Bikeemikey Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 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. If my memory serves me well, there was actually a long time when women did not pray in church, or really be expected to participate during sacrament. The latter may have had more to do with young children not being very welcome. You know, noise issues.
Stargazer Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 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.So can I.
Calm Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) If my memory serves me well, there was actually a long time when women did not pray in church, or really be expected to participate during sacrament. The latter may have had more to do with young children not being very welcome. You know, noise issues.Do you mean during your lifetime or prior to it? (as in personal memory or memory of something you read or heard) Edited April 8, 2013 by calmoriah
Calm Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 And not changing for the sake of not changing is like sleeping on a deck chair on the titanic?Or insisting that it wasn't going to sink because all the authorities declared it unsinkable.
Bikeemikey Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Well, I guess that's wasn't what I meant by "change". There's change then there's "change".I guess if words in quotation marks have different meanings we need the "Oxford English dictionary" so I can relearn English.
Stargazer Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 And not changing for the sake of not changing is like sleeping on a deck chair on the titanic?I suspect that it would have been rather difficult sleeping on a deck chair on the Titanic. Especially after the bow started sliding into the sea. Not to mention the general commotion.Not changing for the sake of not changing is like, um, the Amish. I don't think that's valid, either. Are you trying to be amusing or something?
Bikeemikey Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Do you mean during your lifetime or prior to it? (as in personal memory or memory of something you read or heard)Early church BY era stuff.
Calm Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) Not changing for the sake of not changing is like, um, the Amish. I don't think that's valid, either.The Amish have a very good reason for not changing:Two key concepts for understanding Amish practices are their rejection of Hochmut (pride, arrogance, haughtiness) and the high value they place on Demut (humility) and Gelassenheit (calmness, composure, placidity), often translated as "submission" or "letting-be". Gelassenheit is perhaps better understood as a reluctance to be forward, to be self-promoting, or to assert oneself. The Amish's willingness to submit to the "Will of Jesus", expressed through group norms, is at odds with the individualism so central to the wider American culture. The Amish anti-individualist orientation is the motive for rejecting labor-saving technologies that might make one less dependent on community. Modern innovations like electricity might spark a competition for status goods, or photographs might cultivate personal vanity.http://en.wikipedia....i/Amish#HistoryPS: Not meaning to be nitpicky...more of looking for ways to be distracted from an ongoing migraine episode...so just ignore me if I am annoying... Edited April 8, 2013 by calmoriah
Calm Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) Early church BY era stuff.Would be very interested in this if you ever remember where you came across it. Edited April 8, 2013 by calmoriah
Bikeemikey Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 I think that whilst the action if a specific woman praying in conference may itself jibe momentous, the first female prayer in 184 years of conference history is certainly worth a shout out.That's my feelings. Just saying.
Bikeemikey Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Would be very interested in this if you ever remember where you came across it.Ill see if I can track down the quote tomorrow. Something like mothers stay home with your kids, their being loud and obnoxious and can't hear the Holy Ghost.
Nathair/|\ Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Dang, that really is terrible. Can't he be excommunicated for this blatant sexism that he's using the church to justify?No, but I can ask one of my witch friends to turn him into a newt. 2
Stargazer Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) I think that whilst the action if a specific woman praying in conference may itself jibe momentous, the first female prayer in 184 years of conference history is certainly worth a shout out.That's my feelings. Just saying.I am so very ambivalent about this. I am also conflicted. Maybe I am just confused. There, that's it.Anyway, I have in turns felt happy about it, feeling "meh" and wondering why its so freaking important to some people, and getting all slit-eyed about how it looks like the Church is bending to public pressure. And then along comes PoisonWell insisting that there was a "ban" which has been lifted, making it nefarious, and I'm annoyed.And all the while it looks like the actual case is that whoever it was that was responsible for arranging the prayers suddenly got asked the question, why not women, and he shrugged and said "I have no idea", whereupon he asked a couple of women. Naturally this has to be given the most deepest darkest spin possible. Edited April 8, 2013 by Stargazer 1
Stargazer Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 I am so very ambivalent about this. I am also conflicted. Maybe I am just confused. There, that's it.Anyway, I have in turns felt happy about it, feeling "meh" and wondering why its so freaking important to some people, and getting all slit-eyed about how it looks like the Church is bending to public pressure. And then along comes PoisonWell insisting that there was a "ban" which has been lifted, making it nefarious, and I'm annoyed.And all the while it looks like the actual case is that whoever it was that was responsible for arranging the prayers suddenly got asked the question, why not women, and he shrugged and said "I have no idea", whereupon he asked a couple of women. Naturally this has to be given the most deepest darkest spin possible.And where O where are Selek and Pahoran when you need them most!?!
volgadon Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 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..You are worried about people being offended over the mere act of comparison?
CASteinman Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) You are worried about people being offended over the mere act of comparison?No... I don't think anyone here would be offended by that. But, it seemed both wrong headed in terms of the comparison being bad (and in that respect, it looks insulting to me -- even if no one would be offended) and it is inadequate.I guess.. just because something is insulting, doesn't mean people actually will be offended. And just because people are offended at things, doesn't mean it was actually insulting -- even though they often go together. But in this case, no, I did not think it was an instance where that would occur. Edited April 8, 2013 by CASteinman
Flyonthewall Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 If nobody made this into a news story, I would not have noticed...but I allow others to be excited or celebratory(?) over things that may not catch my attention. I do not see this as a ban of any type but more of a tradition or an oversight that no one, or very few people kept track of. I agree with Stargazer on this... most likely an oversight that was corrected. 2
jbarm 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.You do need to realized that James Marples is a regular "Letters to the Editor" writer who they love to publish because he is such a crank. Not someone to take seriously at all, IMO.jb
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 (edited) If it were not for people making a big deal about this I would have never noticed. It really is such a non issue. In fact When I saw a sister give a prayer on Saturday. I really didn't notice until my wife made a comment. And her comment was she did not understand why people were making a big deal about it. Edited April 8, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Flyonthewall Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 Was the fist-bump a first at GC too? Perhaps something more can be made of the significance of this too.
Stourme Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 "Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." There is not a time when this Church is not lead by our Father in Heaven.Many people who attend other churches consider the pulpit to be a place of authority. And would have been put off by seeing a woman praying for the whole Church which many in the world consider a "priesthood" responsibility. There is a time and place for everything. Plus, it's important for the world to hear an Apostle or Seventy pray as the concept of living Apostles or Seventies is new to them.Our Father in Heaven wants every person to join His Church and get on the path back to Him. He would not purposefully put stumbling blocks in people's way.Whom ever Father in Heaven chooses to pray in Conference it's because He has a purpose for it.-Stourme
Calm Posted April 8, 2013 Posted April 8, 2013 You do need to realized that James Marples is a regular "Letters to the Editor" writer who they love to publish because he is such a crank. Not someone to take seriously at all, IMO.That is rather sad for a news organization to resort to that.
Wanderer7 Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 The only change I see in this is that the leaders of the church made a decision based on the voice of the members. I think, however, it is such an inconsequential matter that it isn't going to lead to a new order of things for the church. However, as far as the policy itself goes, I don't see it as a big deal at all. Why some people got so uptight about it is beyond me. Maybe the women only prayed in the women's sessions because there are so few female general auxiliary leaders when compared with general authorities. Now it means some seventies might never get to stand at the pulpit at general conference while some women will do so that many more times. That's the only change I see.
volgadon Posted April 9, 2013 Posted April 9, 2013 That is rather sad for a news organization to resort to that.It is pretty standard, for a variety of reasons.
Recommended Posts