- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/general-conference-update-june-2021 ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/general-conference-update-june-2021 Quote:Beginning with October’s general conference and continuing thereafter, the Saturday evening sessions will be discontinued. Previously, a Saturday evening session was held for women (in October) and priesthood holders (in April). This change is being made because all sessions of general conference are now available to anyone who desires to watch or listen.
Turns out this wasn’t a good year to take out a loan to open an ice cream parlour in Sandy Utah.
👿 👿 Wow! I’m surprised they didn’t just replace it with another general session. At the same time I am ecstatic that they didn’t. :clap: Truly a bright spot in my day (which is more an indication of how bad my day has been than anything else).nibbler wrote:
Beginning with October’s general conference and continuing thereafter, the Saturday evening sessions will be discontinued. Previously, a Saturday evening session was held for women (in October) and priesthood holders (in April). This change is being made because all sessions of general conference are now available to anyone who desires to watch or listen.
I am not sure that I really understand the reasoning here. Because all sessions of GC are available to everyone then we can no longer have sessions that are dedicated to issues faced more by women or faced more by men? Does similar logic follow that if men can view BYU Women’s conference or Time Out for Women then we should no longer have those things? Haven’t we been printing the priesthood session of GC in the Ensign magazine (for anybody to read) since forever? How does this make sense?
Roy wrote:
nibbler wrote:
Beginning with October’s general conference and continuing thereafter, the Saturday evening sessions will be discontinued. Previously, a Saturday evening session was held for women (in October) and priesthood holders (in April). This change is being made because all sessions of general conference are now available to anyone who desires to watch or listen.
I am not sure that I really understand the reasoning here. Because all sessions of GC are available to everyone then we can no longer have sessions that are dedicated to issues faced more by women or faced more by men? Does similar logic follow that if men can view BYU Women’s conference or Time Out for Women then we should no longer have those things? Haven’t we been printing the priesthood session of GC in the Ensign magazine (for anybody to read) since forever? How does this make sense?
That’s the stated reason. I suspect it’s more along the lines of trying not to be exclusionary. Meetings for only women, meetings for only men, girls from 8 and up, boys from 12 and up… it’s just unnecessary, and I think it’s good for the Church to move beyond this. I get the issues facing men/women. It used to be that men and women were very different, but nowadays, if I’m cut off by an aggressive SUV, it’s more likely to be a woman behind the wheel. And in any case, I think increasingly, the issues overlap, and don’t we all hope for a day when men and women are treated the same? This is a step in that direction.Yes, I believe that’s only the stated reason. During the October 2020 conference, outside of the women’s session there were only two women speakers during all the other sessions. Two. With the women’s session there were five women speakers in total.
During the April 2021 conference there was no women’s session and there were only two women speakers during the whole of conference. Two.
I don’t know the actual motivations but I’m making a few assumptions:
1) It fits with similar scaling back of programs and practices (home teaching, 3 hour church, HP and EQ, etc.).
2) There used to be a pattern of two women speakers during April GC and between four and five women speakers during October GC. They can now move to a pattern where there are four or five women speakers in the remaining four sessions of conference for both April and October GCs, creating something that is less out of balance than what existed before.
On Own Now wrote:
Roy wrote:
nibbler wrote:
Beginning with October’s general conference and continuing thereafter, the Saturday evening sessions will be discontinued. Previously, a Saturday evening session was held for women (in October) and priesthood holders (in April). This change is being made because all sessions of general conference are now available to anyone who desires to watch or listen.
I am not sure that I really understand the reasoning here. Because all sessions of GC are available to everyone then we can no longer have sessions that are dedicated to issues faced more by women or faced more by men? Does similar logic follow that if men can view BYU Women’s conference or Time Out for Women then we should no longer have those things? Haven’t we been printing the priesthood session of GC in the Ensign magazine (for anybody to read) since forever? How does this make sense?
That’s the stated reason. I suspect it’s more along the lines of trying not to be exclusionary. Meetings for only women, meetings for only men, girls from 8 and up, boys from 12 and up… it’s just unnecessary, and I think it’s good for the Church to move beyond this. I get the issues facing men/women. It used to be that men and women were very different, but nowadays, if I’m cut off by an aggressive SUV, it’s more likely to be a woman behind the wheel. And in any case, I think increasingly, the issues overlap, and don’t we all hope for a day when men and women are treated the same? This is a step in that direction.
Yes, I agree. I also think it’s along the same lines as making priesthood only annual a few years back. They billed that as sort of time saving or less busy for members. That saved all of 90 minutes a year, so here’s another 90 minutes. Not on the same scale as an hour a week, but not unappreciated (by me anyway).
nibbler wrote:
1) It fits with similar scaling back of programs and practices (home teaching, 3 hour church, HP and EQ, etc.).
Yes, as noted above.Quote:2) There used to be a pattern of two women speakers during April GC and between four and five women speakers during October GC. They can now move to a pattern where there are four or five women speakers in the remaining four sessions of conference for both April and October GCs, creating something that is less out of balance than what existed before.
This one concerns me more. Unless they break with long tradition of each member of the Q12 speaking at each conference and members of the FP speaking multiple times, they’ll have to cram the 12 into 4 vs 5 sessions. That means less time/opportunity for Seventies and others (a presiding bishopric member also speaks at each conference currently) and probably especially women. They could give the FP a break (they seem to generally each speak at the Saturday night sessions, whichever it was) and prepare one less talk but that still doesn’t give women more opportunity because that whole session, where the rest of the speakers usually were women, is gone.
Anecdotal: about 5 years ago when I was on the high council, the SP proposed that members of the female presidencies (stake PS, YW, and Primary) also rotate through a speaking cycle like HCs. The women vehemently resisted and he dropped the idea after a year. I personally thought it was a great idea to have the membership hear from their stake leaders. I doubt the top church women are giving this same type of resistance, but it’s not impossible.
This will probably not be popular, but I actually have mixed feelings about this. I think the reasons people articulated for getting rid of it are good. This meeting got so switched around that it was hard to keep track and know what it was going to be. As a male, I thought it actually provided a good venue to bond as an extended family, with my dad and my brother and my sons. As I’ve kind of drifted away from wanting to go to the temple, it was a good chance to bond with my dad and my sons over something that was church-related. We used to go and go out to eat after. Lately we’ve gotten takeout and watched it all together. I will miss that part of it, but think there were good reasons for cancelling it. I’ve had mixed feelings about the women’s session for a while, so of course I have mixed feelings about losing it as well. The good:
– Removing gender-specific sessions is more inclusive of trans, non-binary, and intersex members
– Shorter and less exhausting weekend for those who watch General Conference live
– I haven’t been a fan of many of the First Presidency’s talks in the women’s sessions since the big switch to making it a regular Saturday session or the fact that male speakers took up half the meeting, so they will not be missed
– It could
maybe, possiblylead to including more women’s voices in the general sessions and maybe, possiblyencourage more people to recognize that women have relevant insights for everyone, not just other women The bad:
– Look, in a very patriarchal church, it’s just really, really refreshing to have even one meeting once in a while that isn’t dominated by men’s voices (this is also why Relief Society is my favourite regular church meeting)
– I am not optimistic that the change will actually lead to the inclusion of more women’s voices in the general sessions and, unfortunately, expect more conferences with around 2 female speakers like the last one
I will never regret not having another meeting. I do have a bit of a concern on the progress that I feel the General Women’s session has made recently only to end up in the cancellation pile.
The priesthood session had a good run.
In contrast, it was only in 2014 that the General Relief Society meeting was seen as part of general conference at all and only in 2017 that it joined the rest of the sessions to be held on GC weekend. The history just seems so short after what seemed like real progress being made.
In addition, I feel like the general woman’s session was a platform where women could step forward and perform the leadership role more publicly. In losing the priesthood session it is not really an equivalent loss because the same male speakers from the priesthood session also dominate the regular sessions and will have plenty of opportunities to share their messages.
In some ways it feels like cutting another leg out from the relief society as a quazi-independent organization. The RS used to have it’s own budget, magazine, and 2 day conferences. The independent budget and magazine have long since gone away. Losing the General Women’s session (the evolution of the general RS meeting/conference) feels somewhat like another nail in the coffin.
I also have mixed feelings about this. Fewer meetings makes me happy. But the cynic in me tends to agree that this feels like another place where women have lost a voice. I am so hungry for inspired women’s voices. It’s fine with me. I’m happy not to have three meetings to worry about on a Saturday. It’s been a long time since the Priesthood Session was any different any of the other sessions anyway. The only thing that will change is that there won’t be any talks saying “I now want to speak to the young holders of the Aaronic Priesthood…” which is generally followed by a fairly generic talk that those young holders probably aren’t listening to. Hope that doesn’t come across as too cynical but there are very few meetings in the LDS Church that I think are essential. Gerald wrote:
It’s fine with me. I’m happy not to have three meetings to worry about on a Saturday. It’s been a long time since the Priesthood Session was any different any of the other sessions anyway. The only thing that will change is that there won’t be any talks saying “I now want to speak to the young holders of the Aaronic Priesthood…” which is generally followed by a fairly generic talk that those young holders probably aren’t listening to. Hope that doesn’t come across as too cynical but there are very few meetings in the LDS Church that I think are essential.
Cynical? If you’re cynical, so am I. These are my thoughts exactly.
Maybe not Aaronic Priesthood but I’m sure we’ll continue to have talks where the say, “I now want to speak to the youth of the church… and adults, you might want to listen to this too…” Is the Priesthood importance or influence diminishing within the church? The reason I ask is, there is no follow up with us as to having contact with the families we’re assigned.
There is no teaching of the ordinances. Fewer PH meetings. Fewer contacts with new PH members.
Sometimes it feels like we are becoming more main stream. Similar to the Protestant or Catholic church.
Maybe it has more to do with the pandemic then anything else.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.