Beyond Pants

[LittleWyvern]

I assume this is my confusion, why would a prayer spoken by a women be less obvious to enjoy, or believe to be heartfelt or sincerely spoken?

Your guess is as good as mine on this one. I have no idea.

[Just_A_Guy]

So what if some women in the Church want the Priesthood? If you (not you personally) do not agree then fine, say I do not agree and point taken. Going further than that and throwing judgments to them is causing a lot of contention and pain. And the same principle applies to the other side.

In theory, I agree with you.

In practice, it seems to boil down--at best--to a passive-aggressive schtick of talking about those loveable, naive, antiquated GAs and those unthinking automatons who support them (bless their hearts!), but the minute any conservative pipes up in response we get hit with a "why are you being so mean?" routine.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Wingnut]

I'm already seeing postings all over facebook about how they won. Pffft

I've hardly seen anything on Facebook about it, which seems odd to me. One comment from my husband, and one from a (male) friend of his, and that's it, surprisingly.

I thought it was a specific session that women had never prayed in, but other sessions they had. Is this right?

Until today, a woman had never prayed in any session of General Conference.

[Vort]

Well, I've never felt such an opinion was controversial until now. I didn't mention that I enjoyed all the prayers of previous conferences because it was obvious. For this prayer, it is much less obvious: people have differing opinions here.

You think it's not obvious that people on this list would enjoy a General Conference prayer? Please explain and provide some links supporting this otherwise inexplicable opinion.

[Just_A_Guy]

Unless you count the Relief Society sessions.

[Wingnut]

Unless you count the Relief Society sessions.

Those aren't part of General Conference.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hence the .

[Anddenex]

I apparently missed your humor Vort. I have officially "removed" my "Thanks", and have officially "laughed" at your response.

Looks like this one isn't making it to your "missed laughs" thread. Your humor was only missed by me -- no loss. :)

[selek]

Gosh darn it folks , the prayer is being mentioned so much because it made history but you all knew that already.

Really?

Why?

According to lib-logic- and the apparatchik's agitating for female ordination and gay "marriage"- men and women are interchangeable. Their roles are identical and their actual physical genders are irrelevant.

According to the premises being argued, there is no difference- nor should there be- between men and women, and the two are completely and irreducably interchangable.

The supposition is ludicrous on its face: but it's your supposition, and so you should be bound by it.

By the standard you and others are attempting to peddle, today's "historic" event boils down to this:

A faithful Latter-day Saint (whose gender is utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) offered a heartfelt and sincere prayer- exactly has happened in the previous 182 General Conferences of the Church.

There are only two ways in which this Sister's prayer can be considered historical unprecedented:

1) if (contrary to all of your previous arguments) the gender of the person praying has specific, intrinsic value.

or

2) you view this as a victory over the Church, at which point you discard any pretense of a "loyal" opposition.

You and the other rhetoricians are trying to have your cake and eat it too- and destroying any pretense of intellectual intregity in your arguments in the process.

[LittleWyvern]

You think it's not obvious that people on this list would enjoy a General Conference prayer? Please explain and provide some links supporting this otherwise inexplicable opinion.

This thread? Heck, THIS thread, now?

[selek]

This thread? Heck, THIS thread, now?

Horse feathers.

No one in either thread has objected to the idea of a woman praying in GC in and of itself.

We simply object to the agitation and lobbying of Babylon to bring such an "event" to pass, and to the arksteadiers who fancy themselves are more "enlightened" than the Brethren (and than the bulk of Church membership).

[Vort]

So what if some women in the Church want the Priesthood? If you (not you personally) do not agree then fine, say I do not agree and point taken. Going further than that and throwing judgments to them is causing a lot of contention and pain.

If people are saying, "Those wicked feminists! Let's hope they go to hell sooner rather than later!", then I agree with you. But I haven't heard anything like that.

On the other hand, when people make relevant statements such as, "Women don't hold the Priesthood, and agitating for it is faithless and perverse," this is every bit as valid as (if not more valid than) the feminists' agitations.

Gosh darn it folks , the prayer is being mentioned so much because it made history but you all knew that already.

It's not the mention; it's the exultation. And it's stupidly meaningless to exult over such a thing. You have never offered a General Conference prayer, and neither have I. And we never will, either. The fact that some good woman in the leading auxiliaries of the Church was asked to pray is of no real moment to you or to me, unless she happens to be your cousin or something.

The exultation implies that the agitating whiners "got their way". This is a dangerous idea, of course: If we want something, we just need to keep bothering God's leaders long enough and we will get it. I want no part of such an organization, and I suspect no thinking and believing Saint does, either.

[Vort]

This thread? Heck, THIS thread, now?

Can you be more specific? For example, can you link to a post -- any post at all -- where a list member suggested that women shouldn't pray in General Conference?

[Just_A_Guy]

In fairness, Selek, I don't think Suzie's position is quite as extreme as you paint her to be. :)

LittleWyvern, the threads you cite have a lot of expressions of concerns about the means by which this may have come about, but I see precious few concerns about the actual ends that were attained. Along with Vort, I would request some more specific citations. Who, specifically, indicated that it would be unenjoyable or unedifying per se for a female to pray in Conference?

[LittleWyvern]

The debate, as I saw it, wasn't whether a woman is allowed to pray at General Conference or not, but whether a woman praying at General Conference would be a positive thing or a negative thing. Now that the prayer has happened, I'm simply stating that I think it turned out to be a positive thing. I didn't feel like it was much of a history-making event (beyond the first event of anything is kinda cool), I just liked it. That's it. Disagree with me as you wish, but that's the feeling I got from the prayer (and thus I was offering what I felt like was the outcome of an uncertain event) and I don't feel like debating it anymore.

Edited April 6, 2013 by LittleWyvern

[Just_A_Guy]

As a side note: I was in the conference center this morning. It was interesting to me that there was a loud, collective gasp at the announcement of the temple in Cedar City. But when the benediction was announced, I heard nary a peep.

Apparently, among the Church membership generally, the idea of a woman praying in conference for the first time is even less remarkable than the construction of yet another temple in Utah. Go figure.

[Vort]

The debate, as I saw it, wasn't whether a woman is allowed to pray at General Conference or not, but whether a woman praying at General Conference would be a positive thing or a negative thing. Now that the prayer has happened, I'm simply stating that I think it turned out to be a positive thing. Disagree with me as you wish, but that's the feeling I got from the prayer (and thus I was offering what I felt like was the outcome of an uncertain event) and I don't feel like debating it anymore.

Your original comment seems to bear a false witness against your fellow list members:

Well, I guess I'll be the person here that goes against the grain a bit and admits that I actually enjoyed the prayer and I felt like I was spiritually edified by it like I do for all General Conference prayers.

In declaring yourself to be acting the part of the brave non-conformist, you are, of course, implying that most others here felt the opposite: That "the grain" of this board would not enjoy a woman's prayer and would not find it spiritually edifying. I think this is false, and so I'm asking yet again that you provide some evidence of this extraordinarily negative opinion of this board, which I believe to be false.

[pam]

I have never said that I wouldn't like that a women gives a prayer at conference. What I disagree with is the manner in which certain groups are attempting to make changes.

[selek]

In fairness, Selek, I don't think Suzie's position is quite as extreme as you paint her to be. :)

Ironically, nor do I.

While I vehemently disagree with some of her rationalizations in support of the agitators, I do not consider Suzie herself to be one of them.

There are agitators/arksteadiers fit to be declaimed in iambic pentameter, but I don't believe any of them have posted here.

I apologize if I came across as lumping her in with them.

LittleWyvern, the threads you cite have a lot of expressions of concerns about the means by which this may have come about, but I see precious few concerns about the actual ends that were attained. Along with Vort, I would request some more specific citations. Who, specifically, indicated that it would be unenjoyable or unedifying per se for a female to pray in Conference?

I, too, shall add my shrill declamation to this call for specifics .

[LittleWyvern]

In declaring yourself to be acting the part of the brave non-conformist, you are, of course, implying that most others here felt the opposite: That "the grain" of this board would not enjoy a woman's prayer and would not find it spiritually edifying. I think this is false, and so I'm asking yet again that you provide some evidence of this extraordinarily negative opinion of this board, which I believe to be false.

That's not what I meant at all. I felt I was going against the grain about talking about the prayer itself, not the controversy surrounding it.

I, too, shall add my shrill declamation to this call for specifics .

Disagree with me as you wish, but that's the feeling I got from the prayer (and thus I was offering what I felt like was the outcome of an uncertain event) and I don't feel like debating it anymore.

[Vort]

That's not what I meant at all. I felt I was going against the grain about talking about the prayer itself, not the controversy surrounding it.

I confess, I have no idea at all what you mean. You say you thought the conversation was whether a woman praying in General Conference would be positive or negative -- yet you cannot produce a single example of someone saying it would be a negative. You portray yourself as a brave nonconformist for voicing an opinion on the sister's prayer, yet you cannot produce a single example of someone suggesting anything different.

Can you see why many of us doubt what you're saying and question why you won't make any attempt to clarify or substantiate your position?

Edited April 6, 2013 by Vort

[selek]

Suzie (and any others who feel they were targeted)-

In the event that you took my direct responses to your positions as a direct attack upon your person or your integrity, I wish to apologize and to clarify.

It is my intent to examine your reasoning, not your integrity.

It is my intent to your logic, not your loyalty.

If I have given you cause to believe otherwise, please believe that I did not do so intentionally.

[jerome1232]

I have to say, had I not participated on these forums, I would have never known that a woman hasn't prayed in conference before and wouldn't have taken much note when a woman did pray in conference.

[selek]

I have to say, had I not participated on these forums, I would have never known that a woman hasn't prayed in conference before and wouldn't have taken much note when a woman did pray in conference.

This statement mirrors the position of every Latter-day Saint I've spoken with.

Except to those who see this as a vindication of their agitation and an endorsement of their "reform" agenda, it's a non-issue.

It is an unprecedented event only to those with a chip on their shoulder or an axe to grind.

[LittleWyvern]

I confess, I have no idea at all what you mean.

Then would it be too much to ask for you and selek to stop ascribing to me beliefs and traits I do not have? I'll make this as clear as I possibly can:

I do not consider myself a brave non-conformist.

I am not an arksteadier.

I am not an agitator.

I do not "fancy [myself] more "enlightened" than the Brethren."

I do not "view this as a victory over the Church."

I do have a testimony of the Gospel and of the Church.

I'm only participating now because I believe I have a right to defend myself when people say things about me (either directly or indirectly) that are not true.

EDIT: No, scratch that, after this I'm done. I've made what I feel clear, I think.

Edited April 6, 2013 by LittleWyvern