The Church announced yesterday that, starting with October Conference this year, the Saturday evening session (priesthood in April, women’s in October) will be discontinued. I have a few thoughts on this change, but they don’t really hang together at all, so I’m just going to list them.
- I’m all for fewer meetings, particularly in General Conference. Ten hours of meetings over a weekend is a lot! I appreciate President Nelson’s willingness to tinker with Church practices and not just assume that the way things have been must be the way things will be.
- As I read former Ordain Women board member Heather Olson Beal pointing out elsewhere online, it seems like this change can be traced to OW’s actions several years ago where women asked to be admitted in person to the priesthood session. In response, clearly in an attempt to take the wind out of OW’s sails, the next year the Church started broadcasting and streaming the priesthood session like it did other sessions. But now that this session is available to anyone, the Church’s announcement reasons, what’s the point of having it at all?
This change is being made because all sessions of general conference are now available to anyone who desires to watch or listen.
This argument seems odd to me. It says that the crucial characteristic that made priesthood session priesthood session was that it was closed, and no random people (especially not women, apparently) could listen in. I had always thought that what made priesthood session different was the content: there are talks there directed to priesthood holder that don’t really apply to non-priesthood holders. - It’s not at all surprising that with the ending of priesthood session, women’s session is also ended. It does seem like the “if it’s not closed, what’s the point” argument does not apply to women’s session, so that’s not a reason to end it. But of course, in a patriarchal church, it would be surprising if women got to do an extra thing that men weren’t doing. So the end of priesthood session also means the end of women’s session.
- It seems inevitable to me that the ending of the gender-specific sessions won’t end speakers in Conference wanting to talk to only men or only women. This will just mean that these talks will now occur in the remaining general sessions. I’m guessing that there will be more talks aimed specifically at men than specifically at women, although perhaps this will be a good thing, considering how often talks aimed at women are about enforcing gender roles.
- As Peggy Fletcher Stack and Scott D. Pierce’s article points out, this change will almost certainly lead to fewer women speaking in Conference, as the women’s session was typically a chance to hear from three women, even if few spoke in the general sessions. This graph shows the number of women (including one YW who spoke last year) speaking each Conference since 2010.
Up until the women’s session and priesthood session started alternating in April and October, there were typically two women speaking in the general sessions, plus three more in the women’s session. (The graph includes the RS and YW meetings before they were official Conference sessions.) It seems likely that two women speaking per conference is the norm we’ll go back to. This change will flow through to the rest of the curriculum too, which is so much all Conference all the time now, and we’ll hear from hardly any women at all. I’d like to hope that this was an unintended side effect of the change, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if it was a very much intended effect.
- Getting rid of the women’s session means women won’t be conducting meetings in the Conference Center. When I was working on a project recently where I watched some video of Conference sessions, I was struck by how much I liked seeing women conduct. I hadn’t ever seen it before, as I hadn’t watched video of these sessions before, and instead had only sometimes read the talks from the sessions. It’s a sad message to send that women can’t ever be conducting a general-level church meeting, although I guess as with the previous point, perhaps this is an intended effect and not an accident.
- At least in my experience, Saturday night sessions were the only ones that had any kind of fun social aspect to them. I’ve seen comments by friends on Facebook, who have fond memories of getting treats with friends after priesthood session, for example. While that wasn’t something I did as a kid, I’ve been in a couple of wards as an adult where men and YM socialize either before or after priesthood session. And I know my wife has done similar social activities around women’s session. Getting rid of this then seems consistent with President Nelson’s MO to not see value in anything fun.
- This change also seems kind of consistent with the change a couple of years ago where the Church announced that women could serve as witnesses for baptisms and other ordinances. Serving as a witness for ordinances was clearly devalued in the eyes of Church leaders when they extended it to women, because they simultaneously extended it to baptized children. The evolution of Saturday night sessions has worked in the same way, although it has taken a longer time to play out. When only men got to go, and women only had a Conference-adjacent meeting, priesthood session was valuable. When women’s session was formally added to Conference, and then alternated with priesthood session, it became less valuable and has now been eliminated. If everybody gets a Saturday night session, nobody gets a Saturday night session.
- In addition to reducing the number of women who speak, this change seems likely to lead to a decrease in how many non-Q15 men who speak. I don’t feel much of a loss in not hearing from Seventies as often like I do with hearing from fewer women, but I do wonder if this trend might continue further. Maybe in the future, Conference will feature only Q15 speakers. Or perhaps only the First Presidency, and other speakers’ talks will be written, but then just put on the Church website like the statistical report is now. Or perhaps just the President will deliver one definitive talk and we’ll call it good.
- Unlike changes like the move from a three-hour block to two, and the combining of elders’ and high priests’ quorums, it seems like this change will be easy for a future Church President to undo, should he choose to do so. It’s just twice a year, and there wouldn’t be nearly the logistical issues to work out. I have to wonder if the ease of this possible change might not make it more likely to occur.
What do you think of this change?
While I am always agreeable to less meetings, I agree with your points that we will hear less from women overall and less from the 70’s. I will also miss the social gatherings around Priesthood meeting, though online sessions took the wind out of those sails. It is really hard to argue with a teenager why it is important to go to the evening session when it is broadcast to our home AND we watch every other session at home. I also agree that we have taken most of the fun out of church. I was just scanning some old photos of dance festivals and pageants. Many of my still current friends were made over 35 years ago during those church activities.
Many will miss the community and social connections of these sessions. What they did not announce and I am happy to tell you is that Saturday evening sessions will still occur. This “family session” will involve barbecues with family and friends… Fire up the grills!
Now if they can just cancel the Saturday evening “adult session” of Stake Conference and replace that with a party. Get some fun and good food back into this church. Leave the jello home.
I hope people will create new social traditions for Saturday evening after conference that include more people. Nothing is there to stop them, but change like this does take a bit of the wind out of the sails of long held traditions.
Corallary to some of the things stated in the OP, this church leadership is quite consistent in treating women like children. Sigh. I would love for someone to show me I’m wrong.
I’m all for fewer meetings. I’m also for better gender equality. So this announcement is a mixed bag.
Gilgamesh, you make a good point I hadn’t considered about how once every session is broadcast, it’s hard to say you should attend one in person when you can watch the others online.
Old Man and Rockwell, great thought on making a replacement social tradition for Saturday nights. I’ve been in a few wards that had yearly activities on, for example, Memorial Day, so Conference should be easy to add to the list!
Good food for thought. Count me in as a mixed bag: all for fewer meetings (especially General Conference which is too long, too much); but will miss the social aspect of the Saturday night event.
Anyhow, Ziff, what’s your reason for this thought? “This change [fewer women speakers] will flow through to the rest of the curriculum too, which is so much all Conference all the time now, and we’ll hear from hardly any women at all. I’d like to hope that this was an unintended side effect of the change, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if it was a very much intended effect.”
Count me as one who would not be surprised at all if the speaker line up going forward included /more/ than the typical two women speakers per conference. (In fact, I’m willing to bet that during the next General Conference we hear from a woman each session (a total of four for the weekend). Far fetched?)
I agree that the reason for dropping the Saturday evening session doesn’t really make sense. I think that’s because the real reason is that they recognise 10 hours of church is just too much but they can’t just say that.
I also tend to agree with Hunter in that I think we may well get more women speakers at next GC. Conveniently, this change will allow the leadership to say that having more women speak in GC is because we no longer have a women’s session and not because of any grass roots pressure / complaints about the lack of women’s voices.
Ziff,
Great points. I tend to think that even though the simplification and correlation of content played a role in the cancellation of the Saturday pm sessions, I strongly feel the cultural elements (primarily, “girls with cooties joined our clubhouse, it’s no longer a fun hangout. Mom made us play together and we didn’t like it so we threw rocks at the clubhouse to smash it up.”) Seriously, this is quite typical behavior from identity-seeking groups. Teen culture, the mob and gangs are similar, if an outside group adopts its markers, they will quickly transition to something else.
I’m saddened to see the women’s session go, and agree with your logic, women never have anything the men don’t have the church. We were stripped of our magazine, curriculum, charity/welfare work (our very motto), building, and later our general-level meeting was reduced to a primary-kids event that and now has been cancelled. Yet more women’s voices silenced.
As far as fewer 70’s speaking, I’m conflicted. On one had, it was Elder Kearon from UK who was the only person at conference to address the 2016 refugee crisis that fall, even causing Elder Uchtdorf who was conducting to pause and re-emphasize the point. Omitting that current event and spiritual crisis was a glaring oversight by the approximately 40 other talks that weekend. I think we’ll all miss that type of grounding perspective, especially as the Q15 become increasingly more geriatric, long-serving, and cloistered. On the other hand, most of the 70 use the same template to talk: step 1) pick a correlated topic, Step 2) tell a story involving your family that illustrates said topic, Step 3) testify of it and God, step 4) sit down. I think both the 70s and the women shy away from doctrinal or theological homilies, as they defer to the Q15 for that type of definition. Many women follow the same talk formula used by the 70s, but insert “you’ll never believe what I heard a primary child/ my grandchild say the other day. It was cute and made you chuckle, but also makes you think…” (Conference Cats originally pointed this out).
All good points that have been made. One thing I would add is that most organizations these days don’t mandate separate meetings for men and women. I suppose if you go to a geology conference, the women attending might organize a meeting to discuss issues of interest and concern to them. But the society wouldn’t otherwise have separate sessions. (Perhaps the church statement that all sessions are now available to everyone could be understood in that light.) Sometimes it has seemed a little weird to me if I have to tell someone that we are having a church meeting, but men go here, and women go there. That’s not how meetings usually work in the 21st century.
I’d be happy if we cut five minutes off each apostle’s talk and have only ten apostles speak each conference, so we can hear from more sisters and seventies. I don’t need to hear from every single apostle every conference.
A few years ago in my area it isn’t uncommon for presidencies or families to be asked to perform a musical number in sacrament meeting. I suppose we could have GA’s perform with their families or organizations at General Conference rather than speak.
I can see it now: “We’ll now hear from the First Quorum of Seventy singing ‘Jesus wants me for a Sunbeam,’ accompanied by Elder Sikahema on his ukulele. Following this number we will be addressed by the General Primary Presidency. Brethren, you’re up!”
Yep. That would put the fun back into General Conference.
Thanks for your comments!
Hunter and James, I hope you’re right! I guess I’m just a pessimist for anything related to women in the Church, so I figure the powers that be will just easily drift back toward two women speaking per Conference and leave it at that. I guess we’ll have an answer soon either way.
Mortimer, that’s a great point about non-Q15 speakers having less new or interesting to say. It might just be my hope for them, but I feel like some of the women have recently given talks that stepped out of this typical stay-in-the-Q15-shadow mold. For example, I really liked Reyna I. Aburto’s talk about depression, and I felt like it wasn’t just repeating Q15 quotes. And Sharon Eubank has given a couple of talks that I’ve appreciated and that have felt new to me. And I liked it when Linda K. Burton gave her “First Observe, Then Serve” talk, since it’s so often the Q15 only who get to add phrases to the Mormon lexicon.
Left Field, good point about meetings in the world in general rarely being segregated into men only or women only. I would actually be happy to learn if that were one of the motivating factors for getting rid of the Saturday night sessions!
Old Man, I love it! I would be way more enthusiastic about Conference if it took on that format! Especially if the GAs and their families weren’t particularly good performers. 🙂
We should note that usually half of the priesthood session was dedicated to talks by the first presidency, who already gave talks elsewhere in conference. So in terms of time slots for people we haven’t already heard from, we’re only losing an hour, maybe 3 talks if you account for prayers and musical numbers and such. There are 3 general presidencies that are made up of women, so a total of 9. It seems like if the first presidency were willing to stretch a bit, and maybe ask everyone to take 2 minutes off their time slots, it shouldn’t be hard to hear from all 9 once per year. It would take a bit more ambition than I think they have to find time for all 9 each conference. I think it’s possible but I’m keeping expectations low.
As to how to find more time for more speakers in conference, I would suggest moving all quotations of the current president of the church or other church leaders to the footnotes of the printed transcript, to be read by the curious reader. There, I just shortened a few talks. Elder Andersen, sorry your time slot is so short.
As a young father in the 1980’s, I loved church activities that allowed me to go one-on-one with my kids. A story that still is told in my extended family is that my youngest daughter – about 2 or 3 at the time – was asked what her father’s name was. She replied “Daddy”. When asked what his last name was, she replied “Daughter Date” (Daddy-Daughter Date was an activity our ward held twice a year).
So, I look at the loss of the priesthood sessions with a bit of sadness. My son and I never missed one. He wouldn’t have let me miss one because there was always a trip to Leatherby’s Ice Cream Parlor in Taylorsville, Utah after the session. When my son left on this mission I continued going with a young man who’s father was not a member.
I felt this same type of sadness recently when the Church dropped the Scouting program. Not only was there a lot of one-on-one time with my son for both my wife and I, but our whole family probably went on 20 activities together to help him pass off merit badges.
Now, I know that both ourselves and our children do creative one-on-one’s with our grandchildren that will leave wonderful memories, but not necessarily the same type of memories.
Amen, Quentin. It certainly seems like most Conference talks could use some trimming, even if it weren’t needed to make more space for women. And I love your idea of moving all quotes of Russell M. Nelson to the footnotes!
I’m sorry that the Church is moving so much to remove support for these activities, larryco_. As you said, you can do something on your own, but it’s not the same thing as being part of a community that’s doing them.
I think the trickle-down-curriculum effect is not going to be much. I haven’t been to RS in years, but I can’t remember a lesson based on a talk by a woman, so they are probably pretty few and far between anyway.
That’s interesting, Ann. I’m sure it varies all over the place depending on ward or branch, but at least in my experience, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at how often–even in pretty traditional wards I’ve lived in–women’s General Conference talks are used as a basis for lessons.
If the Church needs to reach its men or women, it can easily have a special broadcast. For example, this Sunday “Single adults invited to Face to Face event with Elder Andersen, President Bingham and Sister Eubank” (per the Deseret News). (As an aside, she is now President Bingham, not Sister Bingham. But the counselor is still Sister Eubank.)
We need to take a broader view of General Conference. The 9 female General Officers give talks throughout the year. These could be published along side the conference talks online and in the conference issue of the Liahona with instructions to use these for lessons. Local leaders may still pick Q15 talks, but at least there will be more female voices to choose from.
Jim, that’s a great idea for increasing how often women’s voices are used in our lessons and talks!
Well, remember that when the Boy Scouts started allowing girls, the church said “I’m taking my ball and going home.” They would literally rather NO ONE have merit badges and advancement than have to give it to GIRLS. This decision makes perfect sense in that context.
Great comparison, Joni.
Well that didn’t last long.
https://www.ksl.com/article/50212749/church-reinstates-saturday-evening-sessions-of-general-conference
So now the Saturday evening session is reinstated but as a general meeting. So conference will not be 20% shorter, but my money is on women’s speaking opportunities being reduced but quite a bit more than 20%.
Can someone remind me how to spell patriarchy?