PDA

View Full Version : Let Women Pray



Sullyute
02-19-2013, 09:43 PM
I mailed in my letter today. I have never written to a church leader outside of my mission president. I addressed it to Elder Holland. I kept it brief and faithful. I also included the name of my ward and stake. I do not expect any direct response, but I do expect to see the fairer sex at the pulpit more often going forward.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

chrisrenrut
02-19-2013, 10:25 PM
I mailed in my letter today. I have never written to a church leader outside of my mission president. I addressed it to Elder Holland. I kept it brief and faithful. I also included the name of my ward and stake. I do not expect any direct response, but I do expect to see the fairer sex at the pulpit more often going forward.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Specifically at GC, or does your stake and ward not let women pray in large meetings?

FMCoug
02-19-2013, 10:33 PM
Specifically at GC, or does your stake and ward not let women pray in large meetings?

When I was Ward Exec. Sec. years ago, I was in charge of getting the opening and closing prayers for Sacrament meeting. There were two "rules" I was given by the Bishop. The first was that they didn't want couples because this alienates singles or part-members. This was a PITA because it doubled the number of phone calls I had to make but I could see the reasoning so I went with it. The 2nd rule though was that a priesthood holder had to open the meeting and sisters could only close. I ignored this one completely.

DrumNFeather
02-20-2013, 06:44 AM
When I was Ward Exec. Sec. years ago, I was in charge of getting the opening and closing prayers for Sacrament meeting. There were two "rules" I was given by the Bishop. The first was that they didn't want couples because this alienates singles or part-members. This was a PITA because it doubled the number of phone calls I had to make but I could see the reasoning so I went with it. The 2nd rule though was that a priesthood holder had to open the meeting and sisters could only close. I ignored this one completely.

I am in that calling right now and do the same thing with no real push back from the Bishopric...let's be honest, they're just glad they don't have to arrange the prayers, so who cares how I do it. On occasion, I've even had (gasp) TWO women pray in the same meeting. I know, I know.

kccougar
02-20-2013, 06:57 AM
When I was Ward Exec. Sec. years ago, I was in charge of getting the opening and closing prayers for Sacrament meeting. There were two "rules" I was given by the Bishop. The first was that they didn't want couples because this alienates singles or part-members. This was a PITA because it doubled the number of phone calls I had to make but I could see the reasoning so I went with it. The 2nd rule though was that a priesthood holder had to open the meeting and sisters could only close. I ignored this one completely.

While that was in the handbook years and years ago, it is conspicuously absent from recent additions. There is no requirement that men open meetings.

Sullyute
02-20-2013, 09:00 AM
Specifically at GC, or does your stake and ward not let women pray in large meetings?

It was specific to general conference. My ward is an equal opportunity prayer.

Slim
02-20-2013, 09:21 AM
Interesting must be a specific ward thing.

My ward mixes it up nicely. My wife and I prayed on the same Sunday a couple weeks ago, but there are also times when men and women who are married but not to each other pray as well. I've never heard of that. Interesting topic.

SoCalCoug
02-20-2013, 09:57 AM
I don't really notice the prayer thing (I don't think my ward has a rule), but I don't think I've ever heard a woman give the last talk in a Sacrament meeting.

Mrs. Funk
02-20-2013, 11:26 AM
I don't really notice the prayer thing (I don't think my ward has a rule), but I don't think I've ever heard a woman give the last talk in a Sacrament meeting.

Much like women praying in general conference, it seems a tradition thing to close with a male speaker. In either instance, I don't see a strong justification for the practice.

Sullyute
02-20-2013, 01:11 PM
Much like women praying in general conference, it seems a tradition thing to close with a male speaker. In either instance, I don't see a strong justification for the practice.

Unless Peter was wrong when he said "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" then there is no justfication for the practice.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

SuperGabers
02-20-2013, 03:07 PM
SullyUte! You so totally rock!

Scratch
02-20-2013, 09:03 PM
Much like women praying in general conference, it seems a tradition thing to close with a male speaker. In either instance, I don't see a strong justification for the practice.

I always assumed it was because the leaders figured everyone was zoned out by the end anyway so you should have the better speaker go first.

FMCoug
02-20-2013, 09:12 PM
I always assumed it was because the leaders figured everyone was zoned out by the end anyway so you should have the better speaker go first.

This is the reality of course. But I bet more often than not they want the "priesthood holder" to close the meeting. Because that matters.

UtahDan
03-14-2013, 08:10 AM
Rumor circulating this morning that two prayers will be given by women at the upcoming General Conference.

Sullyute
03-14-2013, 08:35 AM
:rave:

If true, then kudos to the women behind this push and to the leadership of the church for responding once again to bottom-up inspiration.

LadyUte
03-14-2013, 09:53 AM
Awesome. Hope this happens. It's about time.

DrumNFeather
03-14-2013, 10:06 AM
Rumor circulating this morning that two prayers will be given by women at the upcoming General Conference.


If true, who gets the credit? If not true, we know who will get the blame. ;)

Jeff Lebowski
03-14-2013, 10:58 AM
That would be fantastic because all of those folks who reacted so negatively to the "protests" would have to eat a little crow.

UtahDan
03-14-2013, 11:23 AM
That would be fantastic because all of those folks who reacted so negatively to the "protests" would have to eat a little crow.

Particularly those who said this is simply not how you go about things.

Dawminator
03-14-2013, 11:25 AM
I thought the pants protest was beyond stupid...but I'm sure thats just because I am some sort of swine.

DrumNFeather
03-14-2013, 11:44 AM
That would be fantastic because all of those folks who reacted so negatively to the "protests" would have to eat a little crow.

As would those that criticized the church for being unwavering no?

UteBeliever aka Port
03-14-2013, 11:47 AM
Apparently, agitating, as President Hinckley referred to it, and faithful agitation, at that, work....

NorthwestUteFan
03-14-2013, 11:55 AM
Apparently, agitating, as President Hinckley referred to it, and faithful agitation, at that, work....

The church is changing its approach to Boyd Packer's 'axis of evil', and now seems to be more accepting of intellectuals and feminists.

Full acceptance of gays will be the next domino.

Diehard Ute
03-14-2013, 12:01 PM
I'm always curious seeing stuff like this. As someone who isn't LDS and who has two aunts who are ordained Presbyterian ministers I scratch my head at all the religions who draw such staunch lines between men and women.

Entirely different world than what I grew up in.

UtahDan
03-14-2013, 12:06 PM
I thought the pants protest was beyond stupid...but I'm sure thats just because I am some sort of swine.

You should listen to this and hear one of the organizers talk about it. Might give you a difference perspective.

http://mormonexpositor.com/27-pants-postmortem/

UtahDan
03-14-2013, 12:17 PM
I'm always curious seeing stuff like this. As someone who isn't LDS and who has two aunts who are ordained Presbyterian ministers I scratch my head at all the religions who draw such staunch lines between men and women.

Entirely different world than what I grew up in.

I was kidding some of my office mates yesterday by congratulating them on their new spiritual leader (a Baptist, Episcopalian and Methodist respectively) and it became clear very quickly that neither the Methodist nor the Baptist (who are both quite religious and very smart) had any real idea about the how their churches derive authority. They only really had the fuzziest notions about their origins. I also had a friend in my home not long ago who talked about how he was an Evangelical minister in his 20s, started his own congregation, etc. The point I'm circling around to is that as someone raised Mormon the idea of authority was HUGE to me, as I imagine it is for Catholics. For a lot of other people of faith, it's not something that concerns them at all. I think the result is that a lot of these faith communities answer these social questions by asking themselves what they think they should do rather than answering them by looking to someone in authority for the answer. In traditions where authority is important, they are much more beholden to traditions and pronouncements of the past because the leaders that came before are more likely to be viewed as speaking for God.

Rocker Ute
03-14-2013, 12:20 PM
The church is changing its approach to Boyd Packer's 'axis of evil', and now seems to be more accepting of intellectuals and feminists.

Full acceptance of gays will be the next domino.

I'm not saying what dominoes should or shouldn't fall, nor is this a stance on LDS doctrines or policies past or present, but the challenge when it comes to homosexuality versus issues like blacks and the priesthood or women praying in church or holding callings of prominence is that there is a scriptural precedence regarding homosexuality. That will make it an extremely hard domino to topple.

Now before people pounce all over me, I'm just saying there are likely 15 men in a tall building in SLC who view it that way. If I were to put odds to it, I would put women holding the priesthood before an acceptance of homosexuality in the church and I wouldn't personally put any money down on either... because gambling is a sin. ;)

Diehard Ute
03-14-2013, 12:22 PM
I was kidding some of my office mates yesterday by congratulating them on their new spiritual leader (a Baptist, Episcopalian and Methodist respectively) and it became clear very quickly that neither the Methodist nor the Baptist (who are both quite religious and very smart) had any real idea about the how their churches derive authority. They only really had the fuzziest notions about their origins. I also had a friend in my home not long ago who talked about how he was an Evangelical minister in his 20s, started his own congregation, etc. The point I'm circling around to is that as someone raised Mormon the idea of authority was HUGE to me, as I imagine it is for Catholics. For a lot of other people of faith, it's not something that concerns them at all. I think the result is that a lot of these faith communities answer these social questions by asking themselves what they think they should do rather than answering them by looking to someone in authority for the answer. In traditions where authority is important, they are much more beholden to traditions and pronouncements of the past because the leaders that came before are more likely to be viewed as speaking for God.

The differences are actually huge. It's a difference between believing only one person has the ability to 'speak' to and for God and everyone having that ability.

The US Government was based on the government of the Presbyterian church. There is no prophet, no one person. The people of the church elect leaders every two years and they meet to decide what occurs.

While I understand your point about 'authority' it goes more to theology than anything else.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Scratch
03-14-2013, 12:44 PM
If I were to put odds to it, I would put women holding the priesthood before an acceptance of homosexuality in the church and I wouldn't personally put any money down on either.

Agreed.

UtahDan
03-14-2013, 12:54 PM
The differences are actually huge. It's a difference between believing only one person has the ability to 'speak' to and for God and everyone having that ability.

The US Government was based on the government of the Presbyterian church. There is no prophet, no one person. The people of the church elect leaders every two years and they meet to decide what occurs.

While I understand your point about 'authority' it goes more to theology than anything else.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I think we are saying the same thing. The reason authority is so imporant for Catholicism and Mormonism, theologically, it is what gives that one person the ability to speak for all. My belief is that those leaders are well intentioned and history shows they give in to social changes eventually. But in a tradition like yours where the regular folks decide, the changes happen a lot faster.

mpfunk
03-14-2013, 12:54 PM
The differences are actually huge. It's a difference between believing only one person has the ability to 'speak' to and for God and everyone having that ability.

The US Government was based on the government of the Presbyterian church. There is no prophet, no one person. The people of the church elect leaders every two years and they meet to decide what occurs.

While I understand your point about 'authority' it goes more to theology than anything else.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I think this isn't quite accurate. It is more of an issue of "who" has the ability to speak for God, not who has the ability to speak to God. LDS believe that anyone has the ability to speak to God, but there are limits on who can speak for God.

Diehard Ute
03-14-2013, 12:59 PM
I think this isn't quite accurate. It is more of an issue of "who" has the ability to speak for God, not who has the ability to speak to God. LDS believe that anyone has the ability to speak to God, but there are limits on who can speak for God.

Depending on your point of view the latter can make the former pointless :)

UtahDan
03-14-2013, 01:00 PM
Now before people pounce all over me, I'm just saying there are likely 15 men in a tall building in SLC who view it that way. If I were to put odds to it, I would put women holding the priesthood before an acceptance of homosexuality in the church and I wouldn't personally put any money down on either... because gambling is a sin. ;)

I agree that it is unlikely, but I don't think it is primarily a scriptural issue. Neither the New Testament nor any of the Mormon scriptures address it directly. The Old Testament is full of laws relating to marital relations and sexuality that no one would dream of bringing back. The impediment is all of the authoritative proclamations past and present that it is fundamentally contrary to God's plan. But the justifications for racial discrimination were equally authoritative and frequently expressed and they have been abandoned. I think LDS theology can accommodate that change though I would not expect to see it in any of our lifetimes.

NorthwestUteFan
03-14-2013, 01:25 PM
I'm not saying what dominoes should or shouldn't fall, nor is this a stance on LDS doctrines or policies past or present, but the challenge when it comes to homosexuality versus issues like blacks and the priesthood or women praying in church or holding callings of prominence is that there is a scriptural precedence regarding homosexuality. That will make it an extremely hard domino to topple.



The Bible is far, FAR more supportive of slavery than it is condemning of homosexuality. In fact the chapters that call homosexuality an 'abomination' also decry the wearing clothing made of more than one type of fiber an abomination. Mixing of meat with dairy is an abomination, and cooking a kid goat in its mother's milk is a huge abomination. A child who talks back to his parents is an abomination and it is the duty of his parents to stone him to death. If a friend contends with you to persuade you to believe in a different God it is your sworn DUTY as a Jew to be the first person to strike him with a stone as the community stones him to death.

But having slaves was great, so long as you don't leave a mark when you beat them. Lot having drunken sex with and impregnating two of his daughters was great.

We obviously pick and choose which scriptural precedents we select and follow. In fact there is effectively zero scriptural precedent to preclude women from praying in GC (or even in Sacrament Meeting prior to the 1980s), and minimal scriptural reason for Brigham Young to have denied the priesthood and temple blessings to people of African descent, but they did it anyway.

LA Ute
03-14-2013, 01:45 PM
The Bible is far, FAR more supportive of slavery than it is condemning of homosexuality. In fact the chapters that call homosexuality an 'abomination' also decry the wearing clothing made of more than one type of fiber an abomination. Mixing of meat with dairy is an abomination, and cooking a kid goat in its mother's milk is a huge abomination. A child who talks back to his parents is an abomination and it is the duty of his parents to stone him to death. If a friend contends with you to persuade you to believe in a different God it is your sworn DUTY as a Jew to be the first person to strike him with a stone as the community stones him to death.

But having slaves was great, so long as you don't leave a mark when you beat them. Lot having drunken sex with and impregnating two of his daughters was great.

We obviously pick and choose which scriptural precedents we select and follow. In fact there is effectively zero scriptural precedent to preclude women from praying in GC (or even in Sacrament Meeting prior to the 1980s), and minimal scriptural reason for Brigham Young to have denied the priesthood and temple blessings to people of African descent, but they did it anyway.

The significance of "abomination" in the Old Testament is something scholars argue about. Just for the sake of clarity, here's what one writer says (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html):


Advocates of the religious acceptance of homosexuality respond that while the Bible is morally advanced in some areas, it is morally regressive in others. Its condemnation of homosexuality is one example, and the Torah's permitting slavery is another. Far from being immoral, however, the Torah's prohibition of homosexuality was a major part of its liberation (1) of the human being from the bonds of unrestrained sexuality and (2) of women from being peripheral to men's lives. As for slavery, while the Bible declares homosexuality wrong, it never declares slavery good....

The Torah uses its strongest term of censure — "abomination" — to describe homosexuality. It is the Bible's moral evaluation of homosexuality that distinguishes homosexuality from other offenses, capital or otherwise. As Professor Greenberg, who betrays no inclination toward religious belief writes, "When the word toevah ("abomination") does appear in the Hebrew Bible, it is sometimes applied to idolatry, cult prostitution, magic, or divination, and is sometimes used more generally. It always conveys great repugnance" (emphasis added). Moreover, the Bible lists homosexuality together with child sacrifice among the "abominations" practiced by the peoples living in the land about to be conquered by the Jews. The two are certainly not morally equatable, but they both characterized a morally primitive world that Judaism set out to destroy. They both characterized a way of life opposite to the one that God demanded of Jews (and even of non-Jew — homosexuality is among the sexual offenses that constitute one of the "seven laws of the children of Noah" that Judaism holds all people must observe). Finally, the Bible adds a unique threat to the Jews if they engage in homosexuality and the other offenses of the Canaanites: "You will be vomited out of the land" just as the non-Jews who practise these things were vomited out of the land. Again, as Greenberg notes, this threat "suggests that the offenses were considered serious indeed."

The entire article is provocative.

BTW, how'd get from women praying in GC to the Bible and homosexuality? (I haven't read the thread, sorry!)

Rocker Ute
03-14-2013, 01:47 PM
The Bible is far, FAR more supportive of slavery than it is condemning of homosexuality. In fact the chapters that call homosexuality an 'abomination' also decry the wearing clothing made of more than one type of fiber an abomination. Mixing of meat with dairy is an abomination, and cooking a kid goat in its mother's milk is a huge abomination. A child who talks back to his parents is an abomination and it is the duty of his parents to stone him to death. If a friend contends with you to persuade you to believe in a different God it is your sworn DUTY as a Jew to be the first person to strike him with a stone as the community stones him to death.

But having slaves was great, so long as you don't leave a mark when you beat them. Lot having drunken sex with and impregnating two of his daughters was great.

We obviously pick and choose which scriptural precedents we select and follow. In fact there is effectively zero scriptural precedent to preclude women from praying in GC (or even in Sacrament Meeting prior to the 1980s), and minimal scriptural reason for Brigham Young to have denied the priesthood and temple blessings to people of African descent, but they did it anyway.

Like I said, I'm not commenting on the validity of anything, I'm talking about likelihoods.

You are right, there is no scriptural precedence for women praying in church, but there is on homosexuality (even in the New Testament, which is decidedly anti incest), and those involved in those decisions undoubtedly see that.

I guess I am just saying it is going to take a massive sea change for that to happen requiring revelation, whereas women praying in GC is just a policy change (and I'm not even certain it is an official policy at all, more likely tradition).

To tell the truth, I doubt I would have even noticed if this happens except for the mention here.

Jeff Lebowski
03-14-2013, 01:54 PM
The significance of "abomination" in the Old Testament is something scholars argue about. Just for the sake of clarity, here's what one writer says (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html):



The entire article is provocative.

BTW, how'd get from women praying in GC to the Bible and homosexuality? (I haven't read the thread, sorry!)

Lebowski's Law evidently applies to UB5 also. (swish!)

Rocker Ute
03-14-2013, 01:54 PM
BTW, how'd get from women praying in GC to the Bible and homosexuality? (I haven't read the thread, sorry!)

It's a derivative of Godwin's Law when people talk about the LDS church online. I call it Lonnie's Law: Where ever LDS discussion online will eventually result in a discussion on homosexuality.

Actually, the discussion came from an acknowledgement of women praying in GC as a domino falling, and then saying that the next domino to fall would be homosexuality. My point would be that would be 'hard domino to topple' with church leadership.

Jeff Lebowski
03-14-2013, 02:05 PM
It's a derivative of Godwin's Law when people talk about the LDS church online. I call it Lonnie's Law: Where ever LDS discussion online will eventually result in a discussion on homosexuality.


Sorry. I trademarked it. See prior post.

Scratch
03-14-2013, 02:14 PM
But the justifications for racial discrimination were equally authoritative and frequently expressed and they have been abandoned. I think LDS theology can accommodate that change though I would not expect to see it in any of our lifetimes.

I think you're wrong here, at least if "the change" you're talking about refers to homosexual temple sealings. The heterosexual family unit is so ingrained in LDS doctrine both at a "teaching" level but also at a "operational" level that it's a completely different issue than racial issues. Even if you assume that the doctrine as taught was equally opposed to the 1978 proclamation as current doctrine is to homosexual temple sealings (which I would disagree with), you still have the very significant difference that homosexual sealings would require a sea change at the operational level that I just don't think it could ever occur. With the 1978 proclamation, nothing operational had to change; the practices that were available were not changed, they were just extended. That would obviously not be the same for homosexual sealings.

Dawminator
03-14-2013, 02:24 PM
I am sure that this is not going to be a popular opinion here, but whatever. I am reminded of a story in the old testament. The armies of Israel were marching behind the Ark of the Covenant. It started to tip and, as the story goes, a non-levite saw this and reached out his hand to prevent it from falling over. According to the account he was struck down by God for attempting to touch the ark, which he did not have authority to do.

The moral of said story, as I understand it, is that it is not my job to worry about how the Lord's kingdom is governed. Even if I think I see the ark tipping that is why there are levites (prophets and apostles) to keep it steady. I believe these are smart and capable men who have surrounded themselves with good men and women (some of whom I know personally). Yes, they are all inperfect. But I have a role in the kingdom, and it is not to steady the ark.

If the LDS church decides to change (like Rocker, I wouldn't have noticed) it's "policy" (if there even is one) about women praying in conference, good on them. Same thing with every other policy, doctrine, protocol, and ordinance. I believe that God, through revelation, will reveal things to them to help perfect His Church when the time is right and not a second sooner.

Now, having said all of that, I am sure you can tell I am a kool-aide drinking believer. And you would be right. I don't mean to come off as condescending or arrogant. There are lots of opinions out there. Just thought I would share mine.

Jeff Lebowski
03-14-2013, 02:36 PM
I am sure that this is not going to be a popular opinion here, but whatever. I am reminded of a story in the old testament. The armies of Israel were marching behind the Ark of the Covenant. It started to tip and, as the story goes, a non-levite saw this and reached out his hand to prevent it from falling over. According to the account he was struck down by God for attempting to touch the ark, which he did not have authority to do.

The moral of said story, as I understand it, is that it is not my job to worry about how the Lord's kingdom is governed. Even if I think I see the ark tipping that is why there are levites (prophets and apostles) to keep it steady. I believe these are smart and capable men who have surrounded themselves with good men and women (some of whom I know personally). Yes, they are all inperfect. But I have a role in the kingdom, and it is not to steady the ark.

If the LDS church decides to change (like Rocker, I wouldn't have noticed) it's "policy" (if there even is one) about women praying in conference, good on them. Same thing with every other policy, doctrine, protocol, and ordinance. I believe that God, through revelation, will reveal things to them to help perfect His Church when the time is right and not a second sooner.

Now, having said all of that, I am sure you can tell I am a kool-aide drinking believer. And you would be right. I don't mean to come off as condescending or arrogant. There are lots of opinions out there. Just thought I would share mine.

That's a very common viewpoint in the church and I respect the attitude of faith and obedience that it represents. But it is not at all consistent with church history.

NorthwestUteFan
03-14-2013, 02:53 PM
It could be argued that Oliver Cowdery and William Law were faithfully attempting to 'steady the Ark' to protect the church, and were struck down by God (or rather excommunicated by Joseph Smith) for their 'crimes' (exposing the Fanny Alger affair and Nauvoo polygamy, respectively).

Sullyute
03-14-2013, 03:28 PM
If the LDS church decides to change (like Rocker, I wouldn't have noticed) it's "policy" (if there even is one) about women praying in conference, good on them. Same thing with every other policy, doctrine, protocol, and ordinance. I believe that God, through revelation, will reveal things to them to help perfect His Church when the time is right and not a second sooner.


First, if a policy doesn't negatively affect you then you are probably not going to notice it. If you see someone that looks like you every six months holding all of the authority and influence and receiving all of the praise and admiration why would you want a change? But if you never see someone of your gender or color up in those red seats or even doing something as simple as saying a prayer, then the questions start to rise.

Second, who is to say that the petition was not the catalyst for the brethern to ask God about a change and they received a revelation that it was time (and not a minute too soon) for women to pray in general conference? God works in mysterious ways.

Virginia Ute
03-14-2013, 04:32 PM
First, if a policy doesn't negatively affect you then you are probably not going to notice it. If you see someone that looks like you every six months holding all of the authority and influence and receiving all of the praise and admiration why would you want a change? But if you never see someone of your gender or color up in those red seats or even doing something as simple as saying a prayer, then the questions start to rise.

Second, who is to say that the petition was not the catalyst for the brethern to ask God about a change and they received a revelation that it was time (and not a minute too soon) for women to pray in general conference? God works in mysterious ways.

Receiving all the praise and admiration? Every time I watch conference, especially Priesthood session, it seems like the theme is how the men need to get their crap together and how the women are so wonderful and beautiful....not that that bothers me or anything.

Dawminator
03-14-2013, 04:48 PM
First, if a policy doesn't negatively affect you then you are probably not going to notice it. If you see someone that looks like you every six months holding all of the authority and influence and receiving all of the praise and admiration why would you want a change? But if you never see someone of your gender or color up in those red seats or even doing something as simple as saying a prayer, then the questions start to rise.

Second, who is to say that the petition was not the catalyst for the brethern to ask God about a change and they received a revelation that it was time (and not a minute too soon) for women to pray in general conference? God works in mysterious ways.


I am not accusing you of this (okay maybe just a little, but there are offenders much, much worse), but it bothers me a little when people say that the reason I have the opinions I do is because of my gender, race, orientation, etc. I guess I, and the women I know (in fact I just asked my sister if it bothers her they don't let women pray in general conference, and her response was, "don't they?" followed up by "I don't care at all." Anecdotal, I know.) don't really see it as a big deal. And in no way is it a sign of women having a backseat role, at least in our opinions. Why can my sister have that opinion and it not be dismissed because she is a woman, and I can't because I am a man? I don't hate women. I am not some cold hearted caveman.

I am finding (not that I feel like a victim) that there are fewer things I can have a valid opinion on these days as a white, Christian, male.

Sullyute
03-14-2013, 04:51 PM
Receiving all the praise and admiration? Every time I watch conference, especially Priesthood session, it seems like the theme is how the men need to get their crap together and how the women are so wonderful and beautiful....not that that bothers me or anything.


I was talking about the general authorities receiving the praise and admiration of the general membership, not lay priesthood holders getting praise from church leaders. I am with you, that it seems like us men can do little right during the saturday night session. ;)

Dawminator
03-14-2013, 04:54 PM
Also, I don't doubt that requests for women saying prayers may have had an effect on the church leaders deciding to allow women to pray in conference. I don't think something like that requires some dramatic revelation (unlike some things).

It still doesn't change my opinion on steadying the ark. Believe me I have a lot of opinions about things the church should do (boy scouts, BYU sports, singles wards). Some I have very strong opinions on. But the 15 are much smarter then I am and I am sure if it is THAT important, the Lord will provide the revelation.

LA Ute
03-14-2013, 04:58 PM
Some practices are just customary. IIRC, for a long time women didn't say the prayers in sacrament meeting. Then (I assume -- I don't know) someone asked about it, and someone in authority realized there was no reason for the custom. Suddenly women were saying sacrament meeting prayers, and have been for a long time.

Dawminator
03-14-2013, 05:02 PM
Some practices are just customary. IIRC, for a long time women didn't say the prayers in sacrament meeting. Then (I assume -- I don't know) someone asked about it, and someone in authority realized there was no reason for the custom. Suddenly women were saying sacrament meeting prayers, and have been for a long time.

This.

I don't have a problem with someone asking why? I don't even have an issue with someone suggesting that a woman be allowed to pray in conference if the appropriate opportunity arises. Telling the brethren what the Church's stance should be on something like gay marriage is crossing the line.

Danimal
03-14-2013, 05:13 PM
Wow. Who would have thought that UB5 would be closer to Cougar board than cougar stadium.

Sullyute
03-14-2013, 05:16 PM
I am not accusing you of this (okay maybe just a little, but there are offenders much, much worse), but it bothers me a little when people say that the reason I have the opinions I do is because of my gender, race, orientation, etc. I guess I, and the women I know (in fact I just asked my sister if it bothers her they don't let women pray in general conference, and her response was, "don't they?" followed up by "I don't care at all." Anecdotal, I know.) don't really see it as a big deal. And in no way is it a sign of women having a backseat role, at least in our opinions. Why can my sister have that opinion and it not be dismissed because she is a woman, and I can't because I am a man? I don't hate women. I am not some cold hearted caveman.

I am finding (not that I feel like a victim) that there are fewer things I can have a valid opinion on these days as a white, Christian, male.

Also, I don't doubt that requests for women saying prayers may have had an effect on the church leaders deciding to allow women to pray in conference. I don't think something like that requires some dramatic revelation (unlike some things).

It still doesn't change my opinion on steadying the ark. Believe me I have a lot of opinions about things the church should do (boy scouts, BYU sports, singles wards). Some I have very strong opinions on. But the 15 are much smarter then I am and I am sure if it is THAT important, the Lord will provide the revelation.

Accuse away. I wasn't trying to dismiss your opinion, but stating why you (the general you, not you specifically) might not notice things like that. However, as you noted with your sister, that some people can notice and it still may not bother them. Yet it bothers some people enought for them to try and agitate for change. I respect that.

Your opinion matters as much as anyone else's on this board especially when it comes to something as subjective as faith. The last thing I want is an echo chamber of ideas and opinions as I can get that from plenty of other places. So please keep your opinions coming. :)

LA Ute
03-14-2013, 05:16 PM
Wow. Who would have thought that UB5 would be closer to Cougar board than cougar stadium.

We are just more diverse. ;)

LA Ute
03-14-2013, 05:17 PM
Some practices are just customary. IIRC, for a long time women didn't say the prayers in sacrament meeting. Then (I assume -- I don't know) someone asked about it, and someone in authority realized there was no reason for the custom. Suddenly women were saying sacrament meeting prayers, and have been for a long time.

I should add that my memory on this is very, very fuzzy. I also know nothing about the reason for the change in prayers in GC.

Jeff Lebowski
03-14-2013, 05:26 PM
This.

I don't have a problem with someone asking why? I don't even have an issue with someone suggesting that a woman be allowed to pray in conference if the appropriate opportunity arises. Telling the brethren what the Church's stance should be on something like gay marriage is crossing the line.

So you are in fact OK with steadying the ark, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with those weird gay people? Gotcha.

And why is one case "suggesting" while the other case is "telling"?

UtahDan
03-14-2013, 05:27 PM
Wow. Who would have thought that UB5 would be closer to Cougar board than cougar stadium.

Give me some time. Rome wasn't built in a day. ;)

Dawminator
03-14-2013, 05:30 PM
So you are in fact OK with steadying the ark, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with those weird gay people? Gotcha.

And why is one case "suggesting" while the other case is "telling"?

This is why I don't discuss religion and politics online. Should have stuck to my rule.

Jarid in Cedar
03-14-2013, 05:33 PM
Also, I don't doubt that requests for women saying prayers may have had an effect on the church leaders deciding to allow women to pray in conference. I don't think something like that requires some dramatic revelation (unlike some things).

It still doesn't change my opinion on steadying the ark. Believe me I have a lot of opinions about things the church should do (boy scouts, BYU sports, singles wards). Some I have very strong opinions on. But the 15 are much smarter then I am and I am sure if it is THAT important, the Lord will provide the revelation.

I think you sell yourself short (as do many other people)

Flystripper
03-14-2013, 05:34 PM
This is why I don't discuss religion and politics online. Should have stuck to my rule.

Don't be such a wimp.

tooblue
03-14-2013, 05:39 PM
So you are in fact OK with steadying the ark, as long as it doesn't have anything to do with those weird gay people? Gotcha.

And why is one case "suggesting" while the other case is "telling"?

You have another venue where you can fully flex your naive condescension and ad hominem message board forum muscles. Maybe you should try a different approach here.

tooblue
03-14-2013, 05:45 PM
I think you sell yourself short (as do many other people)
Maybe we do sell ourselves short. And maybe that's precisely the problem. It's a conundrum. All individuals on both (or all) sides of the argument have unrealistic expectations of the fifteen that they wouldn't dare inflict on themselves.

Jeff Lebowski
03-14-2013, 05:47 PM
You have another venue where you can fully flex your naive condescension and ad hominem message board forum muscles. Maybe you should try a different approach here.

Irony alert.

UteBeliever aka Port
03-14-2013, 05:50 PM
Receiving all the praise and admiration? Every time I watch conference, especially Priesthood session, it seems like the theme is how the men need to get their crap together and how the women are so wonderful and beautiful....not that that bothers me or anything.

IMO, the recurring "men, get your crap together" message comes in response, intentionally or not, to the reality that men hold all the cards.

This same thing happens on Fathers Day and the flip side of it (telling women how wonderful they are) happens on Mothers Day and in General Relief Society meetings.

Men and guys get scolded and women get praised and uplifted.

And, no, I don't buy this bullshit line that women are somehow better than men. In some areas, women excel. In others, men excel. I think the sentiment that women are on some elevated higher plane is sexist and, most likely tantamount to an ongoing apology that men hold all the cards and women get to stand by and watch or, at most, pitch in.

tooblue
03-14-2013, 05:50 PM
I don't think you know what irony means Jeff. But, oh well.

tooblue
03-14-2013, 06:05 PM
IMO, the recurring "men, get your crap together" message comes in response, intentionally or not, to the reality that men hold all the cards.

This same thing happens on Fathers Day and the flip side of it (telling women how wonderful they are) happens on Mothers Day and in General Relief Society meetings.

Men and guys get scolded and women get praised and uplifted.

And, no, I don't buy this bullshit line that women are somehow better than men. In some areas, women excel. In others, men excel. I think the sentiment that women are on some elevated higher plane is sexist and, most likely tantamount to an ongoing apology that men hold all the cards and women get to stand by and watch or, at most, pitch in.

I mostly agree. This is a good observation. Though, I don't think it's sexist or an apology. It's more an honest expression of dismay and frustration IMO.

Mrs. Funk
03-14-2013, 06:10 PM
IMO, the recurring "men, get your crap together" message comes in response, intentionally or not, to the reality that men hold all the cards.

This same thing happens on Fathers Day and the flip side of it (telling women how wonderful they are) happens on Mothers Day and in General Relief Society meetings.

Men and guys get scolded and women get praised and uplifted.

And, no, I don't buy this bullshit line that women are somehow better than men. In some areas, women excel. In others, men excel. I think the sentiment that women are on some elevated higher plane is sexist and, most likely tantamount to an ongoing apology that men hold all the cards and women get to stand by and watch or, at most, pitch in.

I think this pretty much sums up how I feel about things. I think the only change I would make is to say "Some people excel in some areas and some people excel in other areas." I don't think men are inherently better leaders any more than I believe that women are inherently better nurturers. Most (all?) of the explanations I hear for why only men have the priesthood sound mollifying. I don't buy that women are more spiritually attuned or more receptive to the Spirit as a reason for women to not have the priesthood or participate in administering ordinances.

At any rate, there's no institutional or spiritual reason for women not to pray in sacrament meeting or conference. I'm hoping the rumors prove true. I know many in the Mo-fem community are feeling like the church is finally throwing them a bone.

UtahDan
03-14-2013, 06:25 PM
This is why I don't discuss religion and politics online. Should have stuck to my rule.

Don't mind Jeff. He is in an angry pre-apostate phase.

SoonerCoug
03-14-2013, 06:30 PM
Allowing women to pray in conference = too little, too late

Virginia Ute
03-14-2013, 06:33 PM
I was talking about the general authorities receiving the praise and admiration of the general membership, not lay priesthood holders getting praise from church leaders. I am with you, that it seems like us men can do little right during the saturday night session. ;)

I misunderstood you. I agree with you about the praise of the male leaders vs female.

NorthwestUteFan
03-14-2013, 06:57 PM
Anybody who has ever heard Sheri Dew speak in person will attest to her power to inspire, uplift, and lead. When in her presence it is readily apparent that she is very close to God. She has every possible attribute required to lead a church, except for the necessary plumbing.

Given a different set of circumstances she would be considered to be a Prophetess.

Jeff Lebowski
03-14-2013, 07:17 PM
I don't think you know what irony means Jeff. But, oh well.

Whoa. That seemed a little condescending.

LA Ute
03-14-2013, 07:33 PM
Oh, no, not another debate over the definition of irony....

UtahDan
03-14-2013, 07:41 PM
Anybody who has ever heard Sheri Dew speak in person will attest to her power to inspire, uplift, and lead. When in her presence it is readily apparent that she is very close to God. She has every possible attribute required to lead a church, except for the necessary plumbing.

Given a different set of circumstances she would be considered to be a Prophetess.

I feel that way about Carol Lynn Pearson.

NorthwestUteFan
03-14-2013, 07:59 PM
I feel that way about Carol Lynn Pearson.

Me too. She is persona non grata to the church now for her opposition to Prop 22 and Prop 8.

NorthwestUteFan
03-14-2013, 08:00 PM
Oh, no, not another debate over the definition of irony....

We don't need to rehash Socratic vs Morisettic irony.

DrumNFeather
03-14-2013, 08:02 PM
I feel that way about Carol Lynn Pearson.

Ah jeez...

DU Ute
03-14-2013, 08:14 PM
Whoa. That seemed a little condescending.

I don't think you know what condescending means, Jeff. But, oh well.

DU Ute
03-14-2013, 08:14 PM
Anybody who has ever heard Sheri Dew speak in person will attest to her power to inspire, uplift, and lead. When in her presence it is readily apparent that she is very close to God. She has every possible attribute required to lead a church, except for the necessary plumbing.

Given a different set of circumstances she would be considered to be a Prophetess.

This is the problem with an all-male priesthood and rigid, outdated gender roles in the Church. Any man who can pass some basic worthiness hurdles (none of which have much of a correlation with leadership abilities) is considered more capable of exercising the priesthood an serving in a leadership calling than every woman in the Church. In every two parent family every woman is supposed to be the more capable primary caregiver and nurturer and every man is the more capable breadwinner and leader of the family unit. If everyone could be ranked on their abilities in things like nurturing or leadership abilities, Church doctrine, culture, or policy is saying that everyone in one gender will all rank higher than the other will across the board.

This is ridiculous. No one could make a reasonable argument that all men are more capable bishops than all women or that all women are more capable nurturers that all men, but that’s essentially how the Church is set up. The sad thing is that as society becomes less sexist there are a growing number of wonderful, righteous women and men who look at their abilities, nature and desires and feel like they don’t fit into the mold. Either they suck it up and stay on board while being unhappy to some degree in their prescribed role, they fight against it with varying degrees of opposition or they bolt. Too many are choosing to leave.

I’m trying to teach my three daughters that they can do anything. It’s frustrating to feel like what they are taught in primary and young women’s and what they see in church each Sunday and on conference twice a year can sometimes undercut this message.

tooblue
03-14-2013, 08:35 PM
I don't think you know what condescending means, Jeff. But, oh well.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Careful, you might make me blush.

tooblue
03-14-2013, 08:39 PM
We don't need to rehash Socratic vs Morisettic irony.

Presumption is always tricky.

Jeff Lebowski
03-14-2013, 08:58 PM
I don't think you know what condescending means, Jeff. But, oh well.

Whoa. That seemed a little ad hominem.

Jeff Lebowski
03-14-2013, 09:01 PM
I feel that way about Carol Lynn Pearson.

:highfive:

CLP is awesome.

scottie
03-15-2013, 09:14 AM
I should add that my memory on this is very, very fuzzy. I also know nothing about the reason for the change in prayers in GC.

Continuing revelation.

wuapinmon
03-15-2013, 01:11 PM
Since women do the washing and anointings in the temple, there's not really any reason for them not to hold the priesthood aside from tradition and chauvinism.

scottie
03-15-2013, 02:06 PM
Since women do the washing and anointings in the temple, there's not really any reason for them not to hold the priesthood aside from tradition and chauvinism.

Section 25 of the D&C is revelation to Emma:


7 And thou shalt be ordained under his hand to expound scriptures, and to exhort the church, according as it shall be given thee by my Spirit.

Pheidippides
03-15-2013, 02:15 PM
Some practices are just customary. IIRC, for a long time women didn't say the prayers in sacrament meeting. Then (I assume -- I don't know) someone asked about it, and someone in authority realized there was no reason for the custom. Suddenly women were saying sacrament meeting prayers, and have been for a long time.

Jumping late here, but this isn't true. The changes to having women not pray was affirmatively made in the 1950s or 60s, although very quietly so. Women started praying again in the 80s around the time of the ERA, but didn't speak in GC until I was almost in college.

It will take me a while to find the sources and somebody who remembers them better can correct as needed.

LA Ute
03-15-2013, 02:20 PM
Jumping late here, but this isn't true. The changes to having women not pray was affirmatively made in the 1950s or 60s, although very quietly so. Women started praying again in the 80s around the time of the ERA, but didn't speak in GC until I was almost in college.

It will take me a while to find the sources and somebody who remembers them better can correct as needed.

Thanks. All I know is that it suddenly changed and no one really noticed. Not sure of the "why's" at all.

Sullyute
03-15-2013, 02:30 PM
Since women do the washing and anointings in the temple, there's not really any reason for them not to hold the priesthood aside from tradition and chauvinism.

I assume that the argument is that those women do not permenantly hold the priesthood and it is an authority/power that they exercise as part of their callings only in the temple (are temple workers set apart?). I find it interesting that in order to receive the priesthood that you have to have "hands to head" contact but, in order to lose the priesthood (excommunication or release from calling) it is just the swish of a pen (or a click of a mouse).

It really seams that if we look close that the priesthood is really only used for ordinances (baptism, blessing of sacrament, endowment, and sealings). God can inspire or reveal to woman anything that he can reveal to a man. So if a women is blessed with the "keys" to run and be inspired over the relief society, primary, young womans, why couldn't she receive the same "keys" to run and be inspired as bishop without actually receiving the priesthood? There has to be a way to seperate priesthood ordinances from church leadership.

This of course would mean we would have to get over our taboo idea of a non-priesthood holder having more authority than a priesthood holder (newest deacon has more authority than General Relief Society President).

Pheidippides
03-15-2013, 02:52 PM
Thanks. All I know is that it suddenly changed and no one really noticed. Not sure of the "why's" at all.

I can't remember all that I've read on this but it seems that the church was moving in a pretty good direction here and then had a major step back. I really think what happened was that the progressive crowd (Stephen L Richards, Hugh B Brown, J Reuben Clark to a degree, Henry Eyring, John Witsoe, etc) died out and then you had an extremely conservative fundamentalist group come in (JFieldingS, Harold B Lee, ETB to a different extent, BRM, etc). BKP is the last remnants of the hard liner group, and from anecdotes I hear his power is real. (I have stories I will not publicly share, but one person told me that "he sits in his office all day and contemplates his power as President of the 12"). I don't mean to disparage anybody here, but it seems clear there was a shift in tone after DOM passed on. Not that anybody is perfect, including them. This affected much more than just women's roles, and I believe most of them were doing what they felt was right.

My guess - and that's all it is - is that the edict forbidding praying and speaking was a result of a literal reading of Paul, and the shift in the 80s and 90s was a direct result of the Sonya Johnson ERA stuff. Quinn indicates that many of the 12 were in favor of the ERA initially but some strong willed and senior leaders shifted that tide.

wuapinmon
03-15-2013, 02:54 PM
I assume that the argument is that those women do not permenantly hold the priesthood and it is an authority/power that they exercise as part of their callings only in the temple (are temple workers set apart?). I find it interesting that in order to receive the priesthood that you have to have "hands to head" contact but, in order to lose the priesthood (excommunication or release from calling) it is just the swish of a pen (or a click of a mouse).

It really seams that if we look close that the priesthood is really only used for ordinances (baptism, blessing of sacrament, endowment, and sealings). God can inspire or reveal to woman anything that he can reveal to a man. So if a women is blessed with the "keys" to run and be inspired over the relief society, primary, young womans, why couldn't she receive the same "keys" to run and be inspired as bishop without actually receiving the priesthood? There has to be a way to seperate priesthood ordinances from church leadership.

This of course would mean we would have to get over our taboo idea of a non-priesthood holder having more authority than a priesthood holder (newest deacon has more authority than General Relief Society President).

We care too much about authority. Mark 9:38-41

Jeff Lebowski
03-15-2013, 04:07 PM
I can't remember all that I've read on this but it seems that the church was moving in a pretty good direction here and then had a major step back. I really think what happened was that the progressive crowd (Stephen L Richards, Hugh B Brown, J Reuben Clark to a degree, Henry Eyring, John Witsoe, etc) died out and then you had an extremely conservative fundamentalist group come in (JFieldingS, Harold B Lee, ETB to a different extent, BRM, etc). BKP is the last remnants of the hard liner group, and from anecdotes I hear his power is real. (I have stories I will not publicly share, but one person told me that "he sits in his office all day and contemplates his power as President of the 12"). I don't mean to disparage anybody here, but it seems clear there was a shift in tone after DOM passed on. Not that anybody is perfect, including them. This affected much more than just women's roles, and I believe most of them were doing what they felt was right.

My guess - and that's all it is - is that the edict forbidding praying and speaking was a result of a literal reading of Paul, and the shift in the 80s and 90s was a direct result of the Sonya Johnson ERA stuff. Quinn indicates that many of the 12 were in favor of the ERA initially but some strong willed and senior leaders shifted that tide.

I am not a BKP fan, but that line really made me laugh. Somebody can read his mind? Impressive.

Pheidippides
03-15-2013, 04:13 PM
I am not a BKP fan, but that line really made me laugh. Somebody can read his mind? Impressive.

Hey, don't shoot me! I didn't say it!

Joe Public
03-15-2013, 05:09 PM
Give me some time. Rome wasn't built in a day. ;)

:chuckle:

LA Ute
03-15-2013, 05:13 PM
(I have stories I will not publicly share, but one person told me that "he sits in his office all day and contemplates his power as President of the 12"). I don't mean to disparage anybody here, but ....

:eyeroll:

Pheidippides
03-15-2013, 06:20 PM
:eyeroll:

Are you daring me to post my true thoughts on the matter? I don't think that's in anybody's best interest.

LA Ute
03-15-2013, 06:23 PM
Are you daring me to post my true thoughts on the matter? I don't think that's in anybody's best interest.

Nope. There's a huge difference between a tweak and a dare. You have been well and truly tweaked.

Pheidippides
03-15-2013, 06:30 PM
Nope. There's a huge difference between a tweak and a dare. You have been well and truly tweaked.

Well, if it's only a tweak, I will leave Mr. Hyde safely hidden. I get tired of that guy - he's really angry a lot.

SoCalCoug
03-16-2013, 11:14 AM
I thought the pants protest was beyond stupid...but I'm sure thats just because I am some sort of swine.

I heard this sentiment a lot while the pants protest was going on. I'm curious - for those who feel this way - is it that they went about it the wrong way, or is it the fact that they did it at all was stupid?

scottie
03-17-2013, 12:09 PM
Let them pray in Conference, next thing we know they'll be asking for the priesthood:

http://ordainwomen.org/

wuapinmon
03-17-2013, 01:41 PM
Let them pray in Conference, next thing we know they'll be asking for the priesthood:

http://ordainwomen.org/

Cool link. Gracias.

UteBeliever aka Port
03-17-2013, 01:49 PM
Let them pray in Conference, next thing we know they'll be asking for the priesthood:

http://ordainwomen.org/

Looks like more people agitating faithfully...

http://agitatingfaithfully.org/home

Mrs. Funk
03-17-2013, 01:50 PM
Let them pray in Conference, next thing we know they'll be asking for the priesthood:

http://ordainwomen.org/

Oh, no! Anything but that!

SuperGabers
03-17-2013, 02:53 PM
This thread has been enjoyable Sully. Thanks for posting.

Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk 2

Mrs. Funk
03-18-2013, 09:23 PM
Does this mean it's official?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56026380-78/women-general-conference-lds.html.csp

Jeff Lebowski
03-18-2013, 11:18 PM
Does this mean it's official?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56026380-78/women-general-conference-lds.html.csp

Looks rock solid. This is what PFS posted on Facebook:


Dear FB friends, My sources for this story are solid. Trust me. I am a professional journalist. I do not go into print with rumors.

Mrs. Funk
03-18-2013, 11:19 PM
Looks rock solid. This is what PFS posted on Facebook:

Yeah, I saw that. Pretty cool stuff.