Women Praying In Conference - Why It Matters

[Benjamin McGuire]

There has been several comments that I have read in the last several weeks leading up to this conference over why women praying isn't a big deal, why it doesn't matter, and so on. Most of these have come from men (although we have seen a few comments from women). I thought I would explain why I believe this is significant.

In many ways, over this issue, Mormonism is not so different from Judaism (as opposed to Catholicism, which, while having some similar issues, has such a different structure due to the structure of its priesthood, that its not such an easy comparison - although they too have their share of women's issues). Judaism has a challenge with praying by women that is encoded into their halakhic law.

Within Judaism, and only relatively recently, the issue of women praying for the community has been given some additional discussion. Here is a bit from a 2001 article by Norma Baumel Joseph:

men understand that they can pray on behalf of others and represent the community, while women cannot. Orthodox women, seeking neither to displace men’s participation in communal prayer nor to override rabbinic decision making, undertook to add to their prayer experiences and knowledge through womenonly prayer groups. Cautious of halakhic minefields, they avoided categories such as minyan in order to comply with halakhic standards. They were unprepared for the vituperative and inaccurate allegations against these activities. Women seeking greater participation within Orthodoxy were suddenly maligned and misunderstood. While there is no official Modern Orthodoxy, the various reactions indicate that issues and motives are still misinterpreted.

The issue isn't simply one of whether the prayer is good or not, or whether women will offer better prayers than men (or not), or even whether or not there will any significant difference in the quality of our conferences, or in how people are enlightened by listening to inspired leaders. Unlike Judaism with its requirements of how women can participate in their religion, we have had this "unwritten order of things" that has just as effectively contributed to the view that Mormon women are not able to pray for the community. Communal prayer, while perhaps not as central to our practice of religion as it might be within Judaism still plays an important role. Some of our prayers are specifically restricted to the priesthood (male only) in the sacrament. But at times we have seen restrictions on women praying in sacrament meetings. And until yesterday we had never seen a woman pray for the entire Mormon community in our General Conference. Whether they could or not (and apparently there isn't anything preventing them in the doctrine or theology) the fact remained that they never had. And this supported the views held by some of an "unwritten order of things" that proclaimed that women were less fit than men to pray for the rest of us.

Within Judaism, the argument has changed in the last couple of decades. Removing or changing Halakhic law is not easy. In some ways, whether we had an written order or not, the fact that it remained largely unwritten means that we can change it far easier. For them, there has to be a reasoned approach to overturning the written legal tradition. Within Judaism, the legal interpretations are being brought with increasing frequency against the principle of kevod ha-beri ot - human dignity.

In many ways, without a prohibition on women praying publicly for the community, it seems that our moral obligation is to allow them this privilege that has remained largely with men for the entire existence of our church. This isn't simply a matter of catering to someone's whim. it isn't to make a public relations step to quiet the feminists who are speaking out. If we have women who want to pray for the community, and who are qualified to pray for the community, then we have a moral obligation to allow women to pray. This isn't just about a prayer in General Conference, it is very much about a public perception - what we teach our children (both our sons and our daughters) about their value in the church. If we refuse them, then we bear a burden of not giving them the human dignity that they deserve - we can cause harm.

In the long run, this is a significant event. And it means that when the leaders of the church suggest that our women are welcome to pray for our community in any meeting that they would like to, that they really do believe what they say, and are willing to demonstrate this (even at the cost of appearing to cater to the demands of our feminist elements). I think we need to adopt this same view, and I think that we need to rejoice with those sisters who feel that their concerns are finally being heard by the leaders of the church. If we don't want to rejoice, let's at least try to understand why this is significant instead of misrepresenting the issues and motives.

Ben M.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Benjamin McGuire

[Damien the Leper]

Well said, Ben. Thank you for sharing.

[CASteinman]

This statement seems off to me in two specific ways:

1. It equates apostate, abused, fragmented Judaism with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

2. It does not correctly (or at all) recognize the history of the LDS Church with regard to women and praying in church or in conferences.

Update:

After thinking about it for a while, I realized that this almost seems insulting to both Judaism and Mormonism. For Judaism, it seems to trivialize their extensive tradition and history by comparison to "upstart" Mormonism. I just don't think that having 1900 years or maybe 3500 years of accumulated practice, rules, traditions and ritual compared with a relatively trivial matter in a religion that is less than 200 years old is at all reasonable in recognizing any challenges to modifying some practice.

And for Mormonism it equates a very tiny adjustment to a major cultural overhaul contrary to the actual history of the LDS People.

Its just uncomfortable both ways..

Edited April 7, 2013 by CASteinman

[blackstrap]

Our children have watched women pray in church for years. They watched their mothers and sisters do so which was much more significant to them than some stranger.50 weeks out of 52. Now there are 2 more weeks available.

[bluebell]

In my view, any time we can remove a non correct tradition (like not allowing women to pray in a meeting) and replace it with actions or beliefs that more correctly match God's on the matter, it's a good thing.

It's not necessarily groundbreaking or a sign of changes ahead, but still a good thing and there's no reason not to acknowledge that.

[Traela]

IMO, the greatest thing is that it was such a non-event for most Mormons. I think the vast majority heard the news reports and went, "Women have never prayed in Conference before? Huh. I never really noticed. Well, it's nice they changed the tradition. Now what should we have for dessert after Priesthood meeting?"

[Deborah]

Benjamin, I might agree with you more if it were not for the reasons given by the women themselves who were pushing for this. I think this would eventually have evolved anyway.

But it gives me great concern that these women were pushing for this because they felt invalidated or unequal because of such a minor thing that as you say most of us probably never even thought about. It makes me wonder what we have been teaching our young women that so many feel inferior and I hope that the new program for youth will remedy this. I know from my own personal experience and observing my daughters and granddaughters that this is not something that even crosses their minds, so it makes me wonder how much family dynamics has to do with these attitudes of inferiority.

[CASteinman]

IMO, the greatest thing is that it was such a non-event for most Mormons. I think the vast majority heard the news reports and went, "Women have never prayed in Conference before? Huh. I never really noticed. Well, it's nice they changed the tradition. Now what should we have for dessert after Priesthood meeting?"

I also do not think it was a big deal but I admit -- I have the potential to be utterly insensitive to so many things and also completely unaware of that. So I should check myself sometimes. So I took a sample of the people I feel confidence in.. the three women in my family. None of them noticed .. and after I brought it to their attention, they didn't think it was all that important.

I take Bluebells point " but still a good thing and there's no reason not to acknowledge that." and agree, but I get the feeling too much is being made of it, especially in Ben's article above.

Separately though I have heard something that I think is really nice: The organizers of the protest now want to organize a "Thank you" campaign. I also think that is unnecessary but -- its a nice thing.

[Bikeemikey]

I also do not think it was a big deal but I admit -- I have the potential to be utterly insensitive to so many things and also completely unaware of that. So I should check myself sometimes. So I took a sample of the people I feel confidence in.. the three women in my family. None of them noticed .. and after I brought it to their attention, they didn't think it was all that important.

I take Bluebells point " but still a good thing and there's no reason not to acknowledge that." and agree, but I get the feeling too much is being made of it, especially in Ben's article above.

Separately though I have heard something that I think is really nice: The organizers of the protest now want to organize a "Thank you" campaign. I also think that is unnecessary but -- its a nice thing.

Too much made of it?

Our church is so starved of change that an age change for missionaries was a momentous event that drew gasp, shock and awe from those gathered to watch, and missionary age is something that has changed a lot over the course of church history.

I think a women praying in the main conference of the church for the first time in almost 200 years warrants a least more attention than the missionary age got (and that was talked about incessantly for months after last conference). I think that maybe the wrong things are being made of it, perhaps, though it is a massive event in our history and should not be made light of.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[CASteinman]

Too much made of it?

Yeah. Too much.

Our church is so starved of change that an age change for missionaries was a momentous event that drew gasp, shock and awe from those gathered to watch, and missionary age is something that has changed a lot over the course of church history.

I didn't notice that.

I think a women praying in the main conference of the church for the first time in almost 200 years warrants a least more attention than the missionary ...

I guess they do not agree with you. Maybe you can write a letter or something.

Uchtdorf's talk is really great! He is talking about not dwelling in the darkness!

Edited April 7, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bikeemikey]

Yeah. Too much.

I didn't notice that.

I guess they do not agree with you. Maybe you can write a letter or something.

There were audible gasps and then a nice slow camera pan across the audience in last conference when the announcement was made (a few disappointed male faces who were no doubt disappointed this years Summer Lake Powell plans had suddenly exploded to).

Not sure who the "they" are you were referring to? I also have no interested in making it a big deal for others if they feel it isn't, I just think it is a quite belittling of those that did find it a big deal for others to say it should really not matter... it matters to me, and to my Wife. I don't think it should matter to everyone, but those that it matters to should be respected.

[CASteinman]

There were audible gasps

You know.. its weird.. last night I had just played that and I did not hear that. I will play it again and see.

But this is not evidence of "starvation" -- you know that right?

[Bikeemikey]

You know.. its weird.. last night I had just played that and I did not hear that. I will play it again and see.

But this is not evidence of "starvation" -- you know that right?

The gasps may well have been in the local meeting house where I viewed. It was very audible... Where ever it came from.

My use of stave was not literal... As such it is conveniently exempt from literal definition :-)

Edited April 7, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stargazer]

I don't feel starved for change at all. And why not? Because change, in and of itself, has no value.

Is there something oppressive about women not praying in General Conference? Perhaps to a few overly-sensitive folks. It appears that most others didn't notice. I spuing this as a surprise to my wife at the conclusion of the first session. I turned to her as the Amen sounded and said: "And that was the first time that a sister offered a prayer at a General Conference!" She looked puzzled for a moment, asked "Really?", and then said "Oh, that's nice."

[CASteinman]

My use of stave was not literal... As such it is conveniently exempt from literal definition :-)

So it was meaningless? That would gut your whole statement. I am fine with that :-)

[CASteinman]

She looked puzzled for a moment, asked "Really?", and then said "Oh, that's nice."

I get the feeling that this is pretty much the broad and wide reaction in the Church. Lets see if anyone is seriously talking about it in one week or in 6 months. If so, then I am wrong.

[Bikeemikey]

So it was meaningless? That would gut your whole statement. I am fine with that :-)

Gave you a rep point for that one... ouch!

[Bikeemikey]

So it was meaningless? That would gut your whole statement. I am fine with that :-)

My meaning was scarcity. We do not have a lot of larger level institutional change. As such, when the missionary age was adjusted it was quite a surprise (for some exciting), though not a particularly big deal.

[CASteinman]

Gave you a rep point for that one... ouch!

You are a funny guy.

[CASteinman]

My meaning was scarcity. We do not have a lot of larger level institutional change. As such, when the missionary age was adjusted it was quite a surprise (for some exciting), though not a particularly big deal.

Actually that was a pretty big deal. Required a pretty big set of new Mission Presidents. I imagine that they are straining a bit to keep up with the new load.

But I would not expect the generic line diagram org chart of the Church to change a lot more.

[Deborah]

Actually that was a pretty big deal.

I agree; changing the missionary age was a very big deal and one that I think came as a complete, but pleasant surprise, to most of us. And look at the response from our young people. Marvelous!

[why me]

But it gives me great concern that these women were pushing for this because they felt invalidated or unequal because of such a minor thing that as you say most of us probably never even thought about. It makes me wonder what we have been teaching our young women that so many feel inferior and I hope that the new program for youth will remedy this. I know from my own personal experience and observing my daughters and granddaughters that this is not something that even crosses their minds, so it makes me wonder how much family dynamics has to do with these attitudes of inferiority.

I have to wonder the same thing.

But I don't understand where the inferiority comes into play. However, it may come from outside influences in the lives of these women. If I am a rather contented woman in the church but I have women who are on the Internet telling me that I am inferior in the lds because of this or that...I may believe them. And begin to feel inferior in the meetings.

The power of suggestion can be very strong.

[Calm]

I agree; changing the missionary age was a very big deal and one that I think came as a complete, but pleasant surprise, to most of us. And look at the response from our young people. Marvelous!

The change in the missionary age resulted in people changing their life plans. Many will now go on missions where they wouldn't have before.

I do agree though with Ben that women praying in conference is significant though it is the sort of significance that is probably more subliminal than overt in my view. It may not have registered with many that women hadn't been praying, but it will register that women are now praying and that will have an effect.

[Stargazer]

I, with my wife, agree that it is nice that women will now give opeing and closing prayers in Conference, and that it is a tempest in a teapot.

That being said, I have serious doubts about it for one reason and one reason only: it gives the appearance of the Church caving in to worldly pressure. It probably encouraged those who supported that female non-Priesthood session to think that they have a chance of forcing the Church to begin ordaining women to the Priesthood. And so as a result we will be blessed with a repeat of that particular inanity every six months for the next twenty years -- or until the Second Coming.

[CV75]

misrepresenting the issues and motives.

I think this happens, both pro and con. Since those making the decision make serious decisions in behalf of the whole Church, It would be very interesting to hear from them about why it is significant. Or why it is signifcant that the decision wasn't made sooner. I suppose they would say they were so inspired. But I also suppose like all spiritiual blessings, the significance is between the saint and God.