Jump to content

April Mormon Conference May Make History: Women Will Pray


Fly Fisherman

Recommended Posts

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

The Salt Lake Tribune has learned that LDS women are scheduled, as of now, to offer invocations or benedictions at next month’s General Conference — an apparent first in the faith’s 183-year history.

Church spokesman Scott Trotter would not confirm or deny the female prayers, saying only that "decisions on speakers and prayers at General Conference were made many weeks ago.

Perhaps. We'll see.

Link to comment

What news? There is no report of the source and no documentation save a repeat of the comment made earlier.

Talk about a worthless report.

Yup. That's the SL Tribune for ya. A Mormon can sneeze and they write about it. Probably just to generate 500 Mormon-hate comments. :bad:

Link to comment

What news? There is no report of the source and no documentation save a repeat of the comment made earlier.

Talk about a worthless report.

That is bad when they state it as fact when Mr. Trotter, a church rep, hasn't even confirmed it yet. I won't believe anything church related until I read it on KSL/Deseret News. Will be interesting if there are no women giving prayers come conference time.
Link to comment

That is bad when they state it as fact when Mr. Trotter, a church rep, hasn't even confirmed it yet. I won't believe anything church related until I read it on KSL/Deseret News. Will be interesting if there are no women giving prayers come conference time.

It comes across almost as a piece in which to pressure/embarrass the Church into doing it...raise people's expectations so the Church looks bad if they don't do it.

What it doesn't look like is actual news reporting. It is simply a story crafted to satisfy the reporter's wishes, imo. I find those types of 'reporting' very annoying.

Link to comment

Wow, talk about Enquirer reporting methods.

If it's true then that's fine, but shouldn't a newspaper have some standards about reporting facts as opposed to gossip? The least they could have done is to be more clear about it being heresay and not at all a given just yet.

Link to comment

Oh, I know! I hate it when reports are based on "heresay" ... But look on the bright side: at least this one wasn't based on theresay or, worse yet, on heresy! :rofl: Sorry! Couldn't resist! Carry on! ;)

Link to comment

This happens all the time in journalism, when a journalist wants to protect sources so that they remain available for future information.

This also happens a lot with organizations who have 'official unofficial leaks' to the press to get the word out without making an official statement on the matter until a more formal occasion.

Link to comment

This happens all the time in journalism, when a journalist wants to protect sources so that they remain available for future information.

This also happens a lot with organizations who have 'official unofficial leaks' to the press to get the word out without making an official statement on the matter until a more formal occasion.

I know it happens all the time in journalism, but it seems like it happens when a source is saying something they could get in trouble for saying and so the journalist has to keep them a secret to get the information out of them. If that's the case here, it makes a person wonder who is talking about general conference that is both trustworthy AND would say something they know would be breaking some kind of trust if it got out that they said it?

When it is an 'official unofficial leak' it seems like they usually allude to that with a standard "source spoke on conditions of anonymity because they are not authorized....." If that's the case, then it's interesting that she would not state such in order to give her proclamation more credibility than 'i heard from someone' (but maybe she did in the article and i just missed it).

Link to comment

I think it will be a nice change if Stack and her unnamed source are correct.

I wonder which sisters they will be inviting to pray. Since those prayers are generally (always?) offered by general authorities, will the sisters who pray be chosen from among the general Primary/YW/RS presidencies exclusively? Or, will they possibly invite the wives of the other general authorities... Sister Monson perhaps?

Link to comment

I had a co-worker who always voted for a certain party because she thought they supported women's rights. She didn't care what the other issues were. Ironically she was one of the most insecure women I knew and had extremely low self-esteem. I wonder if all these women pushing for these things, including Priesthood, are also insecure and feel they can't be worth anything unless they have something that shows outwardly. They always seem to want what someone else has as if that will make them feel more important.

Link to comment

I think it will be a nice change if Stack and her unnamed source are correct.

I wonder which sisters they will be inviting to pray. Since those prayers are generally (always?) offered by general authorities, will the sisters who pray be chosen from among the general Primary/YW/RS presidencies exclusively? Or, will they possibly invite the wives of the other general authorities... Sister Monson perhaps?

There is also a whole Relief Society General Board, and Young Women General Board and a Primary General Board to select from.

Link to comment

What news? There is no report of the source and no documentation save a repeat of the comment made earlier.

Talk about a worthless report.

Sounds like standard reporting for the Trib. Come to think of it most liberal media seems to be like this. In fact there have been some mainstream news orginizations that have reported on completly false stories all because they did not check the originial source. Journalism is mostly dead today.
Link to comment

Wow, talk about Enquirer reporting methods.

If it's true then that's fine, but shouldn't a newspaper have some standards about reporting facts as opposed to gossip?

You would think.
Link to comment

What news? There is no report of the source and no documentation save a repeat of the comment made earlier.

Talk about a worthless report.

Obviously, the writer, Peggy Stack, is protecting a confidential source here, though she doesn't explicitly say so (couching it in "the Tribune has learned" phrasing).

There is, from time to time, a place for confidential sources in journalism. The drawback, of course, is that the reader has no way to guage the reliability or credibility of the source.

In this instance, Stack seems quite certain of her information, so I would not be surprised if it is accurate, but the report does suffer from the shortcoming you and I have discussed here.

Link to comment

I know it happens all the time in journalism, but it seems like it happens when a source is saying something they could get in trouble for saying and so the journalist has to keep them a secret to get the information out of them. If that's the case here, it makes a person wonder who is talking about general conference that is both trustworthy AND would say something they know would be breaking some kind of trust if it got out that they said it?

When it is an 'official unofficial leak' it seems like they usually allude to that with a standard "source spoke on conditions of anonymity because they are not authorized....." If that's the case, then it's interesting that she would not state such in order to give her proclamation more credibility than 'i heard from someone' (but maybe she did in the article and i just missed it).

You make good points here.

It is conceivable, though, that the information came from someone who is in a position to know but is not wise enough to be circumspect in talking to the media. A family member or close relative of a woman who has been assigned to pray, perhaps.

Stack is savvy enough not to go into print with something that's not solid, especially when she so soon could end up with egg on her face.

I predict the information will turn out to be accurate.

Link to comment

You make good points here.

It is conceivable, though, that the information came from someone who is in a position to know but is not wise enough to be circumspect in talking to the media. A family member or close relative of a woman who has been assigned to pray, perhaps.

Stack is savvy enough not to go into print with something that's not solid, especially when she so soon could end up with egg on her face.

I predict the information will turn out to be accurate.

I agree. The article-the way the information is presented-just seems odd. It's not set up to inspire much confidence in its assertions (in my opinion).

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...