Is The General Women's Session Part Of General Conference?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes

Only in your useless opinion was I demeaning women. Carry on.

[HappyJackWagon]

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.”

It means the prayer to God wasn't changed. Only the recorded prayer was.

[HappyJackWagon]

Only in your useless opinion was I demeaning women. Carry on.

Try not to get your panties in a wad.

Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer.

Edited October 10, 2014 by HappyJackWagon

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Try not to get your panties in a wad.

Don't ask the question if you can't handle the answer.

Ha.

 

"Do I look like I give a crap what you think?"

[HappyJackWagon]

Ha.

 

"Do I look like I give a crap what you think?"

By your angry, rude responses, it appears so. No one was trying to hurt your feelings.

Also, are you quoting someone?

Edited October 11, 2014 by HappyJackWagon

[The Nehor]

Ha.

 

"Do I look like I give a crap what you think?"

The answer to questions like that is always yes.

[Buckeye]

At the risk of getting this thread back on to the original topic may I present the following information. Unfortunately, all this shows to me is that (i) the church's various arms are not talking with each other enough, and (ii) yes, apparently the issue of whether women's conference is a "session" matters to someone in the COB, else why include it in a list of "20 Memorable Events."

 

• On October 9, 2014, the blog Times & Seasons posted the inquiry "Do Women Count," raising the question posed in the OP (http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2014/10/do-women-count/)

 

• On October 10, 2014, in response to T&S poster Julie M. Smith, the Church Public Affairs issued the following statement:
  • “While the women’s meetings have long been an important part of general conference week, they are not usually referred to as a session of general conference. Edits are routinely made to general conference proceedings prior to publication of the official record. In this case a simple edit was made by the conference producer to reflect the usual numbering of the sessions.” (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/58509306-180/conference-session-women-general.html.csp)

 

• On October 13, 2014, the following blurb was still visible on the Church News article "20 Memorable Events In General Conference History"
  • 2014—In March, the Church held a general women’s meeting including girls eight years and older that replaced the annual general Relief Society and general Young Women meetings. At the meeting in September, it was announced that the general women’s meeting was the first session of the semiannual general conference. (https://www.lds.org/church/news/20-memorable-events-in-general-conference-history?lang=eng)

[Calm]

Buckeye, any chance you know when that was added to the page?  Or the page was added to the site?

Edited October 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[Nofear]

I think Buckeye's point (paraphrasing) that the Church's right hand doesn't always know what the left hand is doing is very apt and relevant here. I think we'll see some quiet, but official notice, in due time to quench the disharmonious fronts about the matter being presented by the Church. May take awhile if it's not high on the priority list of important and weighty matters though.

[Buckeye]

Sorry Cal, all I know is it is dated October 3, well before the kerfuffle started. I believe church news is closely tied to the DN so maybe Scott can find out.

[Calm]

Thanks. I am supposed to be sleeping right now so am a bit slow. Saw it right after I posted it.

I am hoping the author doublechecked to make sure it was accurate as he likely knew the implications, being a reporter.

Edited October 13, 2014 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

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.

 

Feel free to take it up with God. I am sure he requires your input.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Sorry Cal, all I know is it is dated October 3, well before the kerfuffle started. I believe church news is closely tied to the DN so maybe Scott can find out.

DN used to have the same thing, but apparently sometime today, altered it.  (I saw the sentence about "first session" in the cached version, it is missing in the active one).  As of now, the lds.org one hasn't been changed.  I found the difference when trying to find out if this had gone out in the printed version or not.

Edited October 14, 2014 by calmoriah

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Feel free to take it up with God. I am sure he requires your input.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your quick wit is a breath of fresh air in every conversation you visit!

[wenglund]

It should be noted that on the Church's official web site (LDS.org), the General Women's Meeting is in fact listed among the meetings of General Conference, though not as a "session." (See HERE) No doubt, the politically correct nit pickers will find cause to point the finger of sexist discrimination at the relatively minor and meaningless distinction between the words "meeting" and "session." So be it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Someone said here or elsewhere that it had been printed up with Conference from 1981.  

 

PA also described it as this:  "“While the women’s meetings have long been an important part of general conference week, they are not usually referred to as a session of general conference."

 

I think it would just help to get the confusion of whether it is or is not part of session settled.  There may be no difference for some, but others have made being comfortable with it as not a part of conference a test of faithfulness….which is silly of course.

[Thinking]

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. 

 

Sunday evening would be awesome! The men could watch Football Night In America while the women close out the conference.

[Tacenda]

Sorry if this derails, I was wondering why we need teleprompters.  I think it takes away the natural ability that comes across the screen or in person.  We don't have teleprompters in our Sacrament Meetings.  I'm watching through all the sessions because I was out of town and unable to watch all of them.  It's a little off putting when the speaker says the words wrong because they are reading it wrong.  It feels like anybody could get up there and read a teleprompter but it doesn't give the speaker allowances to veer off the written talk if they feel so inclined and reveal something that they feel prompted to.  Mods, I will delete this and try to find a better OP if needed.  I hope to not derail, I tend to do that without the ability to start topics in my "limited" status. 

[Calm]

Translators would have a much more difficult time if speakers didn't use a written text.  They know what to expect and if good can alter every now and then when the speaker changes things.  We need to consider the needs of the nonEnglish members as well as the English (and now everyone is in the same category now that we have nonEnglish talks.)  And there is nothing stopping inspiration being received while the text is being written.  I think the Lord is capable of dealing with the limitations imposed by communication requirements.

 

It isn't as if there are no errors in Sacrament Meeting like someone losing their place in their notes, etc.

 

It is better imo to read from a teleprompter than from papers right in front of you.  It is easier to look out and make contact with the congregation when confident to do so with a teleprompter than it is with a written text, plus the teleprompter can help a person not lose their place in the text if they take time to look away and add some additional thoughts.

Edited October 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[Rain]

Sorry if this derails, I was wondering why we need teleprompters.  I think it takes away the natural ability that comes across the screen or in person.  We don't have teleprompters in our Sacrament Meetings.  I'm watching through all the sessions because I was out of town and unable to watch all of them.  It's a little off putting when the speaker says the words wrong because they are reading it wrong.  It feels like anybody could get up there and read a teleprompter but it doesn't give the speaker allowances to veer off the written talk if they feel so inclined and reveal something that they feel prompted to.  Mods, I will delete this and try to find a better OP if needed.  I hope to not derail, I tend to do that without the ability to start topics in my "limited" status. 

They may veer off more than one might think.  When I was in the regional choir I sat on the front row.  There was a person just in front of the choir, but a level down? that was looking at a screen with the talks written on it.  It seems like this was a woman, but my memory is not clear on that.  Anyway, she was doing something - maybe regulating the speed of the talks?  I don't know.  I could clearly read what was on the screen.  There was a large portion of President Hinckley's talk that wasn't on the teleprompter.  He just suddenly went off and talked on his own.  Eventually he cam back to his talk.  There may have been times with the other talks as well, but I hadn't been paying attention till his talk.     

Edited October 16, 2014 by Rain

[Tacenda]

Thanks Cal and Rain, I'd imagine they do veer off on occasion.