Women will pray in April Conference?

[carlimac]

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."

Child loves ice cream. Mother notices child is in need of a pick-me-up or reward for good behavior and gives the child ice cream. Good effect.

Child loves ice cream. Wants ice cream. Screams for ice cream. Mother gives ice cream to child. Bad effect.

Same mother, same child, same ice cream, two different scenarios- two different effects.

[LittleWyvern]

Child loves ice cream. Mother notices child is in need of a pick-me-up or reward for good behavior and gives the child ice cream. Good effect.

Child loves ice cream. Wants ice cream. Screams for ice cream. Mother gives ice cream to child. Bad effect.

Same mother, same child, same ice cream, two different scenarios- two different effects.

Millions of children love ice cream. Millions of children don't love ice cream.

Ice cream becomes a popular topic when a lot of children suddenly decide they want ice cream. People start arguing whether ice cream should be available in more places.

If ice cream is good here, why shouldn't it be good everywhere?

If ice cream hasn't been here before, why should it be here now?

The children spend so much time arguing about the placement of ice cream that they forget to eat other tasty things. Like creamsicles. Mmmm...

Oh, was I writing an extended analogy? Sorry...

Mom eventually tells the children to quit arguing about where ice cream should be: it doesn't matter much where they eat their ice cream as long as they eat their vegetables first.

[Vort]

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."

I don't understand the "but". How do you think that your belief that "women praying in General Conference would be A Good Thing" contradicts anything I have said?

[Just_A_Guy]

Mom eventually tells the children to quit arguing about where ice cream should be: it doesn't matter much where they eat their ice cream as long as they eat their vegetables first.

. . . Children take out a full-page ad in the local paper specifically naming their mom as a bad mother and inviting the general readership to write in and tell her what they think of her.

[LittleWyvern]

. . . Children take out a full-page ad in the local paper specifically naming their mom as a bad mother and inviting the general readership to write in and tell her what they think of her.

And thus, all children who want ice cream in more places are bad bad children, even if they aren't part of the small group that did this.

[Just_A_Guy]

Once upon a time, a young woman and a young man were married. In point of fact, the young woman didn't really want to marry at all--her family arranged the match--but she decided to honor the wishes of those she loved, and so she went forward with the marriage. The young woman and the young man spent a great deal of time discussing how their marriage would function and understood what each expected of the other. For a time, all was well.

Eventually the wife noticed that pornography was becoming a real problem in the community. She decided she wanted to use her influence to stop it. She petitioned the government. She got friends and family involved. But much to her surprise, her husband began organizing against her. Husband announced that pornography wasn't that big a deal. He said it was justifiable in some cases. He said that any children born of the marriage who happened to get involved in it, should be condoned in their actions. Husband used his position of trust with the wife in order to obtain her family's and friend's personal data and routines. He then published it-along with his wife's--among people whom he knew would use that information to make wife's life a living hell. He published articles in the community newspaper hinting darkly that wife's own parents and grandparents had been involved in the production of pornography. When the anti-pornography petition passed in spite of Husband's efforts, he invited three thousand of his friends to march in a circle around the family home screaming "shame on you" and openly stated that he looked forward to the day when his wife herself would be compelled to participate in the production of pornography.

By some miracle, the marriage survived that crisis. A couple of years later Husband decided that it just wasn't fair that people who were non-parties to their marriage were excluded from witnessing the most sacred, intimate acts that the couple were capable of participating in. He published a letter to the newspaper stating that wife's "closed-mindedness" and "unfeelingness" were hampering his own relationship with his extended family.

Somehow the couple survived that crisis, too. Sometime later, wife's father happens to be chatting with the couple and makes a passing statement about the importance of a husband providing for his family. Husband, at this time, has been thinking about quitting his job--or at least going down to half-time--so that he can pursue more fulfilling activities. Husband writes another letter to the newspaper, calling out his father-in-law as being oppressive and imposing unrealistic expectations and generally being far too meddlesome in family affairs.

Fast forward to earlier this year. The whole length of the marriage, Husband and Wife had stuck to the same daily dishwashing rotation. This had been worked out prior to the marriage. Wife actually may have been willing to change it, had Husband come to her to discuss it. But rather than approaching her in a one-on-one situation--or even in a limited family group--Husband went out and wrote another letter to the editor complaining about the "restrictiveness" and "oppressiveness" of the current kitchen schedule, insisting that it should be changed, and hinting that wife wasn't performing her duties properly under the existing schedule anyways. In the letter the Husband also showed himself to be wholly ignorant of the concept of "dish soap" or its role in the task of "dishwashing".

Around the same time, during family prayer, Husband began openly praying that "wife would stop being a doodie-head".

Is husband's behavior appropriate?

Is it a bit obnoxious?

Manipulative?

Abusive?

While not having final say over whether the marriage continues or not, is a friend of the wife's justified in saying "you're married to a jerk and you oughta get out of that"?

Now hear the parable. The wife is the leadership of the LDS Church. The Husband is the modern Mormon feminist movement. The pornography petition is Prop 8, whose opposition within the Church was dominated by feminists. The husband's demands for inviting the public into intimate family moments, is the recent petition (again, backed by feminists) to allow non-members to witness sealing ordinances in the temple. The father-in-law's advice is the outrage and counter-petition sparked by Relief Society President Julie Beck's infamous "mothers who know" speech. And the dishwashing brouhaha is, of course, the recent demand by AllEnlisted for women to pray in general conference, and indeed their larger goal to see women ordained in the LDS priesthood. The outrageous behavior in family prayers, is the recent "wear pants to Church" stunt.

What say ye?

Edited March 20, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

And thus, all children who want ice cream in more places are bad bad children, even if they aren't part of the small group that did this.

I dunno. Did they go online and talk about how awesome the ad was? Once the ice cream was given, did they say "you know what? The bad kids' tactics seem to have worked. We should totally do this again when we decide we want cake."

Edited March 20, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[LittleWyvern]

What say ye?

Really, all I'm trying to say is don't confuse the part with the whole. If you are set in your way of calling an entire group of people wicked/prideful/unrighteous/etc. just because they happen to like something that a much smaller group of people likes that you consider wicked/prideful/unrighteous/etc., I don't think there's much more I can say.

[Just_A_Guy]

Really, all I'm trying to say is don't confuse the part with the whole. If you are set in your way of calling an entire group of people wicked/prideful/unrighteous/etc. just because they happen to like something that a much smaller group of people likes that you consider wicked/prideful/unrighteous/etc., I don't think there's much more I can say.

"I consider"?

If you won't even admit that much of what has been done by the self-proclaimed leadership of the Mormon feminist movement over the past decade is wrong--or at least unseemly--then unfortunately, you are right. There isn't much more we can say.

I am curious, though, LittleWyvern--do you believe all decentralized movements shouldn't be judged by their worst/most vocal members, or only liberal ones? Because I remember some progressives being pretty eager to link Anders Brevik with the political right; and being quite willing to lump the "tea party", "libertarians", or "religious right" into one homogenous whole.

If the onus is on me as a conservative to dissociate myself from Brevik and his ilk, and if I am inherently going to be tainted by the activities of a tiny cadre of clowns who dress up in sheets, infiltrate tea party gatherings, and yell racist epithets; then isn't the onus is also on you to disclaim the actions of Mormons4Marriage, AllEnlisted, WhatWomenKnow, and the other pet causes that the modern Mormon feminist movement have allowed to become perceived as their mouthpieces over the past decade?

If the don't speak for you, why not just say so instead of sinking into know-nothingism or, worse, performing all manner of mental gymnastics to justify their actions?

Edited March 20, 2013 by Just_A_Guy
Trying to tone down the rhetoric a bit; apologies if earlier versions gave offense.

[Finrock]

Good morning Vort. I hope you have been well! :)

I agree with you Vort. I sincerely appreciate the time you have taken to make a rational case. Despite claims to the contrary, you have not been mean and you have not attacked anyone personally. You have been unyielding and strict in what you believe is truth, but you have been fair.

Because those who oppose your argument have not actually addressed your argument, I want to play devil's advocate and do that as one who has an opposing view to yours.

Obviously as one who supports your view my exercise will not be equivalent to someone who actually opposes your view but I will try to address ANY weaknesses I see in your argument.

Here we go...

• 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.

I have no doubt that the LDS church is true and I accept the logical conclusions that follow that Jesus Christ is at the head of this Church and that the apostles are God's mouthpiece here on earth. Further, I agree that we make covenants to sustain the apostles. I sustain the apostles.

I simply do not agree with the following:

* Using social activist tactics to affect change in the Church = Covenant breaking.

I am not forcing or coercing the apostles to do anything. I am simply letting my voice be heard.

Can you explain to me why using social activist tactics to affect change in the Church is necessarily covenant breaking?

Respectfully,

Anti-Vort-Finrock

Edited March 20, 2013 by Finrock
added emphasis

[Wingnut]

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.

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.

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?

By saying all of it about Mormon Feminists, you said it about me.

I am not dodging you. I'm not refusing to pick you apart. It is you who continues to insult and criticize without a foundation or knowledge of whom you speak.

And with that, I will bow out of this conversation, lest I throw something through my monitor and get myself banned.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Wingnut

[Guest]

By saying all of it about Mormon Feminists, you said it about me.

I am not dodging you. I'm not refusing to pick you apart. It is you who continues to insult and criticize without a foundation or knowledge of whom you speak.

And with that, I will bow out of this conversation, lest I throw something through my monitor and get myself banned.

What in the world do you mean by a Mormon Feminist???

The traditional meaning of the label itself is offensive as applied to a Church that claims to be the TRUE Church led by Jesus Christ himself and claiming an organizational structure established by God and gleaned by revelation. That label pre-supposes that females require defending against God's Church Leadership.

This is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. That label does not belong here. If you have a need that requires attention, follow the organizational structure that is established by revelation in getting that need met. Throw that label away and practice what you profess to have faith in - Seek God's help through his chosen leaders in the manner established by revelation with patience, humility, and long-suffering - as there is a time and place for everything in God's TRUE Church.

And, like Vort has said... if you don't think this is working out as it should in the manner it is established, then maybe this is not the true church.

Edited March 20, 2013 by anatess

[pam]

What in the world do you mean by a Mormon Feminist???

There is an active group called Mormon Feminists.

[Jenamarie]

What in the world do you mean by a Mormon Feminist???

If you have a need that requires attention, follow the organizational structure that is established by revelation in getting that need met.

Isn't writing a letter to the people in charge of making decisions about General Conference doing just that? It isn't Bishops or Stake Presidents (or even Area Presidents) who make those decisions, right?

[Anddenex]

Isn't writing a letter to the people in charge of making decisions about General Conference doing just that? It isn't Bishops or Stake Presidents (or even Area Presidents) who make those decisions, right?

And yet we have been asked by those who "make those decisions" to address our concerns with our local leaders.

A proper line of authority.

[LittleWyvern]

If you won't even admit that much of what has been done by the self-proclaimed leadership of the Mormon feminist movement over the past decade is wrong--or at least unseemly--then unfortunately, you are right. There isn't much more we can say.

[snip]

...the onus is also on you to disclaim the actions of Mormons4Marriage, AllEnlisted, WhatWomenKnow, and the other pet causes that the modern Mormon feminist movement have allowed to become perceived as their mouthpieces over the past decade...

[snip]

If the don't speak for you, why not just say so instead of sinking into know-nothingism or, worse, performing all manner of mental gymnastics to justify their actions?

Oh, but I've already done that.

[snip] While I disagree with the way All Enlisted seeks change (and with some of the things they want to change), [snip]

I don't like the way All Enlisted et. al. do things. I disagree with their methods. I disagree with many of the things they want to change (women and the Priesthood, gay marriage, etc.). Can I be clearer than that? The only thing that I'm trying to show with my posts is that allowing women to pray in General Conference is a positive thing. That's it.

I am curious, though, LittleWyvern--do you believe all decentralized movements shouldn't be judged by their worst/most vocal members, or only liberal ones? Because I remember some progressives being pretty eager to link Anders Brevik with the political right; and being quite willing to lump the "tea party", "libertarians", or "religious right" into one homogenous whole.

Oh, you're quick to give me views I don't have. I posted about Anders Brevik a long time ago. Let's revisit it, just for fun.

Anders Breivik's political and religious leanings are hard to pin down, but his "manifesto" that he published and his online activity can give us some hints. He is defintely an Islamophobe, as can be seen by his activity on the mostly Islamophobic website document.no (have google translate the source on that one). He was also very strongly anti-immigration, mostly because of his anti-Islam views (the immigration of Muslims has been a hot topic for years now in Europe, which caused Switzerland to ban minarets a year or so ago). He had contact with several organizations, including the English Defense Leauge and Stop the Islamification of Europe. He even attempted to start a sort of Tea Party inspired movement in Norway in cooperation with document.no, but failed to bring it to fruition. So, the labeling of Breivik as right-wing is pretty spot on.

Yes, I said Breivik had right-wing views, but did I link him to the religious right? The tea party? Libertarianism in general? No, I just described his views on common issues. Regardless whether you'll believe me or not, I don't think any decentralized movement should be judged solely by its most vocal/extreme members, but such groups do have some kind of responsibility to distance themselves from their most extreme members.

[Guest]

There is an active group called Mormon Feminists.

Sad.

[Jenamarie]

And yet we have been asked by those who "make those decisions" to address our concerns with our local leaders.

A proper line of authority.

Except that Bishops and SP's have never had any authority over General Conference.

[pam]

Except that Bishops and SP's have never had any authority over General Conference.

No but they are the ones that would forward concerns of their ward or stake onto church headquarters. Everything should go through a chain of command per se.

[Guest]

Except that Bishops and SP's have never had any authority over General Conference.

Jenamarie. The proper line of authority if you want President Monson to address your concern is that you bring the issue to your bishop, the bishop brings the issue to the stake president, the stake president brings the issue to the 70, the 70 brings the issue to the apostles, the apostles bring the issue to the first presidency which would get to President Monson.

[Jenamarie]

Jenamarie. The proper line of authority if you want President Monson to address your concern is that you bring the issue to your bishop, the bishop brings the issue to the stake president, the stake president brings the issue to the 70, the 70 brings the issue to the apostles, the apostles bring the issue to the first presidency which would get to President Monson.

And it would only take one of those people to decide that your concern wasn't important, or to just forget to forward your concern, to have your concern not reach the intended ears of the person who can actually address them ETA: even if the person at the end of the line might actually agree with the original person that it *is* a concern, as looks like may be the case here, if indeed women have been asked to pray in the next conference in response to having heard some members' concerns. Edited March 20, 2013 by Jenamarie

[Anddenex]

And it would only take one of those people to decide that your concern wasn't important, or to just forget to forward your concern, to have your concern not reach the intended ears of the person who can actually address them.

And it only takes one person to assume their concern is above everyone else's concern, that certain concerns are more important because they esteem them more important. This typically stems from the word "pride." I want. I want. I want my voice heard. My concern is more important than any other concern the Church is dealing with.

If our concerns do not reach the ears of those who "make those decisions" it is safe then to assume there are other concerns which are of more concern, and which need to be addressed first.

[Jenamarie]

Please see my edit.

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW: I have no problem with letters. I have few problems with people asking other concerned parties to write their own letters. My major concern comes into play when one initiates a public petition process.

The one involves communication and a mutual exchange of ideas with authority. The other involves a bald-faced attempt to pressure or shame authority figures into submission, regardless of what their true beliefs are or the reasons that they hold them.

[Just_A_Guy]

LittleWyvern, I appreciate your clarifying your position with regard to some of the entities we've even discussing and apologize for not having thoroughly read your previous post on that issue.

With respect to lumping all wings of a movement into the same homogenous mass: my observation was not based solely on that particular post of yours (although, in candor, yes; it was one of them). Regardless, I am glad to see that you believe in applying the same standard to all sides.