First I must apologize for all those that clicked on this post, hoping for an erudite Hawkgrrrl post since she had previously done “What is the Point of….?” posts on God, BYU, Baby Blessings, and lots of others. She even touched on General Conference. But, sadly you are stuck with Bishop Bill drivel since my click-bait worked so well!
General Conferences are mandated in the Doctrine & Covenants
61 The several elders composing this church of Christ are to meet in conference once in three months, or from time to time as said conferences shall direct or appoint;
62 And said conferences are to do whatever church business is necessary to be done at the time.
D&C 20: 61-62
So there you have it, we have General Conferences to do whatever church business is necessary. But is there really any business conducted at General Conference that with modern communications, can’t be conducted during the year outside of Conference? It did NOT take a conference to do away with Celestial Marriage Polygamy, give the priesthood to all worthy males (and let them and their wives go to the temple), call a new prophet on the death of his predecessor, and lots of other significant and monumental “church business”.
The word conference means to “confer” about a subject. And confer means to have discussions; exchange opinions. When was the last time that happened at a Mormon General Conference? Maybe in Joseph Smith’s time, but not in my lifetime (and I’m old)
Do we even need an in person audience? I guess the answer to this is no, since we are not doing it this weekend. With 16 million members, and a conference center that can hold 21,000 people, only 0.13% of the membership can even attend. But realistically, the majority of members will never attend a general conference. (I never have). I would say that less than 5% of the members will ever attend even once in their life.
We could postulate that maybe we’ll move to an online version of Conference in the future, but then it would make building the Conference Center look wasteful and foolish (and un-prophetic). So we’ll continue to have (when the world gets over this virus mess) 21,000 people crowd into the center for conference.
What is the purpose today? It is not to “confer”, and it is not to get the word to the members, as we did that yesterday and today via mass communication very well. Is it all for the visual/PR impact of seeing 21,000 people together? Is it so the Q15 can get adoration from the members (cue Sally Field’s Oscar acceptance speech)?
What about other meetings? I touched upon that in my post last week. Will the unintended consequences of not having any meetings for several months be that some members will realize they don’t need these meeting, anymore than they need to attend in person General Conference?
What do you think is the point of having an audience at general conference?
Wheat & Tares 
My wife and I have been to conference from Australia, though we also drove across to Florida, and took a cruise through the panama canal to Alaska, then to Yellowstone, death valley and LA.
The same year we were there a daughter also from Aus was there, and another daughter who lives in California, with her family. We also met a nephew who lives in Japan with his family there.
We have now done that and don’t need to do it again. We can see much better on TV in our lounge, though we are 16 hours ahead so we watch Saturday sessions on Sunday.
We have friends who are LDS tourists. Go to Rome and visit the temple, but not the colasseum, or the vatican city. The same for Paris. I find that very strange priorities.
The word “conference” does not only mean “to confer” about a subject.
I think D&C 20:61-62 uses the word “conference” in two different ways. These include one of the meanings (see Merriam-Webster) generally unfamiliar to Mormons of the late 20th and early 21st centuries: “a territorial division of a religious denomination.” This meaning was not unfamiliar to 19th century Mormons. It was and remains a common meaning at least in the Methodist church with which JS was familiar. Such conferences had discussions and conducted business and made decisions at “conferences” — meetings (the other, now more familiar, meaning) — hence, the D&C language about a conference (a group of people representing a geographical division of the church) directing what happens at a conference (meeting) and then doing that business. That model seems to have been the basis of the “common consent” notion in the early LDS church. We have a mere vestige of it in the “sustainings” that occur in ward, stake, regional and general conferences — except only when a speaker at a ward or stake conference calls for questions or comments from the congregation or a conference attendee is asked to speak extemporaneously. I’ve seen both of those things happen a number of times. But still, they do not begin to approach what is done by “conferences” of the United Methodist church at its conferences — discussion and decision..
Here’s an example from an 1880 general conference I came across recently — with some minor but significant differences from current practice:
“President Joseph Young [of the First Seven Presidents of the Seventies] moved that Wm W. Taylor be elected one of the First Seven Presidents of Seventies, to fill the vacancy occasioned by the death of Elder A.P. Rockwood. Carried unanimously.”
The last time I attended conference in person was Saturday Morning of October 2011. It served as the largest palpable reminder since my mission that this really is a worldwide Chuch. My wife was seated to my right, an Australian to my left, Brazilians in front, and Germans behind me. My first mission area bordered Germany in the same area where this German family lived, and we knew some of the same people, so at the same time it reminded me that it’s a small world when it comes to members.
I admittedly was a little more alert than normal, and I felt there was a vibrancy and energy there I don’t always feel. I obviously don’t think it necessary to attend in person to get everything one needs out of it, but I think it would be fun for everyone to experience it at least once in their adult lifetime.
I have a friend who isn’t a member who attended a priesthood session once. He more or less already had his mind made up about the Church and wasn’t likely to join. He went more for the fascination he had with LDS people and as an intellectual exercise. Despite that, I think he felt some of that same vibrancy and maybe a bit of the Spirit as well. Even if it didn’t get him more interested in the Church, he resolved to be a better person. I know he’d seen portions of conference on TV before, but if being there in person gave him better resolve, that alone might be worth it.
The children of Israel gathered for many feasts, but two in particular: one feast near the Spring equinox and one feast near the Autumnal equinox, both aspects of ritual atonement, both associated with agricultural harvest.
The feasts bounced positions during controversial times and the Israelite calendar became a source of division and contention.
Because feasts were coordinated with harvest, the reaping of souls and judgment is likened to “in-gathering” of barley and wheat (bread) during the Spring and the harvest of grapes (wine) during the Autumn.
Rich symbolism here. Bread and wine and harvest and atonement. Noah’s drunkenness, Abraham’s communion with Melchizedek, and Jesus Christ at Gethsemane—these events took place near equinox.
There’s something to be said about the order and beauty of cosmic calibration…
I’m fine with conference as a symbolic and practical matter, but I have listening fatigue after more than a few hours. And by few I mean one session, max 2. I have always been a “quality over quantity“ person which leaves me on the outside about most things in our religion. I found it interesting that today President Nelson emphasized that in all cases where Heavenly Father introduced His son, he did so with “remarkably few words”. I turned to my husband and said “Is he about to shorten conference by a few sessions???” I quickly found out I was really grasping at straws.
@Clwoo, I did the same perk up at that same point in the talk.
I attended the first conference session in the new conference center. I’m glad for the experience, but felt more reverence (awe) in the old tabernacle. I seem to recall that Boyd Packer was not in favor of building the new conf center but lobbied instead for investing in better remote transmissions.
I’d like to expand on the idea that a gathering of 20,000+ members is part of the PR effort of the Church. I think almost everything the Church does now is part of PR. Do you think the First Presidency sat 6 feet apart this weekend (boy did it look silly) to be safe, or to display safety? But that’s a small issue. Here’s a big one:
Why do we continue to build expensive temples at an alarming rate when the Church is growing at a dismal 1-2% per year? I believe a major part of the reason is PR. We are trying to convey strength and expansion. It looks impressive doesn’t it. But are these temples really needed? Are they going to be used enough to justify the millions of dollars for construction and ongoing maintenance? It’s PR 101.
We got a new logo this weekend (more PR) as well as a new proclamation that declares absolutely nothing new. That’s OK with me, it didn’t cost anything to write up a document full of beliefs we’ve had forever. But again, it’s all about PR, including the gathering of a few thousand members twice a year.
charlene: That’s the second time I’ve heard of Packer being an advocate of technology among the Q15, a thing that surprises me, but delights me. In other ways he hardly seemed progressive, so I’m glad to see more facets to his personality.
I’ve never attended conference in person, and it sounds like a logistical nightmare. You’d have to take the light rail in, and you’re completely stuck there. Honestly, while I don’t understand why women are barred from ordination, lobbying for entrance to the priesthood session didn’t exactly make me jazzed. Lobbying for two more hours of church on an 8-hour church weekend? No thanks.
Angela. I think the original position had a lot to do with economics and ‘can’t we try to be a little creative and think about other options.’ I’m 100% behind him on this one. I’ve always disliked the building (can you say, ‘Hanging Gardens of Babylon’).
Re lobbying for additional meetings, I partially agree. My distress is excommunicating the lobbyists then announcing that it’s ok to open the meeting. An unfortunate pattern in other situations as well.
Can anyone explain why we need to have 10 hours of it? I admire anyone who can stay focused – and so much repetition and hitting us with all the basics. I just don’t have the attention span for it though there’s a few talks I will go back and read later. One thing to admire is the stamina of these older leaders.