April Mormon Conference May Make History: Women Will Pray

[Kenngo1969]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/56795670-180/women-says-church-kelly.html.csp

 

. . . I think they [women] just want more say in the church, they don't claim to want it all, just more say and participation in what goes on in the church.  I've nothing against that and they are definitely pioneers for women, hopefully it doesn't backfire and make us go back in time, not forward.     ETA:  Maybe they do want it all, I read the article a little better and they do want to be ordained, my bad. 

 

While I understand what you are saying, ideally, the final "say" in how the Church of Jesus Christ is run belongs to ... [Wait for it; wait for it; here it comes; drumroll, please!]  Jesus Christ. And women do have input and a say in how the Church is run: the Relief Society President, Young Women's President, and Primary President are all on the Ward Council.  (If a Bishop fails to get their advice and input, Handbook 2 even says he's running the meeting wrong ... )  And while I'm unfamiliar with how the Church of Jesus Christ operates on the general level (nor do I have any desire to become familiar), I have no reason to suspect that those councils operate any differently.

 

And while it might be really cool on some levels for Priesthood holders who exercise unrighteous dominion immediately to be struck by lightning or something (although it would kinda thwart the plan because mortality is supposed to provide us with the time and space necessary to repent), while I'm sure there are rare exceptions, I don't know any Priesthood holder who takes lightly the injunctions to avoid exercising unrighteous dominion (lest Amen be said to the Priesthood of that man).  And while it's true that I'm simply a sexist, chauvinistic pig, I'm not at all sure what's undesirable about an arrangement that says, "Follow that man as that man follows God," whether that man is someone's husband presiding over his family in righteousness or whether that man is someone's file leader acting in righteousness within his Priesthood stewardship.

 

Like I say, I'm just dense, but I really don't get it. 

[Duncan]

I think they mention somewhere that men are allowed to attend, and is always attended by men with Priesthood Authority.

 

 

that's true and they have a man speaker, first presidency usually

[Tacenda]

While I understand what you are saying, ideally, the final "say" in how the Church of Jesus Christ is run belongs to ... [Wait for it; wait for it; here it comes; drumroll, please!] Jesus Christ. And women do have input and a say in how the Church is run: the Relief Society President, Young Women's President, and Primary President are all on the Ward Council. (If a Bishop fails to get their advice and input, Handbook 2 even says he's running the meeting wrong ... ) And while I'm unfamiliar with how the Church of Jesus Christ operates on the general level (nor do I have any desire to become familiar), I have no reason to suspect that those councils operate any differently.

And while it might be really cool on some levels for Priesthood holders who exercise unrighteous dominion immediately to be struck by lightning or something (although it would kinda thwart the plan because mortality is supposed to provide us with the time and space necessary to repent), while I'm sure there are rare exceptions, I don't know any Priesthood holder who takes lightly the injunctions to avoid exercising unrighteous dominion (lest Amen be said to the Priesthood of that man). And while it's true that I'm simply a sexist, chauvinistic pig, I'm not at all sure what's undesirable about an arrangement that says, "Follow that man as that man follows God," whether that man is someone's husband presiding over his family in righteousness or whether that man is someone's file leader acting in righteousness within his Priesthood stewardship.

Like I say, I'm just dense, but I really don't get it.

K, the only thing I want is what we had before, or my mother had before and that is for RS not to be under the Priesthood. At one time, women in RS were in charge of everything in the organization. Why have we gone backwards? Also, I use to be in a RS presidency where the president had a difficult time when she needed the bishop for various things, for example food orders to be signed, and the bishop was always out of town for work. So why not give her that authority and trust? Plus, I wish women had more to say about lessons in RS, or RS meetings. Also, why can't women also pray with oil and give blessings, they are allowed to in the temple. Plus a woman should be authorized to interview young women vs. a man. If the Young Woman would prefer that. It's been said that women hold the Priesthood with their husbands but that's not very transparent.

[Calm]

So far they've gotten what they've wanted (women praying in General Conference). 

This was arranged before they set up their program to push for this....much like the women wear pants thing...the Church was ahead of them.

[Calm]

This would signify they are prospective elders.

I have known some women who were curious about what went on in the session who were invited to attend by family members.  Why would it mean they would be seen as prospective elders?  Surely people could see the difference between being there because one is a priesthood holder and being there as a spectator?

 

 

add-on:  never mind, caught the claim in the paper that such would signify they were prospective elders....talk about taking a huge leap.

[Calm]

So why not give her that authority and trust?

For the same reason the bishop is not given the trust to fill out the forms for himself if the RS President is not around...to prevent the possibility of misuse of the system.

 

And adding more people to the list of who can sign it opens it up to being a less confidential process, something that should be avoided to prevent embarrassment to those in need...

[Tacenda]

I have known some women who were curious about what went on in the session who were invited to attend by family members. Why would it mean they would be seen as prospective elders? Surely people could see the difference between being there because one is a priesthood holder and being there as a spectator?

I think that's the last place they want to be, but think they just want to be in the news again to voice concerns they have, world wide or something akin to that.

[Calm]

Personally I think the Church leaders should invite a number of women in positions such as RS president and stake callings, etc. to attend as spectators but not issue tickets to these women demanding to be invited over the threat of protesting the session.

[Tacenda]

For the same reason the bishop is not given the trust to fill out the forms for himself if the RS President is not around...to prevent the possibility of misuse of the system.

And adding more people to the list of who can sign it opens it up to being a less confidential process, something that should be avoided to prevent embarrassment to those in need...

That sorta works for me I guess.

[Calm]

The point is "to demonstrate to leaders that we are ready for this change, that our commitment is not just online but with our bodies."

 

Right, because showing one is ready for the priesthood...the priesthood that should never used to change people's minds or to compel people through its power, but instead use persuasion and love and not coercion....by having a public protest and insisting it be done my way or no way at all is just the way to show one is ready to take on the responsibilities of the Priesthood.

 36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

 37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

 38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

 40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

 43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

 44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

 45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

 46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

 

[Kenngo1969]

Hey, I'm all for anything that would make General Priesthood Meeting better looking!

[ERayR]

K, the only thing I want is what we had before, or my mother had before and that is for RS not to be under the Priesthood. At one time, women in RS were in charge of everything in the organization. Why have we gone backwards? Also, I use to be in a RS presidency where the president had a difficult time when she needed the bishop for various things, for example food orders to be signed, and the bishop was always out of town for work. So why not give her that authority and trust? Plus, I wish women had more to say about lessons in RS, or RS meetings. Also, why can't women also pray with oil and give blessings, they are allowed to in the temple. Plus a woman should be authorized to interview young women vs. a man. If the Young Woman would prefer that. It's been said that women hold the Priesthood with their husbands but that's not very transparent.

 

I think you have or have been passed some bad information.  I think the RS has always been under the direction of the First Presidency (Priesthood).

[Kenngo1969]

Just for the heckofit (and/or just for fun), here's what I posted regarding the issue on a story at SLTrib.com:

 

I think we ought to be more compassionate to all of these sleep-deprived women. C'mon, everybody, sing it with me now! "CON-ference will help you get your Zzzs!" (Sorry; couldn't resist. I will be there, but after having watched two sessions already, I won't lie: I'll be fighting somnolence.)

 

Just sayin'!

[Kenngo1969]

K, the only thing I want is what we had before, or my mother had before and that is for RS not to be under the Priesthood. At one time, women in RS were in charge of everything in the organization.

 

I think CV75 adequately addressed this.

 

Why have we gone backwards?

 

I don’t know that we have.  Things are different, I’ll grant you, but I’m not prepared to say that “different” = “worse” or “backward.”

 

Also, I use to be in a RS presidency where the president had a difficult time when she needed the bishop for various things, for example food orders to be signed, and the bishop was always out of town for work.

 

I think Calmoriah has adequately addressed this, but I’ll add, “[A]lways out of town”?  Call me crazy, but I doubt it. (Hyperbolize much? )  There have been times that I have suggested to our Bishopric that we clone the Bishop, but I’ll tell you what:  Why don’t you join a church with unpaid clergy such that you need a full-time job to support yourself and your family on top of your other full time job ministering to your flock, and if you’re still alive after six months, then I’ll admit that you have room to criticize the Bishop in question.  OK? 

 

I wish women had more to say about lessons in RS, or RS meetings.

 

They do.  (With all due respect, you simply seem determined to see the glass as "half-empty"; it doesn't seem to matter if it were filled with Niagara Falls.)  I’m positive that women on the general level have input into the joint Relief Society-Priesthood curriculum, and two Sundays out of the month (while Stake leaders set parameters for curriculum) it is local women are in charge, under the direction of the Spirit, about what is taught and how.  (And for that matter, the same is true on the other Sundays as well, since there’s more material in any given lesson from the manual than can be covered in a single class period.)  And I think the same is largely true of Relief Society weeknight meetings.

 

Also, why can't women also pray with oil and give blessings, they are allowed to in the temple.

 

I don’t know.  You could always pray and ask God.  And while I don’t mean to be unduly judgmental of you (please don’t mistake my forthrightness for hostility; it’s not; I simply believe in calling it as I see it), you seem awfully concerned about what goes on in the Temple on the one hand, yet not concerned enough to do whatever you might have to do to qualify to enter the Temple on the other hand.  Why are you so concerned about things over which you have no control (i.e., whether the institutional Church will ever grant the Priesthood to women) on the one hand, yet you’re not concerned about things over which you have complete control (whether you qualify to enter the Temple) on the other hand?

 

Plus a woman should be authorized to interview young women vs. a man.

 

Provide evidence that there is a general, widespread problem in the Church of Jesus Christ with Bishops interviewing young women, and we’ll have something to talk about.  Until then …

[bluebell]

What bugs me most about this 'request' is that I'm sure there are men who get turned away from conference at the conference center every year because there isn't enough room for everyone who wants to go. I'm wondering why these women think it would be acceptable for men to have to forgo being present in person at THEIR meeting so they can attend and prove some kind of point.

[Calm]

We had a bishop who was a elementary school principal who would take off for a full 2 months each summer to go up to their cabin.

 

I assume that he cleared it with the SP that his 1st counsellor would handle everything while he was out of town because I never heard any complaints.  The important thing, in my view, with the food orders is to limit the people involved, whether it's a counsellor or the bishop...just one man, not two involved.

[bluebell]

We had a bishop who was a elementary school principal who would take off for a full 2 months each summer to go up to their cabin.

 

I assume that he cleared it with the SP that his 1st counsellor would handle everything while he was out of town because I never heard any complaints.  The important thing, in my view, with the food orders is to limit the people involved, whether it's a counsellor or the bishop...just one man, not two involved.

I'm a RS president, and though I've had to get people food numerous times, I've never had to do a 'food order' that entailed actual contact with the bishop. The bishop just texts or emails (or calls me) and tells me that the so and so family needs food and can I meet with them to find out their needs and then get it for them. Usually my councilors aren't even aware that I'm doing it.

The whole process usually takes about 30 seconds and happens just as fast if the bishop is out of town or in, so I honestly have no idea why a RS president would need to be able to use the ward's money to serve others without the leader (and the person responsible for it) of the ward approving it.

[Duncan]

What bugs me most about this 'request' is that I'm sure there are men who get turned away from conference at the conference center every year because there isn't enough room for everyone who wants to go. I'm wondering why these women think it would be acceptable for men to have to forgo being present in person at THEIR meeting so they can attend and prove some kind of point.

 

 

reminds me of Elder Gary J. Coleman's experience with not getting in the Tabernacle, he did but easily could not have

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/04/are-you-still-here?lang=eng

[Calm]

I'm a RS president, and though I've had to get people food numerous times, I've never had to do a 'food order' that entailed actual contact with the bishop. The bishop just texts or emails (or calls me) and tells me that the so and so family needs food and can I meet with them to find out their needs and then get it for them. Usually my councilors aren't even aware that I'm doing it.

The whole process usually takes about 30 seconds and happens just as fast if the bishop is out of town or in, so I honestly have no idea why a RS president would need to be able to use the ward's money to serve others without the leader (and the person responsible for it) of the ward approving it.

I wonder if the process has changed over the years.  Will ask husband who has had experience over the past 20 years in this off and on.

[Storm Rider]

I have known some women who were curious about what went on in the session who were invited to attend by family members.  Why would it mean they would be seen as prospective elders?  Surely people could see the difference between being there because one is a priesthood holder and being there as a spectator?

 

 

add-on:  never mind, caught the claim in the paper that such would signify they were prospective elders....talk about taking a huge leap.

In the article these women felt it would signify they would be understood to be prospective elders. I am not saying it; it is their statement and political agenda.

[Calm]

In the article these women felt it would signify they would be understood to be prospective elders. I am not saying it; it is their statement and political agenda.

Yeah, I caught that...I think that reasoning is just plain silly.

[Storm Rider]

Yeah, I caught that...I think that reasoning is just plain silly.

I agree, but it is a political agenda for them. The Spirit has no place in what they are doing. This is strictly a "my" will is better than thine type of thing.

[Deborah]

I don't understand the push to attend Priesthood Session. They can read the talks in the next Ensign. It's not like it's anything secret. But it is directed to the Priesthood, and often more directly to the Aaronic Priesthood.

[Deborah]

This was arranged before they set up their program to push for this....much like the women wear pants thing...the Church was ahead of them.

 

I bear witness to this. I was with Cal when we were told this by someone who was in a position to know. I think the women do more harm by trying to make a public display of these things and may in fact delay the implementation. For all we know the church leaders may be thinking about inviting women in leadership positions to Priesthood Session, maybe to talk to the men from the Sisters' perspective. The church leaders are much more in tune with what is going on than people give them credit for.

[Kenngo1969]

I bear witness to this. I was with Cal when we were told this by someone who was in a position to know. ...

UMW Meeting, huh?