Church discontinues Saturday evening session

[Prof]

9 hours ago, JVW said:

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

I like hearing from the Seventies. One of the best talks from last conference was from Elder Brown of the Seventy.

Relief society presidencies have had some good talks too.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

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/

But I thought that the First Presidency has always outranked (for lack of a better term) everyone else?

[ZealouslyStriving]

I'm curious what the "renewed focus" on the other sessions mean/entails?

How did having an evening session take away focus, as seems to be implied?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

But I thought that the First Presidency has always outranked (for lack of a better term) everyone else?

Depends on who you asked and when. Joseph Smith suggested in some ways that the office of Church patriarch was over even the First Presidency. When he talked of stepping down to let Hyrum take charge this was part of the reasoning. When Hyrum was called to be the patriarch he was pulled out of the First Presidency. It was also described as having the ability to be a “prophet, seer, and revelator”. Joseph said at one point that “the patriarchal office is the highest office in the church” which is kind of baffling.

William Smith took the office and suggested it was over the Quorum of the Twelve by saying the Twelve followed him as he followed Christ. The apostles quickly tried to ‘correct’ him. Lucy Mack Smith then had a dream that she believed was prophetic that William Smith was to one day be president of the Church. The apostles spoke with her and she backed down a little.

The power of the office was diminished. If you look in D&C 124 it has a mini pseudo sustaining of the officers of the Church. The Patriarch is given first before even the First Presidency. After William’s unhappy tenure that ended with his excommunication the sustaining was later moved to after the First Presidency in future conferences but still before the Twelve.

When John Smith (Joseph’s uncle) was called the sustaining order was moved again to after the sustaining of the Twelve. There was a lot of discomfort with the office since it was lineal descent meaning anyone could end up with it.

John Smith (Hyrum’s son) succeeded him. He annoyed some in power due to his maintaining strong familial ties to Joseph Smith III and others in the RLDS Church. He also had troubles with adherence to the Word of Wisdom which was being pushed much harder at that point and he was lukewarm about plural marriage.

Joseph F. Smith was the half-brother of this John Smith and when he became President of the Church Joseph insisted that he be set apart as President of the Church by the Church Patriarch and for a time the Church Patriarch was publicly called a “prophet, seer, and revelator” again. The patriarch was moved up in sustaining order and regularly spoke in general conference and had far greater power and responsibility.

Heber J. Grant was not happy with the way the office worked and tried to remove the lineal descent aspect and to alter it so it was a more limited role. The patriarch was moved physically in general conference from being near the apostles to a space between the Twelve and the Seventy. President Grant sought to limit the office’s authority to choose new local patriarchs and supervise them. Some apostles objected. Eventually a compromise was worked out where the patriarch’s role was trimmed back a bit and it was no longer based on direct lineal descent and was available to any Smith descendent.

After that the role continued to diminish. When Joseph F. Smith II (grandsom of Joseph F. Smith and nephew to Joseph Fielding Smith) took the office in the 40s it was now the “patriarch to the Church” and not the “presiding patriarch” or other more prestigious sounding titles. The office also no longer had responsibility or authority to call and supervise other patriarchs. He only served for four years before scandal erupted as it was found he had had several male lovers over the years. He was released and continued in the church unable to hold any office until President McKay was satisfied with his repentance and lifted the restrictions later on.

The last Church Patriarch was Eldred G. Smith and he was released in 1979 by President Kimball and given emeritus status. This was announced in conference with no indication of what would happen to the office in general. Later the emeritus patriarch was told he could continue giving blessings himself but the office was over. There was no formal announcement that the office was discontinued and this ruffled the feathers of a few Church members who saw it as an essential office.

The usual justification for it ending is that it is no longer needed due to the presence of local patriarchs but while that makes sense to a degree local patriarchs had been around for a long time. Some say it was the lineal descent bit that made the apostles eager to discontinue the office. The most cynical saw the office as a threat to the power of the First Presidency and the Twelve considering how it was rated in the D&C and the words Joseph Smith used to describe its necessity and how high an office it was.

I dunno.

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Depends on who you asked and when. Joseph Smith suggested in some ways that the office of Church patriarch was over even the First Presidency. When he talked of stepping down to let Hyrum take charge this was part of the reasoning. When Hyrum was called to be the patriarch he was pulled out of the First Presidency. It was also described as having the ability to be a “prophet, seer, and revelator”. Joseph said at one point that “the patriarchal office is the highest office in the church” which is kind of baffling.

William Smith took the office and suggested it was over the Quorum of the Twelve by saying the Twelve followed him as he followed Christ. The apostles quickly tried to ‘correct’ him. Lucy Mack Smith then had a dream that she believed was prophetic that William Smith was to one day be president of the Church. The apostles spoke with her and she backed down a little.

The power of the office was diminished. If you look in D&C 124 it has a mini pseudo sustaining of the officers of the Church. The Patriarch is given first before even the First Presidency. After William’s unhappy tenure that ended with his excommunication the sustaining was later moved to after the First Presidency in future conferences but still before the Twelve.

When John Smith (Joseph’s uncle) was called the sustaining order was moved again to after the sustaining of the Twelve. There was a lot of discomfort with the office since it was lineal descent meaning anyone could end up with it.

John Smith (Hyrum’s son) succeeded him. He annoyed some in power due to his maintaining strong familial ties to Joseph Smith III and others in the RLDS Church. He also had troubles with adherence to the Word of Wisdom which was being pushed much harder at that point and he was lukewarm about plural marriage.

Joseph F. Smith was the half-brother of this John Smith and when he became President of the Church Joseph insisted that he be set apart as President of the Church by the Church Patriarch and for a time the Church Patriarch was publicly called a “prophet, seer, and revelator” again. The patriarch was moved up in sustaining order and regularly spoke in general conference and had far greater power and responsibility.

Heber J. Grant was not happy with the way the office worked and tried to remove the lineal descent aspect and to alter it so it was a more limited role. The patriarch was moved physically in general conference from being near the apostles to a space between the Twelve and the Seventy. President Grant sought to limit the office’s authority to choose new local patriarchs and supervise them. Some apostles objected. Eventually a compromise was worked out where the patriarch’s role was trimmed back a bit and it was no longer based on direct lineal descent and was available to any Smith descendent.

After that the role continued to diminish. When Joseph F. Smith II (grandsom of Joseph F. Smith and nephew to Joseph Fielding Smith) took the office in the 40s it was now the “patriarch to the Church” and not the “presiding patriarch” or other more prestigious sounding titles. The office also no longer had responsibility or authority to call and supervise other patriarchs. He only served for four years before scandal erupted as it was found he had had several male lovers over the years. He was released and continued in the church unable to hold any office until President McKay was satisfied with his repentance and lifted the restrictions later on.

The last Church Patriarch was Eldred G. Smith and he was released in 1979 by President Kimball and given emeritus status. This was announced in conference with no indication of what would happen to the office in general. Later the emeritus patriarch was told he could continue giving blessings himself but the office was over. There was no formal announcement that the office was discontinued and this ruffled the feathers of a few Church members who saw it as an essential office.

The usual justification for it ending is that it is no longer needed due to the presence of local patriarchs but while that makes sense to a degree local patriarchs had been around for a long time. Some say it was the lineal descent bit that made the apostles eager to discontinue the office. The most cynical saw the office as a threat to the power of the First Presidency and the Twelve considering how it was rated in the D&C and the words Joseph Smith used to describe its necessity and how high an office it was.

I dunno.

There is definitely been a lot of changes in how things are organized since the beginning.

But it really doesn’t make any sense to think of the church patriarch as being the highest authority in the church. I mean, Joseph Smith never took any marching orders from the patriarch when he was alive did he? (sincere question)  And it seems like all revelations concerning the church patriarch came through Joseph Smith or other prophets. We don’t have any records of the church patriarch getting a revelation for the entire church do we? 

Did the church patriarch hold any keys?

It seems like all of those would be evidence that we could use to see where the patriarch actually stood in the hierarchy of things over time.

Edited November 20, 2025 by bluebell

[JAHS]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Depends on who you asked and when. Joseph Smith suggested in some ways that the office of Church patriarch was over even the First Presidency. When he talked of stepping down to let Hyrum take charge this was part of the reasoning. When Hyrum was called to be the patriarch he was pulled out of the First Presidency. It was also described as having the ability to be a “prophet, seer, and revelator”. Joseph said at one point that “the patriarchal office is the highest office in the church” which is kind of baffling.

William Smith took the office and suggested it was over the Quorum of the Twelve by saying the Twelve followed him as he followed Christ. The apostles quickly tried to ‘correct’ him. Lucy Mack Smith then had a dream that she believed was prophetic that William Smith was to one day be president of the Church. The apostles spoke with her and she backed down a little.

The power of the office was diminished. If you look in D&C 124 it has a mini pseudo sustaining of the officers of the Church. The Patriarch is given first before even the First Presidency. After William’s unhappy tenure that ended with his excommunication the sustaining was later moved to after the First Presidency in future conferences but still before the Twelve.

When John Smith (Joseph’s uncle) was called the sustaining order was moved again to after the sustaining of the Twelve. There was a lot of discomfort with the office since it was lineal descent meaning anyone could end up with it.

John Smith (Hyrum’s son) succeeded him. He annoyed some in power due to his maintaining strong familial ties to Joseph Smith III and others in the RLDS Church. He also had troubles with adherence to the Word of Wisdom which was being pushed much harder at that point and he was lukewarm about plural marriage.

Joseph F. Smith was the half-brother of this John Smith and when he became President of the Church Joseph insisted that he be set apart as President of the Church by the Church Patriarch and for a time the Church Patriarch was publicly called a “prophet, seer, and revelator” again. The patriarch was moved up in sustaining order and regularly spoke in general conference and had far greater power and responsibility.

Heber J. Grant was not happy with the way the office worked and tried to remove the lineal descent aspect and to alter it so it was a more limited role. The patriarch was moved physically in general conference from being near the apostles to a space between the Twelve and the Seventy. President Grant sought to limit the office’s authority to choose new local patriarchs and supervise them. Some apostles objected. Eventually a compromise was worked out where the patriarch’s role was trimmed back a bit and it was no longer based on direct lineal descent and was available to any Smith descendent.

After that the role continued to diminish. When Joseph F. Smith II (grandsom of Joseph F. Smith and nephew to Joseph Fielding Smith) took the office in the 40s it was now the “patriarch to the Church” and not the “presiding patriarch” or other more prestigious sounding titles. The office also no longer had responsibility or authority to call and supervise other patriarchs. He only served for four years before scandal erupted as it was found he had had several male lovers over the years. He was released and continued in the church unable to hold any office until President McKay was satisfied with his repentance and lifted the restrictions later on.

The last Church Patriarch was Eldred G. Smith and he was released in 1979 by President Kimball and given emeritus status. This was announced in conference with no indication of what would happen to the office in general. Later the emeritus patriarch was told he could continue giving blessings himself but the office was over. There was no formal announcement that the office was discontinued and this ruffled the feathers of a few Church members who saw it as an essential office.

The usual justification for it ending is that it is no longer needed due to the presence of local patriarchs but while that makes sense to a degree local patriarchs had been around for a long time. Some say it was the lineal descent bit that made the apostles eager to discontinue the office. The most cynical saw the office as a threat to the power of the First Presidency and the Twelve considering how it was rated in the D&C and the words Joseph Smith used to describe its necessity and how high an office it was.

I dunno.

Isn't latter-day revelation from our current prophets great in sorting out these issues and doing what is best for the church at this time? 

[JVW]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm curious what the "renewed focus" on the other sessions mean/entails?

How did having an evening session take away focus, as seems to be implied?

It's just an absolutely ridiculous excuse pulled out of thin air. I'd honestly have rather read the excuse of "we changed it because God told us to" or "because we felt like it and we are Apostles of Jesus" and just claim that prophetic mantle. There was no detraction of focus from the other sessions unless people were getting burned out from too much conference or something. But AFAIK Saturday evening session was only an hour for the last couple of years.

In the recent interview with the new first presidency there was a moment when President Eyring said, kind of in jest, "I'd like to venture a prophecy that blah will happen" and it was some really obvious thing he stated. He sounded a little insecure when he said it. It kind of bugged me.

Anyways, another recent example of a really dumb excuse was the excuse for the garment changes being due to "hot climates" yet they are making the new garments out of plastic instead of cotton or linen. They may have honestly believed that they could just roll them out regionally without any issue, but now these "hot" garments are worldwide even in cold places.

[JAHS]

44 minutes ago, JVW said:

It's just an absolutely ridiculous excuse pulled out of thin air. I'd honestly have rather read the excuse of "we changed it because God told us to" or "because we felt like it and we are Apostles of Jesus" and just claim that prophetic mantle. There was no detraction of focus from the other sessions unless people were getting burned out from too much conference or something. But AFAIK Saturday evening session was only an hour for the last couple of years.

In the recent interview with the new first presidency there was a moment when President Eyring said, kind of in jest, "I'd like to venture a prophecy that blah will happen" and it was some really obvious thing he stated. He sounded a little insecure when he said it. It kind of bugged me.

Anyways, another recent example of a really dumb excuse was the excuse for the garment changes being due to "hot climates" yet they are making the new garments out of plastic instead of cotton or linen. They may have honestly believed that they could just roll them out regionally without any issue, but now these "hot" garments are worldwide even in cold places.

We all know and believe they are prophets of God. They don't have to proclaim that to us when they make decisions. As such they do not pull large moves like this "out of thin air". Can we not just expect that they received revelation from God to make this move? I expect more information will be forthcoming on this. The media are just concerned with getting out the main subject of the decision, without giving a lot of reasons. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

There was no detraction of focus from the other sessions unless people were getting burned out from too much conference or something. But AFAIK Saturday evening session was only an hour for the last couple of years.

In the past when it was just priesthood session I know that men in my extended family felt it was okay to miss the Saturday morning and afternoon session because they would get “church” in the evening.  And Priesthood Session apparently felt like a more important session to them than the other Saturday sessions.

So if that attitude is continuing anywhere, the excuse not to disrupt the usual Saturday errands because of being able to participate Saturday night, I can see that as a reasonable excuse if they also want to encourage members to watch conference together as a congregation or a family since nowadays there is the option to watch the full conference pretty much anytime one wants and the most likely time people will make an effort to gather together to watch it is when it is first available, imo.

Some areas may delay broadcasting in the wards due to conference being in the middle of the night as I understand it.  I wonder in those cases if many of them were able to watch the evening session live, if perhaps out of order. If so, seems a shame to lose that opportunity as seeing something as it happens does tend to make a stronger connection, imo, even if it’s through a screen long distance.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

They may have honestly believed that they could just roll them out regionally without any issue, but now these "hot" garments are worldwide even in cold places

You don’t understand women’s biology if you think women can’t overheat in cold areas, especially given the modern life for many members in more temperate climes is mainly indoors these days in controlled environments, often where they have no control over what the temperature is.  

I could be outside in the middle of a snowstorm or in a lovely air conditioned restaurant eating and if I got a hot flash, I could be soaking wet in a very short time.  Having sleeveless means less layers in areas I needed more circulation.

Plus there are some synthetics that are more breathable and quicker in drying than others.  Cotton can sometimes be worse if thicker as some older all cotton garments were (still have one I use at times because it didn’t get worn as much due to that issue) it can be slower to dry then some of the synthetic fabrics. 

The last updates of garments show that they are finally, truly listening to women and placing their physical needs as important as their spiritual ones.  I am so very grateful this generation of young women won’t have to experience the difficulties I am others went through…or at least not to the extent we did.  I anticipate things will only get better as fabric options improve with technology.

Edited November 20, 2025 by Calm

[Senator]

Good call. Won't miss it a bit.

[Tacenda]

I remain old fashioned with things in the church such as the Road Shows the youth put on, the church pageant plays throughout the historical areas etc., even the Boy Scouts. Things continually change. I think this change has a lot to do with the women's group that wanted to have the Priesthood be given to the females in the church. I remember the day that the group, now the name of the group escapes me, attended the men's only Priesthood Session of conference. And that is why the PH session was then turned to include everyone. And sadly the women's session was taken away. One thing I didn't like was them including eight year old youngsters to be able to go to the women's session, maybe the men's as well, can't remember. I think that's too young. 

While active I remember my husband's father and brothers (including their sons) attending the PH session throughout the years and my mother-in-law providing pie and ice cream afterwards.  And the women's session, I would usually watch from my home or from our ward/stake building which included a light dinner or dessert. These are fond memories, and the old ways are so missed. I know that traditions were formed from having them. I heard one the other day, something like, what are the women going to do while their husbands aren't at PH sessions, such as going together and shopping at the Deseret Bookstore, for one.

Seems like the church is streamlining, there's a word for it, that I've forgotten that one of the leaders mentioned years ago in a talk, but it escaped me. 

The community of the church is very important and hopefully it's not stripped down to the bare bones.  

[Tacenda]

On 11/19/2025 at 11:01 AM, 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.

That is correct, I had forgotten the name of the group. But it did start the whole thing collapsing.

[Rain]

Didn't the church already let the Saturday evening session go briefly?  My memory says that they would no longer have it except for occassional times when needed (definitely paraphrased here, not quoted) and that happened like once and then there was an evening session every time since. 

I've never claimed my memory was good so I could definitely be wrong on that.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Rain said:

Didn't the church already let the Saturday evening session go briefly?  My memory says that they would no longer have it except for occassional times when needed (definitely paraphrased here, not quoted) and that happened like once and then there was an evening session every time since. 

I've never claimed my memory was good so I could definitely be wrong on that.

They did. Then members were vocal about wanting to keep it so it was only gone for a few months I think. 

[JAHS]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

Some areas may delay broadcasting in the wards due to conference being in the middle of the night as I understand it.  I wonder in those cases if many of them were able to watch the evening session live, if perhaps out of order. If so, seems a shame to lose that opportunity as seeing something as it happens does tend to make a stronger connection, imo, even if it’s through a screen long distance.

I remember on my mission back in the early 70's in Austria, we couldn't get it live so audio recordings of the conference sessions, translated to German language, were made available and the wards gathered together on a couple Sunday mornings to listen to the recordings. Somone with a slide projector would show photos of the speaker on a screen while we listened. Of course the speaker wasn't moving but that not much difference from what we see now. 😉

 

[Amulek]

I'm not bothered by us dropping the Saturday evening session. And if I'm being honest, I could probably live with them cutting another Saturday session as well. 

I genuinely do enjoy listening to our leaders, but I've always treated the hierarchy of meetings this way:

1. Sunday Morning - mandatory
2. Sunday Afternoon - basically mandatory (what else have you got to do?)
3. Saturday Morning - bonus/optional (depending on schedule)
4. Saturday Afternoon - ibid.
5. Saturday Evening - expected when in-person was a thing; less so recently; and now not at all

 

[JVW]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

We all know and believe they are prophets of God. They don't have to proclaim that to us when they make decisions. As such they do not pull large moves like this "out of thin air". Can we not just expect that they received revelation from God to make this move? I expect more information will be forthcoming on this. The media are just concerned with getting out the main subject of the decision, without giving a lot of reasons. 

I don't think there's going to be anymore information released regarding this change. What reason would they have to say anything else about it?

This church is ran by Jesus Christ and by the Saints, both parties make decisions regarding church administration. It's entirely possible that this is a case of some saints making a decision based off of their best judgments and intentions without God really involving Himself in the matter. It's even entirely possible that it's the wrong decision because less GC means less messages of Christ to the world every 6 months and preaching of Christ is God's #1 prerogative.

My point was that their stated reason is dumb and I'd rather have the reason of "we did it cause we felt like it" then some made up lame excuse.

[JVW]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You don’t understand women’s biology if you think women can’t overheat in cold areas, especially given the modern life for many members in more temperate climes is mainly indoors these days in controlled environments, often where they have no control over what the temperature is.  

I could be outside in the middle of a snowstorm or in a lovely air conditioned restaurant eating and if I got a hot flash, I could be soaking wet in a very short time.  Having sleeveless means less layers in areas I needed more circulation.

Plus there are some synthetics that are more breathable and quicker in drying than others.  Cotton can sometimes be worse if thicker as some older all cotton garments were (still have one I use at times because it didn’t get worn as much due to that issue) it can be slower to dry then some of the synthetic fabrics. 

The last updates of garments show that they are finally, truly listening to women and placing their physical needs as important as their spiritual ones.  I am so very grateful this generation of young women won’t have to experience the difficulties I am others went through…or at least not to the extent we did.  I anticipate things will only get better as fabric options improve with technology.

I'm not in the sunset phase of life yet with my wife, so there is a lot I don't understand about women's biology.

But I still think my point is valid. Here is the quote back in 2024 as to why they were going to make changes to the garments

Quote

sleeveless tops, skirt bottoms and one-piece shifts are available in some parts of the world like Africa and the Philippines, according to the church’s online store.

“Devout Latter-day Saints cherish the privilege of wearing the temple garment,” church spokesman Doug Andersen said in a statement provided Thursday to the Deseret News. “Some of those members live in hot and humid areas. The First Presidency has authorized changes in the garment to bless those members and others who might benefit from the changes. Beyond this, the church does not comment on temple matters considered to be sacred.”

They didn't make the changes to the garment because women can get hot flashes, they made them for women who live near the equator or in "hot and humid areas". And this is evidenced by where they were released first. I don't believe that the original intention was to have them released to all members worldwide. If Africa and the Philippines were a pilot that was a tremendously large pilot program. I think they are worldwide because other members found out and word spread and the church had to respond.

Even if it was just to aid in temperature control, I do not personally believe that the current fabric they use is the optimal blend of fabric for temperature control, but I'm not a fabric expert so I could be wrong here. I think they went with "the most bang for the buck" route to make them as cheaply as possible while having them do a better job than they used to.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I don't think there's going to be anymore information released regarding this change. What reason would they have to say anything else about it?

This church is ran by Jesus Christ and by the Saints, both parties make decisions regarding church administration. It's entirely possible that this is a case of some saints making a decision based off of their best judgments and intentions without God really involving Himself in the matter. It's even entirely possible that it's the wrong decision because less GC means less messages of Christ to the world every 6 months and preaching of Christ is God's #1 prerogative.

My point was that their stated reason is dumb and I'd rather have the reason of "we did it cause we felt like it" then some made up lame excuse.

I still think they likely followed normal protocol and after making a decision took it to God in prayer and got confirmation that it was the right thing to do. 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

I'm not in the sunset phase of life yet with my wife, so there is a lot I don't understand about women's biology.

But I still think my point is valid. Here is the quote back in 2024 as to why they were going to make changes to the garments

They didn't make the changes to the garment because women can get hot flashes, they made them for women who live near the equator or in "hot and humid areas". And this is evidenced by where they were released first. I don't believe that the original intention was to have them released to all members worldwide. If Africa and the Philippines were a pilot that was a tremendously large pilot program. I think they are worldwide because other members found out and word spread and the church had to respond.

Even if it was just to aid in temperature control, I do not personally believe that the current fabric they use is the optimal blend of fabric for temperature control, but I'm not a fabric expert so I could be wrong here. I think they went with "the most bang for the buck" route to make them as cheaply as possible while having them do a better job than they used to.

The original intent was for them to be global.  Here is the original announcement: https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders/2024/10/17/first-presidency-redesign-temple-garments-humid-areas/

It says:

Quote

The global rollout of the redesigned options will continue through the end of 2025.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JVW said:

Even if it was just to aid in temperature control, I do not personally believe that the current fabric they use is the optimal blend of fabric for temperature control, but I'm not a fabric expert so I could be wrong here.

You might want to hesitate about drawing conclusions when you are not a fabric expert.  

Btw, the cotton ones are coming in January.  They have a higher priority for a mix of durable, easy care (many women will have to hand wash every night and cotton can take awhile to dry plus lose shape, stretch out quicker) and comfortable (both just overall, but also not causing infections and irritations) as all three are essential for most members in hotter climates as well as important for many in cooler areas.   Many members, probably most, can’t afford to replace garments frequently when they don’t have a higher income even if cost is subsidized quite a bit.  From what I have heard they did a lot of testing, so I assumed they chose a fabric that maximized comfort and ease of care while controlling for cost.

Synthetic fabric can be made breathable and good for temperature control.  All you have to do is look at the synthetic fabrics used in workout and sports clothing to see polyester can work to stay cool for many people.  I am assuming this fabric is also good at wicking and breathability, but don’t have personal experience with it though I know women who have who are finding their new garments more comfortable, both because the cut allows air movement, the fabric is not too clingy, but fits the form well enough there’s not a lot of excess that can cause heat retention.

I do cotton with a touch of spandex to give and keep shape, some with the mesh up the sides only as I just don’t like the feel of the synthetics and I have the money to spend on more frequent replacement, but I know many women who prefer the synthetic because it’s lighter and silkier. I can’t speak to the difference except to say I found one of the synthetics like wearing plastic wrap as far as breathability back when I was first wearing them early 80s.  I quickly became prone to rashes (not infections thank goodness), so switched to cotton, but that didn’t work when I was in Kansas and needing to leave the house in 112 degree weather with over 90 humidity.  Explained the problem to my bishop and he said you have to take them off as needed.  Good and kind man as he was, he also instructed me that I never needed to ask another bishop if this was okay or not.  So when I almost passed out from overheating two summers ago on my way to a doctor’s office (how I managed to overheat just in walking to my car after sitting in a slightly too warm for me office, don’t ask me), I did not hesitate to start wearing alternative clothing on hotter days.  And am so grateful I did not have to face the embarrassment of having to ask permission from a man who might have no clue about what was going on and who might ask for more personal details than I am willing to give here….I don’t think my current bishop would, but I have two bishops in the past that I was so grateful to remember my former bishop’s counsel during my temple recommend interview.  With the new  garments I am looking forward to not having to make that decision next summer.  Things are so much better than when I first put garments on 45 years ago.

Would it really make sense to you to withhold the style of clothing that would help me and others in the here and now from being released in the States simply because there are far fewer women who need it here?  I started having problems in my late 20s, so it wasn’t menopausal hot flashes that was doing me in.

Do you think it makes sense to require women to wear more uncomfortable clothing just because it doesn’t cause health issues for them or even that it does cause health issues, just not the same ones as the primary concern?

Many women in Canada even in my experience (I was one of them) have the same issues with rashes and infections with the older style garments both for bottoms and tops (under the breasts and arms can be problem areas).  I understand they are not as common though as in hotter countries.  I heard one woman say every woman she asked when she visited somewhere in Africa iirc had infection or rashes issues.  In Canada, my experience was myself and several women I knew had issues, but not all.  I did not hit menopause until later in Utah.

It makes sense to target the geographical area with the highest incidence of problems when researching to solve the issue…which hopefully they have to a great extent, if not completely.  It also makes no sense once you have a good solution to withhold it from another population just because only some of them have a similar problem.  

I suppose you could restrict them to only those with health issues, so we could get doctor’s permission slips or maybe strip down for a physical exam next time we hit Beehive Clothing or whatever the stores are called now to prove there is an issue.

Or sensibly the Church could allow all women and men access to the healthiest, most comfortable versions of garments because suffering just for the sake of suffering is not something leaders actually want to happen.

Edited November 21, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is definitely been a lot of changes in how things are organized since the beginning.

But it really doesn’t make any sense to think of the church patriarch as being the highest authority in the church. I mean, Joseph Smith never took any marching orders from the patriarch when he was alive did he? (sincere question)  And it seems like all revelations concerning the church patriarch came through Joseph Smith or other prophets. We don’t have any records of the church patriarch getting a revelation for the entire church do we? 

Did the church patriarch hold any keys?

It seems like all of those would be evidence that we could use to see where the patriarch actually stood in the hierarchy of things over time.

According to Brigham Young the office had keys. When he made John Smith (Hyrum’s oldest son) patriarch he conferred upon him all the keys of the office. It is important to note that the current understanding of Priesthood keys was not yet established though. Admittedly though Brigham Young wanted to make Joseph F. Smith the Presiding Patriarch but Joseph refused. John Smith was good at giving blessings but he wasn’t good at administration. Having to coordinate local patriarchs vexed him. John Smith was also regularly in trouble with the Twelve. Partially for his maintaining familial relationships with Reorganized church leadership and for being very unenthusiastic about polygamy. You can also see how these two issues are related. He did reluctantly take a second wife but wasn’t happy about it. He also had some Word of Wisdom issues but a lot of the general authorities did. It is likely the other two suspicions about him magnified other perceived failings.

As to it being a higher office Joseph Smith said so at least once. He gave his father the highest seat in the Kirtland Temple. Joseph’s (possibly short-lived) plans to abdicate to Hyrum also suggest the same thing. If Hyrum had lived he probably would have led the Church as the Patriarch and the office may have continued and been over the Quorum of the Twelve. It is important to note that in the Doctrine and Covenants the Quorum of the Twelve were never the designated successors. In some cases the Twelve seem to have been designated as a kind of equivalent to a Stake Council with authority over areas where the Church is not established.

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

Isn't latter-day revelation from our current prophets great in sorting out these issues and doing what is best for the church at this time? 

I am not as certain of this as I used to be.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I remain old fashioned with things in the church such as the Road Shows the youth put on, the church pageant plays throughout the historical areas etc., even the Boy Scouts. Things continually change. I think this change has a lot to do with the women's group that wanted to have the Priesthood be given to the females in the church. I remember the day that the group, now the name of the group escapes me, attended the men's only Priesthood Session of conference. And that is why the PH session was then turned to include everyone. And sadly the women's session was taken away. One thing I didn't like was them including eight year old youngsters to be able to go to the women's session, maybe the men's as well, can't remember. I think that's too young. 

While active I remember my husband's father and brothers (including their sons) attending the PH session throughout the years and my mother-in-law providing pie and ice cream afterwards.  And the women's session, I would usually watch from my home or from our ward/stake building which included a light dinner or dessert. These are fond memories, and the old ways are so missed. I know that traditions were formed from having them. I heard one the other day, something like, what are the women going to do while their husbands aren't at PH sessions, such as going together and shopping at the Deseret Bookstore, for one.

Seems like the church is streamlining, there's a word for it, that I've forgotten that one of the leaders mentioned years ago in a talk, but it escaped me. 

The community of the church is very important and hopefully it's not stripped down to the bare bones.  

I definitely get the nostalgia but I always try to temper that feeling by remembering that the stuff I am nostalgic about is often newfangled stuff that my grandparents found jarring when introduced and felt nostalgic for their own good old days.

Reminds me of this:

[The Nehor]

On 11/19/2025 at 6:23 PM, Stargazer said:

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?

No, I was hoping not.