Jump to content

Church ends saturday evening sessions for general conference


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Probably many weren’t.  My mom certainly was, probably more interested than my dad. :)

I remember asking my husband what they talked about afterwards when he'd return after hanging out with his brothers and dad and some of their sons that were of the age to go. And usually what he'd tell me I'd feel a little sorry for him, because it seems they were getting some stern urging of what not to do or to do. And I liked how they were being taught how to treat their wives and family better. 

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By the way, I honestly can't imagine what would drive a man to think he needed to attend an event for women that he wasn't needed/required at. I have much, much better things to do ...

Our Relief Society President us by asking the Bishopric to have someone in the building during an activity. So it is still around.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is all I can find in the Handbook:

And: 

ETA: I found a conversation on this topic on the Exponent II website with the following clarification:

The quoted language doesn't appear to exist in the current Handbook, according to my search.

I think it’s from this letter and update on building safety from 2019. 
 

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/multimedia/file/security-update-us-canada.pdf

 

Edited by bsjkki
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I think it’s from this letter and update on building safety from 2019. 

Thanks. The letter does mention the quote from the old Handbook 1:

Quote

Avoid being alone in Church buildings. Leaders instruct members—especially women and youth—not to be alone in Church buildings (see Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops [ChurchofJesusChrist.org], 8.3.5).

It also has the following:

Quote

In locations where the risk is higher, it may be advisable to have a male (or two, depending on local conditions) walking the parking lot or Church property during Church activities in order to communicate a security presence. In such cases, if confronted, leaders should avoid conflict over issues involving property.

But still nothing specifically on RS events ...

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Our Relief Society President us by asking the Bishopric to have someone in the building during an activity. So it is still around.

Was that because she thought she had to or because she had determined a specific need?

A few years back, we had an issue with people shooting up heroin in our car park in the dark. We had a number of organisations, including RS and seminary, ask for people to patrol the car park until this was solved, and we had to keep the building locked during use. I'm perfectly fine with that. We contacted law enforcement, of course, which provided some police patrols during times we had meetings, and we made sure we had people in the car park as requested. Thankfully, the problem only lasted a few months.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks. The letter does mention the quote from the old Handbook 1:

It also has the following:

But still nothing specifically on RS events ...

From my research, the counsel for women and children not to be alone in the building was misinterpreted. 

I think it literally means ‘alone’ as in only one person. Others read it to mean women should not be alone, even meaning many women or children at the same time. IMO, this is the wrong interpretation. 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Was that because she thought she had to or because she had determined a specific need?

A few years back, we had an issue with people shooting up heroin in our car park in the dark. We had a number of organisations, including RS and seminary, ask for people to patrol the car park until this was solved, and we had to keep the building locked during use. I'm perfectly fine with that. We contacted law enforcement, of course, which provided some police patrols during times we had meetings, and we made sure we had people in the car park as requested. Thankfully, the problem only lasted a few months.

I think it was just something she expected was the way things are done. She is not some kind of ultra-traditionalist. The Bishop said it wasn’t necessary.

We have a potential problem looming. We have had some really pathetic and easily removed graffiti and a person who is not supposed to be attending showing up and he could be dangerous and has been dangerous in other setting. If they asked now I think we would ask someone to go there. Fun times.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Bishop said it wasn’t necessary.

:yahoo:

Quote

If they asked now I think we would ask someone to go there. Fun times.

Yep. Good luck with that. It was a nightmare for us whilst it lasted. Before every meeting, we had to have people assigned to walk around and pick up the used needles.

Link to comment

The first general conference session I attended was while I was an investigator, it was one session at the stake centre.   The Chapel was overflowing.   My impression was that everyone happily attended conference.  Soon after,  I became a member.  At the next general conference, I duly noted the times of the sessions (my first surprise,  that there was more than one session). I went along to the first session.   Hardly anyone was there and they were all men.  Hmm.  It did make me think,  but I sat down anyway.   Got some strange looks.   Someone approached me, I don't remember if he was a stake leader.  He explained it was the priesthood session, for men,  but I was welcome to stay!  Nothing else to do by then so I stayed and enjoyed the talks. But it did feel a bit uncomfortable.  So, I don't think my stake prevented women attending,  but they didn't go.  I certainly paid more attention to the announced times and didn't go to another priesthood session,  but I did and do read the talks.  

There were likewise,  no men who sat in and listened to the women's session. There was a man present.  Until very recently, my stake and the wards in it believed at least one man had to be present when anyone was in a building  , so one would be there during  RS activities,  the women's conference or sessions, primary events and if the YM were off site,  during YW activities.  I questioned it once.  Some thought it was for security,  to which I pointed out that there were quite a few single sisters at these events who handled their own security pretty well most of their time, others thought it was because a man needed to be there to preside! Like the RS and YW and primary presidents couldn't preside at their own meetings.  And then suddenly, a few years ago, maybe 2018, new counsel was issued that women could manage on their own after all (though I think it was said we should lock the doors. To be fair,  I think a lot of the women feel safer with a man about or the doors locked.  I'm fine with locking the doors.  Not sure one man makes it safer!) (And yes,  we have to lock the doors if there solo,  which is absolutely necessary.  I wouldn't be alone in a building with the doors open. )

Link to comment
7 hours ago, sheilauk said:

It was your hope that the church reduce the number of meetings.   Others have previously expressed a preference for "home church". So, my question remains. How do single people, especially women, get to take the sacrament if a meeting is cancelled?   Yes,  if the leaders go along with these expressed wishes/hopes,  they would be the ones cancelling the meetings.  But, in my view, it would be the ones asking for change who were creating the imposition. I think the Prophet and Apostles are aware that when changes are considered,  there is more than one demographic to think about.  I don't think fortnightly meetings are likely to happen (really not sure what is so difficult about going to church weekly. I think every other church has at least weekly services).  It would be nice if those who call for change thought of the whole membership too. Of course,  if you don't like going every week, don't.  Nothing to stop you from going less often, you'd still be considered an active member even.

Easy solution. Don’t ditch church on the two sundays they do have sacrament services. 

Link to comment

I see a trend.  When I was a kid Sunday church involved an hour Priesthood in the morning followed by an 1.5 hours of Sunday School after which we would break for lunch then return in the early afternoon for another 1.5 hours.  So on a good day 4 hours of church on a bad day that could go up to 5 to 5.5.  Yeah my mission farewell went over, lasted two hours.  Ugggg. 

Fortunately we went through the 3 hour block which is now down to 2.

So that trend is now flowing through to GC.  Eliminating the Saturday night session seems to continue this trend.

As to why now?  My guess is that they are attempting to mask the patriarchal optics within the church. If I am correct we can expect to see women taking a greater role in the general sessions.  Again succumbing to the societal trends and pressures to involve women and at least give the impression that the church is not a patriarchal organization run by men. I guess we'll see.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

As to why now?  My guess is that they are attempting to mask the patriarchal optics within the church.

I believe it's because people's attention spans are decreasing. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, secondclasscitizen said:

How is it easier to go to church every Sunday instead of every other Sunday? 
 

the church prob won’t change it to every other week. If they did I’m sure her opinion about it will matter just as little as mine does.

Her solution was for people who only want to go to church 2 sundays a month to do that.  Nothing needs to change and the people who want to go 4 sundays a month still can.

That's why it's easier.  

Link to comment
On 6/8/2021 at 1:39 PM, MustardSeed said:

Yes!! One thousand times yes yes yes. IMO, speaking for myself only, and completely honestly and whole heartedly.  Yes. 

Thanks for answering. I never realized how important it was to you gals. I don't look at gender or race when i listen to a speaker. I think years of reading military science fiction has given me a different perspective. It is not unusual to have a female Admiral, president,  or captain of a starship. Some  of  my favorite characters are women.

Link to comment
Just now, rodheadlee said:

Thanks for answering. I never realized how important it was to you gals. I don't look at gender or race when i listen to a speaker. I think years of reading military science fiction has given me a different perspective. It is not unusual to have a female Admiral, president,  or captain of a starship. Some  of  my favorite characters are women.

I would love to hear from Mary, the mother of Jesus, or Mary Magdalene, or Emma Smith. Not because they are women, per se, but because we really haven't heard much of what they had to say for themselves. Peter, James, John, Paul, Joseph Smith--we have heard a lot from them. 

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I would love to hear from Mary, the mother of Jesus, or Mary Magdalene, or Emma Smith. Not because they are women, per se, but because we really haven't heard much of what they had to say for themselves. Peter, James, John, Paul, Joseph Smith--we have heard a lot from them. 

Exactly.

It’s a perspective we haven’t heard. There is a reason that historians often refer to women and children as “the silent majority.”  

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Exactly.

It’s a perspective we haven’t heard. There is a reason that historians often refer to women and children as “the silent majority.”  

That's one of the reasons I enjoyed "Mormon Enigma" so much. Emma Smith had been for me pretty unknown as an actual person before I read it. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Easy solution. Don’t ditch church on the two sundays they do have sacrament services. 

Go back and re-read my posts.  The easiest solution is for those who don’t want to attend church to not attend church and let the rest of us have the opportunity that we want.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I think years of reading military science fiction has given me a different perspective.

But what you see in sci-fi is not what you generally see when you look up from the books, so it may be more noticeable even.

Maybe military sci-fi is different, but a lot of the same biases get put on women even when they are supposed to be the main character.  For example, Asimov’s heroines of the Foundation books are heros for the most part because of what they help others to do than what they do themselves. 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, bluebell said:

You told her to ponder something after she had "calmed down".  If you didn't mean to imply that she was being irrational then don't say stuff that implies that.  Why would she need to wait until she had calmed down to think about something if there wasn't something deficient in her thinking in the moment before calming down?   

Don't shoot the messenger.

When we sin we do something wrong, right?  It's not like they are two completely different concepts. 

I asked that clarifying question because the question didn't make any sense to me.  If what they did wasn't a sin, then what do you mean by asking if it was 'wrong'?  Wrong how?  


It was obvious she was not inclined to continue the conversation at the moment. I held open the possibility she might want to later. 

Claiming I implied she was irrational uglified and jumped to a conclusion about what I did observe, which is that she got angry. Everyone gets angry occasionally. You don’t often see someone who gets angry characterized as irrational or “incapable of rational thought.” 
 

Surely you can see that being wrong is not necessarily the same thing as sinning.

We all were wrong in our guesses the other night of where my son had been assigned to serve his mission. That doesn’t mean we sinned thereby. 
 

I bought the wrong size pipe the other day at the Home Depot for repairing my sprinkler system and had to return it and get the right one. No sinning involved. 
 

People are wrong all the time without sinning. Why even go there in your assumption? 
 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
23 hours ago, JAHS said:

Church leaders were not wrong. There was a time when it was right because women were mostly uninterested in what was being said in the Priesthood session. 
Also the general public would not understand nor care what was being said. Times change and interests change, so it was made more accessible to everyone.
I think they were able to reach a bigger audience of priesthood holders with live broadcasts.

I agree that Church leaders were not wrong. Countless priesthood holders, young and old, were blessed over the years by attendance at the priesthood session. 

Change in interest I believe was brought on at least in part by the protests staged by Kate Kelly and company. Some endeavored to press their way into the meeting because they believed they were already entitled to ordination. Others grew more interested from curiosity over what the fuss was about, though the content of the meeting was never secret and was always widely accessible via print and recording. 
 

In view of the changing conditions, the decision to broadcast publicly was prudent — and, yes, inspired. But it forever changed the character of the meeting from being directed to Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthood holders to being a de facto fifth general session, hardly necessary as there were already four. The eventual decision to discontinue it was, I believe, inevitable. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...