Church discontinues Saturday evening session

[JAHS]

Church discontinues Saturday evening session
 

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Wednesday that in an effort to emphasize the morning and afternoon sessions of the faith’s semiannual general conferences, Saturday evening sessions will be discontinued.

“The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has decided that beginning in April 2026, general conference will no longer include a Saturday evening session,” wrote President Dallin H. Oaks and his counselors, President Henry B. Eyring and President D. Todd Christofferson in a statement on ChurchofJesusChrist.org.

----------------------------

I miss having the Priesthood session and the ice cream afterwards.

[JVW]

On the plus side that means we get to hear from less women and less non-Q15 brethren.

Also, I thought this was an April Fool's joke when I first opened the thread. I think it's a pretty crazy change.

Edited November 19, 2025 by JVW

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Church discontinues Saturday evening session
 

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced Wednesday that in an effort to emphasize the morning and afternoon sessions of the faith’s semiannual general conferences, Saturday evening sessions will be discontinued.

“The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has decided that beginning in April 2026, general conference will no longer include a Saturday evening session,” wrote President Dallin H. Oaks and his counselors, President Henry B. Eyring and President D. Todd Christofferson in a statement on ChurchofJesusChrist.org.

----------------------------

I miss having the Priesthood session and the ice cream afterwards.

I miss the Women's and Priesthood session too, and I so so so wish they would bring them back.  I can understand why they would discontinue the evening session because as it is now it really serves no purpose.  It's just a chance to listen to a few more speakers.  I hold some resentment towards the ordain women group for being the catalyst that got the priesthood session removed.

[JVW]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I miss the Women's and Priesthood session too, and I so so so wish they would bring them back.  I can understand why they would discontinue the evening session because as it is now it really serves no purpose.  It's just a chance to listen to a few more speakers.  I hold some resentment towards the ordain women group for being the catalyst that got the priesthood session removed.

Do you think that activism is what caused the Priesthood and Women's sessions to go away? Does activism actually work in the Church, because, if so, that would mean that eventually gay sealings are going to be a thing...

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, JVW said:

Does activism actually work in the Church, because, if so, that would mean that eventually gay sealings are going to be a thing...

Except Ordain Women didn’t want the Priesthood Session to go away, they wanted to be allowed to attend it.  My guess is they weren’t unhappy it disappeared, but the effort also backfired by removing the women’s session.

So activism for gay sealings might bring change, but probably not in the way expected.  My guess is it’s more likely we lose the ability to be married in the temple and are only allowed sealings first (similar to what it already is in certain countries).

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

Do you think that activism is what caused the Priesthood and Women's sessions to go away? Does activism actually work in the Church, because, if so, that would mean that eventually gay sealings are going to be a thing...

Yes, hence I'm an activist for the 2nd Coming!

[bluebell]

54 minutes ago, JVW said:

Do you think that activism is what caused the Priesthood and Women's sessions to go away? Does activism actually work in the Church, because, if so, that would mean that eventually gay sealings are going to be a thing...

This is just my personal opinion but I think the OW movement was the reason the church eventually got rid of the priesthood session. It was in response to OW that the church made priesthood sessions televised and available to all members.  Then it went to just once a year and then it was gone altogether (and sadly took the women's session with it because by then discontent with the timing of women's conference had caused it to become the saturday evening session every other GC as well).  I'm sure it wasn't their intention, but I think OW's demands to be present in the conference center during the priesthood session was the beginning of the end.

I think activism can be a catalyst for leaders inquiring of the Lord about something and opening up hearts and minds to further revelation.  That's how we believe we got the WoW after all. 

But do I think that activism can get leadership to do something the Lord has said no to?  I hope not.

[JAHS]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is just my personal opinion but I think the OW movement was the reason the church eventually got rid of the priesthood session. It was in response to OW that the church made priesthood sessions televised and available to all members.  Then it went to just once a year and then it was gone altogether (and sadly took the women's session with it because by then discontent with the timing of women's conference had caused it to become the saturday evening session every other GC as well).  I'm sure it wasn't their intention, but I think OW's demands to be present in the conference center during the priesthood session was the beginning of the end.

I think activism can be a catalyst for leaders inquiring of the Lord about something and opening up hearts and minds to further revelation.  That's how we believe we got the WoW after all. 

But do I think that activism can get leadership to do something the Lord has said no to?  I hope not.

I don't think so. Policies and traditions might change but they would not do things the Lord has said no to. Priesthood Saturday night session was no more than a tradition. Our priesthood sessions are now every other Sunday at Church where we discuss what the leaders have said at conference.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

I don't think so. Policies and traditions might change but they would not do things the Lord has said no to. Priesthood Saturday night session was no more than a tradition. Our priesthood sessions are now every other Sunday at Church where we discuss what the leaders have said at conference.

It is interesting that we are supposed to have stake priesthood meetings each year but there is no requirement for a general priesthood meeting. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I miss the Women's and Priesthood session too, and I so so so wish they would bring them back.  I can understand why they would discontinue the evening session because as it is now it really serves no purpose.  It's just a chance to listen to a few more speakers.  I hold some resentment towards the ordain women group for being the catalyst that got the priesthood session removed.

The Community of Christ now ordains women, and their Prophet-President is currently a woman, so I don't know why they didn't migrate over that way. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Except Ordain Women didn’t want the Priesthood Session to go away, they wanted to be allowed to attend it.  My guess is they weren’t unhappy it disappeared, but the effort also backfired by removing the women’s session.

So activism for gay sealings might bring change, but probably not in the way expected.  My guess is it’s more likely we lose the ability to be married in the temple and are only allowed sealings first (similar to what it already is in certain countries).

It used to be the case that one could be married for time only in the temple, and in the then handbook of instructions it even recommended that temple-worthy partners who could not be sealed together due to previous sealings be married for time only in the temple.

I don't remember exactly when time-only temple marriages were discontinued, but in 2016 when I began to be thinking that I might propose to my now wife, I checked into this and was disappointed to discover that this had been ended.

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The Community of Christ now ordains women, and their Prophet-President is currently a woman, so I don't know why they didn't migrate over that way. 

I assume they believed they were doing God’s work within the church here. 

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The Community of Christ now ordains women, and their Prophet-President is currently a woman, so I don't know why they didn't migrate over that way. 

They’re more likely to just leave religion all together. I think it is more a fear of disappointing or being estranged from family and closeted people fearing discovery than that kind of advocacy.

3 hours ago, JVW said:

Do you think that activism is what caused the Priesthood and Women's sessions to go away? Does activism actually work in the Church, because, if so, that would mean that eventually gay sealings are going to be a thing...

There isn’t a ton of advocacy in this direction. There is some but the Church has laid out the “Not Welcome” sign enough that most don’t advocate for it. The Ordain Women movement was spearheaded by women (in and out of the church) who could fit into the culture seamlessly except for wanting women ordained. Queer people generally don’t fit into church culture or church practices unless they can pass as straight. It is hard to advocate when you are “the other”.

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It used to be the case that one could be married for time only in the temple, and in the then handbook of instructions it even recommended that temple-worthy partners who could not be sealed together due to previous sealings be married for time only in the temple.

I don't remember exactly when time-only temple marriages were discontinued, but in 2016 when I began to be thinking that I might propose to my now wife, I checked into this and was disappointed to discover that this had been ended.

 

Here is a letter from the FP about this but it was in 2021.
The reason I guess is that only ordinances of an eternal nature should be performed in the temple.

[JVW]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

I don't think so. Policies and traditions might change but they would not do things the Lord has said no to. Priesthood Saturday night session was no more than a tradition. Our priesthood sessions are now every other Sunday at Church where we discuss what the leaders have said at conference.

One could argue that the entire General Conference is a tradition. From what I understand we have it because the Methodists did it and Joseph Smith liked it so he started doing it. I think the only thing that's perhaps essential is the sustaining of church officers. However, if anyone objects to them then they are directed to the Stake presidents so one could argue that we only need a Stake Conference once a year for the sustaining of the church officers. Perhaps one day there will be no more general conference.

My wife's reaction to this conference change was that she thinks the church will become a one hour church in the future. I could see that happening.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, JVW said:

One could argue that the entire General Conference is a tradition. From what I understand we have it because the Methodists did it and Joseph Smith liked it so he started doing it. I think the only thing that's perhaps essential is the sustaining of church officers. However, if anyone objects to them then they are directed to the Stake presidents so one could argue that we only need a Stake Conference once a year for the sustaining of the church officers. Perhaps one day there will be no more general conference.

My wife's reaction to this conference change was that she thinks the church will become a one hour church in the future. I could see that happening.

I only remember this because I just read it in the newsroom release, but holding conferences was actually one of the things JS was commanded to do.  It talks about it in D&C 20 and probably other places too, I'm not sure.  But how they are currently organized wasn't a part of any written revelation I don't think.  I'm sure much of how they run right now is tradition.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I assume they believed they were doing God’s work within the church here. 

I'm happy to assume that is what they believed. The fact they were wrong and attempting to force a change against the Lord's will does not erase their good intentions. That they (or more to the point Kate Kelly) didn't accept the failure of the attempt and stay in the church suggests that there was a certain lack or loss of testimony going on there. Especially evidenced in her subsequent history, which post-excommunication has led her to come out as queer and begin a same-sex relationship with a Catholic woman, a writer who is pushing for ordination of women within the Catholic Church. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

They’re more likely to just leave religion all together. I think it is more a fear of disappointing or being estranged from family and closeted people fearing discovery than that kind of advocacy.

Kate Kelly, for one, has gone areligious, though is not closeted about it at all. She's really gotten into feminist activism, including trying to get the ERA revived and added to the Constitution. 

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm happy to assume that is what they believed. The fact they were wrong and attempting to force a change against the Lord's will does not erase their good intentions. That they (or more to the point Kate Kelly) didn't accept the failure of the attempt and stay in the church suggests that there was a certain lack or loss of testimony going on there. Especially evidenced in her subsequent history, which post-excommunication has led her to come out as queer and begin a same-sex relationship with a Catholic woman, a writer who is pushing for ordination of women within the Catholic Church. 

Wait, are you saying the lack or loss of testimony turned her queer or that the lack or loss of testimony led her to stop being closeted?

[sunstoned]

5 hours ago, JVW said:

Do you think that activism is what caused the Priesthood and Women's sessions to go away? Does activism actually work in the Church, because, if so, that would mean that eventually gay sealings are going to be a thing...

Anything perceived as diminishing the power of the Q15 will be discounted and rejected. 

[Stargazer]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, are you saying the lack or loss of testimony turned her queer or that the lack or loss of testimony led her to stop being closeted?

No. 

And my use of the term "closeted" reflects yours, in that she did not hide her loss of faith, but was open about it. Were you hoping to tie me to something?

[Stargazer]

39 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Anything perceived as diminishing the power of the Q15 will be discounted and rejected. 

Of course you would say that. No surprised there.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Here is a letter from the FP about this but it was in 2021.
The reason I guess is that only ordinances of an eternal nature should be performed in the temple.

Ah ha! Apparently this was done later than I had remembered. Though it seems to me that this policy change had already occurred by 2016 - because I had contemplated it, but it was not possible? 

On the other hand, we were married at very short notice, so perhaps timing issues made it infeasible? Wife will remember better, I hope. I'll check with her in the morning to see what she remembers. She's asleep at the moment, as it is past midnight here. I'm a night owl. Poking out this message in bed while under cover to not disturb her.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Anything perceived as diminishing the power of the Q15 will be discounted and rejected. 

How so?

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

How so?

They have reduced the stature of the Relief Society, which at one time had a direct role in managing certain aspects of Church operations, such as overseeing female temple workers and temple work for women. They did away with the presiding patriarch in 1979, which was a former office with authority equal to the first presidency. In 1959, the first president stopped making public financial disclosures and has been increasingly non-transparent in financial dealings. Access is highly restricted and centralized to the first presidency.  Even Boyd K. Packer, who was president of the quorum of the twelve, could not get access.

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/womans-exponent-acting-with-authority?lang=eng

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/a-history-of-patriarchs-and-patriarchal-blessings?lang=eng

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/12/22/excerpts-show-how-lds/