-conservative in me is hoping that any female prayer in the April 2013 conference is immediately followed by a proposal to canonize the Proclamation on the Family and include it in the upcoming revised print edition of the LDS scriptures.

[NeuroTypical]

*shrug*

Don't care about the gender of the people speaking into general conference microphones.

[Maureen]

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8)

If the good news is true, it's nice to know that the LDS leaders have listened and have not hardened their hearts to the sincere requests of the members. IMO, this is a good sign.

M.

[Anddenex]

If the good news is true, it's nice to know that the LDS leaders have listened and have not hardened their hearts to the sincere requests of the members. IMO, this is a good sign.

M.

If women do not pray in General Conference, it doesn't mean the leaders had "hard hearts" to people's sincere requests.

If they also didn't have women pray, it wouldn't be a bad sign either, save only to the self-righteous.

[Jennarator]

It's a non-issue to me. Women pray for most meetings so that shows me there is no issues. Women not praying fro GC, I never even noticed. Wouldn't have noticed if they started, either. If there is a change I only would notice because of people mentioning it here and in the news.

[MorningStar]

I've seen women pray eleventy million times. A prayer is a prayer. I don't care who says it in conference as long as they don't make the closing as long as possible because those of us with small children have suffered enough.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Eowyn, I don't think I have disagreed with you before...if I have I don't remember...but....

To me saying the church leaders "caved" is implying that they are weak, And though I would not go so far as to call that evil speaking, I do call it being critical of them.

To all---

I don't want to be argumentative here, but I am surprised by some of the responses...perhaps I could address it best by sharing why I am excited about this, and then why I am dismayed by the responses...

I think it a wonderful privilege to be asked to pray in church meetings...to be the voice for the group, to "harness" their faith and approach Heavenly Father is a beautiful opportunity. Once we had a women's meeting in the temple and I was asked to give the prayer. Wow. To be the voice for all those wonderful sisters in that wonderful place. It is a witness to how special it was to me that I still remember it now approx 10 years later.

There was a time for about 2 yrs, which only ended quite recently, that I did not feel comfortable praying in church, because I was dealing with the shame of my childhood abuse, I could not pray in public. (It has been almost 3 yrs since I have been to the temple for the same reason.) I've started praying in public again, and even prayed in Sacrament meeting. It was wonderful.

If it is true that sisters will be allowed to pray in conference, I think that is beautiful. What a wonderful opportunity that will now be extended so some lucky sisters. I am jealous (I'll go repent! )

I didn't post this article to be controversial, I erroneously thought that if this is true, it means the Brethren support it and we would all put our previous bias' aside and support them. As I said, I didn't send a letter because I couldn't decide if I agreed with that method of problem solving or not....but that aside, I will support the Brethren. I hope you all will too.

[Anddenex]

I didn't post this article to be controversial, I erroneously thought that if this is true, it means the Brethren support it and we would all put our previous bias' aside and support them. As I said, I didn't send a letter because I couldn't decide if I agreed with that method of problem solving or not....but that aside, I will support the Brethren. I hope you all will too.

I believe all of us who have posted what you may have been "surprised" of, are very much in support of our Brethren and their decisions.

I am probably speaking for others also when I say, it really doesn't matter what "gender" says the opening or closing prayer as long as a prayer is said.

If a man says the prayer, great. If a women says the prayer, great. People thinking the GAs were being discriminatory in their efforts of assigning prayers...these are the people who need to support the Brethren.

Not being controversial either, just being open and honest as you have been. :)

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Anddenex, thanks for your response. I accept your explanation.

I was expecting something different, but I think we just have different ways of looking at this.

[Finrock]

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

To all---

I don't want to be argumentative here, but I am surprised by some of the responses...perhaps I could address it best by sharing why I am excited about this, and then why I am dismayed by the responses...

I think it a wonderful privilege to be asked to pray in church meetings...to be the voice for the group, to "harness" their faith and approach Heavenly Father is a beautiful opportunity. Once we had a women's meeting in the temple and I was asked to give the prayer. Wow. To be the voice for all those wonderful sisters in that wonderful place. It is a witness to how special it was to me that I still remember it now approx 10 years later.

There was a time for about 2 yrs, which only ended quite recently, that I did not feel comfortable praying in church, because I was dealing with the shame of my childhood abuse, I could not pray in public. (It has been almost 3 yrs since I have been to the temple for the same reason.) I've started praying in public again, and even prayed in Sacrament meeting. It was wonderful.

If it is true that sisters will be allowed to pray in conference, I think that is beautiful. What a wonderful opportunity that will now be extended so some lucky sisters. I am jealous (I'll go repent! )

This is what I understand you to be saying: You are excited about the possibility of women praying at general conference because you view praying for a group of people as being an honor and privilege and you feel that women have been denied this honor and privilege at general conference.

My honest opinion: This reasoning strikes me as vain because it elevates the circumstances surrounding the prayer and the ceremony of it, rather than recognizing the true purpose and intent of prayer.

I didn't post this article to be controversial, I erroneously thought that if this is true, it means the Brethren support it and we would all put our previous bias' aside and support them. As I said, I didn't send a letter because I couldn't decide if I agreed with that method of problem solving or not....but that aside, I will support the Brethren. I hope you all will too.

I support the prophets whether women pray in conference or they do not. A true prayer, uttered with faith and sincerity, is all that I desire and expect.

Regards,

Finrock

[MorningStar]

The article doesn't even site a source, so I don't trust it at this point. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is meant to cause an uproar when a woman doesn't end up praying after all.

[Vort]

I despise the SL Tribune. Anything they write is aimed at activist strong-arming of the Church. Despite my own opinion that there is nothing wrong or untoward about women offering General Conference prayers, the reactionary in me hopes they don't, just to piss off the activists. Fortunately, most Church leaders are not reactionary.

[Wingnut]

I'm actually a little disappointed that the church caved to them.

I don't know if you actually read the article linked in the OP, but the Church spokesman was careful to clarify that selections regarding speakers and prayers were made weeks ago. To me, that seemed to indicate that it's possible that such a decision was made prior to the petition/letters reaching their destinations. If that's true, one could easily argue that groups like All Enlisted have the Lord's blessing in their efforts. It's one heck of a coincidence otherwise.

It feels like rewarding bad behavior.

You see it as bad behavior. Friends of mine see it as a literal and tangible answer to righteous and fervent prayer. I honestly can't understand how both of those can be accurate descriptors for the same event.

The article doesn't even site a source, so I don't trust it at this point.

Yeah, that glaring omission does make me a little nervous. Overall, though, I'm excited about the possibility. It's not something that I've personally cared about for myself, but I know it's very important to some very dear friends of mine.

[MorningStar]

This whole thing just rubs me the wrong way. I know women are loved by our church leaders and I believe they are capable of receiving inspiration just fine without us making a "That's not fair" kind of stink. It bugs.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

This is what I understand you to be saying: You are excited about the possibility of women praying at general conference because you view praying for a group of people as being an honor and privilege and you feel that women have been denied this honor and privilege at general conference.

Finrock, I'm glad you stated what you understood me to be saying, that helped me see where I was misunderstood, by you, if not others as well. I'll see if I can straighten this out. :)

As I said in the OP, I didn't send a letter. I'm not a Feminist. I really had not thought much about the issue before, and didn't join the letter writing campaign because I was on the fence about it.

However, if it is true, then to me that means that means the Brethren have chosen, and I am whole-heartedly throwing my support behind them (remember I was undecided previously). That is in part why I was confused by the responses. I assumed everyone else would change their previous stance, and we could all "unite" on it. Anddenex's post helped me to see that we are just looking at it from different angles. I admit I'm still disappointed, but I can live with that.

Edited March 19, 2013 by LiterateParakeet

[MorningStar]

Will the woman being wearing pants when she prays? That is the question.

[Wingnut]

I love this quote from By Common Consent today, regarding the news:

We never doubted that God hears our prayers.... But it also matters whether our voices are heard on earth.

I think this really sums it up best.

[Wingnut]

Oh, and regarding the lack of sources, here's the best anyone seems to have been able to come up with, from the author of the article herself: https://www.facebook.com/peggy.fletcherstack/posts/495254310511863. Keep in mind that the closer we draw to Conference, the more people there are that know details of the proceedings, from camera crews to translators. I knew someone several years ago who knew a few days in advance who a new apostle was going to be, because the person I knew was working as a language translator for Conference. All material was given out in advance. The wider this circle spreads and Conference rapidly approaches, the less incredulous it seems that Ms. Stack would have a source "in the know." What I find lacking in the article though, is any acknowledgement, even anonymous, of her source.

[Vort]

However, if it is true, then to me that means that means the Brethren have chosen, and I am whole-heartedly throwing my support behind them (remember I was undecided previously). That is in part why I was confused by the responses. I assumed everyone else would change their previous stance, and we could all "unite" on it.

I don't understand this. If a group's tactics are wrong, they are wrong. Period.

Back in the early or mid-70s, a man was excommunicated when he singlehandedly decided it was time to ordain a black man to the Priesthood, and so baptized a black man in a motel swimming pool and afterward tried to ordain him to a Priesthood office.

Several years later, President Kimball announced the revelation extending the blessings of Priesthood ordination and the temple to all worthy people regardless of ancestry. Do you think at this point it would have been acceptable to throw our support behind the actions of the excommunicated apostate?

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.

[Wingnut]

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.

But no one has tried to change policy with LWP. They've tried to change culture and tradition. Big difference from your example.