They Did It!

[changed]

"There are few things more powerful than the prayers of a righteous mother." ~ Boyd K Packer

I just had a good talk with my oldest daughter (10 year old). I asked her if she knew what historical event took place today at GC - she said no - and I told her that a woman prayed. She remembered the prayer, but did not understand it's significance. Last night I took her to a Yom HaShoah Service where we sang with a cantor, listened to a holocaust survivor, and ate fruit and treats with friends afterwards. Today, in-between sessions, we went on a "March of Remembrance" walk with survivors, and people of many different faiths and backgrounds. People from Germany, people from Israel, it was a beautiful crowd. We talked about the segregation and racism that led to the holocaust, and then we talked about the other groups in history that have been oppressed. We talked about why Africans were not given the priesthood until recently, that it was not a doctrine that they should not have it, but it was more of a cultural thing, that the church was just so oppressed, they probably just couldn't handle one more thing that would make the current society hate them, so policies were inadvertently created, some wrong assumptions were made, and what was not doctrine somehow became unofficial church policy. Then I told my daughter, that like the Jewish people, and like the African people, women are another group that has been historically oppressed and looked down upon. We talked about the feminist movement - how some of the movement was good, and some of it was bad. We talked about that as women the solution to the problem is not to try to make ourselves into men - to become valued for the same things that men are valued for. The solution is not to try and gain value through prostituting ourselves - losing virtue - that immodesty is not strength, it's weakness. The solution comes through valuing being gentle, kind, and virtuous, nurturing - of taking feminine traits, and showing their value, knowing that our worth does not come from a paycheck, or our sexual appeal - our value comes through true femininity.

I don't know why, up to this point, women had not been giving prayers in conference, or as many talks in conference. Perhaps it reflects the gentle/humble nature of women? That the female leaders in the church tend to more take the role of sitting "with" people, rather than standing "in front of" them. The talks all emphasized gender-specific roles, and the beauty of those roles. We seem to be in troubling times, is it now necessary to parade out in the public examples of gentle/humble/virtuous women? but then how do you parade in the spotlight an entity whose glory lies in being humble/meek...? what makes the stronger statement - a mother praying in public? or a mother humbly sitting in the audience? are we not able to see the beauty of not being on the stage?

There are many things yet to be revealed, and it will be interesting to see how the roles of women evolve through my daughter's lifetime... a difficult task to decouple what policies - like for the Africans - have stemmed through cultural pressures - milk before meat, and what stems from God. Was the prayer today something to be celebrated, that culturally people are able to start valuing the participation of women? or is the prayer something to make us sad - that some women are not strong enough to handle a more humble role? "the greatest among you shall be your servant"... part of me wants to embrace humility/meekness, to show the world "we don't need to pray in front of everyone to feel beautiful", that beauty lies in being humble and meek... part of me wants to hear that mother's prayers though, and it was a beautiful prayer to hear.

Edited April 7, 2013 by changed

[Calm]

My understanding is that it was decided who was going to pray in Conference before the "Let Women Pray" campaign took place.

From my colleague Joe Walker's story in the Deseret News on March 19th:

So this is a case of coincidence.

But not randomness...both probably got the idea from the same place....the discussions here and there that have been taking place for sometime about increasing women's visibility in the Church without having to appeal to changing doctrine. Edited April 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Was the prayer today something to be celebrated, that culturally people are able to start valuing the participation of women? or is the prayer something to make us sad - that some women are not strong enough to handle a more humble role?

I think it is something to be celebrated as we need as many as possible positive role models out there for young women today to counteract the enormous in your face negative role models (prime examples being young girls who were the Disney style 'chaste and pure' snow white 'princesses that were adored by girls who just wanted to be like them, role models who when they grew up became trainwrecks....we need to have role models who successfully make the transition from child to adult without so much damage to themselves and others).

[Tacenda]

"There are few things more powerful than the prayers of a righteous mother." ~ Boyd K Packer

I just had a good talk with my oldest daughter (10 year old). I asked her if she knew what historical event took place today at GC - she said no - and I told her that a woman prayed. She remembered the prayer, but did not understand it's significance. Last night I took her to a Yom HaShoah Service where we sang with a cantor, listened to a holocaust survivor, and ate fruit and treats with friends afterwards. Today, in-between sessions, we went on a "March of Remembrance" walk with survivors, and people of many different faiths and backgrounds. People from Germany, people from Israel, it was a beautiful crowd. We talked about the segregation and racism that led to the holocaust, and then we talked about the other groups in history that have been oppressed. We talked about why Africans were not given the priesthood until recently, that it was not a doctrine that they should not have it, but it was more of a cultural thing, that the church was just so oppressed, they probably just couldn't handle one more thing that would make the current society hate them, so policies were inadvertently created, some wrong assumptions were made, and what was not doctrine somehow became unofficial church policy. Then I told my daughter, that like the Jewish people, and like the African people, women are another group that has been historically oppressed and looked down upon. We talked about the feminist movement - how some of the movement was good, and some of it was bad. We talked about that as women the solution to the problem is not to try to make ourselves into men - to become valued for the same things that men are valued for. The solution is not to try and gain value through prostituting ourselves - losing virtue - that immodesty is not strength, it's weakness. The solution comes through valuing being gentle, kind, and virtuous, nurturing - of taking feminine traits, and showing their value, knowing that our worth does not come from a paycheck, or our sexual appeal - our value comes through true femininity.

I don't know why, up to this point, women had not been giving prayers in conference, or as many talks in conference. Perhaps it reflects the gentle/humble nature of women? That the female leaders in the church tend to more take the role of sitting "with" people, rather than standing "in front of" them. The talks all emphasized gender-specific roles, and the beauty of those roles. We seem to be in troubling times, is it now necessary to parade out in the public examples of gentle/humble/virtuous women? but then how do you parade in the spotlight an entity whose glory lies in being humble/meek...? what makes the stronger statement - a mother praying in public? or a mother humbly sitting in the audience? are we not able to see the beauty of not being on the stage?

There are many things yet to be revealed, and it will be interesting to see how the roles of women evolve through my daughter's lifetime... a difficult task to decouple what policies - like for the Africans - have stemmed through cultural pressures - milk before meat, and what stems from God. Was the prayer today something to be celebrated, that culturally people are able to start valuing the participation of women? or is the prayer something to make us sad - that some women are not strong enough to handle a more humble role? "the greatest among you shall be your servant"... part of me wants to embrace humility/meekness, to show the world "we don't need to pray in front of everyone to feel beautiful", that beauty lies in being humble and meek... part of me wants to hear that mother's prayers though, and it was a beautiful prayer to hear.

Like!!!! You're daughter is very blessed to have you to teach her like that.

[CASteinman]

Was the prayer today something to be celebrated, that culturally people are able to start valuing the participation of women? or is the prayer something to make us sad - that some women are not strong enough to handle a more humble role? "

How about neither?

In that people were already able to value participation of women and that no humility was lost? In that it was not really a big deal?

I know it felt like a big deal to some people but this is a matter of perceptions in them. I am very glad that they feel happier and fulfilled or satisfied. Its not the sort of thing that should have ever gotten to the point that it was a burr in someones saddle. But -- it was only the sense of that burr that made it a big deal -- and only to the people who had that burr. Most people didn't even notice (from what I can tell). It was not viewed as anything extraordinary.

So.. to me that means your two options are both wrong.

[WmLaw]

My understanding is that it was decided who was going to pray in Conference before the "Let Women Pray" campaign took place.

From my colleague Joe Walker's story in the Deseret News on March 19th:

So this is a case of coincidence. Or, for you conspiracy theorists out there, perhaps the people behind the "Let Women Wear Pants" got wind of it and wanted to generate a victory.

Personally, I think it was nice. The only sad part is because there are a finite number of slots during General Conference, some poor member of the Quorums of the Seventy will never have a chance now to speak or pray in General Conference, while the women in leadership will have multiple opportunities. That is a curious and ironic artifact of this all. There are so many male leaders that the fewer women leaders have already become more visible than all but a few of the men.

Neither the article nor the statement explicity states that the final assignments were made months ago.

[CASteinman]

Neither the article nor the statement explicity states that the final assignments were made months ago.

Actually the article was in March. And it says :“Decisions on speakers and prayers at general conference were made late last year,”

Lets suppose it was VERY late last year. Just before Christmas. Lets say December 15. Of course it could have been earlier but lets go with that.

December to January is 1 month

January to February is 1 month

February to March is 1 month

That is a total of "months". Three in fact. And it was "ago".

To me that is pretty explicit. Maybe what you are trying to say is that it did not precisely and literally say "months ago". Which would be technically correct but so persnickety as to have no sensible purpose other than to just be disagreeable.

[Calm]

I think he had more in mind that a decision not to make a decision on who said a prayer might have been made. For example, they could have intentionally left an opening to allow for a last minute calling:

“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.”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865576256/Will-a-woman-pray-at-LDS-general-conference.html?pg=all

[canard78]

Eternally, atleast in the real world there is a repentance process, mods aren't even communicating with me. So I guess I'll liken it to outer darkness, haha. And the biggest regret is losing my power to give rep points!

ETA: Canard, forgot to thank you for the nice comment.

Then I'm flattered and honoured that you'd use a precious post to reply.

[WmLaw]

Actually the article was in March. And it says :“Decisions on speakers and prayers at general conference were made late last year,”

Lets suppose it was VERY late last year. Just before Christmas. Lets say December 15. Of course it could have been earlier but lets go with that.

December to January is 1 month

January to February is 1 month

February to March is 1 month

That is a total of "months". Three in fact. And it was "ago".

To me that is pretty explicit. Maybe what you are trying to say is that it did not precisely and literally say "months ago". Which would be technically correct but so persnickety as to have no sensible purpose other than to just be disagreeable.

the key part of my statement is "FINAL ASSIGNMENTS", not months ago...

i know that you like word games, but i was not playing any

[CASteinman]

the key part of my statement is "FINAL ASSIGNMENTS", not months ago...

i know that you like word games, but i was not playing any

really? And yet, look you just played one.

I am going to take a guess and say that you believe that the statement on "Speakers and Prayers" was deceptive and was not isomorphic with "Final Assignments" as you put it -- a term that was not used. (And to think of it, since it was not used, there is no evidence that there were any "Final Assignments").

But is that what you are thinking.. that they lied?

Do you have any support at all for that accusation?

[PoisonWell]

I'm really confused as to why this hasn't happened before. I've read there was a ban before but... why?

[why me]

I'm really confused as to why this hasn't happened before. I've read there was a ban before but... why?

I don't think that there was a ban. I think that it was a just a cultural thing: the priesthood holders were asked to say the prayers. I do think that someone did notice a few months back and probably said a 'what the heck' and it was changed. That is my humble opinion.

[Scott Lloyd]

More power indeed. Maybe they are mature enough to celebrate the fringes. Maybe they would prefer a membership who actually care and participate in the direction the church is headed rather than sleeping on the back row through life.

As Elder Uchtdorf just said in priesthood, we celebrate diversity, oil in one hand, bread in the other.

I think you are conflating two separate portions of his talk. But here's a publiished summary that might help.

Also, I didn't get the impression he was endorsing public pressure campaigns.

[Scott Lloyd]

But not randomness...both probably got the idea from the same place....the discussions here and there that have been taking place for sometime about increasing women's visibility in the Church without having to appeal to changing doctrine.

I think this conjecture comes closest to reality of any that I've seen on this matter.

For example, one of the FAIR Conference presentations dealt with suggestions to change some non-doctrinal practices with this as a goal (making women more visible, that is). And that was way back in August.

I think it way too simplistic to surmise that any specific Internet pressure campaign is what brought about the change.

[changed]

Like!!!! You're daughter is very blessed to have you to teach her like that.

Thanks Tacenda, but I'm the one who's blessed, that I have a daughter who is willing to sit and talk things through with me.

I think it is something to be celebrated as we need positive role models out there for young women today

I agree we desparately need positive role models, but I also think sometimes the best role models are those who are not placed in the lime light. I'm a firm believer that "it's not what you say, it's what you do." nevertheless,

TO every thing there is a aseason, and a time to every purpose under the heaven...a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; Ecclesiastes 3:1-7

a time to keep silence....

13 Do not apray as the Zoramites do, for ye have seen that they pray to be heard of men,

(Book of Mormon | Alma 38:13)

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. (New Testament | Matthew 6:5 - 6)

and a time to speak...

a time to pray in your closet, and a time to pray with the doors wide open so that everyone can see you...

10 Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did foretime.

11 Then these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God.

13...Daniel, ... regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed...Daniel 6

Hopfully when we look back years from now, we will not view the years where women did not pray as a period of oppression, but instead as a period of example - that strength and honor are not always demontrated in public acts, that there are lessons both in what we do in public, and what we do not need to do in public.

I think some people still do not understand the glory of silence, the beauty of being one who supports others, that God's ways are not the world's ways - the world values being seen and heard, while God values actions of humility....

There's a story about the Budda - that he was scheduled to give a talk, and a large crowd had assembled - the Buddah was late in getting there, and the crowd had grown impatient and restless. When the Buddah finally arrived, he didn't apologize for being late, he didn't make any excuses, he just smiled, and slowly, peacefully, happily walked up to the pulpit. He didn't say anything, he just sat down on the floor, and admired a lotus flower. Some of the crowd was upset by this - "we came here to hear a talk, why are you not talking to us??? why are you not speaking??" they yelled. These upset people then got up and left, disgusted and angry at the time they had wasted.... another part of the crowd understood the silent lecture that the Buddah was giving though, they stayed seated on the ground, smiled with the Budda, and enjoyed the silence with him....

I hope we are able to appreciate, love, and value those quiet gentle silent people who dwell within the midst of us, in equal proportaion as we appreciate those who walk in front of us.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

1 Timothy 2

“Women of God can never be like women of the world.

The world has enough women who are tough;

we need women who are tender.

There are enough women who are coarse;

we need women who are kind.

There are enough women who are rude;

we need women who are refined.

We have enough women of fame and fortune;

we need more women of faith.

We have enough greed;

we need more goodness.

We have enough vanity;

we need more virtue.

We have enough popularity;

we need more purity.”

(Margaret D. Nadauld)

Edited April 7, 2013 by changed

[canard78]

“Women of God can never be like women of the world.

The world has enough women who are tough;

we need women who are tender.

There are enough women who are coarse;

we need women who are kind.

There are enough women who are rude;

we need women who are refined.

We have enough women of fame and fortune;

we need more women of faith.

We have enough greed;

we need more goodness.

We have enough vanity;

we need more virtue.

We have enough popularity;

we need more purity.”

(Margaret D. Nadauld)

Wouldn't that poem be much stronger if it said 'people' not 'women' - all of that advice applies just as much to men as women.

[urroner]

Not really. Women have been praying in General Conference for as long as husbands have been giving sermons . . . :-)

A passenger jet plane was hijacked and demands were sent to the ground. The demands were refused. The hijackers grabbed three people and threatened to shoot them if the demands were not accepted. They weren't.

It turns out that the three passengers were members of the same stake. The first was a stake president. The hijackers asked him if he had any last wishes and he said that there was this talk he always wanted to give.

The second was the stake music chairman who have a beautiful voice. He said that he always wanted to sing a certain hymn as a solo to a bunch of people.

The third was the stake president's wife and she said "I always wanted to hear the music chairman sing that song, but please shoot me before I have to put up with another one of my husband's talk."

--------------------------------

I apologize for bringing just light minded levity into such a serious discussion.

[DBMormon]

And will you vigorously keep track of the % of prayers given by women, making sure it is in line with population? Or will there be a committee of whiners tracking that one?

Let me guess, your a male?

The person at the head of the line all too often fails to see those behind him and those left out and struggles to understand why they they complain about the inequality.

If it isn't Doctrine, and if God didn't command it, then there is no reason other then Cultural norms for us to not throw out the stuff that doesn't come from God and helps all God's Children feel loved and appreciated.

If it's God's command then I am all for it and fighting to keep it, if it isn't sorry, I am not compelled to tow the line. Or to defend hanging onto things that simply became part of our culture but are not of God and do not help people feel loved.

Edited April 7, 2013 by DBMormon

[Moon Quaker]

I never even noticed before that women haven't prayed in General Conference.

I never noticed either. For the “feminists,” this seems like a victory of sorts. For those who just never noticed, it's like “Huh? I didn’t even know there was a ‘battle’ going on.”

[DBMormon]

I never noticed either. For the “feminists,” this seems like a victory of sorts. For those who just never noticed, it's like “Huh? I didn’t even know there was a ‘battle’ going on.”

Maybe the leaders didn't notice either and it's just a coincidence that males gave prayer 100% of the time?

point = just because you are not paying attention doesn't mean that others have no reason to be hurt by a policy that was not based on Doctrine but rather a cultural norm in the world that had males take charge and leave little to females.

Just as early leaders Racism may have been the norm and based on culture in years past it was still wrong even if accepted by the majority. The goal of the church is to continue to get more and more in line with where God would have it (AoF #9 much yet to be revealed) and we should applaud anytime that forward movement occurs..... so for that I applaud this and am grateful a few more sisters in the church feel like part of the work. Same for the Mission changes to having a missionary Council involving Sisters.

[CV75]

Sister Jean Stevens, first counselor in the Primary general presidency, is the first woman ever to give a prayer in general conference.

The Deseret News (?) had a nice article summarizing the history of who "traditionally" gave prayers in General Conference over the years--returning mission presidents, visiting stake presidents, memebrs of the Seventy, etc. I put "tratidition" in quotation marks since we really can't say 183-years is a long time and that any tradition can be said to be deeply rooted, especially when they change from time to time. At any rate, I suppose that youth and children will someday give prayers in General Conference as well--now that will be something!

[Teancum]

It took me a while to figure out why *some* women wanted this so bad. I think its all about Priesthood. Well, its perceived to be all about Priesthood and if not that then at least a path toward it.

I hope that they are satisfied as it is. I don't think this will stretch to the priesthood.

uhh.....yea probably not. Why would one think it would? And while some women may have wanted this as a step to priesthood maybe more just wanted to see a woman pray at GC. They have been speaking at it for some time.

But maybe you just ought to ask a few women who were for this what it means to them.

[Teancum]

Priesthood is about service, and there is already ample opportunity for both women and men to serve in Heavenly Father's kingdom. (See my thread about Mormon women leaders providing insights into Church leadership.)

While I agree it is about service it is also more. It is about ordiances and performing such. It is about holding certain positions that entail service but require priesthood to hold them. Women in the LDS Church can serve but they can do neither of the two things I mention.

[Damien the Leper]

I'm stoked that a woman prayed at conference. But I will revoke that approval if her prayer goes longer than 2 minutes. Save the monologue for home...sheesh.