May your battle bring you success as I have still not seen the priesthood session since I was responsible for my four daughters while my wife gallivanted through New England that night. I understand Elder Holland was in rare form and I want to witness it not just read it.

I think the Church doesn’t post The Priesthood Session is because we don’t want the world to know there is a Pornography problem in the Church. The are not denying it, but they are not making it public. Thats just my humble opinion.

Women didn’t open Sacrament meeting due to Elder Packers preaching of “Unwritten Rules” in Church. As soon as he realises that a ward has gone back to women giving opening pray he may re-visit the matter (God help you!)

But its a silly rule really. Doesn’t change anything either way.

And I was always told that the church didn’t transmit General Priesthood so that men would actually show up in Stake centres to see it, and feel part of a quorum and so on.

The church has gone to extreme levels in this matter since they now even closed the last loop hole: up to last year one could download the entire session for hearing impaired with sound -which came with the translator doing the signs thing in front of a screen; This year they have actually deleted sound out of that too -you just see the session with the guy in front translating and absolutely no sound at all.

There’s one last thing that occurs to me as an issue – doesn’t the Church sell compact discs and videos of General Conference? I have wondered if holding onto the priesthood sessions is the one thing that allows this practice to continue. Maybe there’s a person or a group of people somewhere who would lose their jobs if everything was freely available online?

I honestly don’t think the Church cares that much about money – that this would be the reason. I can still remember when the Church said it would no longer ask members to contribute to ward budgets – so I’ve seen that the Church can phase out something that is economically a boost.

Still, it struck me as one additional possibility.

You can get dvd’s of conference but its like 18 dollars for both fall and spring conferences so it’s not to make money. I think not posting priesthood online is so the guys will get off their butts and go hang with other priesthood holders and watch the broadcast together. The relief society broadcast is avalible online but we usually have a dinner before the broadcast and it is an excuse to leave husband and kids home. Its usually well attended.

There are serious problems with this issue in parts of Central and South America. When my sister was on her mission in the Dominican Republic. She was in a ward where the women were not allowed to touch the sacrament trays as they were passed through the congregation. My sister literally ripped the tray out of the poor deacon’s hand to pass it to her companion. This is why I think its better in for the church in the developing world to have a “written” order of things.

The issue of women giving opening prayers in sacrament meeting came up when I was a stake executive secretary, after a local member wrote to the First Presidency to complain (which, as you may know, simply gets forwarded back to the person’s stake president). Our stake president consulted with the seventy to whom he reported, and was told that it was not church policy to prevent women from giving the opening prayer, even though several units seemed to think it was.

The DR? An old institute teacher of mine told our class that the ward he attended in Parowan right before he moved to my town would do a similar things as that ward in the DR. This kind of stuff doesn’t just go on in the “developing” world.

The audio/video feed from the priesthood session contains subliminal messages that the brethren feel would be damaging if heard by female ears. That they seem to have no effect whatsoever when heard by male ears is of no consequence. :-}

The very starnge thing to me is that they post the priesthood meeting in ASL, with the video feed of conference right behind the translator. I missed priesthood session this year, but was able to watch it this way. Why not just make it available in the regular format?

John Scherer #20: They closed that loophole this conference and deleted sound from ASL. Now you just look at the translator with the silent video in the background.

General Priesthood Meeting has a looser, more collegial feeling than the rest of General Conference, a fraction closer to the feeling when a general authority presides stake conference.

I can appreciate the value of having something like that. But I find it unfortunate that the meetings in which members seem more likely to see a relaxed, human side of church leaders are ones from which women are excluded. It leaves the impression that church leaders consider men as, in some sense, colleagues and peers, insiders, full members of the church–in a way that women aren’t. Men are fellow priesthood holders; women are an “auxiliary.”

John Mansfield: I think Lynette (24) makes a great point. But I guess I just disagree with the notion that it’s much different than any other session. If they are a bit looser, it is pretty marginal. And certainly not to the extent that it would create a rationale for not posting audio or video.

I tend to agree with Last Lemming (18). Also, we wouldn’t want the outside world to hear us chant “Blood Atonement!” repeatedly, as so accurately and artfully depicted in “September Dawn.”

That happened to me once, too. I remember thinking what a blessing to the world was this group of men, no matter how imperfect. Men who were trying to do what’s right. It was really strong.

You know, one gets a reputation as a troublemaker for the simple act of asking if one can pray first instead of last so as not to sweat (JA, I love the social phobia description–that’s exactly how I feel) the whole meeting.

I could use the excuse “If you make me say the closing prayer, I will lose the spirit that I came to the church with” or “I have a social phobia and my therapist has recommended that I only give opening prayers, or none at all.”

I will try to do it with a straight face.

The stake president, in our last ward conference (not last week, the time before) brought up the subject very specifically in a way that tended to reinforce the “unspoken rule” but he tried to validate my feelings. He didn’t mention me, but for a moment there was a palpable tension in the chapel.

Mostly from Bill, who was afraid I’d stand up and say something rude.

(responding to Lynette’s comment #24)

Auxiliary – there’s a word I can see and read but it makes me uncomfortable to say. It’s the kind of word I would want to hurry through – because it’s not clear to me whether I should say “aw-gsil-ee-ary” or “awgs-ill-ary” and if you pluralize the word it causes even more mental anguish.

New name for a LDS women’s blog: “Auxiliarated” or “Feeling Auxiliarated” … (haha, what a knee-slapper)

New name for a LDS women’s blog: “Auxiliarated” or “Feeling Auxiliarated”

Lol–that’s not bad! If it were a singles blog, it could be “Alone and Auxiliarated.” Or an edgier blog could opt for “The Great and Abominable Auxiliary.”

Sherpa #23 “I served a mission in Chile. Machismo still is alive and well down there. Whether or not a country has had a woman president probably is a very simplistic indicator whether or not the country is machismo or not.”

The view of a nation from the eyes of a 20 year old is extremely mioptic especially when you can’t see TV or read newspapers or work during the mission years. I’ve being in both situations, as a missionary and then negotiating with managers, lawyers and accountants. And at those levels these nations aren’t that macho; at the skirt chasing level they certainly are still machistic and women actually prefer that, but not in work life. Currently in argentina there are also more female judges than male ones.

The fact that someone like Hillary has had to go through hell to even get near the presidency (for her) after for example, Dole and Ferraro failed, should say something about US society too. And she’ll probably lose because she didn’t kick out Bill; isn’t that a macho issue?

John #31.

The letter they sent out had the ‘brethren open’ ‘sister close’ thing. Unfortunately I didn’t keep it.

You probably read the ’96 talk? on the Unritten Order. He then gave a talk in a training session in, must have being, 2000 or ’01, maybe. Can’t remember that much.

Last Lemming (37): LOL! Mormon Mentality operates via unwritten rules for precisely that reason.

#16 Sherpa – umm sorry to burst your bubble, but Parowan IS a developing country :)

I told my wife about this and she was pissed. She could not believe that a ward was that bass awkwards in the US. I, sadly, was not surprised, but a little pissed off too. Go Tagore!

Carlos-34

Actually, just because I served a mission doesn’t mean that’s the extent of my study of Chile and Argentina. Having read, studied the country and read the newspapers for the past 10 years my answer is not myopic. I’ve seen abuse first hand, I as a woman felt the machismo in many ways. Not to mention, I’ve studied the countries history and read their newspapers. I’m sorry, but your indicator is very simplistic and generalistic, and that’s coming from an educated viewpoint. Oh, and here’s a link that might help you out.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/myopic

Carlos, are you the same carlos that was on LDS linkup? Didn’t you serve a mission in Ecuador?

Sherpa #42

No; served in argentina. Don’t know what LDS linkup is, I’ll look it up. Or send my a link.

And yes my view is somewhat simplistic. But I’m there at very least 2wice a year and at the work level I simply don’t see machismo. It does exist very much at the social level, men chase women levels, and women dress accordingly, as you’ve probably seen. But yes I agree this is simplistic and history did abuse women in those nations but things have changed a lot starting from about ’80s on wards.

What’s with the dictionary? just because I can’t spell? at my age I probably never will learn to spell the kings inles properly.

One addendum… what is the problem with a woman praying to open a meeting? Never heard this. But then we have sacrament meetings with two of us there at times. Small branch with people traveling 45+ miles one way tend to have a more practical bent to them. Jos Smith even had women giving blessings. What fool would deprive them of the privilige of praying in a meeting no matter if it is beginning or end?