All Women General Conference Meeting?

[Donuthole]

.

Hack

[Eddie]

Could be, but the timing is suspect.

If you want to approach it rationally, perhaps you can explain why women are not allowed into the priesthood meeting under any circumstances when attending the meeting has nothing to do with exercising a priesthood ordinance, men are allowed to attend the women's meetings, and the meetings are broadcast live. It's a silly policy with no rational justification.

Frankly - I believe that the priesthood meeting not being broadcast in the past had much more to do with the men than the women. The number of announcements telling us that we are still expected to go watch the broadcast at the stake center unless we are sick or physically unable tells me that they know that most men would like nothing more than to pretend they are watching the meeting from home while flashing between football/basketball games. I think women are much more prone to both go to their meetings and watch them from home if they can't go.

If you'd like, I can repeat this yet again. I don't care if women attend. I don't know why they would not be allowed to. I would have them follow the same rules as the men to get in if they want to be at the conference center. But why not let them in? I would go so far as to say that it is easy to justify for any mother who wants to say that she needs the information to support her son in his efforts to be a good priesthood holder. Who's going to tell her no?

I'm just not making the connection between the recent changes to the YW and RS meetings and the OW movement. Timing suspect? OK. What timing wouldn't be? What if they announced it next month instead? Or waited until next March? Would that change anything? I don't see how it could.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes, I know this thing.

You make it sound like there were empty seats. And then apparently didn't read the rest of the paragraph you quoted in which I agreed that they should've just let them in. I'm suggesting that I would've treated them like anyone else. They need to get tickets or wait in line. Because I doubt there were many empty seats.

Now - just to cut this off at the pass. I understand that there probably weren't many bishops or stake presidents who want to be the guy who gave them tickets. And I could see this being spun as "the meeting is for the men, so we wanted to let them have first dibs". Whatever. I don't care if they go to the meeting. I'm just saying it might not be as simple as you say - with empty seats in the back just waiting for these women to fill them. If I was the guy I referenced above who had just waited in line 2 hours and these ladies waltzed up 45 minutes before the meeting begins expecting to go right in and take a seat, and that resulted in me not getting in, I would be pissed.

You are overanalyzing my post. There were not told, "I am sorry, there are no seats left." They were told, "I am sorry, women are not allowed." The policy has NEVER had anything to do with capacity. Thomas S. Monson's wife was turned away*. The director of a choir was turned away*.

(* from previous meetings - not the most recent one)

[Eddie]

Of course the OW movement and its media attention had a role to play in this change. It seems almost like clockwork lately that if there's enough media scrutiny, the church will make surface concessions to deflect the attention.
And yes, it's quite patronizing. Changing the meeting frequency so it's the same as the mens', yet keeping it separate from general conference and inviting young girls to make it just different enough from priesthood meeting so it's not equal is very patronizing indeed.

See - this is at least an explanation as to why it might be patronizing to some. Making the meeting frequency the same as priesthood to present a separate but equal meeting. Sure. Someone could make that connection.

[Eddie]

You are overanalyzing my post. There were not told, "I am sorry, there are no seats left." They were told, "I am sorry, women are not allowed." The policy has NEVER had anything to do with capacity. Thomas S. Monson's wife was turned away*. The director of a choir was turned away*.

(* from previous meetings - not the most recent one)

And you are doing an exemplary job of beating the HELL out of a strawman.

I have NEVER said that women shouldn't be admitted. I've agreed multiple times that they should've just let them in. Talk about over-analyzing posts...

I never said they weren't admitted because the seats were full. I did disagree with your statement that there were empty seats in the back they could've filled. I've simply said LET THEM IN. BUT LET THEM FOLLOW THE SAME PROCESS AS THE MEN.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I never said they weren't admitted because the seats were full.

Can't imagine how I would have gotten that impression.

On the second - are there empty seats at the back? I was always under the impression that the conference center tends to be full. They pass out some tickets, then there are lines for filling in the rest. I know a guy who has made an semi-annual tradition of standing in line for hours to get into the building. Are you saying there was no need? The building doesn't fill up and he could've just gone 45 minutes before instead of 2 hours?

You make it sound like there were empty seats. ... They need to get tickets or wait in line. Because I doubt there were many empty seats.

The empty seats are not the issue, dude.

[Eddie]

...I agree that they could've/should've just let them get in line like everyone else and take a seat if that's what they want....

...I agreed that they should've just let them in. I'm suggesting that I would've treated them like anyone else. They need to get tickets or wait in line. Because I doubt there were many empty seats....I don't care if they go to the meeting. I'm just saying it might not be as simple as you say - with empty seats in the back just waiting for these women to fill them....

...If you'd like, I can repeat this yet again. I don't care if women attend. I don't know why they would not be allowed to. I would have them follow the same rules as the men to get in if they want to be at the conference center. But why not let them in?...

And you are doing an exemplary job of beating the HELL out of a strawman.

I have NEVER said that women shouldn't be admitted. I've agreed multiple times that they should've just let them in. Talk about over-analyzing posts...

I never said they weren't admitted because the seats were full. I did disagree with your statement that there were empty seats in the back they could've filled. I've simply said LET THEM IN. BUT LET THEM FOLLOW THE SAME PROCESS AS THE MEN.

Can't imagine how I would have gotten that impression.

The empty seats are not the issue, dude.

If the empty seats are not the issue, why do you keep focusing on them?

Somehow I feel like we're just talking past each other. It seems pretty clear to me from the excerpts from my posts, that I believe the women should be admitted if they want to attend. I'm simply saying that they need to wait in line with everyone else.

YOU are the one who posted something about there being empty seats. I simply said I doubt there were any - so they would need to wait in line like everyone else.

For some reason you seem to be hung up on the wait in line like everyone else portion of this. And I don't know why. I know that they weren't admitted due to being women. I get it. No penises or penes or whatever. I even agreed with you. Does "Yes, I know this thing" ring a bell? Let me post this exchange again:

Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski
They did not turn them away due to lack of seats. It was due to lack of penises.

Yes, I know this thing.

You make it sound like there were empty seats. And then apparently didn't read the rest of the paragraph you quoted in which I agreed that they should've just let them in. I'm suggesting that I would've treated them like anyone else. They need to get tickets or wait in line. Because I doubt there were many empty seats.

See that part about "apparently didn't read the rest of my paragraph"?

Let them in. No special treatment. Let them go through the same entry process (ticket or wait in line) as everyone else. Simple enough. I'm not sure why that bears repeated "it isn't about the seats" responses from you. I'm not saying it's about the seats. I'm saying there isn't room for everyone who wants to be there, so they'll need to wait in line and see if they get in like everyone else.

But every time I say this you respond with "It isn't about the seats being full!!!"

Um. I never said it was. I said that if they want to go in, there is a process to do so. You wait in line. They go through the process and they go in like everyone else. I'm not sure how many different ways to say this.

So what is it that you think I'm not understanding? Because I think I understand what you're saying. I don't disagree. Except with the part where you said:

I still don't understand why they don't just let them sit in the back when there are empty seats. What on earth would it hurt?

If they are waiting for empty seats in the back, they aren't ever getting in. They'll need to wait in line. Is that more clear?

[Jeff Lebowski]

If the empty seats are not the issue, why do you keep focusing on them?

Irony alert.

Yes, thank you for clearly stating that if the LDS church ever changes their attendance policy, they will indeed have to wait in line for tickets. That was not the least bit relevant to the general point I was making, but way to go.

And if we ever get around to ordaining women, I hope you will be here to remind us all that those women will not really be ordained unless someone actually lays hands on their heads and ordains them. And fill out the proper paperwork, of course.

[snowcat]

Could be, but the timing is suspect.

If you want to approach it rationally, perhaps you can explain why women are not allowed into the priesthood meeting under any circumstances when attending the meeting has nothing to do with exercising a priesthood ordinance, men are allowed to attend the women's meetings, and the meetings are broadcast live. It's a silly policy with no rational justification.

They don't want the women to find out all men are perverts and need to be chastised for their internet habits.

[Eddie]

Irony alert.

Yes, thank you for clearly stating that if the LDS church ever changes their attendance policy, they will indeed have to wait in line for tickets. That was not the least bit relevant to the general point I was making, but way to go.

And if we ever get around to ordaining women, I hope you will be here to remind us all that those women will not really be ordained unless someone actually lays hands on their heads and ordains them. And fill out the proper paperwork, of course.

Dude - you missed the point I was trying to make. It's not a big deal. Really. It's pretty easy for something like that to happen when you're looking at posts throughout the day and what should be a 3 minute conversation takes place over a much longer time frame. Particularly when you aren't face to face where things can be clarified much more easily.

At this point you could simply say "Gee, I misunderstood. Yes, we do agree with each other. They should've just let the women in. I have no idea why they wouldn't, it doesn't hurt anything. I'm not sure why we were arguing."

My intent wasn't to kick up the testosterone and it seems dumb to escalate a battle over these silly semantics, so I deleted my initial response to your post. In *most* of my responses above I was just trying to demonstrate that we were coming from the same place. I reacted badly to your misunderstanding me. Sorry.

[pellegrino]

See - this is at least an explanation as to why it might be patronizing to some. Making the meeting frequency the same as priesthood to present a separate but equal meeting. Sure. Someone could make that connection.

lol. except . . . you didn't, even though it's quite obvious given the context.

[UVACoug]

I think it makes it easier to say: "See, there is a meeting for the men and a meeting for the women. You don't need to attend priesthood meeting." Maybe they will even start prohibiting men from attending the women's meeting (not bloody likely).

I still don't understand why they don't just let them sit in the back when there are empty seats. What on earth would it hurt?

Could they not do that before? I don't see what this changes, in that respect.

[UVACoug]

Of course the OW movement and its media attention had a role to play in this change. It seems almost like clockwork lately that if there's enough media scrutiny, the church will make surface concessions to deflect the attention.
And yes, it's quite patronizing. Changing the meeting frequency so it's the same as the mens', yet keeping it separate from general conference and inviting young girls to make it just different enough from priesthood meeting so it's not equal is very patronizing indeed.

So now you want it on the same weekend as conference? Isn't ten-hours enough?

[DrumNFeather]

lol. except . . . you didn't, even though it's quite obvious given the context.

I think you're grasping a little here, my friend, but I'll let you enjoy your moment.

[All-American]

I'm mostly underwhelmed. If you're going to go to all the trouble to demonstrate that you aren't bound to the status quo, you might as well do something worthwhile. Let the young men meet in March and the young women meet in September the week before General Conference. Then have a relief society session of General Conference in April and a Melchizidek Priesthood session of General Conference in October. This solves three problems. First, it addresses gender equity with men and women being treated the same. Second, it eliminates the perpetual "tonight I'd like to address the young men of the church who bear the Aaronic Priesthood; you dads can listen in if you want" talks. Third, and probably most important, it frees us men up to watch the Final Four.

I'm not sure anybody sees this change and walks away thinking that a concern which they had previously held has now been addressed.