They Did It!

[Calm]

PW, if you click on your profile, there is a button for "your content" and you can look up your past comments all in one spot (you need to click on the "posts only" that is on the left hand side to read them).

[PoisonWell]

Using the word at all when referring to the church is a pejorative.

Although I don't really care in the first place, I wasn't referring to the church, as you should now be able to see from the above post.

[Nathair/|\]

When you have about nine holy women and about 170 mere males eligible for ten prayer slots, It seems that those slots could easily go to males without an actual ban in place.

[CASteinman]

When you have about nine holy women and about 170 mere males eligible for ten prayer slots, It seems that those slots could easily go to males without an actual ban in place.

I believe the probability of prayers being given by women under those assumptions (except 8 prayer slots) and with random drawing are as follows:

No women give prayers: 66%

1 prayer 29%

2 prayers 5%

[Stone holm]

Where did the nine come from?

[Calm]

Female presidencies I suspect (RS, YW, Primary)

[Brian 2.0]

I believe the probability of prayers being given by women under those assumptions (except 8 prayer slots) and with random drawing are as follows:

No women give prayers: 66%

1 prayer 29%

2 prayers 5%

Sure for ONE general conference. Apply the probabilities through all the general conference and you'd get quite a different probability. You're 50/50 on one coin flip, but there sure isn't a 50% chance of landing on heads 200 times in a row.

[Lightbearer]

One can be "pro-women" without being "anti-men". I hope you are not including all those who are concerned about women's roles in the faith as "anti-men" but only a very, very small part of them...and probably much smaller than the general population.

Of course one can be "pro-women" without being "anti-men" but these few women who have this web site and hold protest meetings are not just trying to "help" women. They have a chip on their shoulder and unless everyone bows and scrapes to their version of fairness then obviously those "old white men" are racists, homophobe, and opressers of women. There is more political motivation to this than any cultural bias or need of felmale role models! Give me a break. I remember Sonya Johnson, and her purpose was not equality but trying to steady and Ark that was not unsteady in the first place. I do not look upon women as enemies (and neither do the General Authorities) it is just another contention that Satan wants to stir up to destroy both men and women. It is part of his (Satan is a man by the way) way of hardening peoples hearts against the Lord's servants. The purpose of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not so men can dominate women, or that the sexes should compete with each other for prominence. It is so we can love one another and serve one another. The new and everlasting covenant is plain, we cannot do without each other, we cannot be made perfect alone, it is ordained that the two should become one. Ironically my wife said she did not even know that a woman had not given a prayer in Conference before. Neither had I because I do not think in that manner and I think the brethren probaly had never thought of it either. The thing is nobody has probably thought of it so that is why it had never been done. I don't mind one way or the other, what sickens me is the petty nitpicking some people do just to "prove their point." Instead of spending their time trying to help others or improve their own spirituality they have to get up and protest or criticize holy prophets and apostles about an unintened oversight that they choose to call a "ban" just to discredit the Lord's servants.

[Brian 2.0]

Not to take away from Sister Stevens, she's a lovely dedicated servant of the Lord,

but they gave into an itty bitty minority group of whiners. I have a big problem with whining women.

It won’t be enough ya know, they’ll just keep on whining.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so I'm not sure how many share this sentiment. But I was fairly put off by the above, though I may be misreading his tone.

Consider this hypothetical...

At a bi-annual interfaith conference there in an opening and closing prayer given by one of the representatives of the different faiths. The "interfaith council" decides who gives these prayers (made up of a Catholic, Protestant, and Jew). Year after year different faiths are chosen to open and close with a prayer (Catholics, Jews, Protestant, Jehovah Witnesses, Scientologist, etc). After decades upon decades of this conference all the faiths have been asked to pray NUMEROUS times. But a Mormon representative has never been asked once. After decades and decades a group of Mormons petition the interfaith council to have a Mormon give a prayer, and in the next conference, a Mormon does.

Would anyone here consider the Mormons who petitioned as "whiny Mormons"?

Or that the "interfaith council" "gave in" or buckled to pressure and they shouldn't have?

[Stargazer]

Haha, no problem, the pun gave me a chuckle

I'm not saying that I even feel the prayers are that important, but when you don't have one sex do something for decades, I'd consider that a ban. What word choice would you use?

It may not be to keep the women out, but it seems to me that it is putting the importance of men over women.

I don't know your English language skills very well, but the word "ban" suggests to me, at least, a conscious, deliberate policy. Now, if I were a fair-minded neutral observer I might prefer to use the less-loaded word "exclusion" in connection with women never before having been asked to give prayers at General Conference. And I would prefer this because the reaction of the Church to this exclusion having been pointed out (namely, to immediately end the exclusion), strongly suggests that it was unconcious and not at all blameworthy.

Now, you can psychoanalyze this to mean that the Church considers men more important than women if you like, but you'd be dead wrong, Your use of the "ban" word in this context suggests to me that you are attempting to deepen whatever controversy may exist. Throw gas on a fire. That kind of thing. So, what would be your motivation for doing this?

You may or may not have noticed, but I have NEVER invited you over to my house for dinner. Would you say that there is a ban in place?

[PoisonWell]

I don't know your English language skills very well, but the word "ban" suggests to me, at least, a conscious, deliberate policy. Now, if I were a fair-minded neutral observer I might prefer to use the less-loaded word "exclusion" in connection with women never before having been asked to give prayers at General Conference. And I would prefer this because the reaction of the Church to this exclusion having been pointed out (namely, to immediately end the exclusion), strongly suggests that it was unconcious and not at all blameworthy.

Now, you can psychoanalyze this to mean that the Church considers men more important than women if you like, but you'd be dead wrong, Your use of the "ban" word in this context suggests to me that you are attempting to deepen whatever controversy may exist. Throw gas on a fire. That kind of thing. So, what would be your motivation for doing this?

You may or may not have noticed, but I have NEVER invited you over to my house for dinner. Would you say that there is a ban in place?

lol I feel almost offended that you're bringing my english language skills into question, though I guess it's never a bad thing to be sure, especially on the internet. I'm a native speaker.

And it really doesn't matter to me what you want me to call it. It's a ban. My motivation is the truth, and the truth is that calling it a ban is equally correct to calling it an 'exclusion.' I'm not looking to be religiously correct.

Here's a better analogy. If I went to your house for decades and you never had my wife offer the prayer, but you and I were both allowed to say it, I would consider that a ban. If you want to call it an exlcusion, then more power to you, but I'm going to call it a ban.

Now, you can psychoanalyze this to mean that the Church considers men more important than women if you like, but you'd be dead wrong

How so? I'm not even sure how I feel on the topic, since I'm not a woman so it doesn't greatly affect me, but I'm interested to here why you think it's wrong.

[Stargazer]

lol I feel almost offended that you're bringing my english language skills into question, though I guess it's never a bad thing to be sure, especially on the internet. I'm a native speaker.

And it really doesn't matter to me what you want me to call it. It's a ban. My motivation is the truth, and the truth is that calling it a ban is equally correct to calling it an 'exclusion.' I'm not looking to be religiously correct.

Here's a better analogy. If I went to your house for decades and you never had my wife offer the prayer, but you and I were both allowed to say it, I would consider that a ban. If you want to call it an exlcusion, then more power to you, but I'm going to call it a ban.

How so? I'm not even sure how I feel on the topic, since I'm not a woman so it doesn't greatly affect me, but I'm interested to here why you think it's wrong.

The word "ban" suggests a possibly nefarious motivation in this context. That's a statement of fact -- at least as far as the dictionary definition of "ban" is concerned. Now, you can call the apparent exclusion of women giving prayers in General Conference whatever you want, although your insistence upon calling it a ban says something to me about your attitude. Was it a policy? I don't know, and I seriously doubt you could know.

As to you coming to my house for dinner, there you are again with the loaded word, "allowed". You say that I never had your wife offer the prayer, and that you and I were "allowed" to say it. I shan't dwell upon the odd phraseology of my allowing myself to say the prayer, but you, apparently wishing to put the most negative spin you can upon the situation, insist that a ban is in place with respect to your wife and the prayer. Why would you do this?

[Stargazer]

Now, you can psychoanalyze this to mean that the Church considers men more important than women if you like, but you'd be dead wrong,

How so? I'm not even sure how I feel on the topic, since I'm not a woman so it doesn't greatly affect me, but I'm interested to here why you think it's wrong.

How would you be dead wrong? Because the church does not consider men more important than women. I don't know how else to express that.

[Calm]

As to you coming to my house for dinner, there you are again with the loaded word, "allowed". You say that I never had your wife offer the prayer, and that you and I were "allowed" to say it. I shan't dwell upon the odd phraseology of my allowing myself to say the prayer, but you, apparently wishing to put the most negative spin you can upon the situation, insist that a ban is in place with respect to your wife and the prayer. Why would you do this?

My daughter never says the prayer though it's not because we don't want her to, she doesn't do it because she doesn't want to.

There are many reasons why something might not be occurring, a prohibition is only one of these reasons.

[why me]

Well, when the church claims modern day divine revelation, people like to think that it's perfect. When the church changes itself that opens doors for all kinds of cognitive dissonance.

I don't think that the church is perfect at all. How can it be when it is made up of imperfect people. We can see this in the history of the church. Imperfect people trying to navigate their way through life, including its leaders. Even Joseph Smith would claim that he was not perfect and he was he leader for many years. I have never known a GA claim that they are perfect. A church is just a building that has people inside it from time to time. .

[CASteinman]

Sure for ONE general conference. Apply the probabilities through all the general conference and you'd get quite a different probability. You're 50/50 on one coin flip, but there sure isn't a 50% chance of landing on heads 200 times in a row.

Well, lets see. Under the same assumptions, with 10 years of conferences (20 conferences) the probability that no women would pray is 0.000332273766170308,

Is that what you had in mind?

[CASteinman]

Would anyone here consider the Mormons who petitioned as "whiny Mormons"?

Its a hypothetical, but anyway... Yes. I would consider them Whiny Mormons.

[Stargazer]

My daughter never says the prayer though it's not because we don't want her to, she doesn't do it because she doesn't want to.

There are many reasons why something might not be occurring, a prohibition is only one of these reasons.

That's what I'm trying to tell him, but he is insisting it is something... dark. And sinister.

Of course.

[Avatar4321]

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.”

There wasnt a battle going on

[rockpond]

Not to take away from Sister Stevens, she's a lovely dedicated servant of the Lord,

but they gave into an itty bitty minority group of whiners. I have a big problem with whining women.

Technically, the petition was only requesting that we follow the 1978 letter from the Prophet. Not that other big declaration from 1978, but the lesser known letter from the First Presidency in which President Kimball wrote that it was “permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meetings they attend.”

I think that sometimes even the very best among us might need a little nudge to break out of old habits. I don't see it as whining.

[Avatar4321]

Yes, you've taken me completely out of context. If you'd like to read through this thread to actually find the context, then you can. It's fairly obvious how I meant it, but since you obviously don't care to find the context yourself, literally a few clicks away, it really isn't worth my time to clarify.

Also, mysogyny can mean distrusting or disliking women. That was what I meant in the context I used it in.

And it still wouldn't be true.

[Avatar4321]

How would you be dead wrong? Because the church does not consider men more important than women. I don't know how else to express that.

Im not sure you can express it more plainly. It's been pretty clear since the World began.

[Avatar4321]

I don't think that the church is perfect at all. How can it be when it is made up of imperfect people. We can see this in the history of the church. Imperfect people trying to navigate their way through life, including its leaders. Even Joseph Smith would claim that he was not perfect and he was he leader for many years. I have never known a GA claim that they are perfect. A church is just a building that has people inside it from time to time. .

Why would anyone think the Church is perfect whatsoever? Why would we need the Church if we were all perfect?

It's the sick that need a doctor, not the healthy.

[Brian 2.0]

Its a hypothetical, but anyway... Yes. I would consider them Whiny Mormons.

So when would be it appropriate and not "whining" to go to bat for yourself or someone else to those in authority?

If the coach of my little boy's soccer team didn't put my son in week after week after week, I wouldn't stand by and say "he knows best". I would go to him, ask why, and ask him to remember my boy and try and get him in the game. And I wouldn't consider that whining.

[CASteinman]

So when would be it appropriate and not "whining" to go to bat for yourself or someone else to those in authority?

I hadn't thought about it. But why isn't whining appropriate?

If the coach of my little boy's soccer team didn't put my son in week after week after week, I wouldn't stand by and say "he knows best". I would go to him, ask why, and ask him to remember my boy and try and get him in the game. And I wouldn't consider that whining.

I would.