Women will pray in April Conference?

[Wingnut]

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).

Again, it's not a policy. It's only a tradition. And it does seem to be man-made, or at least man-perpetuated, because, as has been referenced several times in this thread, President Kimball explicitly stated that women may pray in any church meeting they attend. The current version of the Church Handbook of Instructions states, "Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings." (link) So why then are people trying to say it's a policy from the Lord, when it's clearly not??

[Vort]

As do you.

Not so. I made a simple and rather obvious logical argument: The situation is either A or Not A. If it is A, then those who claim B are of condition C. If the situation is Not A, then those who claim D are of condition E. I may well be wrong -- in which case you can simply point out the logical flaw -- but I was not passing judgment on individuals.

If you can, why can't Suzie?

You really can't tell the difference, Wingnut? Let's take a look:

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?

Here, Suzie is clearly accusing those who disagree with the feminist tactics (and whom she refers to using the pronoun "we", though since she herself has already declaimed this position, seems obviously to be using the term condescendingly) of hypocritically claiming spiritual superiority over the other side and then of utterly and wickedly failing to live according to their covenants -- of mounting a rameumptom, to use her term and all that it necessarily implies.

Do you dispute this? If so, please explain how her words do not mean what I have stated -- since it seems apparent that they very obviously do mean exactly as I said.

In contrast, I wrote:

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.

As I already explained, this is an (I think) exceptionally obvious observation, not a personal judgment or attack of the sort leveled by Suzie. On the contrary, I noted a self-evident truth and made some logical derivations:

• The LDS Church is either true or it is not true. (I'm pretty sure that few if any would dispute this.)

• IF the Church is true, THEN its assertions of divine authority are true; it is the very kingdom of God on earth; it is headed by Jesus Christ himself; and the apostles called to administer in the kingdom are inspired by Jesus Christ and are the mouthpieces of his word. Furthermore, we are under sacred, divine covenant to sustain these men.

  Therefore, those who use profane methods of social coercion to achieve change within the Church instead of the ordained method of inspiration from Christ through the patriarchal order are covenant-breakers. As such, they are liars, having turned from their sacred covenants.

• IF the LDS Church is not true, THEN the LDS Church is a fraud and a deception, and all who know its falsehood but still support it are knowingly supporting a lie. That makes such people liars and utterly lacking in the moral courage of their convictions.

I have presented an obvious and open logical argument. You can disagree and show me where my logic is wrong, if it is wrong. But unlike Suzie, I am not merely calling names or throwing around emotional accusations.

Now, an honest response to this post would be to:

• Concede that you were wrong, or;
• Carefully point out where my analysis fails, or;
• Maintain your position but admit that you have no counter-arguments to buttress your claims (which is in fact an honest position, although from an argumentation perspective is tantamount to conceding my point).

I hope to get any of the above from you. Edited March 20, 2013 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

What is coming to them and why?

I don't presume to know. Only that there is a God in Heaven who is looking down on them and will reward them appropriately--for good if He thinks their actions are good; and for ill otherwise.

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

You may have missed my subsequent post addressing this assertion.

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?

OK, first off, a little perspective: Conservatives were not the first to the rameumptom here. It isn't like Tom Monson, or Boyd Packer, or even (horror of horrors!) Vort created an internet petition calling out a specific woman or group of women, by name, and trying to get millions of people to agree that those particular individuals are acting contrary to the will of God.

But to answer the underlying question about conservative defensiveness on this matter generally:

1. Because the ends do not justify the means.

2. Because the means adopted frequently tell us more about an actor's true intentions and attitudes, than do the actor's carefully-scripted protestations of loyalty and "thus far, and no further" that are meant for public consumption. If AllEnlisted and their ilk love the GA's so much and believe they're so inspired, then why don't they think the apostles can listen to God without the help of the Salt Lake Tribune?

3. Because these feminists are not merely agreeing to disagree. They are coming out swinging. They are enlisting their allies in the Tribune--the Tribune, for cripe's sake!--to publicly shame the Church leadership and paint them as a bunch of out-of-touch, doddering and possibly misogynistic old fools. They accuse anyone who does not yield to them of being insensitive, inexperienced, or unthinking.

You are, of course, right that as good Christians and faithful church members, we should chill. But that applies to all of us.

AllEnlisted chose not to chill. They made this a political issue, and they shouldn't be surprised to learn that there are elements of conservative Mormonism who are willing to turn their own methods of ridicule, innuendo, and besmirching of intentions against them--even if the Church leadership itself is too high-minded to engage in such actions.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

which I took to mean the agitating group rather than the Brethren, whom I assumed you supported without indecision.

Perhaps my response below to Finrock will help clarify what I was trying to say...

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

3. A stance not mentioned here

It seems so naive now that it is embarrassing....but the "change" I thought would happen is that we would all NOT have this same discussion again. Absolutely nothing has changed here.

What I had thought would change for at least the majority would be that we would say something like, "Well, I never thought that would happen, but since it has...who do you think will be asked? Mission presidents wives?"

In other words, I thought we would unite behind the Brethren, put aside our previous differences and move forward---NOT rehash previous arguments.

[Just_A_Guy]

Again, it's not a policy. It's only a tradition.

Wingnut, I can't seem to find a response from you to this post. Would you care to weigh in?

And it does seem to be man-made, or at least man-perpetuated, because, as has been referenced several times in this thread, President Kimball explicitly stated that women may pray in any church meeting they attend.

How many women offered prayers in general conference during the twelve years of President Kimball's administration?

[Wingnut]

You really can't tell the difference, Wingnut?

I'm referring to your calling those of us who consider ourselves Mormon Feminists, Judases. It's offensive, inaccurate, and just plain mean.

[Wingnut]

Wingnut, I can't seem to find a response from you to this post. Would you care to weigh in?

Not really.

How many women offered prayers in general conference during the twelve years of President Kimball's administration?

None, so far as anyone has been able to determine. Which still makes this a man-perpetuated thing.

[Vort]

I'm referring to your calling those of us who consider ourselves Mormon Feminists, Judases. It's offensive, inaccurate, and just plain mean.

Then explain where my logic fails. Offensive -- perhaps. Inaccurate -- show me how. Mean -- not at all.

[Vort]

What I had thought would change for at least the majority would be that we would say something like, "Well, I never thought that would happen, but since it has...who do you think will be asked? Mission presidents wives?"

In other words, I thought we would unite behind the Brethren, put aside our previous differences and move forward---NOT rehash previous arguments.

But many of us are not at all surprised at the idea that a woman might pray at General Conference. Why would we say something like, "Well, I never thought that would happen"?

And I expect we are already united behind the brethren. We are simply not united behind the feminists who claim victory for this supposed news based on their faithless agitation.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

C'mon Vort, I meant that people who so strongly argued against the letter campaign would likely be surprised that the Brehren said, "ok". But I hope we could stop discussing how it came about and simply move on to the next page so to speak.

[Wingnut]

Inaccurate -- show me how.

Explain to me exactly how I "deny the reality that the Church is Christ's" and I'll tell you how it's inaccurate. Explain to me how I "have no real belief that it's true," and I'll tell you how it's inaccurate. Shall I go on?

Mean -- not at all.

It absolutely is mean when you make offensive comments of that nature to people's faces and expect them to just simply agree with you. Calling me or anyone else "a liar and a hypocrite," especially when I'm neither, is mean. Accusing me of treason against my Savior is mean.

Tell me how it's not.

[Just_A_Guy]

None, so far as anyone has been able to determine. Which still makes this a man-perpetuated thing.

So you don't think Kimball's actual behavior might qualify his general statement?

Would it interest you to know that Kimball's statement was specifically made in the context of sacrament meetings?

Before beginning his address, President Kimball made two announcements:

“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.”

(Source)

(Oh, and President Kimball's second announcement from that same meeting is also of tangential interest):

President Kimball also announced that wives of Church leaders should wear dresses, not pantsuits, while accompanying their husbands on Church assignments.

[Roseslipper]

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.

I never noticed it either!

[Vort]

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

The despicable actions are the attempts to get Church leadership to change how the Church is run by using techniques of societal pressure and coercion. I see nothing wrong with praying about issues, nothing wrong with talking with local leadership about issues, and little wrong with writing private letters about issues, even to apostles (though I don't think this latter thing is necessarily wise to do). When the actions bleed over into public petitions pointed at Church leaders, the line has been thoroughly crossed into the territory of treachery.

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 guess I don't understand why "policy" versus "tradition" is of any importance at all. Are you suggesting that if the policy/tradition/whatever of only men praying at General Conference were written down somewhere, that that would make a difference? That the "Mormon" feminists then would not be protesting or forming public internet-based petitions to try to bring embarrassment on the Church and force change? If there would be no dofference, then why is it important whether it's "policy" or "tradition"? That whole argument seems a red herring to avoid discussing the central issue of disloyalty.

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.

I was trying to demonstrate my viewpoint on the issue. I can see no way to justify bringing techniques of social and political pressure to bear in order to effect change in Church practice. It's disloyal and unjustifiable under any conceivable circumstance, at least any I can think of.

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?

Suzie, I agree with you on this. Empathy is not too much to ask. But condoning disloyalty and covenant-breaking? Yes, that is too much to ask.

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.

But I have NOT said "guilty until proven innocent"! I have not said anything like that! I have carefully laid out my objections, and welcome you or anyone else to explain why I'm wrong, preferably without insinuating that I'm climbing my rameumptom.

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.

This is a sacred thing. I appreciate your willingness to share it. I respect and admire your courage in the face of such a trial.

But when you compare your former, pre-mother-of-disabled-children self with my actions, I think you are mistaken. You seem to think there is a similarity there; I see none.

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.

Have empathy for those who feel left out by proxy because a woman doesn't pray at General Conference? I can do that, despite not understanding why it's a big deal. Have empathy for someone who willingly violates covenants because she doesn't find them comfortable? That's a little bit harder.

I apologize for my unkind tone, Suzie, and for my sometimes-harsh words flung in your direction. I have tried to tone such things down; perhaps I need to repent again and rededicate myself to it.

[Suzie]

So you don't think Kimball's actual behavior might qualify his general statement?

Would it interest you to know that Kimball's statement was specifically made in the context of sacrament meetings?

Does it really matter the context in your quote when he says "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..."

[Suzie]

I just wanted to thank everyone for allowing me to participate on this thread. I don't think I have anything else to say. Thank you. :)

[MorningStar]

How are speakers and prayer givers chosen for Conference? Prayerfully? Do they draw names out of a hat? If they are prophets and they choose people based on inspiration (whether it's OK for women to pray in Conference or not), why can't we trust the decisions they have made? And should they now expect to split the prayers 50/50 between men and women out of fairness?

[Vort]

C'mon Vort, I meant that people who so strongly argued against the letter campaign would likely be surprised that the Brehren said, "ok". But I hope we could stop discussing how it came about and simply move on to the next page so to speak.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe it had to do with the letter-writing campaign. Sounds like a post hoc fallacy to me.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't believe it had to do with the letter-writing campaign. Sounds like a post hoc fallacy to me.

Sure, sure, pure coincidence....so why are we even discussing the letter-writing campaign???

[pam]

We don't even know 100% that women will be giving prayers at conference. I remember even a month or two again when this "campaign" first came about and people were told to write letters that a rep from the church said that all assignments had been made weeks before.

[Vort]

Explain to me exactly how I "deny the reality that the Church is Christ's" and I'll tell you how it's inaccurate. Explain to me how I "have no real belief that it's true," and I'll tell you how it's inaccurate. Shall I go on?

Why do you continue to dodge me, Wingnut? I have laid out my argument carefully. It should be a simple thing for you to pick it apart if you see problems in it. Why do you avoid it?

I never made any allegations about you. That you personalize what I said to your case is your doing, not mine. I have already explained my logical structure. If you disagree with it, respond to that.

It absolutely is mean when you make offensive comments of that nature to people's faces and expect them to just simply agree with you.

Wrong on two counts:

1. I did not make any offensive comments "to people's faces" (which, in this milieu, I interpret as meaning calling people out by name, since we obviously are not literally face to face). At no time did I ever say "Wingnut is a hypocrite". I said something more like, "Those who claim to be LDS and yet who seek to effect change in the Church through social embarrassment campaigns and other forms of coercion are hypocrites." That is a far different thing from what you are claiming I did.

2. I don't expect you to agree with me. In fact, I have repeatedly invited explanations why I am wrong, and have yet to receive any.

Calling me or anyone else "a liar and a hypocrite," especially when I'm neither, is mean. Accusing me of treason against my Savior is mean.

Again, I did no such thing. Or are you saying that you are one of the people who are vocally agitating for change and trying to embarrass our leadership into conceding to their demands, and so therefore my words were in fact about you personally? In this case, it is you who are applying my words specifically. I don't know you well enough to make that judgment. But if you have decided the shoe fits, it doesn't make much sense for you to wear it and then complain about how ugly it is.

Now, are you ever going to respond to what I said many posts ago?

[Vort]

Sure, sure, pure coincidence....so why are we even discussing the letter-writing campaign???

Do you seriously not know? It's because some "Mormon" feminists are claiming victory, stating that their activism is responsible for this supposed news item.

[Just_A_Guy]

Does it really matter the context in your quote when he says "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..."

Yes. If Kimball was not, in context, speaking about general conference meetings--indeed, if he was specifically answering a question about sacrament meetings--and he did not have a female pray in general conference for the next seven years; then it matters to anyone who is interested in what Kimball really meant (as opposed to just proof-texting).

[LittleWyvern]

2. I don't expect you to agree with me. In fact, I have repeatedly invited explanations why I am wrong, and have yet to receive any.

Lacking any doctrinal pronouncements on the subject of women praying in General Conference, I don't think we argue right/wrong or righteous/sinful (it's not like we have fatwa or anything). In my opinion, it only makes sense to argue for good effect/bad effect, and who it would affect. No doctrine means there's really no "right" or "wrong" here, at least in a religious sense.

So, sure, I think women praying in General Conference would be A Good Thing, but I don't think you're "wrong," just as much as I can't say I'm "right."

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Do you seriously not know? It's because some "Mormon" feminists are claiming victory, stating that their activism is responsible for this supposed news item.

Vort, I'm sorry that we have wasted each others time. I don't know what else to say.