Stokes Sounds Off: Yet Another Theory About the Layout of the General Women's Session Next October

Search This Blog

Monday, April 2, 2018

Yet Another Theory About the Layout of the General Women's Session Next October

Hello again, everyone! As most of you might recall, I have offered a couple of different theories over the last little while regarding how the layout of the Women's Session might change based on the fact that that sessi on will now be held two hours following the Saturday Afternoon Session of General Conference every October.

To recap those theories, I first offered my opinion that we might hear from a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles during that session in addition to whichever member of the First Presidency was assigned to speak that night.

Then, I later offered my new theory that the Church president and one of his counselors (which would rotate) will be speaking during that session along with the auxiliary presidency members. That theory was based on another theory that the length of the Women's Session would be extended to 1 hour and 45 minutes, to match the length of the Priesthood Session. But we subsequently learned that the Priesthood Session was only scheduled to be 90 minutes in length, which, by extension, would be the length of the Women's Session as well.

But during this weekend's Priesthood Session, it wound up lasting around 2 hours, and if the same thing occurs in October, the Women's Session will wind up being half an hour longer than anticipated.

This brings me to the newest theory I have. Whether or not a member of the Quorum of the Twelve is asked to speak during that session (the jury is still out on that), I now believe that the Women's Session will involve addresses from all members of the First Presidency, which would match what has traditionally occurred for the Priesthood Session.

And that, in turn, would eliminate the need to find another time in one of the other sessions during which any members of the First Presidency that do not speak during the Women's Session could give an additional address (as the counselors in the First Presidency usually speak at least twice, while one of them also leads the Sustaining of Church leaders).

It will be interesting to see what happens in that regard. And whatever does occur, you can count on my reporting it here. That does it for this post. Any and all comments are, as always, welcome and appreciated. 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.

2 comments:

  1. Quite a few BYU football fans will be relieved that they are not expected to attend that Saturday evening.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fair point, Eduardo. Which brings to mind the time or two that President Hinckley ended the Priesthood Session early because he knew that many were anxious to see how BYU was doing. I am not one of those people. Perhaps mostly because my life-long health challenges precluded involvement in sports (except for basketball), I have never had much patience for watching sporting events, but perhaps especially not football. I am sure many men will be relieved at not having to miss part of a football game, but that has never been a relevant consideration for me personally. And if I disliked football before, such feelings have only intensified with stories of the many athletes that are "taking a knee" during the national anthem to, as they claim, "protest racial injustice." Such athletes fail to realize that standing for the national anthem is appropriate etiquette, as verified by internet search results.

    I apologize. That whole scenario is, in case you couldn't tell, a very sore spot with me. So while some men might feel relieved to not miss football, I do not share those feelings. In fact, the fact that I am not a huge sports fan actually increased my wife's reasons for wanting to marry me. IF you fall into the category of men who do like sports, I apologize for my rant. Thanks for taking time to comment, Eduardo. I always appreciate hearing from you.

    ReplyDelete

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.