Trib Article Re: Women's Session

[smac97]

This article is a bit . . . weird:

Quote

General Conference: A missed opportunity to spotlight Latter-day Saint women?
By Peggy Fletcher Stack

The just-completed General Conference promised a historic schedule shift that would highlight the emerging involvement and gender gains of Latter-day Saint women, yet, in the eyes of some, it wound up diminishing female visibility and voices.

Phrases like "in the eyes of some" in a news article in the Trib do not instill confidence.  The article goes on to do nothing except summarize the opinions of a very few people (Emily Jensen, Patrick Mason, Libby Boss) about the Women's Session of General Conference.

Peggy Fletcher Stack is a news reporter, is she not?  How is summarizing selected opinions "news?"

Quote

Here’s what happened: Instead of the all-male priesthood meeting, a women’s session was held. Alternating the priesthood and women’s sessions at the twice-yearly gatherings was billed as a way to enhance the prominence and prestige of female leaders — and, by extension, female members — in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where only men can be ordained. But the rhythms and routines of the conference apparently got in the way.

"Rhythms and routines . . . got in the way?"  What does that even mean?

Quote

Normally, the women’s session included three female speakers and one leader from the faith’s presiding First Presidency. This time, though, the women’s remarks were followed by speeches by all three top men — a pattern set for priesthood meeting since at least the mid-20th century — and that trio took up more time.

So what "got in the way" was . . . there were speakers who were male?

This does not sound like news.  It sounds like personal opinions and gender politics being dressed up as news.

Quote

On top of that, only one woman gave an address during the general sessions — making a total of four women who spoke. That meant fewer women spoke than had become the norm in recent decades.

Oh, brother.  So deviation from "the norm" is a per se bad thing?  

Quote

Even so, some Latter-day Saint women were delighted that the whole First Presidency addressed the women’s session, treating that meeting as equivalent to the all-male priesthood session. After all, these members reason, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles deliver essential messages for the faithful.

This sounds like a grudging admission.  It's all about how you look at it.  The First Presidency speaking at the Women's Session is either A) a bad thing, as they were interloping and "[getting] in the way" at the Women's Session ("in the eyes of some," anyway), or B) a good thing, as the First Presidency was putting the Women's Session on equal footing with the Priesthood Session ("treating that meeting as equivalent").

I am inclined to go with B.  But how is this sort of it's-all-a-matter-of-perspective musing "news?"

Quote

They are “the most important voices we should hear from,” Latter-day Saint blogger and web editor Emily Jensen says on a recent Salt Lake Tribune “Mormon Land” podcast. “‘If we get to hear from them more, [such members say], that’s a good thing.’”

Jensen doesn’t agree with that thinking, she says. “We need to hear much more from women.”

This seems like poor writing.  So is Jensen approving of the First Presidency speaking at the Women's Session ("If we get to her from them more ... that's a good thing") or not ("Jensen doesn't agree with that thinking ... 'We need to hear much more from women'")?

And again, why is the personal opinion of Emily Jensen "news?"

Quote

Other women, too, found the session troubling.

“I find it highly ironic that President Nelson would say, ‘We need your voices,’ immediately after taking over half of our meeting,” says Libby Boss, a Boston-based blogger and board member for the Exponent II women’s magazine. “Everybody needs [women’s voices] — the entire church — we need to have equal numbers of men and women speaking. Men talking to men, women talking to women. Period.”

It has always “rubbed [her] the wrong way,” Boss says, that a member of the First Presidency always spoke at the end of the Relief Society or Young Women’s session.”

First, let's look at the statement from Pres. Nelson that is supposedly creating "irony" (from the link above):

Quote

My fourth invitation, for you who are of age, is to participate fully in Relief Society. I urge you to study the current Relief Society purpose statement. It is inspiring. It may guide you in developing your own purpose statement for your own life. I also entreat you to savor the truths in the Relief Society declaration published almost 20 years ago. A framed copy of this declaration hangs on the wall in the office of the First Presidency. I am thrilled every time I read it. It describes who you are and who the Lord needs you to be at this precise time as you do your part to help gather scattered Israel.

My dear sisters, we need you! We “need your strength, your conversion, your conviction, your ability to lead, your wisdom, and your voices.” We simply cannot gather Israel without you.

What is "ironic" here?  He was asking the women of the Church "to participate fully in Relief Society."  How is he supposed to extend such an invitation?  By carrier pigeon?  Should he have asked the General Relief Society President to read a statement from him instead of presenting the statement himself?  (One can only imagine how much indignation that approach would have caused.)

And again, why is the personal opinion of Libby Boss "news?"

For the record, I find it fairly "ironic" that Libby Boss is publicly faulting President Nelson for "taking" time during the Women's Session.  Had he not spoken, she could have turned on a dime and said something like "I find it highly ironic that President Nelson would say, 'We need your strength ... your wisdom,' and yet can't even be bothered to attend or speak at the Women's Session, as he does for the Priesthood Session."

Back to the Trib article:

Quote

Many women noted the difference in topics addressed by the women and men who spoke during that Saturday night session.

The women discussed the nature of Jesus Christ, personal journeys of faith, rendering service to others, discipleship and ways of ministering, Boss says, while the three men focused on motherhood.

Rather than consider women as “individual disciples,” she says, “they discussed women as gender roles.”

Oh, the irony.  The entire article consists of gripes about the First Presidency speaking during the Women's Session.  The gripes center on the fact that the members of the First Presidency are male.  

Look at Libby Boss's criticism, which could easily be turned on herself.  Rather than considering the members of the First Presidency as "individual disciples," she is discussing their gender, and assessing the value and propriety of their remarks solely on that.

Quote

Though Boss is a mother, she says talks about that role “don’t speak” to her. “I want to hear about Jesus and how I can be a better person.”

And again, why is the personal opinion of Libby Boss "news?"

Quote

Henry B. Eyring, Nelson’s second counselor, said the new “home-centered, church-supported” program of gospel instruction would increase female influence since women have the primary responsibility to “nourish” spirituality in the home.

“I’m a mom and love to be told that that’s important,” Jensen says. “But that leaves out a big section of women.”

And, she adds: “It’s not good enough to say we are all mothers eternally.”

Holy cow.  Is she seriously faulting President Eyring for this?  Every talk, when read narrowly, "leaves out a big section" of the Church.  

Had President Nelson addressed women who aren't mothers, Jensen could just pivot and say something like "I'm a woman and love to be told that that's important, but not addressing the importance of mothers in the lives of their children leaves out a big section of women."

And again, why is the personal opinion of Emily Jensen "news?"

Quote

Another item that caused some angst was Nelson’s “invitation” to the women to go on a “10-day social media fast.”

Earlier this year, he issued a similar challenge to Latter-day Saint youths but has not, so far, made the same suggestion to men.

Some wonder whether Nelson told women to take an online break, Jensen says, “because Mormon women were loud in the political world lately.”

Right.  Are the youth in the Church also "loud in the political world lately?"  Nope.  So Emily Jensen is just being speculative and gossippy here.  She is imputing questionable motives onto Pres. Nelson.  That's not cool.

And again, why is the personal opinion of Emily Jensen "news?"

Quote

In this #MeToo moment, for instance, more and more women are speaking out and sharing their stories on the internet.

Others chafe at Nelson’s call to women, she says, “stereotypically lumping them in with children,” who have different needs regarding social media.

Women use such tools “powerfully,” Jensen says, for employment, for election cycles, for supporting one another.

“I don’t think you should silence women — ever.”

A ten-day fast from social media is "silenc[ing] women?"  She is publicly accusing Pres. Nelson of "silenc[ing] women?"

And again, why is the personal . . . oh, never mind.

Pardon my french, but what a crummy article this is.  It's not news.  It's not even vary valuable as opinion.  All Fletcher Stack did was quote the opinions of three other people, all of whom offer overwhelmingly negative/critical perspectives on General Conference.  Why is the Tribune publishing such codswallop?  Since when does reporting on religion consist of nothing more than quoting/paraphrasing the personal opinions of three people?

And who does the Trib think is the audience for this sort of dreck?  Members of the Church will probably chafe a bit at the arbitrary complaints and faultfinding.  Most others simply don't care about the demographic composition of speakers at General Conference.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

Some people like a thing and other people do not like a thing.

[ksfisher]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This article is a bit . . . weird:

Phrases like "in the eyes of some" in a news article in the Trib do not instill confidence.  The article goes on to do nothing except summarize the opinions of a very few people (Emily Jensen, Patrick Mason, Libby Boss) about the Women's Session of General Conference.

Peggy Fletcher Stack is a news reporter, is she not?  How is summarizing selected opinions "news?"

"Rhythms and routines . . . got in the way?"  What does that even mean?

So what "got in the way" was . . . there were speakers who were male?

This does not sound like news.  It sounds like personal opinions and gender politics being dressed up as news.

Oh, brother.  So deviation from "the norm" is a per se bad thing?  

This sounds like a grudging admission.  It's all about how you look at it.  The First Presidency speaking at the Women's Session is either A) a bad thing, as they were interloping and "[getting] in the way" at the Women's Session ("in the eyes of some," anyway), or B) a good thing, as the First Presidency was putting the Women's Session on equal footing with the Priesthood Session ("treating that meeting as equivalent").

I am inclined to go with B.  But how is this sort of it's-all-a-matter-of-perspective musing "news?"

This seems like poor writing.  So is Jensen approving of the First Presidency speaking at the Women's Session ("If we get to her from them more ... that's a good thing") or not ("Jensen doesn't agree with that thinking ... 'We need to hear much more from women'")?

And again, why is the personal opinion of Emily Jensen "news?"

First, let's look at the statement from Pres. Nelson that is supposedly creating "irony" (from the link above):

What is "ironic" here?  He was asking the women of the Church "to participate fully in Relief Society."  How is he supposed to extend such an invitation?  By carrier pigeon?  Should he have asked the General Relief Society President to read a statement from him instead of presenting the statement himself?  (One can only imagine how much indignation that approach would have caused.)

And again, why is the personal opinion of Libby Boss "news?"

For the record, I find it fairly "ironic" that Libby Boss is publicly faulting President Nelson for "taking" time during the Women's Session.  Had he not spoken, she could have turned on a dime and said something like "I find it highly ironic that President Nelson would say, 'We need your strength ... your wisdom,' and yet can't even be bothered to attend or speak at the Women's Session, as he does for the Priesthood Session."

Back to the Trib article:

Oh, the irony.  The entire article consists of gripes about the First Presidency speaking during the Women's Session.  The gripes center on the fact that the members of the First Presidency are male.  

Look at Libby Boss's criticism, which could easily be turned on herself.  Rather than considering the members of the First Presidency as "individual disciples," she is discussing their gender, and assessing the value and propriety of their remarks solely on that.

And again, why is the personal opinion of Libby Boss "news?"

Holy cow.  Is she seriously faulting President Eyring for this?  Every talk, when read narrowly, "leaves out a big section" of the Church.  

Had President Nelson addressed women who aren't mothers, Jensen could just pivot and say something like "I'm a woman and love to be told that that's important, but not addressing the importance of mothers in the lives of their children leaves out a big section of women."

And again, why is the personal opinion of Emily Jensen "news?"

Right.  Are the youth in the Church also "loud in the political world lately?"  Nope.  So Emily Jensen is just being speculative and gossippy here.  She is imputing questionable motives onto Pres. Nelson.  That's not cool.

And again, why is the personal opinion of Emily Jensen "news?"

A ten-day fast from social media is "silenc[ing] women?"  She is publicly accusing Pres. Nelson of "silenc[ing] women?"

And again, why is the personal . . . oh, never mind.

Pardon my french, but what a crummy article this is.  It's not news.  It's not even vary valuable as opinion.  All Fletcher Stack did was quote the opinions of three other people, all of whom offer overwhelmingly negative/critical perspectives on General Conference.  Why is the Tribune publishing such codswallop?  Since when does reporting on religion consist of nothing more than quoting/paraphrasing the personal opinions of three people?

And who does the Trib think is the audience for this sort of dreck?  Members of the Church will probably chafe a bit at the arbitrary complaints and faultfinding.  Most others simply don't care about the demographic composition of speakers at General Conference.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I was saying in another thread, it appears that many of todays saints would like a time for rebuttal after every apostle speaks.

The article also brings this scripture to mine from 2 Nephi 29

“to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.”

[Jeanne]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

As I was saying in another thread, it appears that many of todays saints would like a time for rebuttal after every apostle speaks.

The article also brings this scripture to mine from 2 Nephi 29

“to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.”

There should be a rebuttal IMO..   When one places commitments, tithes and their whole lives and said eternity...they have that right.  Maybe if prophecies were  not poured out like members are children...but...it is all of you who say that a prophet cannot be perfect...!

[ALarson]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This article is a bit . . . weird:

Phrases like "in the eyes of some" in a news article in the Trib do not instill confidence.  The article goes on to do nothing except summarize the opinions of a very few people (Emily Jensen, Patrick Mason, Libby Boss) about the Women's Session of General Conference.

I think they may speak for many (not just "opinions of a very few people").  I know of several sisters who were disappointed that there was only one woman speaker for general conference this time.  Also many would have liked to have heard from more of the sisters in leadership positions for the women's session.  That does not mean that they don't enjoy hearing from the First Presidency, but there are few opportunities to hear from the sisters who serve in general presidencies and also many parents want their daughters to hear from these sisters as well.

The article is at least food for thought and does represent more than just a few from what I have heard regarding feedback from members of my ward and family.  

Edited October 19, 2018 by ALarson

[Analytics]

When I left the Church, I had a relatively large basket of experiences with the Church. Some good. Some bad. And I've tried with varying degrees of success to really understand the experiences of others. I thought I had pretty good empathy for different viewpoints, both of faithful members and of apostates.

When I then left the Church, I read some "Why I Left" stories from women. It was eye-opening--many women had experiences much different than my own--much different than anything I'd ever considered. And totally authentic. I'll refrain from offering examples. Suffice it to say that the religion affects everyone differently, and gender differences often play a big part.

The Church mixed up the format for general conference. The Tribune published an article about the change and how some people reacted to it. That qualifies as news. If the new format would have been, say, for the first president to attend, but to speak first and keep their remarks brief, that would have sent a strikingly different message. Of course anybody could complain about any decision made, but it's hard to imagine a feminist Mormon complaining about a hypothetical conference where the Prophet gets up as the prelude speaker, tells the women, "we need to hear your voices," and then sits down so he can go ahead and listen.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This article is a bit . . . weird:

Phrases like "in the eyes of some" in a news article in the Trib do not instill confidence.  The article goes on to do nothing except summarize the opinions of a very few people (Emily Jensen, Patrick Mason, Libby Boss) about the Women's Session of General Conference.

Peggy Fletcher Stack is a news reporter, is she not?  How is summarizing selected opinions "news?"

"Rhythms and routines . . . got in the way?"  What does that even mean?

So what "got in the way" was . . . there were speakers who were male?

This does not sound like news.  It sounds like personal opinions and gender politics being dressed up as news.

Oh, brother.  So deviation from "the norm" is a per se bad thing?  

This sounds like a grudging admission.  It's all about how you look at it.  The First Presidency speaking at the Women's Session is either A) a bad thing, as they were interloping and "[getting] in the way" at the Women's Session ("in the eyes of some," anyway), or B) a good thing, as the First Presidency was putting the Women's Session on equal footing with the Priesthood Session ("treating that meeting as equivalent").

I am inclined to go with B.  But how is this sort of it's-all-a-matter-of-perspective musing "news?"

This seems like poor writing.  So is Jensen approving of the First Presidency speaking at the Women's Session ("If we get to her from them more ... that's a good thing") or not ("Jensen doesn't agree with that thinking ... 'We need to hear much more from women'")?

And again, why is the personal opinion of Emily Jensen "news?"

First, let's look at the statement from Pres. Nelson that is supposedly creating "irony" (from the link above):

What is "ironic" here?  He was asking the women of the Church "to participate fully in Relief Society."  How is he supposed to extend such an invitation?  By carrier pigeon?  Should he have asked the General Relief Society President to read a statement from him instead of presenting the statement himself?  (One can only imagine how much indignation that approach would have caused.)

And again, why is the personal opinion of Libby Boss "news?"

For the record, I find it fairly "ironic" that Libby Boss is publicly faulting President Nelson for "taking" time during the Women's Session.  Had he not spoken, she could have turned on a dime and said something like "I find it highly ironic that President Nelson would say, 'We need your strength ... your wisdom,' and yet can't even be bothered to attend or speak at the Women's Session, as he does for the Priesthood Session."

Back to the Trib article:

Oh, the irony.  The entire article consists of gripes about the First Presidency speaking during the Women's Session.  The gripes center on the fact that the members of the First Presidency are male.  

Look at Libby Boss's criticism, which could easily be turned on herself.  Rather than considering the members of the First Presidency as "individual disciples," she is discussing their gender, and assessing the value and propriety of their remarks solely on that.

And again, why is the personal opinion of Libby Boss "news?"

Holy cow.  Is she seriously faulting President Eyring for this?  Every talk, when read narrowly, "leaves out a big section" of the Church.  

Had President Nelson addressed women who aren't mothers, Jensen could just pivot and say something like "I'm a woman and love to be told that that's important, but not addressing the importance of mothers in the lives of their children leaves out a big section of women."

And again, why is the personal opinion of Emily Jensen "news?"

Right.  Are the youth in the Church also "loud in the political world lately?"  Nope.  So Emily Jensen is just being speculative and gossippy here.  She is imputing questionable motives onto Pres. Nelson.  That's not cool.

And again, why is the personal opinion of Emily Jensen "news?"

A ten-day fast from social media is "silenc[ing] women?"  She is publicly accusing Pres. Nelson of "silenc[ing] women?"

And again, why is the personal . . . oh, never mind.

Pardon my french, but what a crummy article this is.  It's not news.  It's not even vary valuable as opinion.  All Fletcher Stack did was quote the opinions of three other people, all of whom offer overwhelmingly negative/critical perspectives on General Conference.  Why is the Tribune publishing such codswallop?  Since when does reporting on religion consist of nothing more than quoting/paraphrasing the personal opinions of three people?

And who does the Trib think is the audience for this sort of dreck?  Members of the Church will probably chafe a bit at the arbitrary complaints and faultfinding.  Most others simply don't care about the demographic composition of speakers at General Conference.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds like you need to share your complaints with the Trib about its news choice and the perceived lack of quality writing. It seems very odd that you are writing a complaint about a newspaper on this board.

And is it possible you're also being gossipy by making this kind of complaint on a discussion board?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sounds like you need to share your complaints with the Trib about its news choice and the perceived lack of quality writing.

That's a fair suggestion.  I'll consider it.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It seems very odd that you are writing a complaint about a newspaper on this board.

I'm critiquing an article pertaining to the Church.

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And is it possible you're also being gossipy by making this kind of complaint on a discussion board?

"Gossip" = "idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others."

No, I'm not doing that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sounds like you need to share your complaints with the Trib about its news choice and the perceived lack of quality writing. It seems very odd that you are writing a complaint about a newspaper on this board.

And is it possible you're also being gossipy by making this kind of complaint on a discussion board?

I'm not sure why it would be gossipy. The articles about women's issues that I have seen lately from Peggy are surprising. She seems to rely on the women's groups for sources now and even ideas. That said, I don't know how having less women speak can ever be considered supportive of women's voices, as we are challenged to do. If the entire First Presidency wants to speak, then adding more women's speakers during the other sessions makes sense.

For those who can't see the problem here, it might be easier to imagine women being given more time in the Priesthood session than the men. Unfortunately, I think that will make it easier for some to see the problem. It is troublesome that so many do not understand that women's words are also inspired and necessary. 

[katherine the great]

I personally don't have strong feelings about the new format. I was a little disappointed that only one woman spoke in the regular sessions but she did give an excellent talk (and I missed the sister's portion so I can't speak to that). I do find it intriguing to read men's take on this. Why should anyone be so put out by women's opinions? If women had not started to complain, we would not see any changes whatsoever because there would be no reason to assume that many women are discontent with their roles in the church. We need dissenting voices or there will never be any changes. Women don't want to "stay sweet" anymore.

[The Nehor]

I like to believe this conference format change is in preparation to giving women the Priesthood generally and the Relief Society will be disbanded in favor of a truly combined Priesthood session. The reality is that women are overrepresented in Conference talks if you take it in terms of how many women are potential speakers. You have nine, three each in the presidencies of the Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary. For men you have all 15 apostles who all by tradition have to speak (three of them twice), nine from the Presiding Bishopric and the Young Men and Sunday School Presidencies, and then the host of Seventies. To get more women speaking there needs to be more of them in that group. For them to start joining the ranks of the Seventies and the Apostles would be the only realistic way to close the gender speaking gap.

I could be wrong though and my faith will survive either way.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

I personally don't have strong feelings about the new format. I was a little disappointed that only one woman spoke in the regular sessions but she did give an excellent talk (and I missed the sister's portion so I can't speak to that). I do find it intriguing to read men's take on this. Why should anyone be so put out by women's opinions?

I'm not put out by women's opinions.  I'm put out by mediocre-to-lousy reporting by the Trib.  

And I'm a bit put out by members of the Church (male or female) publicly imputing ill motives on the leaders of the Church.  That's just not cool.

This isn't a gendered thing.

Quote

If women had not started to complain, we would not see any changes whatsoever because there would be no reason to assume that many women are discontent with their roles in the church. We need dissenting voices or there will never be any changes. Women don't want to "stay sweet" anymore.

"Stay sweet" is a Warren Jeffs thing.  I've never heard it used in the Church.

And I'm fine with women in the Church speaking out.  I would just like to see them adhere to the same standards of behavior as are expected of all of us.

The time and place and manner in which we speak matter.  A lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 19, 2018 by smac97

[Duncan]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not put out by women's opinions.  I'm put out by mediocre-to-lousy reporting by the Trib.  

And I'm a bit put out by members of the Church (male or female) publicly imputing ill motives on the leaders of the Church.  That's just not cool.

This isn't a gendered thing.

"Stay sweet" is a Warren Jeffs thing.  I've never heard it used in the Church.

And I'm fine with women in the Church speaking out.  I would just like to see them adhere to the same standards of behavior as are expected of all of us.

The time and place and manner in which we speak matter.  A lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

If having less women's voices actually heard but wanting women to be heard more I wonder what motives would you say they have? I would say if you put your money where your mouth is then have more women's speakers, if you are in charge of this and you want women to be heard then do it! don't say we want women heard and then do nothing about it

[MiserereNobis]

Is priesthood session for priesthood holders only, or is it for any male?

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is priesthood session for priesthood holders only, or is it for any male?

This is kind of weird question, because pretty much all LDS men are priesthood holders.

Thinking about out loud, there's nothing saying a non-LDS dude can't come and listen- so men?  But much of the instruction is focused on being a good priesthood holder.  But also, its not like women's also don't watch or listen to the PH section of talks-- heck, last week's Relief Society (aka woman's group) lesson was on an April PH section talk. 

Edited October 19, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[nuclearfuels]

Nothing the Trib prints surprises me anymore.

Outside of UT, there are news org's that focus on more than what the Church did/didn't do.

[pogi]

30 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If having less women's voices actually heard but wanting women to be heard more I wonder what motives would you say they have? I would say if you put your money where your mouth is then have more women's speakers, if you are in charge of this and you want women to be heard then do it! don't say we want women heard and then do nothing about it

And if they kept the same format, then some women would complain that the entire first presidency speaking at men's session gives the session a sense of prestige and importance above and beyond the women's session  - they must view the men as more important or something...

[pogi]

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is priesthood session for priesthood holders only, or is it for any male?

It is intended for priesthood -12 and up...  I don't think anyone would really be turned away though.  Investigators, for example, would be welcomed.  It is broadcast on TV now, so really anyone is welcome to watch. 

Edited October 19, 2018 by pogi

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is priesthood session for priesthood holders only, or is it for any male?

The target audience is holders of the priesthood, but as the broadcast is accessible to anyone, anyone can watch.

[Duncan]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

And if they kept the same format, then some women would complain that the entire first presidency speaking at men's session gives the session a sense of prestige and importance above and beyond the women's session  - they must view the men as more important or something...

34 speakers with 4 female speakers? only one of which the men of the Church heard? is that valuing women's voices?

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

34 speakers with 4 female speakers? only one of which the men of the Church heard? is that valuing women's voices?

So we heard from about half of the female leadership in the church.  If we are comparing ratios, that is not bad.

Even if ALL of them spoke, that would be 34 speakers with 9 female speakers...like I said, some people will complain no mater what they do.  I do think the format change occurred after deliberation in counsels with the women leaders - they don't usually make changes without careful consideration and deliberation.  I truly believe they did their best to make the format equal to the men's so that women won't claim...backfire!

Edited October 19, 2018 by pogi

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

So we heard from about half of the female leadership in the church.  If we are comparing ratios, that is not bad.

Even if ALL of them spoke, that would be 34 speakers with 9 female speakers...like I said, some people will complain no mater what they do.  I do think the format change occurred after deliberation in counsels with the women leaders - they don't usually make changes without careful consideration and deliberation.  I truly believe they did their best to make the format equal to the men's so that women won't claim...backfire!

the women heard the female leadership but the men only heard from one, of course it wouldn't kill the men to read what the women said but I wouldn't mind hearing from each auxillary at conference, even it was a 10 minute talk! plus YM, and SS- that's 50 minutes out of 4 sessions to hear from everyone

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Stay sweet" is a Warren Jeffs thing.  I've never heard it used in the Church.

I know. I just threw that in there for fun. 

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is intended for priesthood -12 and up...  I don't think anyone would really be turned away though.  Investigators, for example, would be welcomed.  It is broadcast on TV now, so really anyone is welcome to watch. 

Some wonder why the Priesthood session includes males 12 and older, but the women’s session includes females age 8 and older.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's a fair suggestion.  I'll consider it.

I'm critiquing an article pertaining to the Church.

"Gossip" = "idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others."

No, I'm not doing that.

Thanks,

-Smac

You stated "So Emily Jensen is just being speculative and gossippy here.  She is imputing questionable motives onto Pres. Nelson.  That's not cool. "  To me, it sounds like you are gossiping about Emily Jensen, hence my statement about you doing precisely what you are accusing her of doing. 

Quote

Juliann

I'm not sure why it would be gossipy. The articles about women's issues that I have seen lately from Peggy are surprising. She seems to rely on the women's groups for sources now and even ideas. That said, I don't know how having less women speak can ever be considered supportive of women's voices, as we are challenged to do. If the entire First Presidency wants to speak, then adding more women's speakers during the other sessions makes sense.

For those who can't see the problem here, it might be easier to imagine women being given more time in the Priesthood session than the men. Unfortunately, I think that will make it easier for some to see the problem. It is troublesome that so many do not understand that women's words are also inspired and necessary. 

IMO- SMAC is gossiping about the people being cited in the article. I've got no problem with him taking exception with a newspaper or a specific writer, but it seems strange to focus his complaints about the writer and the newspaper on this board, even if the specific article is church related.

I agree with you that reducing the number of women speakers and the overall amount of time women speak, does not support women's voices. It's particularly strange when women's voices seem to be suppressed in a so-called women's meeting.