Darren10 Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Also, all those who said they would reactivate or join if changes were made should. If nothing happens after the change you can expect future appeals to be tossed out.To me that seems like the shallow type of "repentence" prophets in the Book of Mormon worried about. The Lord requires true repentence which is a complete change of heart.*Activism in its purest form is making people aware of problems. The first step to change is awareness. And knowing is half the battle.
CASteinman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 first off, it's not going to happen. There will NOT be a woman praying in General Conference this April. If, by the very slim chance it does happen (and I'm perfectly OK if it does) than, yes, it'll be a coincidence.I'm not arguing with you here... but, what makes you think not? Its been sort of unofficially "announced" in the papers. Why would you doubt it? Do you have some inside track which the rest of us do not have? Again.. not an argument. Just wondering.. how could you know?
tyler90az Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 To me that seems like the shallow type of "repentence" prophets in the Book of Mormon worried about. The Lord requires true repentence which is a complete change of heart.That is not a shallow type of repentence. Every convert and most lifelong members have had roadblocks put up in front of their ability to truly repent. If it so happens a persons roadblock is women not being able to pray in GC there is nothing wrong with that. The road block is removed which allows them to have a complete change of heart.If you consider that shallow repentance then every convert has shallowly repented. Every convert has had to work around different things to gain a strong faith. Rarely, does somebody hear the truth of the gospel for the first time and accept it right away. Also any member who has the slightest problem with the church or leaders is a shallow member.
WmLaw Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 first off, it's not going to happen. There will NOT be a woman praying in General Conference this April. If, by the very slim chance it does happen (and I'm perfectly OK if it does) than, yes, it'll be a coincidence.Very boldly stated. Do you have a source?
WmLaw Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Women already pray in GC. (Not in the audience either).Do you have a source for this? Or just you recollection?
pogi Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) If, by the very slim chance it does happen (and I'm perfectly OK if it does) than, yes, it'll be a coincidence.Why is it so hard to believe that the Church authorities listen to and address the concerns of their flock?No woman has ever prayed in general conference in 183 years according to The Salt Lake Tribune. You really believe that the Church was completely deaf to these women's voices and came up with this idea on their own (considering that it really happens)? Edited March 20, 2013 by pogi 2
Wanderer7 Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) As much as I sustain my local authorities, they simply are not going to make a difference in getting women to pray in conference.I think you're right. Perhaps that suggests that it's not that important of an issue? I mean, I have nothing against women praying in conference, but what about feeding the poor, rescuing the wandering, and administering the missionary work of the church? If people have time to worry about who is praying in conference, I suggest that maybe we aren't focused enough on the real issues at hand. I really suspect that if most of the people who wrote letters for this issue would have talked with their bishops and accepted their counsel instead, they would have realized it wasn't that big of an issue. (Of course, if I have time to write about this on this website, I probably am not doing too well on the focus thing, myself )I do not see this as a threat to the sanctioned and established order of the church. The decisions of the church will continue from the top down.Yes, but by pressure from below. In other words, it forces the brethren to focus on what "we the people" want instead of other things. That works great for a government by the people and for the people. True, movements might get the brethren to get revelation they wouldn't otherwise get. It will more likely, in my view, distract them from the revelation they really need to get.I suppose it is dangerous if you expect the change you want, and do not sustain your leaders, but these people are in danger anyway. I also believe there is a danger in not voicing your concerns and in not feeling heard.Yes, there are plenty of people in active movements that aren't going down the road to apostasy. I'm more worried about the people the movements almost assuredly will lead down that road. And again, I really think the reason we have local leaders is so we can voice our concerns. If they don't take it to higher authorities or the higher authorities don't affect change because of it, there's a good chance there are more pressing issues at hand. Like I said before, abuse and harm would be exceptions to this. Although, in those cases, civil authorities may be the better resource anyways. Edited March 20, 2013 by Wanderer7
Wanderer7 Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 http://www.mormondia...d-for-23-years/I guess that does makes my Emma example null. However, I wouldn't exactly condone Emma's actions here.
CASteinman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Do you have a source for this? Or just you recollection?D&C 25:12.
Calm Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) If women do pray this conference, for those who assume that Scott Trotter was telling the truth, I still don't see it as simple coincidence.I would say the leaders have been paying attention to the same comments those who organize the "let women pray" group, there have been plenty of comments in the past and individuals making lists of things that could be easily changed in order to give women a more visible presence. I have no doubt that someone has been keeping track of this and other forms of comments from members expressing concern and it would not surprise me at all that it had been decided to make a move in this direction prior to the organized push for it. Just as the organizers figured out this would be an easy, but significant demonstration, so did the church leaders. So not cause and effect, but correlation.As to why Scott Trotter wouldn't have just said "it was already planned"...don't have a clue, perhaps they figured they wouldn't be believed anyway by many activists and by not saying anything about it, the organizers wouldn't be moving on to the next demonstration for a couple of months.add-on: from the DN article...The reason for not releasing the list of conference participants at the time the assignments are made is simple, according to Elder L. Tom Perry, a senior member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.“While we make assignments and plan ahead for our meetings, there is always the option in the church for the presiding authority to make changes as led by the Spirit,” Elder Perry said. “We rely on heaven’s guidance in our meetings. General conference is no different. That’s why we do not typically publish a program in advance.” Edited March 20, 2013 by calmoriah 1
The Grimace Posted March 20, 2013 Author Posted March 20, 2013 The reason for not releasing the list of conference participants at the time the assignments are made is simple, according to Elder L. Tom Perry, a senior member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.“While we make assignments and plan ahead for our meetings, there is always the option in the church for the presiding authority to make changes as led by the Spirit,” Elder Perry said. “We rely on heaven’s guidance in our meetings. General conference is no different. That’s why we do not typically publish a program in advance.”Yup. Even though GC may be planned months in advance, changing who prays is hardly a process mired in bureaucracy. Claiming it is mere coincidence that a woman prayed in GC within weeks of the "Let Women Pray" movement is just a little too convenient.And what's wrong with activism changing the church? It's doubt it is as prevalent as some of you have claimed, but why not allow the Church to be shaped by the people? If women do pray in GC, many will see this as a success of activism, and will push for bolder changes. Maybe we will see other policy changes, such as the removal of the one year gap between civil and temple weddings (allowing members to have weddings that are inclusive), and perhaps even a push to allow SSM couples into the church and enjoy full fellowship.The possibilities are endless!
Duncan Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Is that what I hear inside the box? Oh wait.. .maybe not..Oh yes.. there it is again. Or was it?haha! well, the answer is both yes and no, depends on what happens in a few weeks time
CASteinman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 haha! well, the answer is both yes and no, depends on what happens in a few weeks timeAren't you going to feed the cat?
Duncan Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Aren't you going to feed the cat?I will, when I am good and ready
CASteinman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) I will, when I am good and readyMaybe you will... maybe not. I would say -- there is a probability that there is no cat...... Edited March 20, 2013 by CASteinman
Wanderer7 Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) perhaps even a push to allow SSM couples into the church and enjoy full fellowship. The possibilities are endless!Yikes! That's exactly why activism needs to get stomped out now. If I wanted a religion like that, I would become an episcopal. Edited March 20, 2013 by Wanderer7
CASteinman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 Yikes! That's exactly why activism needs to get stomped out now. If I wanted a religion like that, I would become an episcopal.That would try my testimony.
tyler90az Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 That is a big leap, from women praying in GC to allowing SSM in Temples.
Brenda Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 My concern is that our curiosity about who will say the prayers and the controversy regarding the activism involved, will over-shadow the spirit and much needed counsel from GC. The words said, whether by a man or woman, are important .... Who cares about the gender of the voice? I certainly don't. 3
Damien the Leper Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 (edited) Yikes! That's exactly why activism needs to get stomped out now. If I wanted a religion like that, I would become an episcopal.Easy with the bad mouthing bud. I was an Episcopalian and I loved the full communion of fellowship.I no longer advocate for full inclusion within the LDS church since I'm not LDS. It would be inappropriate of me to ask the church to change. Edited March 20, 2013 by Valentinus 1
Damien the Leper Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 D&C 25:12.This only demonstrates the problem that women may have not prayed in GC since.
CASteinman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 This only demonstrates the problem that women may have not prayed in GC since.This sentence does not make sense to me. 1
Damien the Leper Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 This sentence does not make sense to me.If no woman has prayed in GC since D&C 25, then the church has bigger issues and problems concerning this subject.
changed Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 The activism thing is a little confusing to me.on one hand: "not my will, but thine be done" - ie - keep quiet, nod your head, and trust what the prophet tells you to do.on the other hand "ask and receive" ... if you don't ask, you won't receive - sort of like going and burying your talent or something. There is an element of being pro-active in it all, not just with grace/faith, but with work.I guess the safe route to go is to pray for what your conscience directs you on, but end those prayers with "nevertheless, not my will but thine be done, if I ask for something amiss, please tell me no"...It seems like it should be an individual thing though, not a mob/group... at least I only have authority over my own family, and myself... I would feel it was out of my jurisdiction to tell a bunch of people to write letters, or wear pants, or something... it seems like it's somehow wrong to tell others what to do, that it's better to just worry about yourself, and make it an individual matter. My concern is that our curiosity about who will say the prayers and the controversy regarding the activism involved, will over-shadow the spirit and much needed counsel from GC. I disagree, I think there will be a lot more people watching the entire GC, paying close attention to whatever messages are accompanying the prayers. 2
CASteinman Posted March 20, 2013 Posted March 20, 2013 If no woman has prayed in GC since D&C 25, then the church has bigger issues and problems concerning this subject.Did you not read it?
Recommended Posts