Women will pray in April Conference?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

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

Vort, if I didn't know better, I would think you are intentionally misunderstanding me.*

You quoted my statement:

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

When I said "them", I meant The Brethren. I support the Brethren. Since "the Brethren" was the last subject given, the pronoun refers to them. It seems very clear to me. If I had meant All Enlisted, I would have said so, to avoid confusion. I am a writer. That doesn't mean I never make mistakes, but it does mean I am very careful about how I word things.

*this is actually a compliment....first that I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and second that I am surprised you didn't realize the pronoun refered to the previous noun.

[Vort]

Yes, I did misunderstand the antecedent to "them". In fairness to me, I don't think it's 100% reader error; there was at least some ambiguity. I reread it several times before deciding on your meaning. Your parenthetical addendum suggested you were undecided about "them", which I took to mean the agitating group rather than the Brethren, whom I assumed you supported without indecision.

Thank you for your charitable assumption.

[Wingnut]

When I said "them", I meant The Brethren. I support the Brethren. Since "the Brethren" was the last subject given, the pronoun refers to them.

I knew exactly what you meant.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

It does, indeed. But not in the way they meant for it to, I suspect.

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

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

Edited March 19, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Wingnut]

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

It was a hard and fast policy that black men could not hold the priesthood prior to 1978. It is a tradition, or a cultural practice only, that women don't (or haven't yet) pray in Conference.

[Finrock]

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. :)

This is precisely why I did that. I'm more interested in addressing what you are really saying rather than what I think you are saying. If I've made an assumption about what you are saying that is incorrect, I want to be corrected. Plus, I want it to be clear that if I am being critical, I am being critical of what I perceive to be an erroneous idea, not you the person.

Thank you for receiving my post as it was intended. :)

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.

I avoid labels and I try to address only the content of one's posts.

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.

This is where I take some exception. It seems like you are implying that in a previous discussion there were those who were against women praying in conference and those who were for it. IF that is what you are saying, then I think this is incorrect. I don't think there ever was a group who were against women praying in conference. At least this isn't a stance I ever held.

My previous stance was that I did not support the method nor the demonstrated motivations behind the organization sponsoring the letter writing campaign. I have no problems with women praying in conference. Never have.

For the sake of clarity, can you specify which stance you assumed others would change:

1. The stance that women shouldn't pray at conference

2. The stance against methods or organizations that try to "force or embarrass or cajole the Brethren into changing Church policy to suit their social and political ideals" (Vort).

3. A stance not mentioned here

Regards,

Finrock

[Just_A_Guy]

It was a hard and fast policy that black men could not hold the priesthood prior to 1978. It is a tradition, or a cultural practice only, that women don't (or haven't yet) pray in Conference.

I think we may be wading into something of a semantical cesspool here. What exactly is a "policy" versus a "tradition" or "cultural practice"? Is it merely something that is "hard and fast"? Because no woman praying--ever--in a general conference in the Church's entire 182-year history (or even just in the Utah period--one hundred fifty-odd years, say) (assuming, of course, that this turns out to be true; and it seems the jury still may be out at this point) would seem to be pretty "hard and fast".

It might be defensible to state that "a policy is something that is expressed in a publicly available, Church-produced document". But then you get into the morass of "well, what about private or confidential documents like CHI-Book 1, or Church financials, or temple archives, or something J. Reuben Clark wrote on the back of a napkin to David O. McKay at lunch one day?" How about courses of action that are never reduced to writing at all, but which those privy to the decisions nevertheless take to be binding--and act accordingly?

Moreover, even if we could successfully construct an artificial policy-versus-culture paradigm and make it stick: I don't see how that really addresses Vort's underlying point; which I took to be that trying to publicly shame Church leaders into any course of action--regardless of how we try to classify that action--is wrong.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[carlimac]

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

I think this really sums it up best.

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.

[LittleWyvern]

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.

Why must every reason for women praying in general conference be negative?

Let's forget for a minute the whole All Enlisted thing. 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. It could even be possible that people other than the members of All Enlisted has been praying for this change for years. Is it up to us to decide whether this is a righteous or unrighteous desire?

[carlimac]

Why must every reason for women praying in general conference be negative?

Let's forget for a minute the whole All Enlisted thing. 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. It could even be possible that people other than the members of All Enlisted has been praying for this change for years. Is it up to us to decide whether this is a righteous or unrighteous desire?

Still doesn't reach me. How would women praying in conference change someone's testimony of men-women equality in God's eyes. If they have an issue with it they haven't looked deeply enough into the scriptures. Isn't asking that women pray in conf then like asking for a sign? An evidence of lack of faith? If a lib in Europe wonders if there are other libs in the church, I'm sure they can be found on the internet. And why...(still need a more concrete answer) to why something like this matters so much that they would pray about it without the person having issues with pride or lack of faith that God loves them as a woman or embarrassment that the church is too old fashioned for their tastes or whatever? Maybe it's not my place to question, but it seems like such a shallow desire of the heart, especially when women pray in Sacrament meetings, stake conferences, General YW and RS meetings, etc. already. Our FAther in Heaven wouldn't do this, but if there ever were a reason for Him to roll His eyes, this would be it.

[carlimac]

For me the very first line of the article is the crux of the matter-

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

(bold and underline added by me)

Pride!

[Jenamarie]

For me the very first line of the article is the crux of the matter-

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

(bold and underline added by me)

Pride!

OR, they want the church to more visibly practice what it preaches about both genders being equally valued, even if their rolls are different. There is zero policy saying that women can't pray in conference, and infact there was a statement made by Pres. Kimball that a woman could pray in any meeting she could attend. It truly is purely culture and/or habit that has kept women from praying in General Conference before now, and while it can be difficult for some people to see cultural norms rattled, many times it can be for the good. :)

[pam]

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.

To me it really isn't "official" church news until I see it either on lds.org or on Deseret news.

[pam]

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.

I am in total agreement with you in regards to the SLTrib.

[applepansy]

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.

Hey! My cousin writes for the SLTribune.

Oh wait... he's a jerk and because of recent behavior I could use a few more choice words, but I won't. Nevermind!

[Maureen]

...And why...(still need a more concrete answer) to why something like this matters so much that they would pray about it without the person having issues with pride or lack of faith that God loves them as a woman or embarrassment that the church is too old fashioned for their tastes or whatever? Maybe it's not my place to question, but it seems like such a shallow desire of the heart, especially when women pray in Sacrament meetings, stake conferences, General YW and RS meetings, etc. already. Our FAther in Heaven wouldn't do this, but if there ever were a reason for Him to roll His eyes, this would be it.

If women already pray in the above meetings, what's one more? And if President Kimball made an official statement saying that it is "permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meeting they attend.", why not start practicing what is permitted? Since the time of Pres. Kimball's statement, there seems to have been an oversight in actually letting women do what they are already permitted to do in General Conference. And the letter writing was a good way of reminding the leadership that something that has been permitted for years has been overlooked.

M.

[Wingnut]

How would women praying in conference change someone's testimony of men-women equality in God's eyes. If they have an issue with it they haven't looked deeply enough into the scriptures.

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.

[carlimac]

OR, they want the church to more visibly practice what it preaches about both genders being equally valued, even if their rolls are different. There is zero policy saying that women can't pray in conference, and infact there was a statement made by Pres. Kimball that a woman could pray in any meeting she could attend. It truly is purely culture and/or habit that has kept women from praying in General Conference before now, and while it can be difficult for some people to see cultural norms rattled, many times it can be for the good. :)

Equality hmmm....So what's next? Demanding that just as many women as men give talks in general conference? That women be able to attend the priesthood session or go to priesthood instead of RS on Sun. And then what after that?

Equality in this way can't ever be met to some women's satisfaction. Pride is too hungry to give up. To continue to pursue these issues isn't becoming of women of the church who should have a better self esteem than this, by virtue of the teachings of eternal life and individual worth in the eyes of our Father in Heaven. We should just know how much we are valued without having to have it proven to us by outward manifestations.

[viannqueen3]

Sweet!!! That is a lot of pressure though. Awesome news though. The MFH will be happy for sure.

[carlimac]

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.

It shouldn't matter in anyone else's eyes but the Lord's.

[Wingnut]

It shouldn't matter in anyone else's eyes but the Lord's.

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.

[Guest]

Feelings aren't fact.

We were specifically taught by Christ Himself to not pray to be seen of men.

Again, I don't really even think it's about prayer (maybe for some people, but not for the "movement"). I think it's about baby steps toward sameness, which is not the same as equality. Sameness is not God's way or design.

The Adversary has found a great stumbling block to throw in front of good men and women.

[LittleWyvern]

Still doesn't reach me. How would women praying in conference change someone's testimony of men-women equality in God's eyes. If they have an issue with it they haven't looked deeply enough into the scriptures. Isn't asking that women pray in conf then like asking for a sign? An evidence of lack of faith? If a lib in Europe wonders if there are other libs in the church, I'm sure they can be found on the internet. And why...(still need a more concrete answer) to why something like this matters so much that they would pray about it without the person having issues with pride or lack of faith that God loves them as a woman or embarrassment that the church is too old fashioned for their tastes or whatever? Maybe it's not my place to question, but it seems like such a shallow desire of the heart, especially when women pray in Sacrament meetings, stake conferences, General YW and RS meetings, etc. already. Our FAther in Heaven wouldn't do this, but if there ever were a reason for Him to roll His eyes, this would be it.

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.

[Wingnut]

We were specifically taught by Christ Himself to not pray to be seen of men.

Just because you (and others here) see it as women wanting "to be seen of men" doesn't mean that that's the intent. You're right -- feelings aren't fact. I don't disagree with that. But, for example, if my feelings motivate why I do something, they become the fact of the intent behind my actions. The fact is not what you think my desired outcome is, but why I choose to do it. I know that probably doesn't make sense, because I can't quite figure out how to say it right. This post is the best explanation I can think of to explain what I mean.

Honestly, I'm surprised this thread has lasted even five pages, given previous conversations on the topic.

[Vort]

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?