Talk:General Conference (LDS Church)

Summary of the 182nd Annual General Conference.

I was more than a little concerned when I looked at this page and discovered that a summary of the 182nd Annual General Conference was put on it. My concern lies in the fact that the so-called summary might not be accurate, only coming from one editor. So, my question is, does this section even need to exist? If it does, what can be done to make it more encyclopedic? Please post here with comments. I am leaving this section in the article until some consensus is reached about including it. Thanks in advance for the feedback and discussion. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing that text from the article completely and placing it here for discussion. I really don't think this level of detail on one specific conference belongs on this general subject article. Nothing makes this particular conference any more notable than other ones, other than it is the most recent. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

182nd Annual General Conference

==182nd Annual General Conference==
The 182nd General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took place from March 24, 2012-April 1, 2012, and comprises 6 sessions: General Young Women Meeting (March 24), Saturday Morning Session (March 31), Saturday Afternoon Session (March 31), Priesthood Session (March 31), Sunday Morning Session (April 1), and Sunday Afternoon Session (April 1). Archives are available in multiple formats and languages.

=== Changes in Leadership ===
As part of the sustaining of church officers in the Saturday Afternoon Session, the Presiding Bishopric and General Relief Society Presidency were released and replacements were called.

The Presiding Bishopric formerly consisted of H. David Burton, Presiding Bishop; Richard C. Edgley, First Counselor; and Keith B. McMullin, Second Counselor; and now consists of Gary E. Stevenson, Presiding Bishop; Gérald Caussé, First Counselor; and Dean M. Davies, Second Counselor.

The General Relief Society Presidency formerly consisted of Julie B. Beck, President; Silvia H. Allred, First Counselor; and Barbara Thompson, Second Counselor; and now consists of Linda K. Burton, General President; Carole M. Stephens First Counselor; and Linda S. Reeves, Second Counselor.

Multiple other calls and releases were made, with the calling of Larry EchoHawk to the First Quorum of the Seventy making headlines. A Pawnee, prominent Idaho Democrat, and head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the Obama administration, he is expected to resign his post in order to assume new church responsibilities.

=== Teachings ===
==== General Young Women Session ====
Ann M. Dibb spoke about ___ followed by Mary N. Cook, speaking about ___. A church-produced video, Arise to the Mountain was shown, followed by Elaine S. Dalton, who spoke about ___ and President Thomas S. Monson who encouraged ___.

==== Saturday Morning Session ====
President Thomas S. Monson provided the opening message, followed by President Boyd K. Packer who discussed the family as the fundamental unit of society and Cheryl Esplin who discussed parental responsibilities toward children. These were followed by Elder Donald L. Hallstrom, who spoke about the intimate intertwining of church and gospel and Elder Paul E. Koelliker who spoke about full-time missionary service. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who spoke about sacrifices offered in similitude of Christ's sacrifice. The meeting concluded with President Henry B. Eyring, who spoke about ___.

==== Saturday Afternoon Session ====
President Dieter F. Uchtdorf performed the Sustaining of Church Officers, followed by the Church Auditing Department Report for 2011, presented by Robert W. Cantwell. The Church Statistical Report for 2011 was then presented by Brook P. Hales. Then Elder Jeffrey R. Holland spoke about the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard and encouraged rejoicing in mercies received by others, followed by Elder Robert D. Hales, who spoke about ___. Elder David S. Baxter addressed the single parents in the church, assuring them that they are not "second class citizens". Elder Ulisses Soares spoke about ___, Elder Quentin L. Cook spoke about ___ and the concluding speaker was Elder Richard G. Scott who spoke about his personal practices for receiving divine revelation and encouraged all to seek revelation.

==== Priesthood Session ====
Elder David A. Bednar opened the session with a personal story of his father's conversion and a plea that the men of the church be active in fulfilling their home teaching and other priesthood duties. He was followed by Bishop Richard C. Edgley, who spoke about achieving "real growth" for the church, including by bringing less-active members back into the church, and Adrián Ochoa, who spoke to Young Men about exercising their priesthood by actively promoting righteousness. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf spoke about his experiences being called as a Deacon's Quorum President and as a Seventy and encouraged faithfulness to the trust placed in priesthood holders, followed by President Henry B. Eyring who spoke about learning from the successes of Lehi and President Thomas S. Monson who shared quotations from modern day prophets defining priesthood power and duty, emphasizing that true joy comes from fulfilling duty.

==== Sunday Morning Session ====
President Dieter F. Uchtdorf spoke of conflicts between siblings, encouraging forgiveness, repentance, and mercy (continuing a theme from one of his prior talks) for both ourselves and the begrudged, saying simply of ill-will "Stop it". Then Elder Russell M. Nelson spoke, including his wonderment in the design of the physical body in a theme of 'Glory to God'. Then Ronald A. Rasband spoke of a recent family birth of a child with a chromosomal deletion, addressing typical questions of 'how could a merciful God allow this to happen?' and responding with Christ's explanation: "that the works of God should be made manifest" (John 9: 3) and expressing the sentiment for those that would help that 'Let me know if I can do something to help' "is really no help at all". Julie B. Beck then discussed the mission of Relief Society and its future. Elder D. Todd Christofferson explained the origin of LDS doctrine and differing levels of authority within LDS leadership to define doctrine, always to be confirmed by individual revelation in the membership of the Church. President Thomas S. Monson was the concluding speaker, discussed the way that the inevitability of death draws us back to family responsibilities: family is what matters when temporary accomplishments are seen in the light of death.

==== Sunday Afternoon Session ====
L. Tom Perry spoke of the Book of Mormon. M. Russell Ballard spoke of societal ills, including income inequality and broken homes, noting that they are correlated, and expressing his conviction that religious observance and family values are the reason for improved financial outcomes. O. Vincent Haleck spoke of the need for vision as well as action to bring about that vision. Larry Y. Wilson spoke of the need to avoid compulsion in leadership, whether at home or at church. David F. Evans spoke of the need to "natually and normally share the gospel". Paul P. Pieper spoke about personal experience with divinity and preserving its holiness. Neil L. Anderson spoke of the importance of discipleship and recounted the story of the miraculous preservation of a family through the Haiti earthquake. Thomas S. Monson was the concluding speaker.

Also of note is this: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/182nd Annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

It looks like the contributor of this extensive text (Sddaniels (talk · contribs)) was trying to have an article created specifically about this particular conference, but article creation was declined, so the editor dumped that text into this article instead. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So then, the question arises, what should be done about this content? It seems pointless to include it, as such a section has never been in the article in the past. So what should be done about this? What concerns me the most is that it was just one editor's perspective on it. So this will have to be reedited if it is to be reincluded in the article. I'd be okay leaving it out or putting it in. Whatever the consensus decides is fine with me. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I consider a TALK page to be an extension of a WP Article; readers can read and learn more here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

My notes on the 183rd April Conference

Not to be included in the Article, but for your interest, here are my notes [1] which I include to assist other WP editors as they look to improve this article on General Conference (LDS Church). Enjoy, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Another editor told my my notes were inappropriate (even on my own personal TALK page) so I deleted them all. Sorry, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Priesthood Session to be televised.

The Church recently announced that it would broadcast the Priesthood Session of General Conference live on LDS.org and on BYU-TV. For verification of this fact, please see this article. I feel this information should be included in this article, but I'm not sure where or how to include it. Thoughts? Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point, but personally I don't think the live broadcasting is that notable. The content has been available to everyone in print and archived video for years. Bahooka (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed: it seems to be a natural evolution of communication on top of already existing/parallel transmission methods. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 19:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it is more important than you may realize and indicate since the first paragraph of the article herein says "one exclusively for male priesthood holders" but now it is on the public airwaves. Another thing that is monumental (to members) is that the Womens Conference included all LDS women age eight and older. Focus in their conference last weekend was on youth and the responsibility of Moms and leaders to them—among other topics of the Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary (for the youngest). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Statistics to improve the article herein

I'll be adding here statistics for Wikipedia editors to edit and improve the Article here, as deemed appropriate. Of high interest is (1) the growth of the Church; (2) International missionary and humanitarian work; (3) new temples, like in Rome; (4) new church leaders; (5) Other.

People worldwide can watch the broadcasts of conference sessions at: https://www.lds.org

Wikipedia editors can validate, authenticate, and reference facts from http://www.MormonNewsroom.org/

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are the statistics (ending December 31, 2013) reported in the 184th General (World) Conference: The number of stakes is 3,050 with 405 missions; 571 districts (within a mission but not big enough to be a stake, yet); 29,253 wards and branches, (a branch is not big enough to be a ward, yet). Total membership is 15,082,028 [adding up the files in the membership computer database. The prophet called it 15million.] The number of children of record added in 2013 was 115,486; and the number of convert baptisms was 282,945 during the year. As of December 31, there were 83,035 fulltime missionaries [young elders, young sister missionaries, and seniors] 34,032 church service missionaries “serving throughout the Church.” One temple in Honduras was dedicated during 2013, bring the total of operating temples up to 141 at the end of the year.

The statistical report was preceded by the Audit Report, “to give reasonable assurance” of funds received and disbursed in the year 2013. — Filling the needs to (1) budget, (2) avoid debt, and (3) plan ahead to save against time of need, same advice to members. [Short and sweet.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

General Women's Meeting not part of Conference?!?!?!?!?

AsteriskStarSplat recently reverted a change asserting that the general women's meeting held the week before General Conference was not part of General Conference itself and was not included in the Conference Report or the Ensign. Oh, really? I would invite him to consult Ensign. If he were to look at pp. 116-128, he would see that the General Women's Meeting is included in the Ensign. A further glance at the "Conference Summary" on page 3 would inform him that the General Women's Meeting is just another session of conference like any others. Just because it is not considered one of the five "general" sessions doesn't make it any less a part of conference. A glance at the page for the April 2014 General Conference on the Church's website would clue him in on the fact that, according to the website, the General Women's Meeting is as much a part of Conference as any other session. Also, in the DVDs of Conference (I happen to have a copy, so I know this for a fact), the General Women's Meeting appears on a disc with the Sunday Afternoon Session. Why would they include a meeting that is not part of conference with official conference proceedings? I would encourage AsteriskStarSplat to do his research before making claims when the proof is not on his side. Anyone else want to uphold this claim? --Jgstokes (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

When conference starts

Since General conference went from three days (Fri-Sun) to two (Sat & Sun), the opening session of conference is Saturday morning. For a recent example, please see: Ensign, May 2014. The first talk, which opened the conference, was by Thomas S. Monson, titled "Welcome to Conference" and was given on Saturday morning; the last Conference talk was also by Monson, titled: "Until We Meet Again" and was given in the second Sunday session, the last of five sessions. I consider Monson as a reliable expert on when Conference begins and ends. While Rosemary M. Wixom, Bonnie L. Oscarson, Linda K. Burton, and Henry B. Eyring's talks from the General Womens meeting a week previously are then included in that edition of the Ensign, it is clear that it is not as part of Conference itself, but as an adjunct to it, just as the now discontinued June Conference was. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 23:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not that clear to me. Where is your source proving that this is the case? I have cited a magazine and a DVD proving my case. You have only your own opinion. The talks wouldn't be included in the Ensign if they weren't part of Conference. On the cover itself, it says, "General Conference Addresses." And, as I mentioned in the subject above (which you didn't care to address), the Conference Summary on page 3 includes all sessions of conference, including the General Women's Meeting. So your "consideration" and "opinions" mean nothing. You find me a source, any source that says that the General Women's Meeting is not part of Conference. Then and only then can you substantiate what is now at best only your expressed opinion. I, meantime, have provided TWO sources proving that the General Women's Meeting is part of Conference. I should warn you, you are close to a violation of one of Wikipedia's policies, so I suggest you back down unless and until you find a source to substantiate your claim. Otherwise, you are likely to get yourself blocked for edit warring. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is for those that are introducing a change to provide support for their change. Starting on 15 January 2009‎ and continuing until today, the Women's meeting has not been listed as a session of conference on this article. Please provide a specific citation stating that in addition to the 5 sessions held on Sat & Sun, that the Women's meeting is considered the sixth session of conference, even though it happens before the opening session of conference. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 23:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW it takes two to tango; I'm just restoring to the last version before DrBrinkley (talk · contribs) made their change today; you're the one insisting on the new text, and are the one not providing a citation that's usable in the article. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 23:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This change was sourced and discussed in depth when it was first made. Then it was unilaterally changed by someone else who claimed that the women's meeting wasn't part of conference. But they couldn't prove it, so the change was reversed. Now you have introduced it again. It is up to you to provide proof that it isn't part of general conference. I have already listed two verifiable sources. If you're unwilling to accept them for what they are, that's your problem. Btw, the General Women's Meeting only recently was introduced. Before it was the General Young Women's Meeting in March and the General Relief Society Meeting in September. Both those meetings were considered parts of the respective conferences they preceded by a week. You need to find a source by someone saying that a talk from the President of the Church offiicially begins and ends each conference. Bet you won't find one. Because there were many times when, due to the ill health of the president, his counselors spoke first at the Saturday Morning session of conference and last at the Sunday Afternoon session of conference. The onus is on you, because I have provided sources a plenty to prove my case. In the meantime, the change should be left alone because you violated one of Wikipedia's policies, and, though I would only do so as a last resort, I'm not afraid to report a policy breaker if I need to. I would urge you to consider carefully your options. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's not born out by the article difs, at least not what you're claiming I did; the change from 5 to 6 sessions was made today with this edit, by DrBrinkley (talk · contribs), and I then reverted it. I can't see anywhere it was previously specifically listing six sessions in the article with a citation for that at any time recently, but I may have missed the edit(s) in the edit history; if it's there I'd appreciate you providing the dif, or even the day it was there previously, because I just don't see what you're talking about. Likewise I didn't introduce a change from 6 to 5, I merely did the revert back to the long term stable text. If you are seeing something else, please provide the dif, because I'm really not seeing where you can substantiate what you are claiming I did; the only other change I've ever had on this article is this edit where I fixed a ref. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 00:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The Church History Department has scanned all of the Conference Reports from October 1897 to October 2011 (plus April 1880) and put them out on archive.org at https://archive.org/details/conferencereport — these are the official records of each conference, not the Ensign articles, which technically are reprints from this truly official source. As one example, see: Report of the 170th Annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, LDS Church, 2000, p. 1, The 170th Annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints convened in the Conference Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Saturday, April 1, 2000 at 10 A.M. The general sessions of the conference were held at 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. on Saturday and Sunday, April 1 and 2, 2000. The general priesthood session was held on Saturday, April 1 at 6:00 P.M. It it clear that there are five sessions, four general sessions, and one priesthood session in this example. I'll find more recent examples if needed, but this was the easiest one to find. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 00:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Another example, eleven years later, see: Report of the 181st Annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, LDS Church, 2011, p. 1, The 181st Annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints convened in the Conference Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Saturday, April 2, 2011 at 10 A.M. The general sessions of the conference were held at 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M. on Saturday and Sunday, April 2 and 3, 2011. The general priesthood session was held on Saturday, April 2 at 6:00 P.M. Still five sessions, four general sessions, and one priesthood session in this example. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 00:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

...and incase anyone want to dispute the authoritative status of the Conference Reports, please see: Tate, Charles D, Jr. (1992), "Conference Reports", in Ludlow, Daniel H (ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism, New York: Macmillan Publishing, pp. 305–306, ISBN 0-02-879602-0, OCLC 24502140{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) ...for more information, and confirmation. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 01:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Another reference, showing that the General Womans meeting is seperate from General Conference, the same as the meeting it replaced: "Church News", LDS.org, LDS Church, 4 November 2013, The First Presidency of the Church announced November 1 that beginning in 2014, a semiannual general women's meeting will replace the general Relief Society and general Young Women meetings held annually since 1993. The general women's meeting will be held the Saturday before each general conference and will be conducted by the general presidencies of the Relief Society, Young Women, and Primary organizations. [...] Since 1993, general meetings have been held for the Relief Society and the Young Women in September and March, respectively. The meetings have included addresses from a member of the First Presidency and all three members of the respective auxiliary general presidency. From 1984 to 1993, a general meeting was held for all women and young women. {{citation}}: |contribution= ignored (help) (emphasis mine). It couldn't be held before general conference if it was part of it. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 01:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

More refs, that explicitly define General Conference:

• Kerr, William Rolfe (1992), "Conferences: General Conference", in Ludlow, Daniel H. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Mormonism, New York: Macmillan Publishing, pp. 307–308, ISBN 0-02-879602-0, OCLC 24502140, Each April and October, members of the Church throughout the world assemble in Salt Lake City, Utah, for two days of meetings called General Conference. [...] The April conferences of the Church are called annual conferences; those in October, semiannual conferences. Current practice includes four two-hour general sessions on Saturday and Sunday, with a special priesthood session Saturday night carried by satellite to thousands of priesthood bearers throughout the world. Prior to 1977, the conferences met for three days.
• Godfrey, Kenneth W. (February 1981), "150 Years of General Conference", Ensign, April 1977: the first two-day general conference, replacing the former three-day general conference. (Note that this article also lists all conferences between 6 April 1830 and 4–5 October 1980)
• "Additional Resource", MormonNewsroom.org, LDS Church, 3 April 2014, General conferences are conducted each April and October and comprise five two-hour meetings held over two days. The April meetings are called annual conferences and those in October, semiannual. {{citation}}: |contribution= ignored (help)
• "Topic", MormonNewsroom.org, LDS Church, retrieved 2014-09-11, General conferences are conducted each April and October and comprise five two-hour meetings held over two days. The April meetings are called annual conferences and those in October, semiannual. The sessions on Saturday morning, Saturday afternoon, Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon are open to everyone, while a session on Saturday evening is for Latter-day Saint men and young men who hold the priesthood. {{citation}}: |contribution= ignored (help)

With these, there is no way to say this is an OR interpretation (e.g. generalizing information based on specific events). However, in order to demonstrate that this information is still current, the following are provided, which are specific to this years conferences:

• "News Release", MormonNewsroom.org, LDS Church, 5 April 2014, Five sessions of the conference will be held Saturday and Sunday, 5-6 April 2014, in the Conference Center in Salt Lake City, Utah. {{citation}}: |contribution= ignored (help)
• "News Release", MormonNewsroom.org, LDS Church, 2 April 2014, Proceedings of the 184th Annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will unfold from the Conference Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Saturday and Sunday, 5-6 April 2014. [...] General conferences are conducted by the Church each April and October and comprise five two-hour meetings held over two days. {{citation}}: |contribution= ignored (help)
• Prescott, Marianne Holman (8 April 2014), "Church News", LDS.org, LDS Church, President Monson presided at the conference and spoke in four of the five sessions. His counselors in the First Presidency, President Henry B. Eyring and President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, took turns conducting the sessions. In the opening session of conference Saturday morning, President Monson spoke of the recent Gilbert Arizona Temple dedication and the upcoming Fort Lauderdale Florida Temple dedication. {{citation}}: |contribution= ignored (help)
• "President Thomas S. Monson: 'Welcome to conference'", LDS Church News, April 5 2014, Following is the text of remarks delivered by President Thomas S. Monson as he opened the 184th Annual General Conference, which convened in the Conference Center in Salt Lake City on Saturday morning, April 5, 2014. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "President Thomas S. Monson: 'Until we meet again'", LDS Church News, April 6 2014, Following is the full text of the message President Thomas S. Monson delivered as he brought to a close the 184th Annual General Conference of the Church on Sunday, April 6, 2014. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Walch, Tad (April 5 2014), "No new LDS temples for now, but President Monson says more to come", Deseret News, LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson did not announce any new temples on Saturday morning during the opening session of the 184th Annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• "Church News", LDS.org, LDS Church, All members of the Church are invited to participate in the 184th Semiannual General Conference of the Church, which will convene in the Conference Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Saturday and Sunday, October 4 and 5, 2014, with general sessions each day at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. mountain daylight time (MDT), and the general priesthood meeting on Saturday, October 4, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. MDT. {{citation}}: |contribution= ignored (help)
• "General Conference", LDS.org, LDS Church, The 184th Semiannual General Conference will be held on Saturday and Sunday, October 4 and 5, 2014, with general sessions each day at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. mountain daylight time (MDT), and the general priesthood meeting on Saturday, October 4, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. MDT. {{citation}}: |contribution= ignored (help)
• Walch, Tad (September 8, 2014), "LDS conference talks may be given in native languages", Deseret News, The new policy will be implemented at the next conference, Oct. 4 and 5.

Yes, most of these are primary sources, but the LDS Church has the right to define this event, and when it starts, given it is wholly controlled by them. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 20:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I've been asked to intervene in this issue as an uninvolved admin. In situations like this, the fair thing to do is to restore the status quo ante—the version of the article that existed before the controversial edits were added—while the issue is being discussed. Edit warring is usually unproductive, and as has been noted, can lead to blocks and nasty things like that. I think everyone should avoid editing on the point until the issue is resolved. (I see that both editors involved here have broken the WP:3RR, which could lead to a block for both. If both editors can all agree to not do this any more, I'm not going to do any blocks or otherwise pursue that issue.)

On the substantive issue, I could contribute some thoughts. I don't know of a good secondary source that could resolve this, but there are probably plenty of primary sources that could at least inform us. For starters, one could view the videos of past general conferences. It is common, in the Sunday morning session, for the person conducting to welcome the attendees to the "fourth general session" of the conference, and likewise at the Sunday afternoon session, to welcome the attendees to the "fifth general session". This would indicate to me that conference begins with the Saturday morning session (#1), continues with the Sat afternoon (#2), and the Priesthood (#3), with the Sunday sessions being #4 and #5. So I don't think that the women's meeting is included. I think it's included in the church magazines, DVDs, and online with general conference basically for convenience of access.

Primary sources aside, we really need a secondary source. I'm sure we can find some newspaper articles or something that make a statement about when conference begins and ends. I'll look around. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This LDS Church webpage might be helpful. According to it, General Conference will be October 4–5, 2014. The notice for the women's meeting the week before is in a separate webpage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

A secondary source (SL Tribune) from 2007, in the days before the general women's meeting: "The General Relief Society Meeting is held each fall before the LDS Church General Conference. The 177th Semiannual General Conference begins Saturday." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sunstone magazine source: "... President Thomas S. Monson said as he opened general conference last October" (referring to a statement he made in the Sat AM session in Oct 2012). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I was also asked to comment here and have to largely concur with what Good Olfactory said. I think most of the arguments above rely heavily on "original analysis of primary sources" sometimes called WP:Original research. Though both are logical, what is needed is a secondary source, as GO said. As for the edit warring, it definitely needs to stop on both sides. As to the original question of whether the RS meeting is part of the conference, I've heard it both ways, but don't know for sure. It wouldn't surprise me if there were a movement toward making it more officially a part of the general conference. A quick Google search turned up this source (which I don't think qualifies as neutral or reliable) that makes the statement, "Unlike the other sessions of general conference, the General Women’s Meetings are not considered part of general conference." And breaking my own rule to perform my own original research, on the https://www.lds.org/general-conference/?lang=eng page it's currently advertising the "General Women's Meeting" on September 27 2014 and "General Conference" on October 5-6. I think to change the article to say that the women's meeting is part of the general conference we'd need a good secondary source that explicitly says that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with Adjwilley and Good Ol’factory. While it may be that in the future the General Women’s Meetings will become part of this sects General Conference, I don't think that is is now. There are to0 many sources stating that the General Conference starts with the Saturday meetings, especially the secondary source provided by Good Ol’factory (ie the SL Tribune from 2007). Those sources that say it starts during the "General Women's Meeting" are WP:Original research and therefor not reliable. Until a reliable secondary source can be provided changing the status quo, the version of the article before the controversial edits were added should remain.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 14:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

All right already! Enough is enough! All I asked for was one source proving the argument that AsteriskStarSplat was putting forth was correct. I certainly don't need to be told by several different editors how wrong I am, nor do I need a mountain of evidence proving that I made an idiot of myself. I accept the evidence that has been presented and have no further qualms about the present wording. I am a little bothered that the evidence of the General Women's Meeting being included in the Ensign and on the General Conference DVDs has been ignored, but I understand (and even accept) the arguments that have been put forth. The present wording can remain, as far as I'm concerned. All I asked for was one source. I didn't need a bunch of sources shoved down my throat. I guess at the end of the day I can only apologize for wasting everyone's time with a pointless conversation and encourage everyone to get back to the real issues of the article instead of my petty complaints. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ignore the evidence you mentioned—I stated that I thought that the women's conference proceedings were "included in the church magazines, DVDs, and online with general conference basically for convenience of access." Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jgstokes: I don't feel like my time was wasted; I found it an interesting question and learned something in the process. Please don't harbor any hard feelings from what must seem to you like a pile-on. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way by anyone commenting here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

For convenience of access? Really? I doubt they would do something consistently for 43 years or however long the Ensign has been around just for convenience of access (this is about how long the proceedings of women's meetings have been included in Conference editions of the Ensign). FYI, this conference marked the first time that proceedings outside what is traditionally considered to be "General Conference" were included on DVD proceedings of the conference (as the recording of the General Women's Meeting). To me, that sends a clear message that the meeting is to be considered the women's special session of general conference, even if it doesn't coincide with Conference weekend and even if it is not considered an "official" session of general conference. As such, it is on the same level of consideration for the women as the Priesthood session is for the men. I guarantee there would be an uproar if you tried to imply that the priesthood session was not an official session of conference. But that is neither here nor there. The consensus has spoken, and I will honor that consensus. Adjwilley, thank you for your kind response. Nice to know that this topic was appreciated by at least one person. It did seem like a pile-on at the time. I realize now it might not have been, so I apologize if I lashed out irrationally or unnecessarily on this subject. When it seemed that everyone was coming for the sole purpose of proving me wrong, and, feeling a little outnumbered, I lashed out. I apologize if I overreacted. It's one of my bad habits when I feel like everyone is against me and no one is taking my POV seriously enough. I'm working on it. I certainly hold no animosity towards anyone involved in this discussion and hope that no one involved in this discussion holds animosity towards me. Thanks for discussing this, even if the discussion didn't go the way I'd hoped it would. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the mountain of evidence that the women's meeting is not part of conference, I would have to respond: "Yes, really." In any case, I would bet that general authorities of the church care a lot more about convenience of access to the material than whether or not the meeting is technically a part of general conference or not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up. Again, my apologies if I was being unduly stubborn, discourteous, or disagreeable in my responses in regards to this situation. --Jgstokes (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Jgstokes, you're not the only one that is at fault here: I definitely had a big role in escalating this to begin with, before I stepped back and invited three uninvolved admins to sit in judgment on both of our actions. I generally don't respond well in situations when I perceive that someone is quoting/applying rules (or threatening action against me) in a way I feel is unjustified/unfair. When I was editing from an IP I had reasons I couldn't escalate these kind of situations, but in this first editwar using this named account, I let my passions get the best of me. I should have remembered what my grandma taught me, that every time you point your finger at someone, you've got at three fingers pointing back at you. (Reminder to self: edit summaries are for describing an edit made, and are not good locations for carrying on a debate; if I'm tempted to do that, always go to the talk page instead.) I'm also sorry if my extensive list of references made you feel like I was rubbing your face in it; I'm pretty good with references, and that was one way I felt I could make my case in a better way than I did to begin with, and try to keep my cool while doing it. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 21:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your explanation and apology. As evidenced by my conduct in this case, I don't respond well when someone is making a claim that they refuse to prove. I also don't react well when my being in error on a situation is manifested and pointed out. I should have remembered the catchphrase that used to be on my signature here on Wikipedia: "We can disagree without being disagreeable." I didn't, and for that misconduct, I apologize. I am grateful that the storm seems to have blown over and that we were able to come to an agreement on this issue. That's all that I was hoping for. I will endeavor to conduct myself in a better way next time. Thanks to all who participated in this discussion. As far as I'm concerned, this matter can be closed with honor. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Today, President Uchtdorf of the LDS Church's First Presidency referred to the general women's meeting as the opening session of General Conference in this SL Trib article. Jgstokes, did you know something none of the rest of us knew? ;) Bahooka (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that. I was going to point that out myself. Now we have an official statement validating what I've been claiming all along. No, I didn't know something no one else knew. But I did maintain that since the general women's meeting and its predecessors (the General Relief Society and General Young Women's Meetings) were contained in the Ensign magazine that they were part of conference. Now that view has been validated by a member of the First Presidency. Short of a declaration by Thomas S. Monson, that's about as official a statement on how the brethren view this general women's meeting as I've ever heard. So, based upon President Uchtdorf's statement, once the transcript of his talk becomes available, can we cite it to prove that there are six general sessions for general conference? Can we all agree to that now, in light of this official statement by President Uchtdorf? --Jgstokes (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)