Jump to content
Scott Lloyd

Scrutinizing general conference

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I don't think it teases observant Mormon so much as it does some formerly observant ones who are looking for self-vindication for their subsequent choice(s).

Sure, if you're going to be flailingly negative that is going to be your conclusion.  I see it more as people trying to find answers for that which just hit them.  I'm sure each individual's motive is many, a bit more complicated then that. 

I do agree with you, though, this was clearly an effort to point fingers of scorn by those sitting comfortably in a big building. 

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

  I thought though that all I needed to know was what I was taught..an to  believe and live it.

And that thought never occurred to me, probably because I was highly focused on the teaching of line upon line and eternal progression.  How could what we knew now ever be all we needed to know if truth was revealed over time?

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

After I left, I avoided conference because it tended to cause conflict in my family, so I don't know that I was ever interested in dissecting the talks intently. When I was a believer, I always watched conference, but I enjoyed reading the talks when they were published because I could spend more time reading the references and pondering the words. This weekend we were so busy getting our daughter off to Texas that we didn't have time to watch. The only thing I've heard was from a friend who said that apparently Elder Oaks said something that had a few people bent out of shape, but my friend didn't know what was said. I'm really not interested in looking into it. 

Maybe that's the final stage of apostasy: apathy. 

Glad you're safe, btw. I was worried this morning. 

I think one thing that may have gotten some people "bent out of shape" over the Oaks talk is that he (a participant in the process) went into some detail about the origen of the family proclamation. This no doubt contradicted the supposition that some critics were harboring to the effect that the document was drafted by lawyers and what not.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think one thing that may have gotten some people "bent out of shape" over the Oaks talk is that he (a participant in the process) went into some detail about the origen of the family proclamation. This no doubt contradicted the supposition that some critics were harboring to the effect that the document was drafted by lawyers and what not.

Well, whatever. Seems odd to get upset about that. 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Sure, if you're going to be flailingly negative that is going to be your conclusion.  I see it more as people trying to find answers for that which just hit them.  I'm sure each individual's motive is many, a bit more complicated then that.

Not sure what you mean by "flailingly negative." I don't flail all that much, especially when interpreting Facebook memes.

Maybe you meant to say "unfailingly negative." But that doesn't describe me either.

And I think you meant to write "more complicated than that." You made the same error as the creator of the meme. (As I mentioned, I'm fan of irony.)

Quote

I do agree with you, though, this was clearly an effort to point fingers of scorn by those sitting comfortably in a big building. 

If that's what you think, you definitely don't agree with me.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, whatever. Seems odd to get upset about that. 

I can see it if one is trying to sustain a narrative that the proclamation was not really drawn up by prophets and apostles acting under divine inspiration.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think one thing that may have gotten some people "bent out of shape" over the Oaks talk is that he (a participant in the process) went into some detail about the origen of the family proclamation. This no doubt contradicted the supposition that some critics were harboring to the effect that the document was drafted by lawyers and what not.

I didn't hear the talk (I'm going to try to this evening as I recorded conference).  

But, I had a YW presidency meeting this morning and they were all taking about this one talk.  The only thing they questioned or expressed was to wonder why the Prophet at the time the proclamation was presented to the church members (President Hinckley) didn't state that it was a revelation.  Why did it take over 20 years to reveal that? 

Did Elder Oak's go into that at all?

 

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The OP, so very true! Right now on websites where the sole objective, (or what they hope) is to bring down the Church. Or to draw away others from it. They "sadly" often pay more attention in order to engage in "quote mining", to search out contradiction. This, that such quotes may be used as cannon fodder, and "grape shot", (look up that golden oldie) to inflict maximum casualties. I do not speak of former members who just seek out living their lives in peace, but those who are left to "kick against the pricks". Let us just hope that more where uplifted, than were made "low". My recent reading in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Coventants, reminds me of this very danger. Something that Elder Ballard said, reminded me of something the Prophet Joseph Smith said; "Cling close the the bark of the tree, least reaching for the limbs ye fall". I hope I quoted it correctly, but it was when Elder Ballard spoke of those who "look beyond the mark". Also his warning of those who follow after others or groups that make claims to "secret revelations", or to put it is Biblical terms, "those seeking teachers unto themselves, having itching ears". Which by the way, is a sign of the times for the "last days". Please forgive any error in quotes, using an IPad as I do, it makes it hard to run down every quote. 

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think one thing that may have gotten some people "bent out of shape" over the Oaks talk is that he (a participant in the process) went into some detail about the origen of the family proclamation. This no doubt contradicted the supposition that some critics were harboring to the effect that the document was drafted by lawyers and what not.

And here I thought all along the family proclamation was a "revelation" so the church could get standing in a Hawaii ssm case. http://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/2/2017 at 1:09 PM, JulieM said:

I didn't hear the talk (I'm going to try to this evening as I recorded conference).  

But, I had a YW presidency meeting this morning and they were all taking about this one talk.  The only thing they questioned or expressed was to wonder why the Prophet at the time the proclamation was presented to the church members (President Hinckley) didn't state that it was a revelation.  Why did it take over 20 years to reveal that? 

Did Elder Oak's go into that at all?

 

My memory is that he didn't, but I would have to get hold of a copy of the text or transcription to be certain.

I've given my take on this, but I'll do so again. I don't feel the proclamation is a revelation in the sense of having broken new ground doctrinally; what it did was to summarize and reaffirm truths that were already had among the Latter-day Saints and had been taught for generations.

That said, I regard it as a "revelatory document" in the sense that God inspired prophets and apostles to draft it and to publish it to the world. The act of issuing the proclamation at that point in time seems remarkably prescient to me in view of what has happened subsequently.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My memory is that he didn't, but I would have to get hold of a copy of the text or transcription to be certain.

I've given my take on this, but I'll do so again. I don't feel the proclamation is a revelation in the sense of having broken new ground doctrinally; what it did was to summarize and reaffirm truths that were already had among the Latter-day Saints and had been taught for generations.

That said, I regard it as a "revelatory document" in the sense that God inspired prophets and apostles to draft it and to publish it to the world . The act of issuing the proclamation at that point in time seems remarkably prescient to me in view of what has happened subsequently.

 

It would seem reasonable to expect that a "revelatory document" would be canonized as scripture. It seems clear that the brethren view it on the same kind of level as scripture, yet 20+ years later it still hasn't been done. I find that curious. I suppose if they really think it is important that we view it as revelation they will make efforts to have it canonized in the D&C in the next few years. Maybe Oaks' talk is one step leading in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here is how it was presented by Pres. Hinckley back in 1995:

Thanks,

-Smac

It sounds like a position statement upon which church policy will be founded. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a "declaration" and a "reaffirmation" of standards but it doesn't sound particularly "revelatory". Elder Oaks' conference talk seems to make a point of saying it's not just a policy or statement, but rather "revelation". Perhaps his memory is fading or maybe he is in disagreement with the way Pres. Hinkley presented it.

Thanks for posting Pres. Hinkley's words.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It sounds like a position statement upon which church policy will be founded. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a "declaration" and a "reaffirmation" of standards but it doesn't sound particularly "revelatory". Elder Oaks' conference talk seems to make a point of saying it's not just a policy or statement, but rather "revelation". Perhaps his memory is fading or maybe he is in disagreement with the way Pres. Hinkley presented it.

Thanks for posting Pres. Hinkley's words.

Elder Oaks called it a "revelatory document."  I don't think your characterization of Elder Oaks as having a fading memory or being in disagreement with Presidency Hinkley is fair to either.

Also, it seems as if anytime that a prophet begins something by saying that he feels the need to "warn and forewarn" that this is more than just "policy." 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

After I left, I avoided conference because it tended to cause conflict in my family, so I don't know that I was ever interested in dissecting the talks intently. When I was a believer, I always watched conference, but I enjoyed reading the talks when they were published because I could spend more time reading the references and pondering the words. This weekend we were so busy getting our daughter off to Texas that we didn't have time to watch. The only thing I've heard was from a friend who said that apparently Elder Oaks said something that had a few people bent out of shape, but my friend didn't know what was said. I'm really not interested in looking into it. 

Maybe that's the final stage of apostasy: apathy. 

Glad you're safe, btw. I was worried this morning. 

I am waiting to hear from Las Vegas relatives now...A shout out to our families and friends in Las Vegas.  Much love.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It sounds like a position statement upon which church policy will be founded.

It could be construed that way, I suppose.  It could also have been the result of spiritual/revelatory experience as described by Elder Oaks.  These are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories.

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There's nothing wrong with that. It's a "declaration" and a "reaffirmation" of standards but it doesn't sound particularly "revelatory". Elder Oaks' conference talk seems to make a point of saying it's not just a policy or statement, but rather "revelation".

I'd agree with your statement if put this way: "Elder Oaks' conference talk seems to make a point of saying it's not just a policy or statement, but also 'revelatory.'"

I don't think there is any requirement for a revelation to plow new ground in order to be revelatory.  There seems to be ample precedent for revelatory guidance being repeated many times.

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps his memory is fading or maybe he is in disagreement with the way Pres. Hinkley presented it.

I don't think Pres. Hinckley's representations and Elder Oaks' are in conflict.

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Thanks for posting Pres. Hinkley's words.

Sure!

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My memory is that he didn't, but I would have to get hold of a copy of the text or transcription to be certain.

I've given my take on this, but I'll do so again. I don't feel the proclamation is a revelation in the sense of having broken new ground doctrinally; what it did was to summarize and reaffirm truths that were already had among the Latter-day Saints and had been taught for generations.

That said, I regard it as a "revelatory document" in the sense that God inspired prophets and apostles to draft it and to publish it to the world . The act of issuing the proclamation at that point in time seems remarkably prescient to me in view of what has happened subsequently.

Thanks Scott!

I am anxious to watch it and hear Elder Oak's memories of the process.  Sounds like a very interesting talk and the one people are talking about.

I felt more of a negative reaction (in my meeting), so it's good to hear the positive side here.

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I didn't hear the talk (I'm going to try to this evening as I recorded conference).  

But, I had a YW presidency meeting this morning and they were all taking about this one talk.  The only thing they questioned or expressed was to wonder why the Prophet at the time the proclamation was presented to the church members (President Hinckley) didn't state that it was a revelation.  Why did it take over 20 years to reveal that? 

Perhaps the same reason the Word of Wisdom wasn't first given as a commandment...

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I don't think there is any requirement for a revelation to plow new ground in order to be revelatory.  There seems to be ample precedent for revelatory guidance being repeated many times.

 

Sure!

Thanks,

-Smac

True. At least if you aren't expecting a "revelation" to "reveal" anything.

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It would seem reasonable to expect that a "revelatory document" would be canonized as scripture. It seems clear that the brethren view it on the same kind of level as scripture, yet 20+ years later it still hasn't been done. I find that curious. I suppose if they really think it is important that we view it as revelation they will make efforts to have it canonized in the D&C in the next few years. Maybe Oaks' talk is one step leading in that direction.

Perhaps.

But maybe one reason it hasn't been is that it is one of five proclamations of the First Presidency and the Twelve that have been issued in Church history, and to canonize it would amount to a departure from precedent as the previous four were not so canonized.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True. At least if you aren't expecting a "revelation" to "reveal" anything.

That the Lord would want certain doctrinal truths given particular emphasis at a specific point in time is impressive enough to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I didn't hear the talk (I'm going to try to this evening as I recorded conference).  

But, I had a YW presidency meeting this morning and they were all taking about this one talk.  The only thing they questioned or expressed was to wonder why the Prophet at the time the proclamation was presented to the church members (President Hinckley) didn't state that it was a revelation.  Why did it take over 20 years to reveal that? 

Did Elder Oak's go into that at all?

 

When President Oaks talked about it he said it was somehow a surprise that members didn't have an understanding of the things pointed out in the proclamation and that is why it was written.  I have to say that sometimes I find myself surprised that some don't feel it is doctrine or revelation. It just seems so straight forward to me. Perhaps that is along the lines of why it took so long. 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My memory is that he didn't, but I would have to get hold of a copy of the text or transcription to be certain.

I've given my take on this, but I'll do so again. I don't feel the proclamation is a revelation in the sense of having broken new ground doctrinally; what it did was to summarize and reaffirm truths that were already had among the Latter-day Saints and had been taught for generations.

That said, I regard it as a "revelatory document" in the sense that God inspired prophets and apostles to draft it and to publish it to the world . The act of issuing the proclamation at that point in time seems remarkably prescient to me in view of what has happened subsequently.

 

Agreed.

 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It sounds like a position statement upon which church policy will be founded. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a "declaration" and a "reaffirmation" of standards but it doesn't sound particularly "revelatory". Elder Oaks' conference talk seems to make a point of saying it's not just a policy or statement, but rather "revelation". Perhaps his memory is fading or maybe he is in disagreement with the way Pres. Hinkley presented it.

Thanks for posting Pres. Hinkley's words.

Not just of standards, but as President Hinckley said it is also a reaffirmation of "doctrine".

Edited by Rain
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I found this interesting, although I thought that the leaders said something in 1907 in response to the Reed Smoot situation

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Proclamations_of_the_First_Presidency_and_the_Quorum_of_the_Twelve_Apostles

I knew about the 1845 and 1980 one but since the EOM published there is the 1995 one

Apparently the Church in 1907 published "Address of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the World". although what the difference is between a proclamation and an address to the world is I have not the foggiest

Edited by Duncan

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...