Whether The Voice Of God Or His Servant It Is The Same.

[DavidB]

What makes what is spoken by a Prophet speaking at General Conference the personal opinion of the Prophet as opposed to the that spoken word being the word of God?

Discuss.

[Saints Alive]

Whether it is the Prophet speaking or the Man is speaking.

[Azariah]

Whether it is the Prophet speaking or the Man is speaking.

What's the difference? There is a time and a place for everything. Speaking from the pulpit at General Conference would not seem to be the appropriate time or place to express one's own personal (and fallible) opinion.

[Saints Alive]

I don't think they do it on purpose.

[Bob Crockett]

By the time the conference address makes it to the official conference reporter (and there are changes) it has gone through review and correlation and is binding on the church. But, technically, it is binding on the church until overruled, corrected or explained by an equal authority. As we can easily see from the scriptures, God isn't limited by what His prophets said last year.

So, if you want to see the best position of the church on modest dress by teenagers, you would look to the most recent conference address on the subject (or an official pamphlet), and not something published 50 years ago.

[Azariah]

By the time the conference address makes it to the official conference reporter (and there are changes) it has gone through review and correlation and is binding on the church. But, technically, it is binding on the church until overruled, corrected or explained by an equal authority. As we can easily see from the scriptures, God isn't limited by what His prophets said last year.

So, if you want to see the best position of the church on modest dress by teenagers, you would look to the most recent conference address on the subject (or an official pamphlet), and not something published 50 years ago.

Are all General Conferences "binding on the church until overruled"? Or only from a certain date to the present?

[CV75]

What makes what is spoken by a Prophet speaking at General Conference the personal opinion of the Prophet as opposed to the that spoken word being the word of God?

The "voice" is the voice of the Spirit. The next verse reads, "For behold, and lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever. Amen." And the tenor of Section 1 puts the onus on the hearer to discern it (note verses 1, 2, 4, 11, 14).

Edited November 29, 2012 by CV75

[DavidB]

Some claim publication by the Church. Others claim spoken at General Conference from the pulpit. While others might claim the priesthood holder spoke it.

It all puts the Members in a strange spot. I tend to go by "bind yourself to what you want, just do not claim your personal binding binds everyone."

[The Nehor]

Use the Holy Ghost to discern the difference. If you cannot or will not use that measuring stick I would not bother with Conference addresses at all.

[Duncan]

The place something is said, i.e GC doesn't make something true so...yeah

[canard78]

By the time the conference address makes it to the official conference reporter (and there are changes) it has gone through review and correlation and is binding on the church. But, technically, it is binding on the church until overruled, corrected or explained by an equal authority. As we can easily see from the scriptures, God isn't limited by what His prophets said last year.

So, if you want to see the best position of the church on modest dress by teenagers, you would look to the most recent conference address on the subject (or an official pamphlet), and not something published 50 years ago.

Could I get a CFR of conference talks being binding on the church and since when?

And what's the difference between being 'binding' and doctrinal?

How does this fit with:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counsellors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

That statement would suggest a GC talk is NOT binding.

[mathonihah]

What makes what is spoken by a Prophet speaking at General Conference the personal opinion of the Prophet as opposed to the that spoken word being the word of God?

Some claim publication by the Church. Others claim spoken at General Conference from the pulpit. While others might claim the priesthood holder spoke it.

The scripture itself says, "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost".

[volgadon]

Discuss.

No.

[Bernard Gui]

Having listened to or attended conference for 53 years, I know when the brethren are speaking the Word that

I need to hear. It pierces the soul. Not every story told or example cited has the same impact. I hear what I

need to hear, and most often it is a call to repentance.

[DBMormon]

answer to original question - The Holy Ghost

[Storm Rider]

The Church has specific guidelines for accepting revelation as coming from the Lord; it is brought before the body of the Church and we are asked to accept it as such. There is a distinct difference between an individual that is inspired by the Holy Spirit and a Church Doctrine. They are not equivalent and we should not expect them to be. An individual does not speak for God; those revelations that have been reviewed and accepted by the Brethren and then brought before the body of the Church for a vote is Doctrine. Someone that speaks by guidance of the Spirit may edify us as individuals, but what is said may or may not be Doctrine.

[Senator]

....those revelations that have been reviewed and accepted by the Brethren and then brought before the body of the Church for a vote is Doctrine.

Can you recall the last time a doctrine was voted on by the body of the church?

[thesometimesaint]

We don't vote directly on any Church doctrine. We show our agreement by sustaining the Prophets. So yes the last time was when the Priesthood was extended to all worthy male members.

[Calm]

No.

So what does it mean that I resisted the impulse to give this answer and you didn't?

[BCSpace]

What makes what is spoken by a Prophet speaking at General Conference the personal opinion of the Prophet as opposed to the that spoken word being the word of God?

Mere official publication by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without disclaimer or caveat. If it makes it to the Ensign, or the web site, or some manual etc. it is official doctrine.

Use the Holy Ghost to discern the difference. If you cannot or will not use that measuring stick I would not bother with Conference addresses at all.

This is only for determining what an individual will believe as doctrine. Official publication is the standard for the Church as it implies (see the Church's definition of doctrine in my siggy) the Church has already gone through the "Holy Ghost process" (inspiration/revelation) in making the decision to publish.

Edited November 30, 2012 by BCSpace

[volgadon]

So what does it mean that I resisted the impulse to give this answer and you didn't?

That I have weaker willpower.

[canard78]

Mere official publication by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without disclaimer or caveat. If it makes it to the Ensign, or the web site, or some manual etc. it is official doctrine.

CFR.

Actually, no need, because this is simply not correct. Having the logo on it does NOT make it doctrine. The Ensign is not doctrine. Lds.org is not doctrine.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[cdowis]

Mere official publication by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without disclaimer or caveat. If it makes it to the Ensign, or the web site, or some manual etc. it is official doctrine.

I personally do not look to the Ensign for "official doctrine". As Bernatd says, I know it when I hear it. It is a matter of spiritual maturity, that it also has been repeated and accepted by the other General Authorities, that it is clearly laid out and consistent with the canonized scriptures.

I also understand the difference between doctrine and the practice or procedure. I understand that polygamy is a doctrine, and how and when it is appropriate to practice it, for example. I understand that the extension of the priesthood to all worthy males was a matter of practice and procedure, and the doctrine itself was unchanged.

[volgadon]

CFR.

Actually, no need, because this is simply not correct. Having the logo on it does NOT make it doctrine. The Ensign is not doctrine. Lds.org is not doctrine.

http://www.mormonnew...mormon-doctrine

BCspace once got into the interesting paradox of upholding the chapter headings as doctrine and authoritative against the contrary statements of the author himself.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52741-soft-tyranny-of-lds-bible-chapter-headings/page__p__1208958771__hl__+mcconkie%20+bible%20+dictionary%20+doctrine#entry1208958771

[canard78]

I personally do not look to the Ensign for "official doctrine". As Bernatd says, I know it when I hear it. It is a matter of spiritual maturity, that it also has been repeated and accepted by the other General Authorities, that it is clearly laid out and consistent with the canonized scriptures.

I also understand the difference between doctrine and the practice or procedure. I understand that polygamy is a doctrine, and how and when it is appropriate to practice it, for example. I understand that the extension of the priesthood to all worthy males was a matter of practice and procedure, and the doctrine itself was unchanged.

I'm not fully sure what you mean by this last part about priesthood. The denial of the p'hood to blacks pre-1978 is based on no canonised doctrine that I know of. There is no clear revelation that God instructed it to be so (Joseph Smith never had any revelation on the matter). There were selected blacks with the priesthood all through the 1900s. So if you mean that the doctrine was unchanged because it was always appropriate for them to have it, but practice denied it, then I'd agree.