Your counselor is off the mark. Women were always allowed to give prayers in sacrament meeting until July of 1967, when for some reason they were forbidden. Then, in a first presidency letter dated December 29, 1978, women were allowed to pray again in sacrament meeting. My source for this is Quinn’s definitive book on the evolution of 20th century Mormon policy, The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power.

Furthermore, the Church Handbook of Instruction has a sample agenda of a sacrament meeting under the article “Sacrament Meeting” on page 54:

A sample sacrament meeting agenda follows:

1. Prelude music
2. Greeting and welcome
3. Acknowledgment of presiding authorities or visiting high councilors who are attending
4. Announcements (if possible, most announcements should be printed so they do not take time in sacrament meeting; the bishopric may give essential announcements briefly before the opening hymn)
5. Opening hymn and prayer
6. Ward business, such as:
   1. Sustaining and releasing ward officers and teachers (see pages 38-39)
   2. Recognizing children who advance from Primary (see page 231 in Book 2)
   3. Presenting names of brethren to receive or advance in the Aaronic Priesthood (see page 32)
   4. Presenting the Duty to God Recognition and the Young Womanhood Recognition (see pages 190 and 227 in Book 2)
   5. Presenting names of new ward members (see page 127)
7. Naming and blessing children (fast and testimony meeting) and performing confirmations
8. Sacrament hymn and administration of the sacrament
9. Gospel messages, congregational singing, and special musical selections
10. Closing hymn and prayer
11. Postlude music

Note that there’s no specification of the sex of the prayer givers info for items 5 and 10.

Again, on page 152, under an article entitled, “Prayers in Church Meetings”:

Men and women may offer prayers in Church meetings. Prayers should be brief and simple and should be spoken as directed by the Spirit. Members should use the pronouns Thee, Thy, Thine, and Thou when addressing Heavenly Father. All members should say an audible amen at the end of the prayer.

That’s it. No fine print about the sex of prayer givers.

I’m curious what your counselor’s sources for his viewpoint.

I don’t think that it is a matter of Boyd Packer’s unwritten rules. I think that the problem in the church is that there are people who like to do things by the book and people who like to twist the rules to suit their prejudices.

In the ward in which I served in the bishopric until very recently, the Bishop refused to allow a woman to CLOSE the meeting with prayer. Said Bishop referred often to BKP’s talk as justification for pretty much any decision that seemed pre-judged and pre-decided. He claimed that a priesthood holder was required to close the meeting, to make sure that people left the meeting with the spirit of God attending them as they departed.

I wonder if BKP knows all of the ways his name is being taken in vain, every time some decision is lumped in as being part of his “unwritten order.”

I’ve seen it both ways as well, with leadership in either case having some sense that their new point of order was somehow an improvement over gender equality.

In my ward men are expected to be the closing speakers. I happen to print the program and when it was our turn to speak my wife and I decided that it made more sense for her talk to go last. So I put me first and her last on the program. I didn’t think anything of it until the bishop asked me after the meeting if I did it on purpose to tweak people. Prior to him asking I had been unaware that the was a standard order.

My ward the same! I have griped about it and once refused to give the closing prayer. They made me a bet if they could find it in the handbook, I would say the closing instead of the opening.

I won the bet. But boy, were some of the men in our ward pissed off.

Let’s write a letter together, Tagore, and narc them off to the prophet.

endlessnegotiation, kiss my butt.

DKL (2):

Thanks for the historical info– very helpful. The counselor’s source is his father, who apparently was a bishop at the time of the alleged change.

Tona (7):

I actually did mention some of the salient points above to the bishop and his counselors (relatively gently– although I did use the word “nonsensical”). Disappointingly– and, in my view, nonsensically– they insisted that we should continue the practice.

endlessnegotiation (9):

ROTFLMAO. With comments like that, I’m embarrassed of your participation in the bloggernacle as well.

annegb (10):

How ’bout a letter to Brother Boyd requesting that he issue a clarification that only men saying the opening prayer is not to be included in the unwritten order of things?

endlessnegotiation,
“Does anyone think anyone’s salvation is going to be affected by whether or not they were allowed to open or close a sacrament meeting?”

Yeah, if it’s the thing that convinces somebody that we teach that God loves His sons more than His daughters, I could see that driving somebody away. If it were true that He did–or if there were some real reason, and the Church required that women not pray in Sacrament meeting–maybe the cost would be worth it. But how is that potential cost worth defending a nonsensical non-doctrine, non-policy that has no doctrinal or documentary support?

Tagore,

Like any organization we have our share of loonies and you cedrtainly have one in your Bishopric.

As a Bishop I was once corrected by my Stake President for which I was grateful. I was trying to do what I thought was right but had missed the mark.

I would suggest you let the member of the stake presidency who you know best know of this policy. I would hope that he would correct your local nut.

I know a woman who had a friend in a ward whose Bishop told his new EQP that he HAD to shave his beard or he would be released. My aquantance told her dad who is a GA about it who immediately called the offending Bishop’s area authority to have said Bishop set straight.

The funny thing is that this GA would throw a fit if any of his kids grew a beard, he thought it was inappropriate for a priesthood holder to have a beard but he also recognized the difference between his personal views and official church policy.

endlessnegotiation (13)
“demonstates a complete inability to focus on the larger picture” I think most people can focus on large AND small pictures. Clearly you cannot.

Tagore, by the rules of evidence, your counselor’s evidence is hearsay. I wonder: is this is a stake practice? If so, perhaps we’re being a bit hard on the counselor, because he’s not the real culprit; he’s not instigating the policy, but merely providing an explanation so far as he knows.

19. Well, Jesus couldn’t bless or pass the sacrament in many, many wards.

It really saddens me; I love Pres. Packer, so it’s disheartening to see people developing their own unwritten order of lame things.

I’ve never been in a ward with silly prayer restrictions, but I’ve noticed that most wards have the youth speaker go first, then a woman, then a man. It may be a waste of time to worry about it, but it does bother me. So I was heartened a few weeks ago when asked to say a prayer in SM. I was asked to choose which one I wanted to say! Interesting.

Sam B: Public prayer is painful and dangerous (think Zoramites). I could just as well come to the opposite conclusion you did– that God actually likes women more than men because he chooses to subject men to greater spiritual risk without offering a consumate reward. See how that works. I can take virtually any policy decision by the church and turn it into a silly reason to get in a huff an eschew the Truth.

Ann: My point is that the status quo is so infinitely unimportant that to invest any sort of emotional capital into the issue is plain irrational. I will readily acknowledge that the policy discussed seems capricious and wholely unfounded in doctrine but getting worked up about it– even just a little– seems silly. Recently, my own situation had my former bishop barring me from holding any sort of calling (including HT) merely for expressing to him (in private) my thoughts about prophetic fallibility. By and large I’m a faithful member who pays his tithes, attends meetings regularly, renders service on a regular basis, and opens his home to the entire ward. I could have gotten my dander up over the situation but you know what– I was too busy doing other good things to really let it bother me. For someone to really let sacrament meeting prayer policy to affect their emotional state just seems so petty.

Regarding the invitation for the interview, frankly, I don’t think I’m that interesting. In the Pierce Brosnan edition of the “Thomas Crown Affair” much ado is made of the painting of the faceless businessman. I could have posed for that picutre. That doesn’t mean we can’t still be friends but I wouldn’t be the guy you would insist your husband meet.

DKL (19): That rule wouldn’t bother me a bit amd I doubt it would bother Christ much either. In most wards in which I’ve been a member traditionally the Melchizedek priesthood has been responsible for passing the sacrament on fast and testimony Sunday. Over the last decade I’ve not once been invited to bless/pass the sacrament because I don’t own a white shirt (I find them to be ugly). One FT week there weren’t enough Melchizedek priesthood holders to fill out the troupe without asking me and my crimson shirt to participate. Rather than invite me the first couselor in the bishopric included a lone priest. I was sitting in the second row (he saw me there). Would I like to be invited to pass the sacrament? Sure. Does it bother me that I am not? Perhaps a little. Enough to venture a crusade? Not even close.

endless,
You understand prayers at meetings in a far different way than I do, then, if you’re thinking Zoramites (and, I assume, Christ’s injunction to pray in private). At church, prayer is a communal thing, one person, under the influence of the Spirit, speaking to Heavenly Father for the community. And excluding someone from that fellowship is clearly a slap in the face.

If your experience is that the podium has anything in common with the Rameumpton, especially during the prayers, well, I clearly haven’t been attending the wards you do. So I stand by my statement.

DKL (27):

Jesus wouldn’t be eligible to attend BYU. Nor would Brother Brigham, for that matter. Pesky beards.

Like the comment in 16 above, the first time I was called to a bishopric (as first counselor), I was told I had to shave my full beard that I had worn for quite some years after my time at BYU, where I of course was not allowed to wear a beard. I naively consented, thinking (like most LDS), that my bishop knows best and that to disagree with leaders called of God is akin to arguing with God himself. I know better now, but I did not at the time.

No beards, no women praying, home teachers commanded to wear white shirts and ties…where does this “unwritten order” end?

“No beards, no women praying, home teachers commanded to wear white shirts and ties…where does this “unwritten order” end?”

Funny, we had our new home teachers over yesterday. When they asked if they could come over, I said “Yes, but if you wear a tie, it will be the last time you will enter our home.” You can’t BRT with a tie on.

DKL: somehow I had managed to skip over your comment #25– the best response so far on this thread. So sorry; but thanks for pointing it out to me! :)

Kyle, I love it. If a home teacher ever threatened to show up at my home, I’d be tempted to tell him the same thing. But, for about the last six years, home teachers have been only these mysterious things I hear about, but never see. I am almost convinced they are a sort of ghost or other disembodied spirit, for I never see them though I hear all about them every week at church.

I wonder sometimes if the order of prayers can’t be influenced by my wife’s experience. Everytime she is asked to pray and given her choice, she chooses to give the opening prayer so she doesn’t have to worry about it through the whole meeting. Say the prayer now and get it over with.

Jesus wouldn’t be eligible to attend BYU.

Jesus wouldn’t bother to apply there.

Nick,

Therein lies the problem with the whole concept of an “unwritten order”. It can be made to mean anything, anytime, to whoever is using it.

I actually used to live in a ward where the gender sanctions on talks and prayers were observed with strictness, but the Bishop often times chose a person to give the opening or closing prayer in their native language, which was something other than english, in an English-speaking ward in a lilly-white English speaking town with a few immigrants. I thought it was offensive that someone would be asked to say “amen” to a prayer they couldn’t even comprehend. Apparently that was allowed under the unwritten order, but a woman offering the prayer was not. Very aggravating.

I think the whole BKP “unwritten order” talk ought to be rescinded and the matter ought to be clarified that if a policy is not in the Handbook, it is not a policy. That, and only that, would solve this problem.

Margaret: I loved BYU while I was there. It was a truly special place. Do you suppose Jesus would get all A’s in the Religion courses?

Unfortunaely, I think BYU–like so many of our church institutions–has fallen victim to our own success, and we pay the price with manmade policy after policy, which slowly but surely erodes and chips away at the “specialness”, until we become just another big enterprise full of rules and policies and very little leadership by the Spirit.

Margaret: your response is delightful and thought-provoking, as usual. Thank you :) I think I’d love to take one of your English classes.

Someoone really needs to do an article on this phenomenon.

I’ve never been in a ward where this was the practice, thankfully, but it is distressingly common, even today.

I think there may be different things going on. In some cases it may be that people served in leadership positions during the hegemony of the old, short-lived policy requiring MP opening prayers, and they never “got the memo” that this had changed.

But I have heard multiple reports of visiting authorities teaching this in leadership meetings, precisely as an “unwritten order of things” principle. So there appear to be rogue authorities who believe strongly in this principle, even though it is contra official church policy, and they hide behind the mantra of the unwritten order for plausible deniability.

I am not sure if it is more petty to care about this issue, or to care that someone cares about this issue.
What I can say is that I do not care about this issue (doctrine vs structure, imo), and I do not care that someone else cares.

Another gripe for me is how some wards always include a husband-wife tag-team to give the opening and closing prayers.

Then after about two or three months of this, someone notices that there are unmarried folk in the ward and suddenly you’ll get singles day at the pulpit. Then it’s off to obscurity as we go back to the husband-wife routine.

Way to unnecessarily isolate your single adults people!

You had bishopric members doing that stuff?

In our ward it was farmed off to the executive secretary – namely me.

I do sympathize though. I did the same thing on occasion. But usually, I simply grabbed random people out of the audience before sacrament meeting – an approach fraught with it’s own perils and problems.

Seth: The last two times I have been asked to speak in my current ward, and the last several times I have been asked to offer a sacrament meeting prayer, it was by the Bishop himself. I find it interesting that the division of labor seems to differ between wards. Interestingly, though, I have never had the executive secretary ask me to speak: it’s always been a bishop or first counselor. When you were executive secretary did your bishop pawn off a lot of things to you?

I think because getting people to speak or pray can be so hard, a lot of bishops probably think members are less likely to refuse the bishop himself, than some underling, be it a counselor or secretary. After all, who wants to turn down the father of the ward when he personally asks you to do something?

Bert:

The copy I saw was a printed copy, direct from church headquarters, with a rubber stamped marking from the church archives, that said it was for internal use only, not for public use. It had been obtained relatively recently by our stake and disseminated to bishops.

So it would reason that it wouldn’t be on any official site to begin with. Just as the Handbook is tightly controlled, but still available to those who are supposed to have it. I would be curious of the “Unwritten Order” talk actually had been published on any official site. I could be wrong, but based on the stamped markings I saw, I would guess not.

Seth R.,

Our ward makes a point of not asking a husband/wife team to pray. My previous ward did this as well.

The talk was given at a BYU Devotional in 1996. It was on the BYU Speeches (http://speeches.byu.edu/) site up until about 18-20 months ago when it mysteriously disappeared. The site at BYUI is an employee’s page, not the official school site. The talk can’t be found on LDS.org or on any official Church site. That tells me that the talk has been removed from official standing.

One person’s unwritten order of things is another person’s “false traditions of their fathers.” It seems like this is a huge problem in some parts of the Church and a total non-issue in others, if I am reading the comments correctly. I don’t remember very much, but it does not seem like there was any kind of discrimination against women in the wards in Mexico (my mission). Why might this be? Since the unwritten order is well, unwritten, it must get passed down orally and maybe some of these dumb rules have not breached the language barrier. Let’s pray for the protection of the non-English speakers from all of our silly American Mormon traditions. Not that they aren’t developing some false ones of their own.

I guess the larger question that bugs me is: if this problem is out there, and it really is false, why don’t the GAs disclaim it, in something like a Conference talk? I always look forward to Pres. Hinckley’s Priesthood session talks each GC because that is where the new Church emphases get announced. Why it happens in that particular meeting is another troublesome question for another post. Do the GAs not know about it? Do they not want to disclaim it? I am afraid that I do not have any answers. I suppose that someone could ask for clarification on this question. In the old days, it seemed to be a regular thing to write the GAs and get responses on questions of Church doctrine and practice? Does this happen anymore? Does anyone have a personal and recent experience of this? I would love to see someone share it through the Bloggernacle, and a scanned copy of the response would be great too. I have never faced this problem in any ward I have been a member of, but from the stories told here, it seems that in this matter I should not trust the opinion of my bishop or SP.

Seth R: thanks for sharing with me your Bishop’s methods. He sounds like a very effective leader. In retrospect, when I was an amateur Branch president, I wish I had known I could have delegated more than I did, for I definitely would have! As for meetings, I always kept them short and we never met when we didn’t need to–never just for the sake of meeting. The several bishops I have served with LOVED meetings, and they almost never ended on time, or even within an hour of their scheduled ending time. Some Bishops, I believe, think of meetings as a measure of righteousness. I think of them as a measure of boringness.

Ben There,

Also realize that Mormon men are a relatively isolated group of people. We tend to work very hard at our jobs, and then we pile on a lot of church responsibilities as well. There is an element of social interaction that is missing from the lives of our brethren. I have a feeling that several are trying to compensate for this void, in part, through church meetings.

Well that would make writing to the GAs pretty useless…I mean I understand why they do it this way of course. The Church is too big for that sort of thing anymore. But it would make me feel better if I had some sort of power of appeal to the highest court.

Our Stake President gave the “lesson” today in a combined meeting. He read from the handbook the instructions about sacrament meetings.

Probably because I’ve griped about it, he brought up the matter of whether women should be allowed to open a meeting with prayer. He read straight from the handbook the sentence that said “men and women should offer prayers. . .” then added a big BUT, telling a story that Brother Holland had written a note on the bottom of a meeting agenda “the opening prayer should probably be given by a Melchizedek priesthood holder.” I believe it was a stake conference where Elder Holland was speaking.

I wonder if Brother Holland is aware that his small note is being taken for gospel all around the church.

[...] couple of months ago I wrote here how women are not allowed to give the opening prayer in sacrament meeting in my ward. I’m [...]

So I am a very late-comer to this discussion but once I came across it a few weeks back it has been bugging me to pieces! So after some research, I found something AMAZING!

skl said: “If it is important–write it down.” And I have found an official policy regarding women being allowed to give prayers in Sacrament meetings. It’s even in the Ensign, no less!

During the seminar for Regional Representatives in September 1978, President Kimball (one of my favorite prophets) said this:
“The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings, Sunday School meetings, and stake conferences. Relief Society visiting teachers may offer prayers in homes that they enter in fulfilling visiting teaching assignments.”

This was recorded in the November 1978 Ensign in the News of the Church section and can be found online at this link here.

So we know where this silly idea came from but we also know it was OFFICIALLY rescinded and even printed out in the open for anyone to read.

I have half a mind to print this out, highlight this section, and mail it to the Stake President in my own stake since I have heard that he is the one supporting this in my area. Crazy, crazy, crazy!

Paroled fPP,

That article addresses the argument that women could not offer ANY prayers in sacrament meetings due to Paul’s famous teachings, but then today they try to stick to a universal uniformity which holds that a priesthood holder offers the invocation and a sister closes -nothing doctrinal, just a unified way to treat the entire church so that all wards are the same and it could well have been the other way around!. I’m sure that Hinkley promoted this uniformity but I don’t have a reference for it unfortunately.

Note Kimball’s statement: “The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that there is no scriptural ‘prohibition’ against sisters ‘offering prayers’ in sacrament meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to ‘offer prayers’ in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings, Sunday School meetings, and stake conferences”

But note that he also asked for women to use dresses but many wives of bishops and other leaders use skirts and pants when going to church today, something they have changed on their own ignoring Kimball as outdated!!

“President Kimball also announced that wives of Church leaders should wear dresses, not pantsuits, while accompanying their husbands on Church assignments”

Today the church usually doesn’t publish what is said in the training sessions they have before conference weekend with area authorities (todays RReps really) and general authorities. They have learned what the internet can do.

This subject never ceases to baffle me. I had never heard anything like this at all until I moved to the east coast – except for on my mission where I knew some elders that were convinced that a priesthood holder had to give the closing prayer (I thought they were crazy) – it just all seems so arbitrary.

DKL,

Here we go again, ‘my friend’. Problem is that you’re ignoring there the historical context.

If we actually consider the facts, we’d realize that Kimball was addressing a then current/past practice of that day (the ’70s) which was that many priesthood leaders thought that women should not offer ANY public prayers as in general conference or in sacrament due to Pauls teachings. So he stepped in an canceled Paul’s teaching which didn’t let women even speak in conference. The latest McKay bio also mentions this issue.

Today its a different issue. Hinkley pushed the uniformity practices like that a man opens and a women closes and that’s what happens in most wards unless there is a blogging/liberal bishop there who doesn’t like it. Off course he could have done it the other way around with women opening and men closing. They also pushed the shaved faces for bishoprics or stake presidents. And all GA using long ties in conference and none of those bow ties that professors use. Plus they all use dark conservative suits -all standard practices and nothing doctrinal. Team player stuff not scripture. And by the way, have you ever hear a sister opening general conference with a prayer? It should prove something to you but in reality I doubt your posteriori/priori confused mind will see this…..!! :) ‘my friend’

Parold:

1)none available
2)no scripture except Paul’s teachings on women not talking at all in church which we ignore now….
3)They don’t write it down at all, just say it out load in some training -not the ones online-. This is probably due to the internet’s influence today, probably….

But onto another subject now…..

DKL, you’ve misread that comment. I mentioned that many priesthood leaders thought that way and Kimball stepped in to change that thinking, as David o M’Kay had done previously. So its wasn’t a ‘failed policy’ at all, it was a mistaken one which Kimball buried.

Today its a different issue as Hinkley taught and many have passed on, including president packer, as a team practice thing and not doctrinal. The ‘evidence’? well you’ll just have to take my word for it! it is solid by the way :) ; I also heard Hinkley talk about no beards and gradually making the language units fade away as members cross over to standard wards, but that also didn’t make the handbook or any formal letters. And I believe that Boston still isn’t actually shrinking them?

‘Libelous accusation’ …sure. I thought you’d come up with some logics lesson again but you’ve gone another way. You never cease to surprise me ‘my friend’.

And on your ward and stake, well, Point is that while we may hear this in training or from an area authority or other GA, we still make the decisions, so it all depends on what the bishop thinks. Maybe a conservative bishop thinks that way so he calls who he wants to to offer a prayer, maybe he blogs with all the other liberals and he deliberately wants to go against this because its an ‘abominable policy’, could be…not really all that important though. So enough is enough.

Parold,

““there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament meetings”

So….then…..women can now pray in sacrament!!! :) With, by design and modern tradition, a man offers the first one and a woman offers the second one, so that both men and women can say that they aren’t discriminated against in sacrament and can both offer prayers; simple! If a liberal/conservative bishop started to call only women to pray first and second, then the men will claim reverse discrimination!

‘They’, are area authorities or seventies who do most of the training. But I heard it from Elder Nelson who taught this as one of the unwritten rules in church just like the wearing of long ties and no bow ties, which he used as an example, and the gradual disappearance of the language units, all the time saying: “Pte Hinkley has asked..”. But then maybe he made it all up himself, I can’t know for certain, but then the other GA’s teach the same thing, so the anecdotal evidence is that it comes from the top.

My answer to that question: even though they teach this as a normal uniform practice in the church, there is no policing of the policy or enforcement by threats of release or temple recommend suspension or even jail time. Bishops still decide what they want to do and if they have sisters giving the first prayer then they will probably be told by someone that it should be the other way around…but if he doesn’t listen nor cares nothing happens. The church just says, ‘whatever, let the Lord take care of him’. They are kind of desperate to keep Bishops serving for me than 4 years!!!

by the way DKL is never right! He is always wrong ‘my friend’.

Sorry Charlie, if you’d bothered to read the comments, you’d have seen that I referred to the failed policy of our beloved David McKay in my initial comment, comment #2 on this thread. In spite of your continued attempts to bluff your way through conversation after conversation, you still can’t hide the fact that you’re arguing from ignorance.

Incidentally, the proper name for a “long” tie is a four-in-hand tie.

Charlie: So its wasn’t a “failed policy” at all, it was a mistaken one which Kimball buried.

A failed policy is a specific type of mistaken policy. The policy of discounting the equality of women’s prayers was not just a mistaken policy, it was a failed policy, too — our beloved Spencer Kimball’s burial of it did not occur in a vacuum. The policy failed insofar as it distorted the true nature of the gospel and earned the ire of many female members at a time when the church was taking controversial political stances on women’s rights. Since our church has transitioned away from continuing revelation in favor of continuing evolution of church policy, it has become more and more difficult for members to admit that certain policies have not been successful and have had to be reversed because they have had bad consequences. Many policies fail simply because the church waits too long to change them; though they were appropriate for their time, they cause problems later.

The church’s long list of failed policies included the indefinite expansion of mission calls, Henry Moyle’s baseball baptism policy which continued for decades with tacit acceptance in spite of official repudiation, polygamy, the 18-month mission, the denial of priesthood to blacks, the policy of lying and propagating lies about embarrassing historical events like the participation of local leaders in the Mountain Meadows Massacre, the practice of excommunicating scholars for writing good history, the abandonment of an official church history function, the 10+ year vacancy of the office of “Church Historian.” I could go on and on. The policy of excluding women from giving the prayer is just another of these failed policies.

Charlie: But I heard [that women shouldn't give the opening prayer] from Elder [Russell] Nelson who taught this as one of the unwritten rules in church just like the wearing of long ties and no bow ties

So, on the one hand, we have the question of whether a man shows more reverence for Jesus by wearing a bow tie or a four-in-hand tie. On the other hand, we have the question of whether a woman’s prayer has the same standing in the eyes of the Lord as a man’s prayer. And according to you, Russell Nelson sees these two questions as roughly equivalent. Personally, I think that you’re mistaken. But let me say on the record that if Russell Nelson really said this, then he’s high on crack.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m fine with unwritten rules encompassing trivial aspects of worship, even those that includes pandering to the sartorial taste of general authorities. But when these unwritten rules become an instrument of subjugation, I call bullshit.

“question of whether a man shows more reverence for Jesus by wearing”

Nope. Nothing to do with reverence, where’d u get that from? (howz that for limited vocab?) And no I aint lying -you can ask God yourself to confirm this…

What about that online poll? Its the third time I’ve asked you now dame it!

Damn it!

Or maybe you’re praying to the wrong God? Its the one Joseph Smith new and runs the place!

And that online poll……../….???/////………????????<<,@$$%$%^$@%@!#

Paroled #95, (I’ll try again)

“And while it could have been women giving the opening and men giving the closing, the difference is that men are not prohibited in any way. Priesthood holders can give either prayer. Women are only worthy enough to close the meeting”

That is simply false -not true – mistaken. You claim that men aren’t limited, but the church isn’t limiting at all! They are simply preaching an order, to take turns, as in one first other second, to make it the same everywhere, just like we say women first through doors. You have discrimination and womens rights so far up your brain that you can’t see that it isn’t about discrimination but just taking turns. I’ve assigned men for the opening who didn’t show and because he didn’t show, I asked a sister, from the pulpit because I happen to just looked at her first, to do it. So then I asked a man to give the last one.

Its all about taking turns: one man, one woman. It could’ve been the other way around…but I’ve already gone over this….

Its not limiting nor prohibition, and yes women can give both prayers, nothing happens if they do but IN FAIRNESS we give one each- ‘one man one woman’; and sometimes its youth only and because we don’t have many YM we give then both to YW.

u need to read Kimball again because u don’t get it; he wasn’t addressing sharing sacrament prayers nor tuns at all, only the general ban on any prayer by a female!!!

Well then its your Ward leaders who have misunderstood plus obviously the idiotic stake president who probably thinks he’s king.

I say all this because of what I heard elder nelson teach in a regional training session which has been backed up by several area authorities over time. And all they say is ‘in sacrament have a man give the invocation and a women the benediction’ always implying uniformity in church and shared chances for both men and women -but its a minor issue that no one polices except maybe your stake president who may be more pedantic than a SP should ever be.

I think we have gone over this more than enough times don’t u think?

Paroled,

“….hit the maximum exchanges allowed in MM without DKL as one of the arguing parties.”

Ha! girl you made me laugh out loud! :)

Somehow, I missed this post earlier.

Margaret: I loved BYU while I was there. It was a truly special place. Do you suppose Jesus would get all A’s in the Religion courses?

He probably would, except in Reed Benson’s classes.

This is pretty well definitively answered now in the new church handbook. See here
“18.5 Prayers in Church Meetings –
Men and women may offer both opening and closing prayers in Church meetings.”