Two Announcements Re: April 2022 General Conference

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I would hope that the Brethren aren’t making decisions for women based on the men not having a bonding experience anymore.  

Well, evidently not. 
 

I was speaking only to the discontinuance of the priesthood session and a chain of events that possibly led thereto. I have no conjecture to offer with regard to the discontinuance of the women’s session. I don’t even know if it was ever the intent that it be permanently discontinued. 
 

Afterthought: When were the Relief Society and Young Women general presidencies last changed? Installation of new leaders might have had some influence. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, evidently not. 
 

I was speaking only to the discontinuance of the priesthood session and a chain of events that possibly led thereto. I have no conjecture to offer with regard to the discontinuance of the women’s session. I don’t even know if it was ever the intent that it be permanently discontinued. 
 

Afterthought: When we’re the Relief Society and Young Women general presidencies last changed? Installation of new leaders might have had some influence. 

In response to my own question, Sister Bingham and her counselors have been serving in the R.S. Presidency since 2017, so that shoots down that theory. 

[Rain]

6 hours 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. 

 

This confuses me a little.  Once they discontinued both the women's and priesthood session I haven't heard a "clamor" to have a women's session.  The only thing I've noticed is disappointment over hearing from fewer women which isn't the same thing. 

 

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

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

I haven't read the wording.   Is it possible they will have a priesthood session in the fall - going back to one of each every year? That's what I assumed when I heard we were having a women's session. I'll have to go look at the wording. 

I've also wondered if there was anything new to be said in women's session and that's why they are having it. 

Edit: the wording is such that you can't tell if this is a one time thing or not, or if it will only be a women's thing in the future or not. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Rain

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Rain said:

This confuses me a little.  Once they discontinued both the women's and priesthood session I haven't hard a "clamor" to have a women's session.  The only thing I've noticed is disappointment over hearing from fewer women which isn't the same thing. 

 

I haven't read the wording.   Is it possible they will have a priesthood session in the fall - going back to one of each every year? That's what I assumed when I heard we were having a women's session. I'll have to go look at the wording. 

I've also wondered if there was anything new to be said in women's session and that's why they are having it. 

Edit: the wording is such that you font tell if this is a one time thing or not, or if it will only be a women's thing in the future or not. 

“Clamor” is too strong of a word, I admit, but I was going off of Calm’s comment: “In this case, sisters have been expressing a desire to have more opportunities to learn more righteousness from their spiritual women leaders.”

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I've also wondered if there was anything new to be said in women's session and that's why they are having it. 

Could well be. Maybe it's time to start the next general conference rumours thread.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Clamor” is too strong of a word, I admit, but I was going off of Calm’s comment: “In this case, sisters have been expressing a desire to have more opportunities to learn more righteousness from their spiritual women leaders.”

Thanks. 

I winded my way back and then had to go further.  It seems to refer more back to the change of putting priesthood session online rather than women wanting a women's session as I understood you to be saying ("I doubt there is apt to be a clamor to resume it as there apparently was with the women’s session."), but maybe I understood you wrong.

[Durangout]

On 2/15/2022 at 10:29 AM, Calm said:

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.

For a marketing company that sells consumer products, the survey approach makes a lot of sense.  For a church that should be receiving guidance from Heaven, it’s less than comforting.

This is one of the reasons why Christianity today is defined by a “select from the gospel menu” approach.  People form churches around THEIR personal thoughts instead of what God thinks.  The loudest voices will eventually control the policies and canonized beliefs (i.e. Nicean Council)

You say the input is regarding non saving issues…hmmm I’m not so sure about that.  Let me give some example where the Feminist and pro-gay voices SEEM to have controlled the following decisions:

-Homosexuality is no longer a grievous sin but a transgression.  Words matter and there is a difference between sin and transgression.  We normalize homosexuality  by having speakers and round table discussions (BYU, Women’s Conf.) with people who have a pro-gay agenda.  We removed the entire condemnation if homosexuality from Paul’s writing in the SS manual. Likewise it is skipped over in the OT discussion.  The Church has funded a pro-gay music concert in UT County…

-the elimination the YM presidencies and the old EQs that were decisions made to appease the feminist—the adult males had TWO quorums and the women inly one;  the YM had the bishopric and the YM presidency.  In the feminists’ view this was unacceptable bc the YM got more resources than the YW (this of course was false but nonetheless).  The result is that the bishopric and EQ presidencies are 0ver burdened and the needs of the men and YM are not being met—all in the name of EQUITY.

-the last two major changes to the temple (in the 90’a then a couple years ago) were all done bc of surveys.  Beautiful and profound gospel symbolism and teachings were eliminated bc of feelings.  What The Church should have done was to explain the symbolism and doctrine.  All would have been edified.  Instead we watered down the temple.

This pandering, acquiescing to the mob has had detrimental effects and will continue to do so.

Here’s another horrific example.  It deserves a thread if it’s own.