Two Announcements Re: April 2022 General Conference

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

Common consent works in mysterious -- I guess I should say, "unexpected" --  ways!

It is also possible that, if you get woke, you go broke.

[Nacho2dope]

I am glad this is back. Are we back to the alternating women's and priesthood sessions? In October the Saturday even session was just another session of conference. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

I am glad this is back. Are we back to the alternating women's and priesthood sessions? In October the Saturday even session was just another session of conference. 

My husband is hoping. He really misses the priesthood session.

Normally the women’s session was in October and the priesthood was n April, wasn’t it?

[Nacho2dope]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

My husband is hoping. He really misses the priesthood session.

Normally the women’s session was in October and the priesthood was n April, wasn’t it?

Yes, all the men complained it interfered with college basketball. I miss it as well. I had some great experiences with my father-in-law at the priesthood session and was looking forward to having those same experiences with my son. I was disappointed when the stopped these sessions. Hopefully they are brining everything back. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Nacho2dope said:

Yes, all the men complained it interfered with college basketball.

Well, not all the men. 
 

A few of us have been endowed with the gift to not be that obsessed with spectator sports. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, not all the men. 
 

A few of us have been endowed with the gift to not be that obsessed with spectator sports. 

My husband has that gift and I don’t mind it. 😁

[Durangout]

On 2/14/2022 at 6:35 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

It is also possible that, if you get woke, you go broke.

It sure seems like this was the reason for the priesthood / women conf session changes.  Sad that we run things via surveys now.
 

Likewise It seems that all of the major organizational changes from the last few years occurred for wokeness’ sake

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Sad that we run things via surveys now.

If the issue can be solved by knowledge arrived at by survey and is not a salvific issue, why not use surveys?  Seems like using all the tools God gives us (which includes tools we have created for exploring our environment and ourselves) and not just the spiritual ones is both intelligent and showing gratitude and respect for his gifts.

If it was the only factor, it would be sad, but that doesn’t seem to be the case to me.

[Nofear]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, not all the men. 
 

A few of us have been endowed with the gift to not be that obsessed with spectator sports. 

By claiming not all men, you demean the rest of us who live in constant fear of the social danger of not liking sports.
 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Durangout said:

It sure seems like this was the reason for the priesthood / women conf session changes.  Sad that we run things via surveys now.
 

Likewise It seems that all of the major organizational changes from the last few years occurred for wokeness’ sake

It is also possible that it is a case of simple responsiveness.  The only question is Responsiveness to what?  Socio-political pressure, or to the Holy Spirit?

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is also possible that it is a case of simple responsiveness.  The only question is Responsiveness to what?  Socio-political pressure, or to the Holy Spirit?

Why not to the sincere and moral desires of faithful church members?

Edited February 15, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is also possible that it is a case of simple responsiveness.  The only question is Responsiveness to what?  Socio-political pressure, or to the Holy Spirit?

Sometimes they can overlap. Like when the Lord told the prophet to give the people a king to appease their demand that was in contravention to His Own preference. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Why not to the sincere and moral desires of faithful church members?

Define moral. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Define moral. 

In this case, sisters have been expressing a desire to have more opportunities to learn more righteousness from their spiritual women leaders.

Edited February 15, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

In this case, sisters have been expressing a desire to have more opportunities to learn more righteousness from their spiritual women leaders.

That’s fine, but it doesn’t really respond to the question. 
 

Can there be two or more choices, none of them immoral as such, but some more wise or prudent than others? 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s fine, but it doesn’t really respond to the question. 
 

Can there be one or more choices, none of them immoral as such, but some more wise or prudent than others? 

Sure

[rodheadlee]

On 2/12/2022 at 9:19 AM, juliann said:

I hope they make it a true women's meeting by giving more time to the women speakers than the First Presidency.

Isn't that like preaching to the choir? I'd rather have more women speakers at General Conference.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Nofear said:

By claiming not all men, you demean the rest of us who live in constant fear of the social danger of not liking sports.
 

 

“I’m proud of you for living your truth.” Gag!  🤮 

[Peacefully]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

My husband has that gift and I don’t mind it. 😁

Same here!

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Why not to the sincere and moral desires of faithful church members?

 

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Define moral. 

 

9 hours ago, Calm said:

In this case, sisters have been expressing a desire to have more opportunities to learn more righteousness from their spiritual women leaders.

Can there be two or more choices, none of them immoral as such, but some more wise or prudent than others? 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Sure

I’m not saying this applies to the decision to resume the women’s conference sessions — or to discontinue the priesthood sessions. I have no way of knowing such a thing. But I do believe it possible that the Lord, in His mercy and longsuffering, will occasionally accommodate our mortal, culturally engendered quirks and desires which, though not “immoral” per se, might not be in perfect keeping with His mind and will. 
 

My go-to example for this is Israel’s clamor for a king to rule over them. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

Can there be two or more choices, none of them immoral as such, but some more wise or prudent than others? 

I’m not saying this applies to the decision to resume the women’s conference sessions — or to discontinue the priesthood sessions. I have no way of knowing such a thing. But I do believe it possible that the Lord, in His mercy and longsuffering, will occasionally accommodate our mortal, culturally engendered quirks and desires which, though not “immoral” per se, might not be in perfect keeping with His mind and will. 
 

My go-to example for this is Israel’s clamor for a king to rule over them. 

When did the church membership desire to get rid of the Saturday session though?

There were probably always some who didn’t like it, but they were the ones who didn’t go.  I think the majority of members who attended that session were sad to see it discontinued.  

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

When did the church membership desire to get rid of the Saturday session though?

There we’re probably always some who didn’t like it, but they were the ones who didn’t go.  I think the majority of members who attended that session were sad to see it discontinued.  

 

I’ve mentioned before on here that I think it was wokism that at least started the chain of events that led to the discontinuance of the priesthood session. 
 

The Ordain Women movement tried to pressure their way into being admitted. The Church then blunted the effect of that continuing publicity stunt by broadcasting the session generally, thus making the proceedings available to all. 
 

But a side effect was that the session ceased to have appeal as a bonding experience for fathers-sons, quorum members, bishops-Aaronic Priesthood holders, etc. It just wasn’t the same when there was no longer a need to get dressed up and go to the stake center, there to meet with one’s priesthood brethren when it was so much easier to stay home, turn on the TV and lounge in the living room. 
 

With the session thus having lost much of its character, the glide path was set for the Church leadership simply to discontinue the session altogether. And as much as some of us might miss it, I doubt there is apt to be a clamor to resume it as there apparently was with the women’s session. 
 

Of course all of the above is theory. I don’t claim to know what guided the First Presidency in their decisions. 
 

[HappyJackWagon]

On 2/11/2022 at 6:53 PM, bluebell said:

It was weird lumping kids and women together.

The church has done this a few times over the past couple of years. The women's session with 8 year olds but also the change in witnessing of baptisms. Am I recalling correctly that when the policy was changed to allow women to witness they also allowed 8 year old children to witness. Is there some kind of underlying feeling that what is good for a woman is also good for a child and vice versa? That seemed like an even stranger change than women's conference.

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church has done this a few times over the past couple of years. The women's session with 8 year olds but also the change in witnessing of baptisms. Am I recalling correctly that when the policy was changed to allow women to witness they also allowed 8 year old children to witness. Is there some kind of underlying feeling that what is good for a woman is also good for a child and vice versa? That seemed like an even stranger change than women's conference.

I think the change with the witnesses was because what now allows someone to be a witness is if they have had the ordinance done themselves.  So, 8 year olds can be a witness at a baptism because they have been baptized.

But the GC thing was just weird. There’s not really anything you can point to to say “well this is why they chose that age”.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve mentioned before on here that I think it was wokism that at least started the chain of events that led to the discontinuance of the priesthood session. 
 

The Ordain Women movement tried to pressure their way into being admitted. The Church then blunted the effect of that continuing publicity stunt by broadcasting the session generally, thus making the proceedings available to all. 
 

But a side effect was that the session ceased to have appeal as a bonding experience for fathers-sons, quorum members, bishops-Aaronic Priesthood holders, etc. It just wasn’t the same when there was no longer a need to get dressed up and go to the stake center, there to meet with one’s priesthood brethren when it was so much easier to stay home, turn on the TV and lounge in the living room. 
 

With the session thus having lost much of its character, the glide path was set for the Church leadership simply to discontinue the session altogether. And as much as some of us might miss it, I doubt there is apt to be a clamor to resume it as there apparently was with the women’s session. 
 

Of course all of the above is theory. I don’t claim to know what guided the First Presidency in their decisions. 
 

So the church got rid of the women’s and priesthood session because guys were going to the church in groups anymore to watch theirs?

I would hope that the Brethren aren’t making decisions for women based on the men not having a bonding experience anymore.  (Especially since I knew of a lot of guys that were still getting together to watch that session, it was just at peoples homes now instead of the stake center).