Priesthood Session

[Anonymous]

So up here in the Great White North Thanksgiving is coming up on Monday. As such my family is making the trek back to the deep south of Alberta to hang out and eat turkey with my family (who aren’t members).

Of course this weekend is also Conference. I know my Dad will put it up on the TV if we ask on Sunday (he is nice that way) or we can go to one of the two church buildings in my small hometown to watch. I suspect that my DW won’t care if we watch a session of regular conference, which I’m okay with. However, I am wondering if I should take my 12yr old son to the priesthood session? I find nothing in the universe more uncomfortable than being in a room full of just men, but maybe I’ll suck it up and go.

Do any of you plan on going to the priesthood session? Or do you plan on avoiding it as I do every year?

[Anonymous]

I have fond memories of going to the PH session with my father and brothers. Didn’t matter what was said; I was with my dad and brothers.

That’s just me, but I enjoyed taking my boys to it each conference. An arm around each of them, sitting in the dark just enjoying two hours of quiet time together.

[Anonymous]

Canucknuckle wrote:

I find nothing in the universe more uncomfortable than being in a room full of just men, but maybe I’ll suck it up and go.

Try being the one guy in a room full of women. i.e. a priesthood leader in RS. Cause we can’t have a room full of just women.

At least the “women” sessions are only once a year and only last an hour and a half.

OTOH a lot of the time there is good dirt at PS.

[Anonymous]

Like Ray, the tradition of going with family makes it nice. Since my son turned 12 two years ago, I’ve looked forward going with him. There have been times as we go for ice cream afterwards that we talk. One time he told me he felt the spirit, that he wants to do better reading the scriptures, and it prompted us to set out on a goal of reading together every morning together (which lasted about 2 months…but still…we tried 😳 ).

For me, seeing the church through my kids’ eyes, and with their personal needs, makes me smile inside when they find comfort and inspiration from it. I also enjoy our discussions on how stupid emphasis on white shirts is … and stuff he brings up that give us chances to talk.

I think it offers chances for bonding moments. I will plan to be there with my son, and continue the tradition my father started with me as we go get some Dairy Queen afterwards.

[Anonymous]

I have a Grand-daughter that has a birthday this weekend. We will be going there. Family first!

This may sound strange, but, I don’t look to General Conference as a time to get closer to Christ & expand my spiritual experience.

I will read the talks when they come out in the Ensign. I don’t look to the GA’s to get spiritually feed or answer deep spiritual questions

like I used to. Does that make any sense?

Mike from Milton.

[Anonymous]

rebeccad wrote:

Canucknuckle wrote:

I find nothing in the universe more uncomfortable than being in a room full of just men, but maybe I’ll suck it up and go.

Try being the one guy in a room full of women. i.e. a priesthood leader in RS. Cause we can’t have a room full of just women.

At least the “women” sessions are only once a year and only last an hour and a half.

OTOH a lot of the time there is good dirt at PS.

I’m trained as an Elementary teacher who specialized in Grades K-3. I’ve always been the lone guy in a group of women. I am far, far more comfortable with women than with men. I’ve been told I have a female personality.

[Anonymous]

Canucknuckle wrote:

I’m trained as an Elementary teacher who specialized in Grades K-3. I’ve always been the lone guy in a group of women. I am far, far more comfortable with women than with men. I’ve been told I have a female personality.

Funny, I’m a physics major, and the only woman in most of my classes (also the only person over the age of 25, but that’s another story). I am more comfortable in that situation than a group of women.

[Anonymous]

rebeccad wrote:

Canucknuckle wrote:

I’m trained as an Elementary teacher who specialized in Grades K-3. I’ve always been the lone guy in a group of women. I am far, far more comfortable with women than with men. I’ve been told I have a female personality.

Funny, I’m a physics major, and the only woman in most of my classes (also the only person over the age of 25, but that’s another story). I am more comfortable in that situation than a group of women.

This is why I get frustrated when I hear members engage in overly simplistic discussions of gender traits. We are not all the same regardless of the labels we place on each other (i.e. Women are sensitive and nurturing, men don’t communicate and are always interested in sports).

[Anonymous]

Can I broaden this question just a little bit to encompass ALL of General Conference and not just the Priesthood Session?

Even before I started my current “faith crisis,” I always had a problem with a couple of foundation issues pertaining to conference (from Ezra Taft Benson, if I remember correctly):

1. What is taught in General Conference is what the Lord wants his church to hear and is an example of “scripture by the Spirit”

2. The conference edition of the Ensign should sit on our stands next to the Standard Works as scripture for the 6 months that it is current

Forgive me if I am mistaken here, but this is how I understand the basis for the importance given to Conference. All told, we have had (generalizing broadly here) 364 General Conferences since the founding of the Church (assuming 2 a year since 1830. I know that isn’t what actually has happened, but using it for argument’s sake). Using the current format (again, generalizing for purpose of argument) of 5 sessions per Conference, that is 1,820 sessions. If we averaged, say 7 speakers per session, that would be 12,740 talks. I know, these numbers aren’t a real representation over time, but just to get a very general idea of the types of numbers involved. If each talk lasted about 15 minutes, that would be 3,185 hours worth of G.A.’s talking, or 19 straight weeks of listening to conference 24/7.

Needless to say, that is a LOT of scripture! My issue was always – “Among all the things that have been said before in the General Works, and all the General Conference talks, and all the Ensign articles, and all the Church talks and lessons, and all the Home and Visiting Teaching messages, etc., isn’t that a little too much to expect us to treat as ‘scripture’ (i.e. binding upon us to know and live by)?” Isn’t that slight overkill?

I never felt bad about missing a session of Conference – priesthood session or otherwise. I figured I could always read it in the Ensign. Or, I would hear about the most important parts in church. Or, I would read the scriptures (which EVERY talk quotes as its source material) and be taught what I personally needed to know better than the shotgun-approach Conference talk may have been able to reach me. I just never lost too much sleep over it. I never bought into the great vision of ALL the saints glued to their televisions or satellite feeds simultaneously across the land for 2 hours straight, then 2 more hours straight, then 2 hours for the men, then two hours for the next day, then a CONCLUDING two hours, repeat after six months . . .

Is it safe to say that the LDS Church LOVES meetings where everyone SITS and LISTENS!?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Is it safe to say that the LDS Church LOVES meetings where everyone SITS and LISTENS!?

Yep, that’s pretty safe.

[Anonymous]

I will not be attending priesthood session.

I will not be watching conference. But, I will tivo it, and check in on the boards to see if there is anything of interest that I might go back and watch at another time…you know…like the big announcement rumors…Monson has received a new revelation, something big, so you better stay glued to your television. 🙂

[Anonymous]

wjclerk wrote:

Can I broaden this question just a little bit to encompass ALL of General Conference and not just the Priesthood Session?

Even before I started my current “faith crisis,” I always had a problem with a couple of foundation issues pertaining to conference (from Ezra Taft Benson, if I remember correctly):

1. What is taught in General Conference is what the Lord wants his church to hear and is an example of “scripture by the Spirit”

2. The conference edition of the Ensign should sit on our stands next to the Standard Works as scripture for the 6 months that it is current

Forgive me if I am mistaken here, but this is how I understand the basis for the importance given to Conference. All told, we have had (generalizing broadly here) 364 General Conferences since the founding of the Church (assuming 2 a year since 1830. I know that isn’t what actually has happened, but using it for argument’s sake). Using the current format (again, generalizing for purpose of argument) of 5 sessions per Conference, that is 1,820 sessions. If we averaged, say 7 speakers per session, that would be 12,740 talks. I know, these numbers aren’t a real representation over time, but just to get a very general idea of the types of numbers involved. If each talk lasted about 15 minutes, that would be 3,185 hours worth of G.A.’s talking, or 19 straight weeks of listening to conference 24/7.

you may have missed the key boundary around when the ensign and addresses are “scripture”: for the six months that they are current.

i buy the idea that conference addresses are scripture, and just like all scripture, they have inspired teachings amidst profoundly human opinion and prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I know the “for the next 6 months” part is stated that kind of provides a technical “expiration date” (in terms of grocery use, not really that it ever “expires”), but how often do you hear members going back in their talk material to “so-and-so said this back in x General Conference . . .”? I don’t think it ever really stops functioning at the enhanced level that seems to set apart General Conference talks as scripture (to be quoted as almost as close as you can get to Church policy without it really being official Church policy). In other words, once its out there, it gets added to the growing . . . and growing . . . and growing “scripture” without going through the accepting-as-canon process.

I think good advice should be labeled as “good advice and counsel” with out all that goes along with the common understanding of when something is labeled as “scripture” per se. I can always handle good advice. As for more “commandments,” I feel overwhelmed with as many as there are now and am not looking forward to more. Good thing that’s not up to me, huh?!

[Anonymous]

When one of the speakers today said he was giving us five suggestions about something (I forget the specifics), I looked at my daughters and said,

Quote:

“Suggestions. I’m glad he used that word explicitly.”

They laughed and rolled their eyes, since they are used to me pointing out things like that.

[Anonymous]

Canucknuckle wrote:

So up here in the Great White North Thanksgiving is coming up on Monday. As such my family is making the trek back to the deep south of Alberta to hang out and eat turkey with my family (who aren’t members).

Of course this weekend is also Conference. I know my Dad will put it up on the TV if we ask on Sunday (he is nice that way) or we can go to one of the two church buildings in my small hometown to watch. I suspect that my DW won’t care if we watch a session of regular conference, which I’m okay with. However, I am wondering if I should take my 12yr old son to the priesthood session? I find nothing in the universe more uncomfortable than being in a room full of just men, but maybe I’ll suck it up and go.

Do any of you plan on going to the priesthood session? Or do you plan on avoiding it as I do every year?

Take your Son, for an LDs father it is one on one time with the son. Put your arm around him and let him nod off with his head on your shoulder…. they grow up fast

[Author]

Posts