Shanky82 Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 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.Why do we need to have "change"? "Change" doesn't necessarily mean progress.
Calm Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 Why do we need to have "change"? "Change" doesn't necessarily mean progress.What is the purpose of continuing revelation if there is no change? 1
Stargazer Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 What is the purpose of continuing revelation if there is no change?Change for the sake of change has no more use than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. When there is continuing revelation that drives change, it is clearly necessary and justified change.
ERayR Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 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.I grew up and have always had women praying in sacrament meeting and in stake conference that I didn't even realize there were no prayers by women in general conference. There is always at least two or more conference talks by women. It came as a surprise that there hadn't been any.
Calm Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 (edited) Change for the sake of change has no more use than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. When there is continuing revelation that drives change, it is clearly necessary and justified change. I agree. But I would think there might be some concern in a faith that promotes the idea of learning line upon line and continuing revelation if there was no change at all.The question was "Why do we need to have "change"?"I can think of many reasons including the principle of eternal progress. Edited April 7, 2013 by calmoriah
bluebell Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 I grew up and have always had women praying in sacrament meeting and in stake conference that I didn't even realize there were no prayers by women in general conference. There is always at least two or more conference talks by women. It came as a surprise that there hadn't been any.There was a short time where women praying in sacrament wasn't allowed. It really doesn't matter who noticed or not, if it wasn't of God it needed to change (and it did). The same thing goes for women praying in GC. Regardless of who cares or not, if its not of God there's no reason not to change, and no reason not to be happy about the change when it happens. 1
ERayR Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 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.I may be extra dense today but I can't see any significant effect. Everything will be the same as always except that some of the prayers given in GC will be assigned to women who are general officers in one or another of the auxiliaries.
ERayR Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 There was a short time where women praying in sacrament wasn't allowed. It really doesn't matter who noticed or not, if it wasn't of God it needed to change (and it did).The same thing goes for women praying in GC. Regardless of who cares or not, if its not of God there's no reason not to change, and no reason not to be happy about the change when it happens.I did not say it was of God. I did not say it shouldn't have been changed. I am all in favor of the change. I just said that I do not think it was a monumental change.
Calm Posted April 7, 2013 Posted April 7, 2013 I did not say it was of God. I did not say it shouldn't have been changed. I am all in favor of the change. I just said that I do not think it was a monumental change.Think of it as a "tender mercy" then.
CASteinman Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Think of it as a "tender mercy" then. I actually don't even think it is that. Its just common sense and reasonable. In addition, I think I know some women (at least one) who might think it insulting to be granted this as a "tender mercy". I can sorta see that.
PoisonWell Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 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.It may stem from the whole priesthood, body of the household, and foreordination issues. I can't blaim the women in my ward for feeling insecure about these kind of things. 1
CASteinman Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 It may stem from the whole priesthood, body of the household, and foreordination issues. I can't blaim the women in my ward for feeling insecure about these kind of things. "body of the household"? "Foreordination issues"? I don't know what you mean. Can you explain? 1
Damien the Leper Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 If any woman or young lady ever feels invalidated then perhaps there is a bigger problem...and not with the women who feel this way.
PoisonWell Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 "body of the household"? "Foreordination issues"? I don't know what you mean. Can you explain?The body of the household is about biblical verses that say women should be obedient to their husbands, who are the 'head' of the household.Foreordination as in being foreordained to things that seem to be made purposefully easier for them.Although I don't care to argue whether these are real issues, (I'm not a woman, so it doesn't really affect me) I can see where insecurities could come into existence. 1
Shanky82 Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 What is the purpose of continuing revelation if there is no change?Well, I guess that's wasn't what I meant by "change". There's change then there's "change". 1
Shanky82 Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Change for the sake of change has no more use than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. When there is continuing revelation that drives change, it is clearly necessary and justified change.This...
CASteinman Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Although I don't care to argue whether these are real issues, (I'm not a woman, so it doesn't really affect me) I can see where insecurities could come into existence.Oh, they might be real -- I don't know. But I thought maybe you were expressing something you had heard or knew of. I take it that you are -- hypothesizing?Foreordination as in being foreordained to things that seem to be made purposefully easier for them.I still don't understand. (That's really not the doctrine of foreordination but anyway..) how would what you have described upset them? I am missing something.
PoisonWell Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Oh, they might be real -- I don't know. But I thought maybe you were expressing something you had heard or knew of. I take it that you are -- hypothesizing?I still don't understand. (That's really not the doctrine of foreordination but anyway..) how would what you have described upset them? I am missing something.What I'm saying is that I can understand how some of the women in my ward are insecure about their place in the church, because of some doctrines. 1
Shanky82 Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 My question should have been, what do you mean by change?
mercyngrace Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 What I'm saying is that I can understand how some of the women in my ward are insecure about their place in the church, because of some doctrines.Maybe they feel as they do, not because of particular doctrines, but because there are still men like James A. Marples of Provo, Utah. James must have been annoyed to see women praying and general authorities talking about equality in marriage. It is nice that he allows for women to sing in church, though. That's thoughtful.
CASteinman Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 What I'm saying is that I can understand how some of the women in my ward are insecure about their place in the church, because of some doctrines.OK.. There is a way, that although that is vague and non-specific I understand it better!. People. some people, can be very sensitive and I have seen people make connections and read scriptures in totally negative ways. This I understand. It is very interesting how we must reach the one. Especially when the one is hiding.
Danzo Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 My wife wasn't even aware that it was the first time. She didn't think it remarkable. 1
PoisonWell Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Maybe they feel as they do, not because of particular doctrines, but because there are still men like James A. Marples of Provo, Utah.James must have been annoyed to see women praying and general authorities talking about equality in marriage. It is nice that he allows for women to sing in church, though. That's thoughtful.Dang, that really is terrible. Can't he be excommunicated for this blatant sexism that he's using the church to justify? 1
Bikeemikey Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Why do we need to have "change"? "Change" doesn't necessarily mean progress.Never claimed we need it... Simply claimed we don't have it often...
Bikeemikey Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Change for the sake of change has no more use than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. When there is continuing revelation that drives change, it is clearly necessary and justified change.And not changing for the sake of not changing is like sleeping on a deck chair on the titanic?
Recommended Posts