Thinking Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 At the beginning of the Sunday afternoon session, Henry B. Eyring opened the session by saying, "Brothers and sisters, we welcome you this afternoon to the fifth and concluding session of the 184th semi-annual general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Counting backwards:Sunday Afternoon: 5Sunday Morning: 4Priesthood: 3Saturday Afternoon: 2Saturday Morning: 1General Women's: 0? I guess the brethren miss those word problems from their math classes that use the beginning date as t = 0.
The Nehor Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 But if I remember correctly in the Saturday Afternoon session it was referred to as the third session by someone (I think in one of the prayers). I think we should just split the difference and say it is half a session.
watermelongirl Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 I do hope this gets sorted out in the future. The simple fact that there is confusion amongst the brethren unintentionally marginalizes the Women's Meeting.
Doctrine 612 Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 The women confrence is just a women's conference. Not part of the general conference.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 That's it. I am leaving the church over this.
rpn Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 Yes, I hope they start counting with the women's meeting too. While it is silly to me that women feel marginalized because of it, it is simply true that some do. And the waffling that went on this time with some counting with the conference and others not, shows that there was not a discussion about it. It is just a simply thing to fix, that symbolically helps some. So we ought to quit discounting that meeting. 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 Also given Elder Oaks assertion that "men are not 'the priesthood'", perhaps it is time to have a general men's meeting instead of a general priesthood session that excludes women. 1
BlueDreams Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 Uchtdorf made a point to consider it an opening session of conference (paraphrasing) as women's conference: My beloved sisters, my dear friends and blessed disciples of Jesus Christ, I am honored to have this opportunity to be with you as we open another general conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In the coming week the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles will meet with all the General Authorities and general auxiliary leaders, and the remaining sessions of our worldwide general conference will follow on the coming Saturday and Sunday. That with the afternoon session, I'm assuming it was less waffling and more of a slip of tongue. I didn't realize it wasn't considered GF by others for a long time. To me it was in the magazine, in the gen Conf tab on lds.org.....so obviously it was conference to. I do wish that they would put it in actual order now though. If it's the opening of Gen. Conference, why is it always the last on the list? With luv,BD
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 (edited) Uchtdorf made a point to consider it an opening session of conference (paraphrasing) as women's conference: That with the afternoon session, I'm assuming it was less waffling and more of a slip of tongue. I didn't realize it wasn't considered GF by others for a long time. To me it was in the magazine, in the gen Conf tab on lds.org.....so obviously it was conference to. I do wish that they would put it in actual order now though. If it's the opening of Gen. Conference, why is it always the last on the list? With luv,BDI have always thought it was the start to GC. It was the Relief Society session. I guess the sad part is that women get their panty hose in a knot over it. Now if there really was something to complain about imagine what they would say. Edited October 7, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
The Nehor Posted October 6, 2014 Posted October 6, 2014 I have always thought it was the start to GC. It was the Relief Society session. I guess the sad part is that women get their panty hose in a not over it. Now if there really was something to complain about imagine what they would say. Considering how stupid most of the quibbles on this board are it is probably unfair to demean women for doing the same. 2
Thinking Posted October 7, 2014 Author Posted October 7, 2014 If you click on the link to the October 2014 GC, the General Women's session is included at the bottom (after the Sunday Afternoon session).
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 (edited) If you click on the link to the October 2014 GC, the General Women's session is included at the bottom (after the Sunday Afternoon session).If you click the link it is called the "General Women's Meeting" If you watch the intro to the session it does not have the "This is the 184th Semi-Annual General Conference of the Church...." It says its the "Sept 2014 General Women's Meeting." Edited October 7, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
Ahab Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 It's more like a prelude, like the mo tab choir before the Sunday morning session.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted October 7, 2014 Posted October 7, 2014 Considering how stupid most of the quibbles on this board are it is probably unfair to demean women for doing the same.Was I demeaning women or making a point? Might as well start another useless quibble.
The Nehor Posted October 8, 2014 Posted October 8, 2014 Was I demeaning women or making a point? Might as well start another useless quibble.Perhaps you were multitasking. 2
carbon dioxide Posted October 9, 2014 Posted October 9, 2014 The Church should just roll the women session into General Conference weekend with it being on Sunday evening. Then it would be clear that the women are not being slighted by the Priesthood session. Men get their own session and women get their own session.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 Apparently the priesthood session prayer that previously said 4th session of conference has been redacted and now the word fourth has been muted out. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/10/do-women-count/
HappyJackWagon Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 Was I demeaning women or making a point? Might as well start another useless quibble.When you talk about women getting their panties in a bunch you stop making a point and just become offensive. Can they argue or question without some kind of dismissive sexist reference? You're wrong on this one. Just admit it and move on. Clearly this issue has not been correlated. Some speakers/prayers consider womens meeting to be a part of conference, some don't. This is easy to fix. The church simply needs to be clear that it is part of GC as I think it is. It's in the Ensign, it's in the Conference tab on LDS.org etc. Some people just didn't get the memo and it feels dismissive to women. Regarding the edit of the prayer...that's kind of interesting. I know they edit talks but I've never heard of them editing prayers. Does anyone know if that is common. Some employee with a trigger happy edit finger probably deleted the reference that included women's conference as part of GC. He apparently didn't get the memo.
Silhouette Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 If it's not a part of conference it doesn't bother me. I'm just happy to be able to have modern-day instruction from Church leaders, no matter what order it comes in.
Senator Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 Also given Elder Oaks assertion that "men are not 'the priesthood'", perhaps it is time to have a general men's meeting instead of a general priesthood session that excludes women. I think the name is appropriate. They just need to start inviting(expecting) women to attend, since we are now accustomed to the understanding that women do excersize priesthood authority.
Tacenda Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 Apparently the priesthood session prayer that previously said 4th session of conference has been redacted and now the word fourth has been muted out.http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/10/do-women-count/Interesting.... Why not just mention afterwards in the Ensign or something...not alter someone's prayer?
Ahab Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 Interesting....Why not just mention afterwards in the Ensign or something...not alter someone's prayer?They didn't actually alter his prayer, but it would be neat if the Editor could. Imagine the power it would take to change what someone actually said to God!!!
Tacenda Posted October 10, 2014 Posted October 10, 2014 They didn't actually alter his prayer, but it would be neat if the Editor could. Imagine the power it would take to change what someone actually said to God!!!How is this not altering?Quote:"The opening prayer Elder Bruce A. Carlson of the Seventy gave at the priesthood session referred to that meeting as the fourth session of General Conference (which means that the Women’s Meeting counted as a session). You can hear him say “fourth session” in this clip. However, if you go to the General Conference archives at lds.org and listen to the opening prayer, you will notice that they (whoever “they” is) mute the word “fourth.”
Recommended Posts