New Ow Discussion # 6 - Be The Change

[Rain]

At my house we refer to it as "prayer voice", and we consider it to be an offputting false affectation that is permanently adopted by many who want to appear reverent and righteous.  They want to personify the "still small voice".

 

But based on scripture and records the prophets of God were not softspoken.  The trend started around the turn of the century somewhere with the advancement of audio technology.

Joseph, Brigham, John, even the Savior all spoke to multitudes with no electronic aid and their voices carried.  Some were said to have voices of thunder, or to be like roaring lions.  Prayer voice doesn't = righteous.  It just means we now have microphones.

 

You are right that prayer voice doesn't equal righteousness and a lot of it does probably come with technology , but it also doesn't mean false.

 

A person using it could be using it as a false affectation, but also could be using it in true reverence.  

 

I'm not one who likes it.  I try not to do it, but I can not judge that other people are doing it falsely without knowing their hearts. 

[JAHS]

Are you referring to the circus tent motif as a metaphor for her PR campaign?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Maybe, but power ties worn by men are usually red. Perhaps this is her power tie.

[Calm]

Am curious...do guys sit around and talk about what other guys are wearing?

[smac97]

nope. So I don't think we should sit around talking about what women are wearing either. Kate Kelly's taste in clothes is not germane to this discussion.

[Calm]

On the same page with you...

[wenglund]

Am curious...do guys sit around and talk about what other guys are wearing?

 

JAI's reference to power ties should be a clue.

 

Also, there is the matter of white shirts and traditional ties that has been the topic of discussion here, if not also light colored suits worn by speakers at General Conference.

 

Just because men don't obsess about what other men may wear at Church doesn't mean that the topic never arises. The same is true in regards to what women may wear (or not wear--as in pant suits in the case in question).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cinepro]

nope. So I don't think we should sit around talking about what women are wearing either. Kate Kelly's taste in clothes is not germane to this discussion.

 

As long as she's not violating the Church's direction on what underwear she should or shouldn't wear, it's all good.

[mfbukowski]

To me, the presentation is the theatrical portion, although even that contains parts of the endowment proper.  The Endowment to me is exactly that - the knowledge or blessings we are endowed with.  This includes the items that we are taught, covenant to do, have given to us, and and are tested upon.

 

Now, which parts were altered in 1990?  Honest answer, both.  The endowment itself has been altered frequently in more than presentation dating back to the 1920's when the first changes to content outside of presentation methods were made.

 

But as long as the changes were by revelation then Joseph's statement that the ordinances were established unchangeable before the earth was even formed becomes unimportant...

 

Endowment

A special spiritual blessing given to worthy and faithful members of the Church in the temple.

 

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/endowment?lang=eng

 

When you get a priesthood blessing, what is actually said can be of little importance.  The ordinance exists in the intent to bless as God thinks is appropriate, not to get the words exactly right.

[JLHPROF]

 

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/endowment?lang=eng

 

When you get a priesthood blessing, what is actually said can be of little importance.  The ordinance exists in the intent to bless as God thinks is appropriate, not to get the words exactly right.

 

 

Then why do the words of baptism, sacarament, the marriage ceremony etc have to be done correctly?

Besides, the endowment isn't simply a "blessing".  Most of what we are endowed with is knowledge.  If pieces of that knowledge are changed, altered, or removed we no longer have the same knowledge and our progression can be halted.

[Tacenda]

You are right that prayer voice doesn't equal righteousness and a lot of it does probably come with technology , but it also doesn't mean false.

A person using it could be using it as a false affectation, but also could be using it in true reverence.

I'm not one who likes it. I try not to do it, but I can not judge that other people are doing it falsely without knowing their hearts.

It's pretty sad that I've equated the "prayer/Primary" voice with righteousness, it's not that I like it, I don't very much, but uncomfortable with that other voice, a more worldly voice...not sure how to explain it. Edited August 4, 2014 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

Then why do the words of baptism, sacarament, the marriage ceremony etc have to be done correctly?

Besides, the endowment isn't simply a "blessing".  Most of what we are endowed with is knowledge.  If pieces of that knowledge are changed, altered, or removed we no longer have the same knowledge and our progression can be halted.

Surely you don't believe that if a Priest says the prayer wrong and no one catches it, that the sacrament is invalid for the entire congregation?  Or that if the witnesses in a baptism miss an error the person is not "really" baptized?

 

What is or is not "accurate" is subject to definition by the church and is variable.  If a person receiving their own endowment is told a single word (I won't say which one, but you can probably figure it out) which is "wrong", that error becomes the "correct" word for that individual, and is recorded as the correct one in a special log throughout the church.

 

So essentially the error becomes correct- by official decision.

 

In the temple we are encouraged to get the words as exactly right as we can, but mistakes do happen all the time, and we are taught that the atonement makes up for it.  I hear the word "patriotical" instead of "patriarchal" probably three or four times a night because people are ignorant of the difference and we are taught that it is better to break a rule than break a heart by taking them aside and correcting it.

 

And fyi the "pieces of knowledge" have been changed as late as less than 10 years ago. Portions of the initiatories were re-written, the procedures for their performance were changed, and earlier in 1990, at least a third of the "pieces of knowledge" were no longer considered important enough to include.

 

Some beliefs about how certain gestures were to be done were also corrected and standardized.  Will all those who received their endowments with "incorrect" gestures get kicked out of the celestial kingdom?  If someone uses their left hand instead of right and no one catches it, is the endowment invalid?

 

I can't imagine that that is true.

Edited August 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That's funny you mentioned the "Primary" voice.  I kept thinking, while at the Symposium, how I really like that soft tone, even the male leaders of the church have it.  It is sort of a reverent voice.  I listened to a panel talk that were of other faiths, about church discipline.  And kept comparing them with some of our LDS leader's mannerisms and soft spoken tones, but it may be just what I'm use to and what I've grown up with.   

Gotta be a Utah thing.

 

Not even sure what you mean.  Could you post an audio example from say GC or something?

[mfbukowski]

While some women who speak in GC do tend to use a more immature way and soft tone of expressing their thoughts (hence the term 'primary voice'), the problem with making that an issue is exactly what you have stated here-she just threw all those women under the bus.  

 

Not only did she make it plain that they are wrong to use that voice (something i'm sure they are not doing on purpose) but she has said that she and others look down on women who do.  

 

And it's also a bit ironic given that the panel is upset that their 'tone' is being maligned but try to make that argument by maligning other women's tone.

Is there an example anywhere?

[mfbukowski]

Am curious...do guys sit around and talk about what other guys are wearing?

On a random Sunday it was observed that 6 previous bishops were all together in the same High Priest Group meeting- which almost never happens due to travel, sickness, other assignments etc.  There had been no plan to do this- it just happened totally randomly.

 

That's roughly 30 years of ward history all in one place.

 

They were lined up - in chronological order- and their picture was taken.

 

No one noticed at the time, but when the picture was published it became obvious that 5 had on dark suits- probably all blue, but hard to tell for sure- white shirts and red ties.

 

One had on a light grey sport coat and stood out like a sore thumb, but at least had the white shirt and red tie.  There was some good-natured ribbing for the one in the grey jacket

 

I won't say who that was. 

[Scott Lloyd]

While some women who speak in GC do tend to use a more immature way and soft tone of expressing their thoughts (hence the term 'primary voice'), the problem with making that an issue is exactly what you have stated here-she just threw all those women under the bus.  

 

Not only did she make it plain that they are wrong to use that voice (something i'm sure they are not doing on purpose) but she has said that she and others look down on women who do.  

 

And it's also a bit ironic given that the panel is upset that their 'tone' is being maligned but try to make that argument by maligning other women's tone.

Some male Church leaders use a soft, kind tone in their delivery. To me, it implies an intent to seem approachable, easy-going, perhaps somewhat avuncular, even ministerial. I see that as being the male counterpart to what is being mockingly disparaged here as "the Primary voice." Are these men to be looked down upon as well for being "infantile"?

 

Personally, I see this sort of criticism as hostile and contemptible.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's funny you mentioned the "Primary" voice.  I kept thinking, while at the Symposium, how I really like that soft tone, even the male leaders of the church have it.  It is sort of a reverent voice.  I listened to a panel talk that were of other faiths, about church discipline.  And kept comparing them with some of our LDS leader's mannerisms and soft spoken tones, but it may be just what I'm use to and what I've grown up with.   

Didn't see your message before I posted mine, Tacenda, but I agree with you.

[Scott Lloyd]

Gotta be a Utah thing.

 

Not even sure what you mean.  Could you post an audio example from say GC or something?

OK, now that we've disparaged a good portion of the female speakers in the Church, let's turn it into a Utah-bashing session.

[JAHS]

For some women I think the "Primary voice" is simply a physiological sign of nervousness in their voice, having to speak in front of millions of members who are hanging on their every word. Probably quite different if you were to hear them talking to their kids.

[Scott Lloyd]

At my house we refer to it as "prayer voice", and we consider it to be an offputting false affectation that is permanently adopted by many who want to appear reverent and righteous.  They want to personify the "still small voice".

 

But based on scripture and records the prophets of God were not softspoken.  The trend started around the turn of the century somewhere with the advancement of audio technology.

Joseph, Brigham, John, even the Savior all spoke to multitudes with no electronic aid and their voices carried.  Some were said to have voices of thunder, or to be like roaring lions.  Prayer voice doesn't = righteous.  It just means we now have microphones.

If someone is so anxious not to come across as being cold, unkind, domineering, menacing, in his or her vocal tone that he or she goes a bit too far to avoid it, well, I can hardly fault that person -- nor can I justify faulting him or her.

 

I think it good to bear in mind that most people who hold leadership positions in the Church did not seek those positions.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

... [T]o be fair, some male speakers have a similarly affected delivery (Elder Nelson **cough**),  and some women don't.

I don't care if he delivers his remarks in the "correct" tone of voice or not: I love Elder Nelson!  For that matter, I love Elder Oaks, as well, and their manner of delivery probably couldn't be more different from each other.

 

P.S.: And that, of course, reminded me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDPi4buduY0

Edited August 4, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

For some women I think the "Primary voice" is simply a physiological sign of nervousness in their voice, having to speak in front of millions of members who are hanging on their every word. Probably quite different if you were to hear them talking to their kids.

You may well be right.

 

So does showing nervousness in public speaking deserve public censure?

 

Doesn't seem a good way to help a person get over being nervous in public.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

For some women I think the "Primary voice" is simply a physiological sign of nervousness in their voice, having to speak in front of millions of members who are hanging on their every word. Probably quite different if you were to hear them talking to their kids.

Right: "Billy, how many times have I told you not to hit your brother with the dog??!!!"

 

(Sorry.  Couldn't resist! )

[Kenngo1969]

OK, now that we've disparaged a good portion of the female speakers in the Church, let's turn it into a Utah-bashing session.

Yup!  We've got to make sure we're proactive about nipping this whole "Utah-Bashing" thing in the bud!

 

Sincerely,

 

Ken, President, D*** Utah Mormons

(Scott is my Veep! )

[Kenngo1969]

... One could say that there is a similarity between graduation ceremonies and the endowment also- and there is.  Obviously though, the intent and what is taught in each is totally different, using some of the same devices.  Think of the gowns used in graduation, the mortar board hat and switching the tassel from one side to the other, and the whole idea of "graduation" itself- moving from one state of being to a higher one.

 

But no one thinks Joseph stole the endowment from high school graduation! ...

 

I dunno.  When one considers that Hugh Nibley once uttered the line in a prayer at commencement about "being gathered, clothed in the black robes of a false priesthood," maybe it's not such a stretch to think that Joseph did crib the Endowment from a graduation ceremony!

[mfbukowski]

OK, now that we've disparaged a good portion of the female speakers in the Church, let's turn it into a Utah-bashing session.

Uh, ok.

 

I don't even know what you are talking about, and since I have heard women speak every Sunday in church and at conference and don't have a clue what you are saying it is a little hard to see how I have disparaged anyone.  I did not bring up this undefinable "voice" that everyone here seems to know about but me, but yet I have disparaged women because of it.