Ask and it shall be given

Ask and it shall be given;

Seek and ye shall find;

Knock and it shall be opened unto you.

What I find as remarkable and weep-inducing as this news itself, is the fact that it followed asking, seeking, and knocking. We didn’t kill it, we didn’t delay it. We were heard. And being a voice that is heard is what this was all about. We never doubted that God hears our prayers; no conference pulpit is necessary for that. But it also matters whether our voices are heard on earth.

The door is open unto women.

Our voices matter.

Comments

  1. Hopingitistrue says:

    Amen- weep inducing indeed.

  2. Yes!

  3. This is good news; it is at the very least a sign that the leadership is aware of the struggles and heartaches of the membership. I’m sort of holding out hope that it is a sign that larger, more significant changes could come in the future, both on women’s issues and on LGBT issues.

  4. Highest high five ever SB2.

  5. Yay! So happy I cried.

  6. Amen!

  7. Cynthia, I remember well your original post on this topic so well–it was so clear and logical and I thought to myself “I hope ‘they’ read this”. I had hope it could be an impetus for change. When several conferences passed with no change I admit to feeling a bit dismayed.

    Of course it was long over due, as so many milestones of progress in “women’s issues” have been (hate that phrase because they are issues that concern all of us), but I’m so pleased it happened sooner than later. This announcement restores some of my optimism, and while I can’t articulate it perfectly, it just feels good on several levels.

    In Kristine Haglund’s words: “it matters. It. Just. Does. I want my daughter to know girls can fly”.

  8. I’ve had a hard time putting to words why this means so much to me, since I don’t really even consider myself a mormon anymore, but it really does mean so much. Hooray!
    I do still watch General Conference, and pretty much everyone I was close to in my young adulthood is still mormon, but mostly it just makes me optimistic for the world. Change happens. Authority listens. Hooray.

  9. 23 black dogs says:

    :D Best news to wake up to. Hands down.

    (Will the women who pray be wearing pants?!)

  10. Oops, # 9 was Rachel. Wrong log-in!

  11. From the SL Tribune article: ‘Church spokesman Scott Trotter would not confirm or deny the female prayers, saying only that “decisions on speakers and prayers at General Conference were made many weeks ago.”
    I’m only cautiously optimistic until we get a solid confirmation.

  12. The SL Trib article provided no source information — not even a vague reference to “mutliple knowledgeable anonymous sources in Church headquarters” — just a single sentence stating that it would happen. The offical church statement neither confirmed nor denied the fact. Thus, the article has absolutely no evidence to support its claims. This poor journalism. Given the complete lack of sourcing, I think readers should take this information with a grain of salt. I’m not saying it is not true, but it is thin gruel upon which to start celebrating. Could this be yet another effort by a sympathetic friend in the media to force the Church’s hand?

  13. To claim this is bad journalism or to assume that Peggy doesn’t have credible sources is to ignore her record of being a responsible, professional, and award-winning journalist.

    She has solid and credible sources.

  14. I devoutly hope they wear pants while praying in General Conference. I do not expect that they will, however.

  15. Cool! Apparently there is a place for activism in the church. Well done ladies!

  16. Yay! Okay, folks, what’s next? Live rock bands in church anyone?

  17. Now that we have opened GC prayers to both genders, I move that we now place a time limit on said GC prayers.

  18. Ms. Stack may be a good journalist, but she cited no source.

  19. Randy B. says:

    This is great news, though I tend to agree that Peggy’s article leaves much to be desired. She doesn’t have to name her source(s), but she offers nothing than her say so that it’s going to happen. That’s not journalism, no many how many awards you might have won in years past. News of this possibility was circulating a week ago, but only through third-hand unnamed sources. If that’s all she’s got, it ain’t much.

    Also, I sure hope the prayer scheduler asked one women to offer an opening prayer and one to say the closing. Otherwise we’ll end up with another round of half-baked rules about which prayers women can and cannot say.

  20. Randy B: Other rumors abroad say a woman is scheduled for opening the first session, and another for closing the final session.

  21. Randy B. says:

    That’s what I heard too, third- (actually fourth) hand. For now, I’m merely cautiously optimistic.

  22. There aren’t any sources cited, but that’s not necessarily a killer. It’s also not reported as a rumor – she says that the “Tribune has learned…” which indicates a higher standard than just noise and rumors. Whether or not that’s “journalism” is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, but it’s better than blogs can offer and a reputable newspaper would not publish an article like that without some real backup behind the scenes. Given the likely nature of the sources involved it’s little wonder that none are mentioned.

    I understand the skepticism but there is no need to besmirch Peggy’s journalism.

  23. Randy B. says:

    Steve, people cite anonymous sources all the time. If she has one, she should say so. If she just read John Dehlin’s FB wall last week, well . . .

  24. Randy, I agree, though don’t you think that scenario is extremely, extremely unlikely?

  25. Well, I hope for Ms. Stack’s sake that whatever source she used is correct.

  26. This is wonderful news! Kudos to you, Cynthia, for being the one to get the ball rolling way back in 2011!

  27. My optimism is tempered by the possibility that speakers/prayers at a session could be changed at short notice. Despite claims that everything is set up well in advance, our priesthood leaders still run the conference. Sister X could be tapped on the shoulder minutes before air time, thanked for her willingness to participate, and informed that Elder Y will be praying instead. So I’m saving my happy feet dance (done quietly and reverently) until after I hear the congregation say “amen.”

  28. Randy B. says:

    Probably. At the same time, this piece cries out for a source. As I read it last night, I kept scrolling, and scrolling, and scrolling, looking for something to substantiate the article. But all we get is Peggy’s say so. Eye of the beholder, I suppose, but that strikes me as pretty weak.

  29. Peggy said on her facebook, Dear FB friends, My sources for this story are solid. Trust me. I am a professional journalist. I do not go into print with rumors.This happens all the time in journalism, when a journalist wants to protect sources so that they remain available for future information.

    This also happens a lot with organizations who have ‘official unofficial leaks’ to the press to get the word out without making an official statement on the matter until a more formal occasion.

  30. There should have been quotes around “Dear FB friends, My sources for this story are solid. Trust me. I am a professional journalist. I do not go into print with rumors.” the rest is my commentary.

  31. Randy B. says:

    From AP’s Standards and Practices for Anonymous Sources (http://www.ap.org/company/News-Values):

    “We must explain in the story why the source requested anonymity. And, when it’s relevant, we must describe the source’s motive for disclosing the information. If the story hinges on documents, as opposed to interviews, the reporter must describe how the documents were obtained, at least to the extent possible.

    The story also must provide attribution that establishes the source’s credibility; simply quoting ‘a source’ is not allowed. We should be as descriptive as possible: ‘according to top White House aides’ or ‘a senior official in the British Foreign Office.’ ”

    From the NYT’s Confidential News Sources Policy (http://www.ap.org/company/News-Values):

    “Readers of The New York Times demand to know as much as possible about where we obtain our information and why it merits their trust. For that reason, we have long observed the principle of identifying our sources by name and title or, when that is not possible, explaining why we consider them authoritative, why they are speaking to us and why they have demanded confidentiality.”

    “The use of unidentified sources is reserved for situations in which the newspaper could not otherwise print information it considers reliable and newsworthy. When we use such sources, we accept an obligation not only to convince a reader of their reliability but also to convey what we can learn of their motivation – as much as we can supply to let a reader know whether the sources have a clear point of view on the issue under discussion.”

    “Whenever anonymity is granted, it should be the subject of energetic negotiation to arrive at phrasing that will tell the reader as much as possible about the placement and motivation of the source – in particular, whether the source has firsthand knowledge of the facts.”

    “When we agree to anonymity, the reporter’s duty is to obtain terms that conceal as little as possible of what the reader needs to gauge reliability. We should distinguish conscientiously between high-level and lower-level executives or officials. We should not use blind attribution – ‘sources said,’ for example – which is more a tease than a signpost. Attribution should never amount to a truism: since ‘source’ merely means a provider of information, ‘one source said’ is equivalent to ‘somebody said.’ And ‘informed’ or ‘reliable source’ is no improvement. (Would The Times quote an uninformed or unreliable one?) The objection is not to the word ‘source,’ but to its emptiness without a meaningful modifier: ‘a Senate source,’ for example, may be acceptable – unless, of course, it is possible to tell the reader still more. The word ‘official’ is overused, and cries out for greater specificity.

    Trail markers should be as detailed as possible. ‘United States diplomat’ is better than ‘Western diplomat,’ which is better than ‘diplomat.’ Still better is ‘a United States diplomat who took part in the meeting.’ And ‘a lawyer who has read the brief’ or ‘an executive close to the XYZ Company’ is far better than ‘a person familiar with the case,’ a phrase so vague that it could even mean the reporter.

    Readers value signs of candor: ‘The report was provided by a Senate staff member working to defeat the bill.’
    Whenever possible, in writing about documents we should specify how we received them.

    We should avoid automatic references to sources who ‘insisted on anonymity’ or ‘demanded anonymity'; rote phrases offer the reader no help and make our decisions appear automatic. When possible, though, articles should tersely explain what kind of understanding was actually reached by reporter and source, and should shed light on the reasons and the source’s motives.”

  32. Randy B. says:

    As near as I can tell, merely pronouncing on FaceBook “trust me, my sources are solid,” doesn’t cut it.

  33. Karen Carter says:

    “We never doubted that God hears our prayers; no conference pulpit is necessary for that. But it also matters whether our voices are heard on earth.”

    Well said.

  34. Randy, skepticism noted. Move on.

  35. I, for one, appreciate Randy’s willingness to provide the information he has. I don’t have anything against Peggy Stack, but was disappointed with her “sourcing.”

    I think “move on” dismisses the significance of the information he’s provided.

  36. Good news, indeed! Unfortunately, I will be somewhere on the road between Seattle and Utah Saturday morning, so I won’t hear the first two sessions live. I do predict that the opening statement will include the usual nod to “this historic conference.”

    I can in no way suspect that Peggy Stack would risk her reputation and access to sources on something that was not solid. She’s been reporting on the Church for a long time, so I for one am willing to say it more than a rumor, and likely just as reported, true.

  37. #35 – Except that everyone here already understands everything shared about standard practices – as does Peggy. This isn’t standard for her (which her critics are missing entirely), and this post isn’t about her; hence, “move on” as the ultimate answer.

    I am very happy to read this. It’s the right thing, and that’s enough of a reason for me.

  38. Also, just for clarity’s sake, the assignments are made well in advance, and various people involved in making conference happen (in various ways) have access to the assignments – especially this close to conference. It’s not a surprise at all that Peggy knows someone who has such access, and she wouldn’t publish something that would jeopardize her ability to continue to write about the Church.

    That part of this story is a non-story.

  39. Mike,

    No. My ‘Move on’ was not to dismiss. It was to say he made his point, in several comments no less, and let’s get back to the subject of the OP.

  40. This is wonderful news. Change to policy happened from the respectful suggestion from the ranks. This is huge. Shouldn’t be, but it is.

  41. Randy B. says:

    Last comment from me, and then I’ll happily move on.

    First, I agree with Ray on one thing (and *only* one thing). As someone who signed the petition, I am very happy to hear this news. Wahoo!!!

    Second, it is entirely fair to address the nature and strength of Peggy’s sources. In fact, whether this is good news or merely wishful thinking depends entirely on the truthfulness and accuracy of her sources. The veracity of a story is never a non-story.

    Third, Peggy doesn’t get a pass when it comes to journalistic standards. No journalist does. She didn’t meet them, or bother to explain why.

    Fourth, for those who don’t care about such things, that is certainly their prerogative. There are certainly worse things than holding out hope for (as yet unverified) good news.

    Fifth, I really do hope she’s right.

  42. “An anonymous source confirmed” is no different at all from “I have learned” when it comes right down to it in practical terms. They are the exact same standard.

    I understand reporting protocol, but I also understand reality. Everyone who read the article, and especially anyone who knew anything about Peggy, should have understood immediately that an anonymous source (or sources) was a given.

    Now I’ve made my point more than once, so I will move on.

    This is good news. It ought to be celebrated in a thread meant to be celebratory in nature.

  43. KerBearRN says:

    For the past several years, I have felt that the church leadership has really been listening. I have felt it from so many different directions, tho too many to list here (especially typing one-handed, and after a night shift). I have struggled to feel a “part” of the Church for many years. But feeling the leadership’s concern and sensitivity towards our concerns this last while… Well, it restores some of my faith. I pray for a church that continues down this more “accepting and inclusive” road.

    And whoever you are, Sister, ROCK THAT PRAYER!! ;)

  44. Why would the church spokesman neither confirm nor deny? That seems so silly to me.

  45. opening prayer of first session. closing prayer of the last session. all well and good (excellent even, in that women will be both opening and closing conference), but no prayers in the only _true_ session: Sunday Morning.

  46. The whole thing makes me feel utterly hopeless – we celebrate because the brethren are apparently about to “allow” something they should have “allowed” all along – and this only after 1600 letters. This sounds (increasingly) more like the sclerotic College of Cardinals than functioning, modern leadership in a New World church.

  47. Cautious optimism here too. Cautious cheers for the years of repetitive discussion/struggle to make oneself heard. Admiration all around, for Cynthia, Kristine (who truly converted me), Peggy F. Stack, even Randy B for furthering my education, though until it’s a done deal I remain…cautiously optimistic that our leaders love us enough to respond to our (your) reasoned words.

    Would be nice if someone posts the first time this was discussed in its own post at BCC. Or anywhere in the ‘nacle.

  48. Rachel E O says:

    KerBearN comment FTW. “And whoever you are, Sister, ROCK THAT PRAYER!! ;)”

    Love that. And I too feel that the church leadership has been quite “in touch” in recent years.They listen, they care, and they lead with more complete knowledge and awareness than I think we usually realize.

  49. Pessimistic Paul, perhaps posit a positive perspective?

  50. Nice, Cynthia–although I hate the implication that “all we had to do is ask.” Especially when we know what the ramifications of dissent can be. It’s not as easy as “just asking” …

  51. Indeed, hkobeal. At the time, there were those detractors telling me I could be in serious hot water for posting what I did. And we all saw what happened when women wanted to wear pants to church (everybody freak out!! PANTS!!!).

    My purpose isn’t to say, “that was easy! just ask!” but to say to those who tell us NOT to ask, “look, asking actually did something.”

  52. Can I be the Debbie Downer? I’m as happy about this news as anyone else, but… it is 2013, and this will be the first time a woman will have prayed in GC. It’s something to celebrate, and at the same time, it’s not really anything to celebrate at all.

    I think the other significant point is that this is apparently (obviously) in response to a letter-writing campaign (and bad PR?). I think that’s awesome and wholly encouraging–maybe we can start to put to bed the ideas that the Church is 100% top-down and that the rank-and-file have no say in the direction of the Church and cannot solicit revelation. But is anyone else as jaded as I and expect them to devote a few talks in conference to why activism doesn’t belong in the Church?

  53. “But is anyone else as jaded as I and expect them to devote a few talks in conference to why activism doesn’t belong in the Church?”

    I do. But if that happens, the combination of concession to activism and rebuke for it only suggests that certain divisions within the church extend to the highest levels of leadership. That really shouldn’t come as a surprise.

  54. Agreed, Eve.

  55. And just because it’s never a bad time to post this video:

  56. I can understand being cautious about this given the lack of sources cited, but I’m much more optimistic about Peggy’s article than I was about Dehlin’s Facebook post. Dehlin can get a Facebook post wrong and not many people are going to care. But Peggy was betting her considerable professional credibility and the SLT’s reputation in running this story, which makes me think there is something to her sources.

    I would be thrilled to see this happen. That would mean two unambiguously positive policy changes in favor of women in the past two conferences (an end to discouraging women from serving missions by lowering the age to 19 for them in October 2012, and letting women pray in Conference in April 2013). Given how long it has been since there has been a solid policy change in favor of women, I think these changes are heartening—and it will be very difficult to make the case that this latest change was not a response to the movement by All Enlisted, thus validating the role of activism in the LDS church.

    I am also hopeful that, if reports that a woman will open one session and another woman will close another session are true, that we will finally see an end to the “Unwritten Order of Things” in many wards wherein women are only permitted to offer benedictions and not invocations, or vice versa. My husband’s old ward in Tacoma was one such ward that didn’t allow women to offer opening prayers. So this could have the result of effecting a third, unofficial “policy change” in favor of women in some wards.

    I attend the local ward with my husband once a month. Most of the time, I’ve been skipping Relief Society so that I can go to Starbucks or study or work on a project in a quiet, unused Sunday school room. Before Peggy ran her article, I pledged that if the church makes this change in Conference, I will go to Relief Society on my monthly visits to the ward for a full year. And if this actually comes to pass, I will totally stand by that pledge.

  57. Actually, the church did change the “policy” on women praying in sacrament meeting when the new handbook came out in November 2010. It explicitly states that women may offer prayers in sac mtg, opening or closing (can’t remember the exact wording). I was in the bishopric at that time and we immediately implemented it. A member of our stake presidency was there and made a comment to the bishop about “the unwritten order.” The bishop turned to me and I informed Pres. ______ that the new handbook now has a “written order of things.”

  58. What did the SP say to that, Mike?

  59. Somewhere Marissa Mayer is reading this on the internet.

  60. Ms. Jack, that’s hilarious! If you go for a year, we’ll start referring to you as “Sister Ms. Jack.”

  61. The councilor just said, “Oh, well, I guess you follow the handbook then.” The running joke in our bishopric was that the stake prsdcy was sort of picking and choosing which parts to follow, but that’s a story for another day.

  62. I should add that our SP are really great guys, very nice, etc.

  63. worldhops2013 says:

    Greetings friend, I’m Melissa Crawford and I appreciate the prophecy that I found on your webpage. My husband wanted me to invite you to share with our live video streaming e-revival audience as soon as possible. At Spirit University he is training a team of prophetic students and we are all receiving end time visions, dreams and words like yours. One of our students has been seeing fireballs falling from Heaven and as you know, recently one actually fell on Russia.

    Many other prophetic signs are being confirmed at our e-Revival.

    Everyone receives a prophetic word by my husband James Crawford; if they request one and we have an e-Revival every day! Today we had 33 live views during our live video streaming webcast. We would love to have you or anybody else’s prophecies shared at God’s revival!

    Times you can call in to share:
    Mon – Fri at 10:45 am & 7 pm (central)
    Sat. at 7 pm (central)
    Sun. at 11 am (central)

    Feel free to call our cell at [redacted] or email [redacted] for more information.

    Keep up the good work and God bless you.

  64. wow. That’s a keeper.

  65. I will be thrilled to hear a woman pray in General Conference. Just want to point out that while John Dehlin’s original facebook post mentioned that his source said a woman would give the opening prayer in the first session and the closing prayer in the last session of General Conference, John made a comment down the thread in which his source corrected him/herself to say that a woman would give the closing prayer in the first session and the opening prayer of the last session. But whenever she prays, I will be thrilled.

  66. So how many calls will it take to jam the phone lines?

  67. I hope that my participation in Pants and LWP will teach my daughters to speak their heart and mind always.

    It’s been interesting to see how MoFems have responded to these campaigns in different ways. I was slightly discouraged by the recent post on fMh talking about their approach to lobbying. And so I hope these results give weight to these concrete, tactful campaigning efforts.

  68. #57 Mike ~ It explicitly states that women may offer prayers in sac mtg, opening or closing (can’t remember the exact wording). I was in the bishopric at that time and we immediately implemented it. A member of our stake presidency was there and made a comment to the bishop about “the unwritten order.” The bishop turned to me and I informed Pres. ______ that the new handbook now has a “written order of things.”

    Thanks, Mike. I did not know this. If there are any wards hanging on and trying to cling to the UOOT, I hope a visual demonstration in Conference puts the issue to rest.

  69. Kevin Barney says:

    Ms. Jack’s point stands, because as she suggests there are still wards and stakes applying the unwritten order policy. Further, I know for a fact that the unwritten order policy has been taught in training sessions even post the latest edition of the Handbook. So a very public opening prayer by a woman has the potential to do a world of good in the many corners of the Church where this pernicious policy has not yet died.

  70. Sharee Hughes says:

    Women have prayed both opening and closing in Sacrament meeting in m ward for many years.In fact, at one time they assigned the prayers to different groups each month–one month the RS would give all the prayers, the next month the Elder’s Quorum, etc. It will be nice to have women pray in GC.

  71. hawkgrrrl says:

    There’s a bit of a feminist cookie aspect to this – not in leaders expecting praise for it, but in our willingness to fall all over ourselves giving praise for it. Let’s not break our arms patting ourselves on the back for suddenly realizing that women are people too. Is it encouraging? Yes, because it is less discouraging. I’m also pleased, especially because the alternative was a very hostile environment unwilling to change to conform to its own policies just out of spite when it was pointed out that they were behaving inconsistently. This is why the church’s usual stance with change is to change quietly without acknowledging that it is a change. They are just doing what they always should have done. It is mere coincidence that no women have prayed in GC before. To me, that’s a paraphrase of Scott Trotter’s official party line. Perhaps Scott Trotter should take up winking at the end of his sentences.

  72. I’ll gladly assume that PFS’s reporting is accurate (or, if it isn’t, it may still become so). Much love and congratulations, Cynthia L. I’m not patting anyone on the back for this but you.

  73. hawkgrrrl says:

    The worst part about this is that I might feel obligated to feel less disenfranchised. I might have to refranchise.

  74. Hey now, cheer up there, hawk. Don’t worry, there’s still plenty of blue even if we flip a prayer or two to pink: http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/05/01/general-conference-infographic-in-pink-and-blue/

  75. hawkgrrrl says:

    Yeah, whew! Forgot about that! And the prayers could be in primaria vocce (Primary Voice for opera singers). In which case, I can continue to feel like a loner and a rebel.

  76. Never fear. There will always be something to complain about in the church. That’s what makes it so fun.

  77. The greatest victory (or case of irony at least) would be Sister Dalton giving one of the prayers. I’d take it mind you, but still …

  78. The patriarchy had 182 years to offer this on their own, but they didn’t. Not only is it apparent they chauvinist, worse they are apparently unaware of their chauvinism or maybe they simply don’t care! How else do you explain it? This is why women must have a full voice and a full role in general and local church government even to the highest callings.

    The patriarchal government of the church apparently lacks the awareness, introspection and/or the political will to change itself from the inside and therefore must be prompted and motivated to do so from the outside. See OD1 & OD2, women and gays.

  79. CJ Douglass says:

    Unfortunately, I’m expecting a reevaluation of the how we think and talk about prophets and the factual history of how change occurs in the Church, to never come.

  80. it's a series of tubes says:

    An article in the Deseret News claims that the decision was made in 2012, before the current round of advocacy. Thoughts?

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865576256/Will-a-woman-pray-at-LDS-general-conference.html

  81. That’s just vague PR-speak to allow people to believe whatever they want. In the article, Elder Perry does go on to say that they never publish the program beforehand to allow for changes as directed by the spirit. So, just because the initial decisions were made last year doesn’t mean they haven’t changed anything — it doesn’t automatically follow that “Let Women Pray” had no effect.

    However, the upshot is that if you want to believe that the Church was ahead of the activists on this one and therefore didn’t bend to public pressure, they’ve left just enough room to squeeze in that point of view.

    Either way, “Let Women Pray” comes out ahead because, either they were the impetus for change or they were / are incredibly in tune with the spirit. I’m going with all of the above.

  82. Thoughts? …Church was ahead of the activists Of course they were! And It only took 182 years to accomplish! Well, they have the opportunity now to scour the entire program for other ways to include women and give them a voice. Please proactive brethren go right ahead and do it! No need to take another 182 years to finish the task! Surprise us and steal the wind right out of the activists sails, they’ll be sooo disappointed.

  83. it's a series of tubes says:

    Either way, “Let Women Pray” comes out ahead because, either they were the impetus for change or they were / are incredibly in tune with the spirit

    Works for me. I had a more weaselly assessment of the spokesman’s claim, but I appreciate your charitable interpretation.

  84. Easy there, Howard.

  85. Sorry Mike, perhaps I should have just said: They’re playing to their base.

  86. I pretty much agree with Orwell, but I’m not so sure I read the Des News article as just PR vaguespeak. Just from what was in the Trib article about Church spokesperson’s repeated affirmations that the program had already been set weeks before the All Enlisted campaign, I kind of thought that there were two ways of approaching this–either the Church had indeed set the program at the end of the year with women given prayers, coincidentally beating the activists to the punch (and not altogether an unbelievable scenario, since Cynthia and others have been talking about this and other issues for some time), or the spokesperson was being extremely disingenuous.

    After reading the DN article, I think it Elder Perry’s comment provides for a third, and more likely scenario. There was really no need whatsoever, IMO, to include his statement, but it sends a specific and interesting message. Yes, the schedule was set, and it did have only men praying, as usual (we were telling the truth about that) however, the increased attention to the issue after the New Year inspired leaders to reevaluate the situation and make a change (again, weeks before this announcement, so we’re covered there too with the statement in the Trib). The nature of that inspiration might be open to analysis, but hey, that’s inspiration I can live with. And why the interest by the Des News in providing that “nuance”? Maybe because there were enough people who knew that the program originally did not include women praying and who might have been perturbed by the repeated affirmations that the program had already been set, that it ran the risk of looking extremely disingenuous, as previously mentioned.

    Or, I could be totally wrong, which is another thing. A little transparency would be nice, so we wouldn’t need to play these games.

  87. Without games, there would be no need for the bloggernacle. We’d all have to go magnify our callings or something. Boring!

  88. :)

  89. Frank Pellett says:

    Had an interesting thought of the way to kill off the “unwritten order” of women not praying whenever the spirit prompts in Sacrament meeting – have women give the prayers for -all- of the general sessions of conference.

  90. VERY happy with the news! Hope there is no last minute change!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,823 other followers