Jump to content

Church ends saturday evening sessions for general conference


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

They are males in a woman's conference. That isn't a difficult concept for many.....   I will forgo pointing out the absurdity of complaining that women make it about "gender" when you are relying on"gender" to maintain the status quo.  (It is sex, BTW.) 

And it is rather sly to insist nothing changed merely because women were allowed half of the speaking slots in a women's session...with less time allotted to them than the males. They lost speaking time but because the number stayed the same nothing has changed. Right. 

So you would rather hear from  Mary instead of James or John or Peter at a womens meeting? Interesting.  

Link to post
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah. But even when we had two Sunday stake conference sessions there was no Saturday evening adult session. So the net result is still two sessions. 
 

We used to have stake conference quarterly, though. Do you remember that?

Indeed I do.  We used to drive miles to our stake center in south Tacoma.  It is there I heard Paul Dunn speak.  My parents then sent me to live with my ailing grandparents in El Paso where I heard him speak again - exact same talk.  On my mission I used to rely on Elder Dunn's talk to strengthen my faith; luckily my faith was later grounded in the scriptures and the message of Joseph Smith when I later learned the truth about human foibles.  

Link to post
22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I understand what Spencer is saying, and that he is using a specific measurement (the total number of GAs compared to the number of female GAs that speak) to determine that women speakers are overrepresented in GC, but I think it's important to recognize that that measurement is not the only valid or reasonable option that can be used when discussing representation.

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:

Quote

As long as we're trading anecdotes, I asked my wife what she thought of this last General Conference.  She was quite happy with it.  ...  I also asked her if she felt concerned about there being only two female speakers.  She said something like "Of course not, there are are not that many female leaders, and they speak all the time.  We had a ton of sisters speak in October."  I went back and checked the speakers during the October 2020 General Conference, and found the following:

 

Saturday Morning Session

  • Moving Forward - Russell M. Nelson
  • We Will Prove Them Herewith - David A. Bednar
  • Becoming like Him - Scott D. Whiting
  • ***Eyes to See - Michelle D. Craig
  • Hearts Knit in Righteousness and Unity - Quentin L. Cook
  • Recommended to the Lord - Ronald A. Rasband
  • Love Your Enemies - Dallin H. Oaks

Saturday Afternoon Session

  • Sustainable Societies - D. Todd Christofferson
  • Finding Joy in Christ - Steven J. Lund
  • All Nations, Kindreds, and Tongues - Gerrit W. Gong
  • There Was Bread - W. Christopher Waddell
  • The Exquisite Gift of the Son - Matthew S. Holland
  • The Culture of Christ - William K. Jackson
  • God Will Do Something Unimaginable - Dieter F. Uchtdorf

Women’s Session

  • ***By Union of Feeling We Obtain Power with God - Sharon Eubank
  • ***Keep the Change - Becky Craven
  • ***The Healing Power of Jesus Christ - Cristina B. Franco
  • Sisters in Zion - Henry B. Eyring
  • Be of Good Cheer - Dallin H. Oaks
  • Embrace the Future with Faith - Russell M. Nelson

Sunday Morning Session

  • Watch Ye Therefore, and Pray Always - M. Russell Ballard
  • ***Peace, Be Still - Lisa L. Harkness
  • Seek Christ in Every Thought - Ulisses Soares
  • I Believe in Angels - Carlos A. Godoy
  • We Talk of Christ - Neil L. Andersen
  • Let God Prevail - Russell M. Nelson

Sunday Afternoon Session

  • Tested, Proved, and Polished  Henry B. Eyring
  • Let Patience Have Her Perfect Work, and Count It All Joy! - Jeremy R. Jaggi
  • Highly Favored of the Lord - Gary E. Stevenson
  • Ask, Seek, and Knock - Milton Camargo
  • Do Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly with God - Dale G. Renlund
  • Enduring Power - Kelly R. Johnson
  • Waiting on the Lord - Jeffrey R. Holland
  • A New Normal - Russell M. Nelson

So there were 34 talks.  Of those, 20 were from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  Of the remaining 14, five (35.71%) were from women, who comprise 7.69% of the general authorities/officers of the Church.  

So if we are really counting noses, if we are reducing the value of General Conference speakers down to their gender and nothing else (a risible exercise, but I'll play along), then female leadership speakers were over-represented 4.64 times their numbers in October 2020.  They were also over-represented in the April 2021 General Conference (taking 11.76% of the speaking slots, despite comprising 7.69% of the general authorities/officers of the Church).

Anyway, I also conveyed to my wife some of the sentiments expressed on this thread (Tacenda characterizing the new callings as "window dressing" (echoed by Juliann) and "limit{ing} women speakers during conference" and not "allow{ing} more diversity in the speakers at conference," Juliann's characterization of two women speakers at General Conference as "shocking" (as in not enough) and that the Church doesn't value women speakers ("If they valued women speakers.....")), and she (my wife) said "It sounds like those people are looking for ways to be offended."  As regarding Tacenda's commend about a lack of "diversity," my wife was really surprised.  She said something like "Did that person even watch General Conference?  Sister Aburto is from Nicaragua.  Elder Dube is from Zimbabwe.  Elder Mutombo (she couldn't remember his name) is from the Congo.  And many others.  There were speakers from all over the world!"

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
Just now, Chum said:

You work really hard to craft the inference that less women are better women.

I am doing nothing of the sort.  I categorically reject the accusation.

Just now, Chum said:

Why do you think you do that?

Why do you think you beat your wife and torture puppies for fun?

I'll answer your loaded question as soon as you answer mine.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I understand what you "would have thought".  And I know that you believe that your way of viewing representation in GC is the only legitimate way to view it.   And I know that you believe it's "unhealthy, unproductive, and even counter-productive" for anyone to see this topic differently than you do.  Your frequent use of the word 'denigrate' also clearly expresses your views of those who disagree with you on this.  

My point is that--your opinion aside--there is more than one legitimate way to measure representation (one way being to compare the number of female speakers with the number of female members and then to do the same for male speakers and male members, to see while sex is more represented in GC).  

I agree with you that we will never have proportional representation but that does not mean that 1) women are overrepresented

Again, I am not speaking of women.  I am speaking of women leaders.  

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

and that 2) we can't have better representation than we've had in the past.

I guess the thought is that we are setting ourselves up for disappointment.  "Representation" is infinitely malleable.  There will always be room to find fault, no matter what the Church does.  So applying "representation" as a metric by which to gauge whether the Church is doing "better" seems like a guaranteed failure.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I am not speaking of women.  I am speaking of women leaders.  

So am I.  Since women leaders are the only women invited to speak in GC, I didn't know that needed to be specified.  

Quote

 

I guess the thought is that we are setting ourselves up for disappointment.  "Representation" is infinitely malleable.  There will always be room to find fault, no matter what the Church does.  So applying "representation" as a metric by which to gauge whether the Church is doing "better" seems like a guaranteed failure.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Your thoughts on it are noted.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
14 minutes ago, juliann said:

They are males in a woman's conference.

Right.  Got it.  They are interloping.  Because they are male, they don't belong.  Their callings as apostles and representatives of Jesus Christ don't matter because they are male.

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

That isn't a difficult concept for many.....   

And once again Juliann personalizes a thread.  I disagree with Juliann, ergo I am stupid.

I could set my clock...

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

I will forgo pointing out the absurdity of complaining that women make it about "gender" when you are relying on "gender" to maintain the status quo.

I'm not doing that.  I'm relying on the numbers of the General Authorities and General Officers of the Church, from which the speakers at General Conference are selected.

I freely acknowledge that women comprise 7.69% of the general authorities/officers of the Church, while representing 52% of the membership of the Church.  

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

(It is sex, BTW.) 

Meh.

Quote

gender

[ jen-der ]SHOW IPA

noun

1 either the male or female division of a species, especially as differentiated by social and cultural roles and behavior:the feminine gender.Compare sex (def. 1).

Meh (part deux) :

Quote

sex

[ seks ]SHOW IPA

noun

1. the male, female, or intersex division of a species, especially as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.

Orwell, you prophetic genius...

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

And it is rather sly to insist nothing changed merely because women were allowed half of the speaking slots in a women's session...with less time allotted to them than the males.

You're only proving my point.  

14 minutes ago, juliann said:

They lost speaking time but because the number stayed the same nothing has changed. Right. 

And once again Juliann imports the Gender Wars into a thread.

It really takes some effort to characterize talks by the First Presidency as a step backward.  As a bad thing.  As interloping.

Oi.  What a First World Problem that is.

5cfqnz.jpg

;)

Thanks,

-Smac

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

Am I only one who thinks that lately it only takes getting to the second page of post before the conservative/liberal teams start forming?🤔 Why!?!?!?!?why!?!?!?!?😁

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Just now, AtlanticMike said:

Am I only one who thinks that lately it only takes getting to the second page of post before the conservative/liberal teams start forming?🤔 Why!?!?!?!?why!?!?!?!?😁

I'm a conservative, and I'm guessing that Smac is as well, so I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
9 minutes ago, Duncan said:

The first person to see the Risen Lord?! or the Mother of Jesus?  I think anyone would jump at that opportunity!

I'd pick non-homeless retirement first. Heck, I'd pick having somewhere to live 6 months from now.

Link to post
11 minutes ago, Chum said:

Because she sucks at board games and because caged puppies can't escape me singing hymns in a scoobie doo voice.

You nailed that😂

Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I'm a conservative, and I'm guessing that Smac is as well, so I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

Maybe you're correct, it just seems everything gets a tad heated lately. I don't know.

  • Like 1
Link to post
20 minutes ago, bluebell said:
Quote

Again, I am not speaking of women.  I am speaking of women leaders.  

So am I.  Since women leaders are the only women invited to speak in GC, I didn't know that needed to be specified.  

I previously said: "Of course, women leaders are already fairly over-represented in the general sessions."

You responded: "Not if you consider the number of female members, which I think make up around 52% of church membership."

I responded: "The number of female members of the Church does not alter the over-representation of women leaders in General Conference."

I later responded: "Again, I am not speaking of women {members}.  I am speaking of women leaders."

If there is an issue about which the Church can improve, I'm all for discussing it.  As things presently stand, though, the women leadership of the Church, though disproportionately small relative to the female membership of the Church over all (7.69% of upper leadership, 52% of membership), are over-represented in terms of speaking slots at General Conference.

I would have no objection to these women speaking more.  I have some real qualms about importing the idea of "representation" into the Church, though.  Particularly given the nastiness and faultfinding and goalpost-moving that seems to attend it.

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Your thoughts on it are noted.

Sounds good.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm a conservative, and I'm guessing that Smac is as well, so I'm not sure what you mean exactly.

I’m pretty conservative, too. I’m not sure what this to do with those labels, either. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

My night job usually gets hit hard for women's session.

There are places in Utah that did big business when it was just Priesthood Session every conference, major sales for Ladies Night Out (or some such name).  I only remember probably because of my for fun job at the toy/baking store as I avoid crowds.  I wonder how they adapted to alternating.  They will have to come up with another gimmick now. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I hope you understand why many of us do not view your beliefs on this as "objective".  I think you've got some fairly strong biases in play.  

What do you think those are?

Quote

And of course, while I support your wife expressing her personal opinion on any topic, I don't see how it's valid in this specific discussion. 

Oh.  So you're "objective," but I'm not?  

And my wife's opinion is likewise not valid?  And your opinion presumably is valid, right?  What differentiates your (valid) opinion from my wife's (invalid) one?

Quote

Clearly, no one is arguing that all women (or all men) view this the same.  Saying "this woman disagrees with you" is as impactful on my perspective as John W's disagreement (as a male) with you is on your's.

And also about as impactful as I am "biased."  Right? 

Quote

That is why I don't ever bring up my husband's opinions on here as a way to bolster my own.  I'm guessing they would be less than relevant to you.

So clinical analysis (statistics showing women leaders being over-represented in speaking slots in General Conference) don't work because I'm "biased."

And my personal opinion doesn't matter because I'm "biased."

And my wife's anecdotal observations don't matter because I'm "biased."

We all have our biases.  No doubt there.

Meanwhile, I continue to think that

A) more women speakers at General Conference would be great,

B) the opportunity to hear from the members of the First Presidency is, or should be, a wonderful thing, and 

C) the value of a talk given in Women's Conference is not, or should not be, diminished or disparaged simply because it comes from a male.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

My night job usually gets hit hard for women's session.

I didn't know you were a Chippendale! Good money huh!!😁

Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Very weird. I've been to one every year since I started RS as an 18 year old.  In Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and California.  We even had one last year in our stake over zoom.

Same here. (Should clarify my wards had them, I haven’t attended many)

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...