Church ends saturday evening sessions for general conference

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Since the speakers at General Conference are selected from the General Authorities and the General Officers of the Church (as opposed to the general membership of the Church), an objective assessment shows that the women in these ranks are over-represented in General Conference.  As I said in April:

I think it is unreasonable to propose that 52% of the talks at General Conference ("representing" the percentage of women in the Church) should be given by the 9 women leaders who are "general officers."  Had this happened during the October 2020 General Conference session, these nine women would have needed to give 18 of the 34 talks (17.68, to be precise, but studious "representation" would presumably require us to round up).  That's two talks per female leader, leaving only 16 slots available for the three members of the First Presidency, the twelve members of the Q12, the three members of the presiding bishopric, and the members of the Seventy and the male general officers (YM presidency, etc.).  

Thanks.

-Smac

Easy cure!  Give women the priesthood and then call more of them to the GA positions of the Church.😁

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

As I said before: I think what I am doing is A) challenging unspoken/unproven assumptions, and B) applying Chesterton's Fence a bit.

I see; you're admitting that this was little more than a bomb-throwing exercise. 

Quote

No.  Again, I said that "women leaders are already fairly over-represented in the general sessions."  

Women leaders. 

I presented evidence and analysis to substantiate that point.  And so far all I'm getting in response is huffiness and nasty insinuations.

You used an otherwise meaningless statistic in an inflammatory manner to stir controversy on an issue no one was arguing about up to that point, and you expected what exactly in return?

Quote

I am not disputing that women comprise 52% of the Church, nor do I dispute that women do not comprise 52% of the speakers at General Conference.

I have also said that I would be happy with more women speaking at General Conference.

No one can hear you after you threw your bomb.  It was too loud and all of this "Hey, I like the idea of more representation of women in GC as much as you!" just comes off as disingenuous nonsense.

Quote

How so?

Because it was intentionally inflammatory and not indicative of a good faith effort to understand the concerns of the women in this very thread.

Quote

But surely you've taken a moment to read what I've had to say about "representation," right?

Surely I have and I remain unconvinced of your sincerity given your 'over-represented' bombing salvo.

Quote

Not sure what you're referencing here.

I'm sure you know exactly what I'm referencing.

Quote

I have?  Are you sure?

Yeah...pretty sure (see below).

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Easy cure!  Give women the priesthood and then call more of them to the GA positions of the Church.😁

See?

Quote

Well, then,  Fire away.  Dispose of the histrionics and engage the argument.

It's not histrionics to call out an inflammatory, poorly prepared argument. 

Quote

This still seems to be very much a First World Problem.

I think Juliann has properly dispensed with this little bit of bad-faith diminishing of your intellectual opponents' genuine concerns.

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, Vanguard said:

It's amazing that most of us on this thread whether currently a practicing member or not, would find considerable common ground if we were to meet. Turth be told I would love to meet so many of the posters here. That makes it all the more surprising when I read your commentary. You seem so comfortable moving in and out of 'taking another to the woodshed' without giving notice to how insulting and arrogant this appears (and now here I am doing the same thing!). I agree with smac's statistic on this matter but I guess we'll just have to leave it to the 'experts' to let us know when we have gone off the rails. Oh thank heavens (for 7/11!) and for 'bigger picture' sheriffs! What would we do without you?!

For the record, I thought smac's thread over the weekend was also doomed but not entirely because of how he set it up. The thread also devolved due to a few poster's running afoul of what smac requested. And we wonder why we can't talk about politics!  

One - my message was specifically to Smac, who has hands-on experience with experts in litigation matters.

Two - I have no idea what your overall point is and can't say I'm all that interested in finding out at this stage of the discussion.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

With access so prevalent now, I think the Saturday evening session was slowly evolving into a de facto fifth general session anyway.

I know plenty of couples who would watch it at home together regardless of which session it happened to be.

And since the contents are going to be distributed world/church wide anyway, I don't really see the need for the church to maintain what essentially amounts to gender based early access privileges to 20% of General Conference.

So while I so lament the passing of the traditions associated with those additional conference sessions - especially since my son is not yet a Deacon and will miss out on them completely - I think the change is probably for the best.

 

After the Church leadership was pressured by third-wave feminists into broadcasting the priesthood session generally, it pretty much lost its character as a meeting directed to Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood holders. The die was cast then. We are seeing the inevitable outcome. 

[jbarm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Easy cure!  Give women the priesthood and then call more of them to the GA positions of the Church.😁

I think you hit the nail on the head for the folks complaining the most about the Women's session and the FP speakers.  I suspect they are really wanting to have women's priesthood ordination but don't want to fight that battle head on.

Just like most of those complaining about gay rights on this forum seem to be really aiming for gay temple marriage but won't say it out loud. 

If those are your real goals,  be honest about it and quit quibbling about these minor issues. 

Jb

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

Is that the same as Women's Conference? here it's an all day do, speakers, workshops, lunch, dinner-depending on how long it is

Yeah, in the past such stake-based events have been fairly pervasive. I just think they are less common than they used to be, and I don’t know that they have ever been standard Churchwide. They are rather like youth handcart treks in that respect. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, jbarm said:

I think you hit the nail on the head for the folks complaining the most about the Women's session and the FP speakers.  I suspect they are really wanting to have women's priesthood ordination but don't want to fight that battle head on.

Just like most of those complaining about gay rights on this forum seem to be really aiming for gay temple marriage but won't say it out loud. 

If those are your real goals,  be honest about it and quit quibbling about these minor issues. 

Jb

Speaking for myself and many other women I know personally, this is not at all something we are hoping or pushing for.

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

After the Church leadership was pressured by third-wave feminists into broadcasting the priesthood session generally, it pretty much lost its character as a meeting directed to Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood holders. The die was cast then. We are seeing the inevitable outcome. 

Feminism ruins everything for men. 😂

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Feminism ruins everything for men. 😂

Um, not everything. 

[bsjkki]

11 minutes ago, jbarm said:

I think you hit the nail on the head for the folks complaining the most about the Women's session and the FP speakers

Thank you for sharing your psychic ability of reading women’s minds about their ‘true’ motivations. It’s so helpful in moving this discussion forward. 
 

[bsjkki]

17 minutes ago, jbarm said:

If those are your real goals,  be honest about it and quit quibbling about these minor issues. 

Thank you for dismissing a nearly universal concern expressed by women on this thread. I wonder why women want to hear from women? Hmmm, maybe in order to not have  their concerns casually ridiculed, mocked and dismissed by Priesthood leaders. Is this how you treat the women in your life when they express a concern?

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

After the Church leadership was pressured by third-wave feminists into broadcasting the priesthood session generally, it pretty much lost its character as a meeting directed to Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood holders. The die was cast then. We are seeing the inevitable outcome. 

The leadership shouldn't have caved so fast. I bet once they made it possible to view online each session, it served no purpose to even separate them really or have a special meeting for each. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Easy cure!  Give women the priesthood and then call more of them to the GA positions of the Church.😁

If they could give the priesthood to women they would.

But they literally can't, so they don't pretend.

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

After the Church leadership was pressured by third-wave feminists into broadcasting the priesthood session generally

So not revelation in this case....

How do you determine whether it is pressure or revelation driving change?

[juliann]

50 minutes ago, jbarm said:

I think you hit the nail on the head for the folks complaining the most about the Women's session and the FP speakers.  I suspect they are really wanting to have women's priesthood ordination but don't want to fight that battle head on.

 

Yeah, cause we would have to have the priesthood to have a woman's meeting with women speakers. That has never happened before anywhere at any time in the history of the church. 

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

In the annals of the history of sexism wrapped in a cloak of piety through religious reference, this quip ought to at least receive an honorable mention.

Turn out the light bro, you're too bright for me. 

[The Nehor]

I had no idea the apostles were such pushovers that they would go against revelation to make “third wave feminists” happy. Seem like if I believed that I wouldn’t respect them at all.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Easy cure!  Give women the priesthood and then call more of them to the GA positions of the Church.😁

I still expect this but I expect if it happens at the apostle level it will be more that a couple will together be called as apostles.

Then again I have been wrong before. Once. A long time ago. About something unimportant.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

They are also often used to make fun of someone while trying to hide behind the "i was just joking" excuse.  There usually isn't a place for those kinds of memes when someone is trying to discuss real concerns.  They come across as flippant and dismissive.

Yup. And it sounds as off key as this one does, 

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I still expect this but I expect if it happens at the apostle level it will be more that a couple will together be called as apostles.

Then again I have been wrong before. Once. A long time ago. About something unimportant.

Why? What would the husband do?

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I don't know where you live or what your financial situation is, but if you get desperate and can't find somewhere to rent, you could always ride through trailer parks and look for empty trailers. A lot of the time the management company will do rent to own deals. Couple years ago I found a trailer for a guy who works for me and I bought it for $1800, put a knew floor in the bathroom, a window a/c and a couple doors, now he's got it looking really nice. He owns it outright and pays $360 in lot rent and only uses around $150 in electricity, that's cheap living man.  I've done this a couple times now to help people out, the management company usually just wants to collect lot rent so they will let the trailer go for cheap. Of course, I'm a semi redneck so if I got desperate I wouldn't mind living in a trailer😁. Anyway, good luck finding somewhere. Just thought I would throw this out there, never know.

I grew up in a trailer house. It’s not a bad way to live. It was a roof over our heads:)

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

I think it is obvious that it was for the male leadership to address the women or they wouldn't be taking over half the time. It has been a gradual change from the time when the RS planned and ran their own conference. But I think women would really appreciate the opportunity to plan their own conference with one male leader presiding, if necessary. It should be no different in structure or intent than the priesthood sessions, other than a woman doesn't speak in men's sessions.

I hope this means we will have more female leaders and more female speakers, say 50/50 for both:)

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

I am having a hard time understanding the rationale the church has given for discontinuing the session.  The Church stated "The Saturday evening sessions will be discontinued because all sessions are now available for anyone who wants to watch or listen."  That seems a little confusing to me.  Why is that a problem?  If it is not a problem, then what is the harm in continuing with the session? If there is no harm, then what is the real reason they decided to discontinue the session?  Haven't all sessions been available in print for pretty much ever?  What am I missing here?

The First Presidency needing a break from speaking so much is a perfectly legit reason, if that is what they are getting at 

Maybe this has been addressed already - I skimmed through the thread but didn't notice it mentioned.

 

No need to separate by gender. Sessions available to all. I think it is great, now we just need more women in leadership:)

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

They're waiting until September then they'll announce something new, if not I'm going to be upset, I want to add to the gospel, it seems lately we keep subtracting, I don't know why.

I hope you are right!

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

Why? What would the husband do?

They would both be apostles. They would both do what apostles do.

It is also a way of spreading the workload a bit. It is a bit much for 15 people. You can bump it up to 30 without disturbing the numbering system.

Again, a weird theory of mine. I haven’t hammered out the details and won’t until I am called to the apostleship which should be some time in the next.....never.