Church discontinues Saturday evening session

[Kenngo1969]

On 11/19/2025 at 11:23 PM, 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?

I don't know, but, for one thing, it made for loooooong Saturdays every six months.  As much as a big part of me will miss the evening session, and as much as some might think, "Oh, come on, Ken!  Ya wuss!  There isn't that much difference between four hours of meetings and six!", for those in areas of the world (and even in most of the United States) where they don't have the luxury of watching sessions at home in their slippers and jammies over network television, it might well be a welcome change.

[JVW]

17 hours ago, webbles said:

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:

 

Thanks, I stand corrected.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Ok

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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.  

Good news! And that makes sense.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I think it would be a great idea for the church to give every endowed member 10 sets of garments per year, according to the member's request (so as not to send them to people who don't want them). The gospel is supposed to be free according to the scriptures but it's impossible to do anything temple related without spending money on garments, which I view as a cost for the gospel.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

No, it wouldn't make sense. I stand corrected by the post above yours. I didn't know their intention was worldwide from the start. Of course, now my brain thinks that their motivation is to tackle the problem of women not wearing garments, but that's just the cynic in me. They probably did it primarily for women's health with the added bonus of (hopefully) more women wearing them regularly. Also, thanks for sharing that personal story.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

Depends on how pretty it makes them look.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I could see these new garments as a response to the explosive growth of membership in Africa, but I don't understand why the Philippines wouldn't have already caused them to reconsider garment fabric/structure.

16 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Agreed.

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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:

So true, let the generations evolve, haha! 

[JVW]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So true, let the generations evolve, haha! 

They should at least add Candy Cane Lane by Sia to the radio rotation.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

They probably did it primarily for women's health with the added bonus of (hopefully) more women wearing them regularly. Also, thanks for sharing that personal story.

Thank you for shifting your perspective.  As someone who has been grateful for every improvement for both myself and others, it has not been great to be presented at times as less faithful, less respectful to my covenants, less modest, less committed to covenants, less caring about learning from the experience of wearing garments as has occurred whenever changes have been made (not suggesting you hit all those points) when the reality was quite the opposite.

Quote

could see these new garments as a response to the explosive growth of membership in Africa, but I don't understand why the Philippines wouldn't have already caused them to reconsider garment fabric/structure.

They have been making changes for years now…decades probably, but I am vague on when certain fabrics came out.  There has been new technology come out, but it might take a bit to make it cost effective.  Modal and tencel fabrics only got popular and therefore readily available in the 90s even if discovered much earlier.  I don’t know what the fabric used for the non cotton ones are, so can’t say if that might be a reason.  Styles have been changing too.  Choices have not always been in the best direction for many (the Church only puts out a limited selection, some women have had the experience of finding a style and fabric that works better for them only to lose it several years later as the Church tries something else).

Second, third, and fourth or more hand, so don’t treat the following as pure fact, I may be very wrong….

Hearing the stories of a few women involved in research and production officially and unofficially (one woman was not employed by the Church, but I believe became known for the subject as she did a lot of personal research asking women all over the globe about their experiences iirc and she says her input was asked for by some involved in the more recent developments, much of my opinion comes from her no doubt biased description of that encounter), it sounds to me that part of the delay was the men overseeing the process weren’t always comfortable with discussing the details of needs with the women plus had some misunderstandings about the importance of some things and how uncomfortable garments were for women as the men probably assumed their own experiences with garments gave them enough insight into women’s experiences.  I got the impression also that previously men without experience in women’s fashions (meaning here specifically clothing needs, not style) were put in charge, which likely added to likelihood of making incorrect assumptions about needs, slowing needed change down.

And to be frank, there has been some weirdness going on with modesty ideas in the Church among both men and women since my young adulthood that has taken awhile to calm down.  Silly and unsafe rules given for Girls’ Camp are the best example of it, but a story of a 4? year old choosing to wear a short sleeve shirt under a sundress her grandmother gave her as the epitome of modesty in the Friend really blew my mind.  That was 2011.  Language is finally changing to teach modesty as more attitude as taught in scripture than how much skin is showing as well as being more consistent across the sexes.

Edited November 21, 2025 by Calm

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Thank you for shifting your perspective.  As someone who has been grateful for every improvement for both myself and others, it has not been great to be presented at times as less faithful, less respectful to my covenants, less modest, less committed to covenants, less caring about learning from the experience of wearing garments as has occurred whenever changes have been made (not suggesting you hit all those points) when the reality was quite the opposite.

They have been making changes for years now…decades probably, but I am vague on when certain fabrics came out.  There has been new technology come out, but it might take a bit to make it cost effective.  Modal and tencel fabrics only got popular and therefore readily available in the 90s even if discovered much earlier.  I don’t know what the fabric used for the non cotton ones are, so can’t say if that might be a reason.

Second, third, and fourth or more hand, so don’t treat the following as pure fact, I may be very wrong….

Hearing the stories of a few women involved in research and production officially and unofficially (one woman was not employed by the Church, but I believe became known for the subject as she did a lot of personal research asking women all over the globe about their experiences iirc and she says her input was asked for by some involved in the more recent developments, much of my opinion comes from her no doubt biased description of that encounter), it sounds to me that part of the delay was the men overseeing the process weren’t always comfortable with discussing the details of needs with the women plus had some misunderstandings about the importance of some things and how uncomfortable garments were for women as the men probably assumed their own experiences with garments gave them enough insight into women’s experiences.  I got the impression also that previously men without experience in women’s fashions (meaning here specifically clothing needs, not style) were put in charge, which likely added to likelihood of making incorrect assumptions about needs, slowing needed change down.

Men, who sometimes didn't want to hear about women's body parts and their issues.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know, but, for one thing, it made for loooooong Saturdays every six months.  As much as a big part of me will miss the evening session, and as much as some might think, "Oh, come on, Ken!  Ya wuss!  There isn't that much difference between four hours of meetings and six!", for those in areas of the world (and even in most of the United States) where they don't have the luxury of watching sessions at home in their slippers and jammies over network television, it might well be a welcome change.

As someone living 7 hours ahead of Salt Lake time, we could never watch the Saturday evening session in real time without staying up well past midnight. So we shan't miss it much, I don't think. 

[Damien the Leper]

On 11/19/2025 at 2:37 PM, 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. 

Fixed it. There is no article 'the' in their name.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Fixed it. There is no article 'the' in their name.

Pedantic correction: There doesn’t have to be. The word “the” does not have to be part of the name to fit in that sentence.

[Damien the Leper]

On 11/24/2025 at 12:55 AM, The Nehor said:

Pedantic correction: There doesn’t have to be. The word “the” does not have to be part of the name to fit in that sentence.

To them it is not pedantic. Having learned the history of the name change, they explicitly left out "the" in their name. To them they were called to be a Community of Christ and not The Community of Christ. The distinction means a great deal to them. Using "the" to begin a sentence followed by the name is a waste of time.

Example...

"Community of Christ officially changed its name 1 January 2001."

Vs.

"The Community of Christ officially changed its name 1 January 2001."

The two sentences do not have the same meaning. There is absolutely a distinction with a purpose.

Consider it in terms of the LDS church. Perhaps dropping "the" at the beginning of the name is pedantic. 

Example again...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Vs

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 

Vs

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

To LDS people there is a clear distinction between the three. Perhaps you're right and people are being pedantic. 

Edited December 1, 2025 by Damien the Leper

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

Having learned the history of the name change, they explicitly left out "the" in their name. To them they were called to be a Community of Christ and not The Community of Christ. The distinction means a great deal to them.

I find that reasoning beautiful, but it sounds very awkward not to have the “the” in front.

It may take awhile, but if I can do it for Ukraine, no doubt I can manage Community of Christ.

Edited December 1, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

To them it is not pedantic. Having learned the history of the name change, they explicitly left out "the" in their name. To them they were called to be a Community of Christ and not The Community of Christ. The distinction means a great deal to them. Using "the" to begin a sentence followed by the name is a waste of time.

Example...

"Community of Christ officially changed its name 1 January 2001."

Vs.

"The Community of Christ officially changed its name 1 January 2001."

The two sentences do not have the same meaning. There is absolutely a distinction with a purpose.

Consider it in terms of the LDS church. Perhaps dropping "the" at the beginning of the name is pedantic. 

Example again...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Vs

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 

Vs

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

To LDS people there is a clear distinction between the three. Perhaps you're right and people are being pedantic. 

I think they have a right to dictate their name and if they don’t use the word “the” before it then I think that we shouldn’t either. And I find the reason that they don’t use it to be inspiring.

At the same time, I didn’t see any difference really between using or not using the word “the” before church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. I can see why removing the article can have a lot of meaning and at the same time I think for most people it won’t have any meaning at all.  I don’t know that a lot of people would understand “the” community of Christ any differently than they would understand “a” community of Christ, even though you are very much right. It’s a distinction with a purpose.

I think the nature of the article “the” in the English language just makes it harder to assume a specific purpose with its use. So I appreciate you teaching us why the distinction is important to Community of Christ.  (it was very hard not to say the community of Christ right there, but a community of Christ also didn’t sound natural.  It’s a hard article to get rid of.  ). 

[Buckeye]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

I find that reasoning beautiful, but it sounds very awkward not to have the “the” in front.

It may take awhile, but if I can do it for Ukraine, no doubt I can manage Community of Christ.

And on the other end of the spectrum, remember when you visit Kirtland that it’s THE Ohio State University. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

To them it is not pedantic. Having learned the history of the name change, they explicitly left out "the" in their name. To them they were called to be a Community of Christ and not The Community of Christ. The distinction means a great deal to them. Using "the" to begin a sentence followed by the name is a waste of time.

Example...

"Community of Christ officially changed its name 1 January 2001."

Vs.

"The Community of Christ officially changed its name 1 January 2001."

The two sentences do not have the same meaning. There is absolutely a distinction with a purpose.

Consider it in terms of the LDS church. Perhaps dropping "the" at the beginning of the name is pedantic. 

Example again...

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Vs

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 

Vs

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

To LDS people there is a clear distinction between the three. Perhaps you're right and people are being pedantic. 

In some cases it avoids weird constructions.

The LDS church sat on the mat.

LDS church sat on the mat.

Still, even if it is grammatically correct avoiding putting “the” in front of their name if they request it is common courtesy so cool.

*insert joke about respecting the chosen name and pronouns of churches here*

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

And on the other end of the spectrum, remember when you visit Kirtland that it’s THE Ohio State 

Edited December 2, 2025 by Peacefully

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Still, even if it is grammatically correct avoiding putting “the” in front of their name if they request it is common courtesy so cool.

If we have the nerve to request people write/type out “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” instead of “Mormon”, any Saint should be more than willing to drop the “the”.

PS:  I really don’t like the capital “The” in the middle of the sentence.

Edited December 2, 2025 by Calm

[Damien the Leper]

I wish @Thunderfire still posted here. They could probably provide a better explanation. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

I believe that for Community of Christ, they see the "The" as language of exclusivity- whereas they are trying very hard to be inclusive (even before it was cool).

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I believe that for Community of Christ, they see the "The" as language of exclusivity- whereas they are trying very hard to be inclusive (even before it was cool).

It's a lovely symbolic gesture.

[MustardSeed]

I have nothing of value to add.  I just want to see my profile pic on all the categories on the main menu page.  😅