Beyond Pants

[Wingnut]

It's unprecedented in that it's never happened before. Whether or not you celebrate that, or go on and on about it (as opposed to any talk that actually gave counsel), might have more to do with one's attitude than anything else. But in a plain, stripped-down sense, it was an historic event in that a woman had never prayed in General Conference before. We can never say that again.

Personally, I think it's great that it happened -- wahoo! But I don't necessarily think of it as a great thing. It's not all I'll be talking about. But for those women I know personally who have hoped and prayed for this as a symbol of acceptance (for whatever their personal concerns are), I am happy with and for them.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Wingnut

[Vort]

Then would it be too much to ask for you and selek to stop ascribing to me beliefs and traits I do not have?

What on earth are you talking about? I have responded to exactly what you have written. I have even explained exactly what you have written that I'm responding to.

Just as you don't like having opinions ascribed to you that are not yours, we feel the same way. You proclaim an opinion that you deem "against the grain", obviously implying that yours is a minority opinion. But when I ask for you to substantiate this, you don't.

What's up with that, LW?

We aren't picking on you (at least I am not). We just want you to clarify and substantiate your claims.

[Wingnut]

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.

Okay, maybe I'm just thick today, but I thought this post was made a little tongue-in-cheek, hence my "laugh" at it. A re-read tells me I'm wrong, but that also tells me why I've been so confused for the last few pages.

[selek]

Then would it be too much to ask for you and selek to stop ascribing to me beliefs and traits I do not have?

You're quite correct. How silly of us (in the absense of clear communication from you) to take your posts at face-value.

Whatever could we have been thinking?

Ironically, this is a right for which you just lectured both Vort and I for exercising.

Is this more of the "civility for thee, but not for me" kick that has been declaimed on several threads (and in Post #152) now?

[annewandering]

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.

Whats an arksteadier? Wouldnt steadying an ark be a good thing? Or not?

[mikbone]

How many times have you been in church and a teacher ask for a volunteer for an opening or closing prayer and experienced an uncomfortable silence.

Happens all the time for me.

Have any groups complained that the spouses of general authorities are not allowed to sit on the stand with them at general conference?

[selek]

. But for those women I know personally who have hoped and prayed for this as a symbol of acceptance (for whatever their personal concerns are), I am happy with and for them.

I agree.

But for those who see this is a vindication of their agitation and lobbying- and as fuel of the fire of their agenda- I am AFRAID for them.

I have no issue who see Sister Stevens prayer as an affirmation of their worth and acceptance within the Church.

But I am very afraid for the eternal welfare of those who see her prayer as a vindication of their efforts to "reform" the Church.

[estradling75]

Whats an arksteadier? Wouldnt steadying an ark be a good thing? Or not?

The story is here

2 Samuel 6:6Â*

Basically God said that only certain people could touch the ark. Uzzah thought the ark was in danger and took it upon himself to try to protect it. Breaking the commandments to do so. This drew down the wrath of God

[Just_A_Guy]

Whats an arksteadier? Wouldnt steadying an ark be a good thing? Or not?

I forget the precise reference, Annewandering; but at one point in the Old Testament the Ark of the Covenant was captured by the Philistines. It brought such cursings upon them that they ultimately gave it back to the Israelites; and David ordered the Ark to be brought up to Jerusalem. During the journey, at one point the Ark seemed as if it were about to fall off of the cart that was transporting it. One of David's men, Uzzah, forgot that it was forbidden to touch the Ark and reached out to steady it; he was instantly stricken dead.

The take-away lesson seems to be that the Ark, being a divine object, did not need the hand of man to preserve it from injury; and in some LDS circles that has become a sort of metaphor for the Church itself. Thus internal critics and would-be reformers of some aspects of Mormon practice or theology are often pejoratively called "ark steadiers".

[Dravin]

Whats an arksteadier? Wouldnt steadying an ark be a good thing? Or not?

It falls under not.

7 And they carried the ark of God in a new cart out of the house of Abinadab: and Uzza and Ahio drave the cart.

8 And David and all Israel played before God with all their might, and with singing, and with harps, and with psalteries, and with timbrels, and with cymbals, and with trumpets.

9 ¶And when they came unto the threshingfloor of Chidon, Uzza put forth his hand to hold the ark; for the oxen stumbled.

10 And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and he smote him, because he put his hand to the ark: and there he died before God.

Uzzah

Strength. Slain for touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6); called Uzza (1 Chr. 13:9). The penalty may appear to us severe, but it must be remembered that the Ark was a sacred repository, and the people had been clearly warned that only designated persons could touch the Ark, and warned also of the consequences of disobedience.

An "ark steadier" is someone who goes beyond their stewardship and tries to perform, or tells those with stewardship how to perform, the duties that belong to others.

Edit: I'm just clarifying the term, I'm not trying to apply it to anyone.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Dravin

[carlimac]

OK then, since no one picked it up the first time when I said it...It sounds odd to me to hear a woman's voice in General Conference. I still get a little "start" even when a woman is giving a talk. This doesn't mean that what they have to say isn't important, interesting and inspirational. I'll miss hearing from Sister Dalton. But for the last more than 50 years I have enjoyed hearing men's voices speaking and praying in Conference. There is something soothing about a lower voice- one that's easier for me to listen to for some reason. A woman's voice sounds oddly out of place to me except at Women's General Conference in the fall or YW in the Spring ( when a 12 yr old gave the opening prayer last week).

It makes a difference to me. I, a woman who believes in the never ending worth of women and who doesn't need to feel "represented" in any particular way, would rather have a man pray at Conference. There it is in black and white.

[carlimac]

And one more thing. The Trib (liberal leaning and often anti-Mormon news) has "Woman prays in Conference" as it's bold headline news. Deseret News- nuthin! No mention at all.

Someone interpret that little tidbit for us.

[Vort]

And one more thing. The Trib (liberal leaning and often anti-Mormon news) has "Woman prays in Conference" as it's bold headline news. Deseret News- nuthin! No mention at all.

Someone interpret that little tidbit for us.

The SLTribulation, always agitating for change in LDS Church doctrine and practice, considers a mere woman praying in General Conference as some sort of earth-shattering updating of the attitudes of those old white men in Salt Lake. The Deseret News, in contrast, does not find the issue of a woman praying in General Conference to be even particularly newsworthy.

Unsurprisingly, I agree with the DN.

[Wingnut]

So going back to the original topic a little bit...I was thinking about female ordination earlier today.

Suppose female ordination were to happen. Suspend your doubts and personal preferences for a moment. Would it be an optional thing? (You can seek to receive the Priesthood if you want to, but it's not obligatory.) Or would it be a symbol of your personal spiritual progression? (Let's get the priests ready to bridge up to elders; who of the elders might be ready to move up to high priest?) Would women be expected to progress in the Priesthood the same way that men currently are?

I've read a lot lately saying that 90% of women in the Church are against female ordination, while only about 52% of men in the Church are against it. This being, I think it would be better if it were more of an optional thing. But if that's the case, why bother? If it's not going to be an expectation, doesn't it just create more of the same problem? Rather, if women were allowed to be ordained, but not required, wouldn't the women who sought to be ordained (even when allowed) still be viewed as ambitious and inappropriate? And if it became more of an expected thing, what about those 90% of women who don't want it?

Anyway, just some thoughts I had earlier today, that I thought might make for good discussion.

Interestingly, I've seen the word "agitation" used a lot in this thread, particularly with the connotation that it's inappropriate and even (to some) heretical. President Hinckley was asked in an interview once about female ordination. Specifically, he was asked if the policy could be changed, much like it had been to allow black men to hold the Priesthood. His response: "Yes. But there’s no agitation for that." I might very well be reading too much into the statement, but it seems to me that he implied that (1) it could happen; (2) it could happen because of agitation; and (3) if it were to change, it would be a positive thing, making -- by extension -- said agitation a positive thing.

As I've stated previously, I don't know where I personally stand on the issue or female ordination. But these are some thoughts I have on both sides of this issue.

[annewandering]

Wingnut, when I saw the word agitate in your post, I realized that is what bothers me so much about the group agitating for the priesthood. We do not need agitators in the church. We need prayers and doers and people who trust in God. Agitation is not a Godly thing in my opinion. It is disorganized at its very base and uses anger as motivation. Are those traits of Godliness?

[Suzie]

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

By the way, I can't see Selek's posts (and a few other people) who posted on this thread.

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.

I am not sure if I agree with that JAG, it seems like there is a lot of stereotypes and assumptions there, not saying it doesn't exist at all but generally I don't think that's the sentiment.

[Dravin]

If women are ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood I see one large issue with the idea of it being optional:

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come.

42 And wo unto all those who come not unto this priesthood which ye have received, which I now confirm upon you who are present this day, by mine own voice out of the heavens; and even I have given the heavenly hosts and mine angels charge concerning you.

[Suzie]

President Hinckley was asked in an interview once about female ordination. Specifically, he was asked if the policy could be changed, much like it had been to allow black men to hold the Priesthood. His response: "Yes. But there’s no agitation for that." I might very well be reading too much into the statement, but it seems to me that he implied that (1) it could happen; (2) it could happen because of agitation; and (3) if it were to change, it would be a positive thing, making -- by extension -- said agitation a positive thing.

Agitation: "The action of arousing public concern about an issue and pressing for action on it."

When I read President Hinckley's statement the first time this is what I understood:

1. Yes, that it could happen (even though some folks hate the idea).

2. The Brethren are not considering the issue or bothering the Lord about it because there is no "agitation" for that, in other words women don't seem interested in wanting to be ordained then why would they discuss the issue or pray about it?

That's my understanding. However, that statement was given years ago.

As I've stated previously, I don't know where I personally stand on the issue or female ordination. But these are some thoughts I have on both sides of this issue.

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with sisters being ordained (but I think everyone knows that by now ).