Elder Scott’s talk on abuse this conference was in the Saturday afternoon session

thanks for the correction, doug.

As for sensitive topics, Elder Scott’s talk on abuse this conference was in the Saturday afternoon session, not priesthood. The only “recent” talk from a priesthood session that wasn’t reprinted in the Ensign, as far as I know, was Elder Packer’s talk in October 1976 on masturbation.

Of course, this leads to me wondering why in the world it isn’t broadcast like the other general sessions are, and nobody’s been able to give me an answer to that question that matches up with the facts, aside from “Cuz that’s how it’s done.” Oh well–tradition and all that, i guess.

I actually was just thinking about this…I think it is purposefully only broadcast to church meetinghouses and such to get the men of the church gathered together into one group…a different dynamic than sitting in your living room alone which the leaders of the church apparently are ok with for the general sessions.

To clarify, if it’s actually in fact necessary: Every ward i’ve ever been in has shown the broadcast of priesthood session of conference, and they’ve all limited attendance at the broadcast to men.

my point isn’t that the church does not presently “limit attendance” to men only. certainly, only men are invited, and it is presumed that only men will attend.

but i have never seen an usher turn away a wife or a daughter or a female reporter, for that matter, from a general priesthood broadcast.

and i have never attended a relief society meeting, but i don’t doubt i’d get to stay if i wandered in.

In response to another twisting of what i wrote, i brought up the 1960s simply to point out that there’s a history here (which i presume the AP writer didn’t know about, but one might expect germane history to be considered, you know, topical).

the AP writes, last week:

The session, which prohibits attendance by women…

no mention of the 1960s! it sounds like they are talking about the priesthood session in 2008. would you find it odd for the AP to write tomorrow, “the mormon church, whose members practice polygamy….”

i would!

because as a contemporary news story it is untrue.

the more i think about this line, the more i think it deserves a spot with the heaping pile of falsehoods professional journalists spread about the church on a consistent basis.

if priesthood session exists to bring up topics are really all that non-public and sensitive, then why in the world are they published in the Ensign along with everything else?

perhaps because a month later, the hot-button stories aren’t newsworthy. as well as other reasons.

consider: why can’t i “attend” my sacrament meeting by watching a streaming webcast of the service in my bathrobe? believe me, i’ve wished for this. there seems to be no valid reason the mormons can’t set this system up for me.

Really, though, it still doesn’t seem all that opaque of a comment to me.

In response to another twisting of what i wrote, i brought up the 1960s simply to point out that there’s a history here (which i presume the AP writer didn’t know about, but one might expect germane history to be considered, you know, topical).

Also, if priesthood session exists to bring up topics are really all that non-public and sensitive, then why in the world are they published in the Ensign along with everything else?

It’s an accurate description in any of the wards i’ve lived in, however.

your wards are holding their own general priesthood session? do you go to church in eldorado, texas by chance?

i have never seen anyone, of any gender (or any other characteristic, for that matter) turned away from being present in any priesthood meeting of our church. ever. for any reason. this goes back over ten years.

In addition, it historically went further–as recently as the 1960s, the meeting was only open to holders of the priesthood.

fascinating. do you think the associated press just picked up some old news story they wrote “as recently as the 1960s” and reprinted it? or do you think this news story, written in the present tense, is supposed to be about current events and describe modern practices? if the latter, then certainly it is inaccurate.

Of course, this leads to me wondering why in the world it isn’t broadcast like the other general sessions are, and nobody’s been able to give me an answer to that question that matches up with the facts, aside from “Cuz that’s how it’s done.” Oh well–tradition and all that, i guess.

church leaders often take advantage of the less public format to address more sensitive subjects. for example, i believe elder richard scott denounced abuse at this particular session. there might be other reasons why it is not publicly broadcast, but i do not know what they are.

In addition, it historically went further–as recently as the 1960s, the meeting was only open to holders of the priesthood.

Of course, this leads to me wondering why in the world it isn’t broadcast like the other general sessions are, and nobody’s been able to give me an answer to that question that matches up with the facts, aside from “Cuz that’s how it’s done.” Oh well–tradition and all that, i guess.