Hello again, everyone! I am back to pass along some thoughts about how the Church's announcement on October 27 of last year (regarding how the Priesthood Session would now be held each April, and the Women's Session each October as the third sessions of those conferences and would be held two hours following the Saturday Afternoon Session) might change the layout of the Women's Session compared to what it has typically been.
In that regard, I wanted to note first of all that, in doing the research, I figured out that the Women's Session has typically been roughly 15 minutes shorter than the Priesthood Session. But I would anticipate that, since the two sessions will occupy the same time slot every six months, the Church may opt to extend the length of the Women's Session by 15 minutes. I will be addressing how that time might be filled a little later on.
Next, while each member of the First Presidency has generally spoken during the Priesthood Session, and while that will likely still be the case, if we were to hear from the full First Presidency during every Women's Session, there would likely not be time for more than a couple of speakers from the female auxiliaries of the Church, which would be counter to the typical patterns of that session. For that reason, it seems logical to conclude that every October, the Women's Session will continue to feature the First Presidency members speaking in rotation as has been the case up to now.
So, if only one member of the First Presidency does speak during the Women's Session, then I see two potential options: First, the session could remain at its' current length of time and the member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that would have otherwise spoken during the Priesthood Session will do so during one of the other four sessions.
The second option, in my opinion, is far more likely. If the Church does opt to extend the Women's Session by 15 minutes, then that time could be filled by the member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that would have otherwise spoken during the Priesthood Session.
There have been times in the past (particularly during the administration of President Kimball) when one member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke during what was then the General Women's Meeting, so that kind of thing is by no means unheard of.
And, in my opinion, that would likely be the easiest course of action. But if that occurs, then that likely means that the two First Presidency members who are not speaking during the Women's Session each October will also have one less address each, unless a revision of the typical patterns for the other four sessions enable them to give that address during one of the other four sessions.
It is interesting to think about all of this, and to consider what might happen. Of course, we could also find 8 months from now that none of these ideas I am suggesting have been proven accurate. But whatever does happen in that regard, you can count on my tracking those developments and bringing them to you here on this blog.
That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated, especially those sharing your thoughts on the ideas I have presented here. Thank you for the privilege of your time. Until my next post, I wish each one of you all the best and pray that the Lord will bless you all in everything you do.
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Some Thoughts Regarding How the Layout of the Women's Session Might Change Starting This October
I have had a lifelong love for Church history, which has extended to ongoing reports of the ministry of our apostles and prophets, General Conference, and all temple developments. This blog enables me to share that love with all who read my thoughts on these developments, which are sometimes reported multiple times per day as needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
In addition to my life-long love for the subjects which I cover in the posts of this blog, I have long held the belief that we can disagree without becoming disagreeable. Differences of opinion are natural, while being disagreeable in expressing those differences is not. And in that sense, I have no desire to close the door on anyone who earnestly desires to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on subjects covered in the posts on this blog.
At the same time, however, I recognize that we live in a time when incivility, discourtesy, unkindness, and even cyber-bullying has regrettably become part of online interactions. With that in mind, while anyone who wishes can comment on anything if they choose to do so, I hereby reserve the right to immediately delete any comments which are critical, unkind, lack civility, or promote prodcuts, services, and values contrary to either the Church, or to the rules of online etiquette.
I'd also like to remind all who comment here that I try to respond personally to each individual comment as I feel is appropriate. Such replies are not meant to end the conversation, but to acknowledge earnest feedback as it is submitted.
And in order to better preserve the spirit and pure intentions for which this blog was established, I also hereby request that anyone not commenting with a regular user name (particularly those whose comments appear under the "Unknown" or "Anonymous" monikers, give the rest of us a name to work with in addressing any replies. If such individuals do not wish to disclose their actual given names, a pseudonym or nickname would suffice.
Any comments made by individuals who opt to not give a name by which they can ber identified may, depending on the substance and tone of such comments, be subject to deletion as well. I would respectfully ask that all of us do all we can to keep the dialogue positive, polite, and without malice or ill-will. May the Lord bless us all in our discussion of these important matters.