NOM

The church has officially canceled the Saturday evening session of General Conference... apparently they realize they have nothing new to say and taking two hours will help lessen the burden of filling the time.

https://ksltv.com/463814/church-discont ... onference/

What's kind of funny is this is one of the only times women really get to talk... even though men dominate their session too.

I suspect (and hope) that this means that the three talks that women give during the women's session will be moved to the remaining sessions of general conference. That way there's more than one woman speaker during the remaining eight hours of general conference.

This baffles me.

From a corporate perspective, an organization cancels an event if attendance is low and cost outweighs the perceived benefit to the organization. This makes complete sense.

From a church perspective, conference twice a year is considered a tender mercy. We get to hear the prophets speak! Isn’t it wonderful? This makes no sense to me.

Perhaps splitting the Saturday session between men and women didn’t accomplish what they had hoped for. So rather than make more policy adjustments they just decided to cancel both altogether?

It says it was cancelled because it was available to anyone who wanted to watch? Which means that the women could watch the men’s session and vice versa. Thus it allowed for contention and comparison between the two groups. The women complained the male leadership dominated the women’s session while the men just complained they had to wear a tie for a few hours on a Saturday night.

Ironically there will be members that rejoice in claiming a Saturday night back, while others will complain of the loss.

For Fewer Boring Meetings! (Not that I have attended any such meeting in years, but I'm still happy for my friends/family/acquaintances who don't "have to" attend said boring meetings.)


Other than that: I feel a bit sorry for all of the Ice Cream Establishments in MorCorr. They will be losing quite a bit of business on those one or two evenings each year after the "Saturday Session."

The church sure seems to be retreating. Not that they have a choice. Soon we may be down to a weekly email from the bishop, no meetings at all

Reality is they cant reduce their way out of the problem they created. Boredom, coverups, and the fact more people realize it is all a hoax. How do you fix that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nibbler wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:58 am I suspect (and hope) that this means that the three talks that women give during the women's session will be moved to the remaining sessions of general conference. That way there's more than one woman speaker during the remaining eight hours of general conference.

I hope as well, but that doesn’t seem to be the trend.

2bizE wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:15 pm

nibbler wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:58 am I suspect (and hope) that this means that the three talks that women give during the women's session will be moved to the remaining sessions of general conference. That way there's more than one woman speaker during the remaining eight hours of general conference.

I hope as well, but that doesn’t seem to be the trend.

If they move the women to the other sessions, then that will cut into the time that the Q15 can be in-front of their peons and thus reduce their hero worship.

My question is why? There tends be 3 reasons the modern LDSInc would change anything.
1. It is a public embarrassment to the church.
2. Cost savings.
3. Distract the media from something else that is embarrassing to the church.

So which is it? Do we need to take the time to look closely at the church to catch the real story?

Just This Guy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:53 am If they move the women to the other sessions, then that will cut into the time that the Q15 can be in-front of their peons and thus reduce their hero worship.

My question is why? There tends be 3 reasons the modern LDSInc would change anything.
1. It is a public embarrassment to the church.
2. Cost savings.
3. Distract the media from something else that is embarrassing to the church.

So which is it? Do we need to take the time to look closely at the church to catch the real story?

Good point on number 3.

Was there a controversial real estate deal that closed somewhere?

If they keep this up we’ll only have 6 apostles!

jfro18 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 9:42 am What's kind of funny is this is one of the only times women really get to talk... even though men dominate their session too.

I wonder if it was embarrassing that everyone could see that most of the time during the "Women's Session" was taken by men. Meanwhile, women were required to leave the room for the Priesthood Session, but men without the priesthood were welcome.

Like others mentioned, I also wonder if the three talks will be moved to other sessions. I tend to doubt it. If the leadership was worried about listening to women at all, there would be more women speaking in the other sessions anyway. Half the prayers could be given by women without any big changes. If they can't do that, I don't see why they would worry about three fewer talks given by women in the conference. That is tragic.

This was in the statement “ This change is being made because all sessions of general conference are now available to anyone who desires to watch or listen.”
What he$$ does this mean? Does it mean that since our super secret priesthood meeting that Kate Kelly wanted women to have access to....now is available to women to have access to, there is no longer a need to hold the meeting?

Or is it as pertinent as this statement “lemons are used to make lemonade”?

The change is being made because all sessions of general conference are now available to anyone who desires to watch or listen, according to the Newsroom release.

2bizE wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:40 pm What he$$ does this mean? Does it mean that since our super secret priesthood meeting that Kate Kelly wanted women to have access to....now is available to women to have access to, there is no longer a need to hold the meeting?

Or is it as pertinent as this statement “lemons are used to make lemonade”?

I am also very confused by this. How is "everyone has access" a reason to cancel a meeting? Was the real benefit of the meeting the fact that the excluded groups were left to wonder about what happened behind closed doors? I know of many women who were thrilled to finally have access to the super-secret contents of the priesthood meeting. Up to that point they had to rely on their husband's summary. Which, in my case, consisted of "<speaker> told us to avoid pornography. <speaker2> told the youth to be good. <speaker3> said the atonement was for everyone." repeated every. single. time.

While their published reasons make absolutely make no sense, and do give reason to question what is really going on in the background, I, for one, am happy to have two whole Saturday evenings back!

I'd like to direct my comment to the young men on the board... sorry, couldn't help it.

My takeaway is that I've already heard 2 TBMs share this news in a positive, excited voice. Mormons: the only people who are happy to get less of what they love.

Yobispo wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:41 am ...
Mormons: the only people who are happy to get less of what they love.
...

There have been some EPIC quotes lately here in the NOM-O-Sphere, and this is definitely one of them.

Please fluffy brain, try to remember this...

The more I think about this...

If they take the segregated meetings away, that’s one less thing for members and critics of the church to be upset about.

Normalization in progress!

Next up will be female apostles.

Look for it in 2076!

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:17 pm The more I think about this...

If they take the segregated meetings away, that’s one less thing for members and critics of the church to be upset about.

Normalization in progress!

I think if we couple that with their reasoning for making this change..

The change is being made because all sessions of general conference are now available to anyone who desires to watch or listen, according to the Newsroom release.

This is sounding like they knew past Priesthood sessions were know for some of the more controversial talks given in GC. Now with all sessions of GC broadcast publicly and not just to control meeting houses, they are loosing some control of their ability to have out there talks and not get called out on it. So they best way to not get publicly embarrassed? Just cancel the whole session.

Just a guess based on the currently known facts.

Now that everyone can see what goes on in General Priesthood meeting it is obvious that it's just another 2 hours of people saying the same damn stuff they already said for 4 hours that same day.

Hagoth wrote: ↑Fri Jun 11, 2021 12:34 pm Now that everyone can see what goes on in General Priesthood meeting it is obvious that it's just another 2 hours of people saying the same damn stuff they already said for 4 hours that same day.

It was probably already off the table to give another "little factory" talk. Where will outrageous talks like this be given? Only to local congregations?

Stake priesthood leadership meetings are equally pointless and redundant. The last time I went to one they started by making a big deal about how we were there to receive special instruction that could only be obtained through this exclusive meeting. Then they had a bunch of rambling generic talks about the same theme that was just covered in the most recent sacrament meeting theme. It felt like they weren't even convincing themselves that there was anything remotely necessary, or even useful, about this meeting.

græy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:35 pm I am also very confused by this. How is "everyone has access" a reason to cancel a meeting? Was the real benefit of the meeting the fact that the excluded groups were left to wonder about what happened behind closed doors? I know of many women who were thrilled to finally have access to the super-secret contents of the priesthood meeting. Up to that point they had to rely on their husband's summary. Which, in my case, consisted of "<speaker> told us to avoid pornography. <speaker2> told the youth to be good. <speaker3> said the atonement was for everyone." repeated every. single. time.

While their published reasons make absolutely make no sense, and do give reason to question what is really going on in the background, I, for one, am happy to have two whole Saturday evenings back!

Talks from the priesthood session were put in the Ensign, just like talks from all the other sessions. Talks from the priesthood session were put up on the church's website a few days after conference, just like talks from all the other sessions. Even before the church allowed the priesthood sessions to be broadcast online all they ever achieved was preventing women from listening to the session live. They could always go to the Ensign and read the contents.

Maybe they were holding onto that window of time between the live talk and publication of the talk where they had an opportunity to edit the content? Shrugs.

blazerb wrote: ↑Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:36 am Like others mentioned, I also wonder if the three talks will be moved to other sessions. I tend to doubt it. If the leadership was worried about listening to women at all, there would be more women speaking in the other sessions anyway. Half the prayers could be given by women without any big changes. If they can't do that, I don't see why they would worry about three fewer talks given by women in the conference. That is tragic.

I think a part of the issue is that there are only nine women GAs (relief society, YW, and primary presidencies) and something like 150 men GAs. I'd be tempted to think that they didn't want to task all the women with giving a talk every conference but I'd also be tempted to shoot that theory down by saying that they don't have any issue with having each person in the Q15 give a talk every conference (or more than one in the case of the FP).

Also, they broke with tradition a few sessions back and had that YM and YW speaker, so you're right. If they wanted more women speakers they could go outside of the GA pool to get them (or god forbid have 75 men and 75 women GAs).

Hagoth wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:45 am Stake priesthood leadership meetings are equally pointless and redundant. The last time I went to one they started by making a big deal about how we were there to receive special instruction that could only be obtained through this exclusive meeting. Then they had a bunch of rambling generic talks about the same theme that was just covered in the most recent sacrament meeting theme. It felt like they weren't even convincing themselves that there was anything remotely necessary, or even useful, about this meeting.

Same with the Saturday evening Stake level adult meeting. They need to axe that too. All that meeting seems to be is a place for the most humbly self-righteous to meet and secretly acknowledge those others who are heading for celestial glory. And to feel sorry for all those Sunday session only attending members. I knew a person once who believed that Jebus would return during a Saturday evening stake meeting because that’s where the true believers will be.