bluebell Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Thank you for checking that out, Herr Doktor.I thought I had remembered Elder Scott saying that, but what with my well known penchant for confusing the facts, together with my wanting to give Elder Scott the benefit of the doubt and not think he would be guilty of so ungracious a public comment toward a specific individual, I let it slide and didn't bring it up.I think the fact Elder Scott pinpointed the individual makes his comment completely inappropriate for General Conference.Does anybody disagree?All the Best!--ConsiglieriDoes anyone remember if he gave a time frame for when this teaching experience in his ward took place? I don't. As deborah stated though, if it was merely one experience from his entire life, the identity of the teacher in question is still private, so it's an important question to get the answer to if anyone is going to call him out for such an offense.
Jeff K. Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Jeff K., on 06 October 2009 - 08:02 AM, said:Do you think your inaccuracy or penchant for making fiction fact regarding church history makes your comments completely inappropriate for Gospel Doctrine?Nice dodge.Please answer the question.Do you think Elder Scott's comment was appropriate?If so, why?All the Best!--Consiglieri It applies directly to those who need to hear his words, and it reflects directly upon those who seek to reject an apostles words.It appears you are the one dodging the truth of the matter. Those who don't know church history, and yet treat rumors as fact while potentially undermining the testimony of others (usually to stroke their own egos) and rejecting the apostles. Well what can one do other than call them to repentance.The words might be hard, but they are true.I do not reject the apostles words nor consider them inappropriate. Only those who deem the words harsh in their truth would deem them so.
Somebodyz Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 ......but he says the other class was in "my ward." So, it's pretty much just one guy who's feeling pretty bad, and at least one ward of individuals who knows who it was that was thrown under the bus as an object lesson.We don't know that. We don't know if Elder Scott, didn't (or did) have a talk in private with this person. They may have known, they were going to be mentioned. We can only speculate.
consiglieri Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 We don't know if Elder Scott, didn't (or did) have a talk in private with this person. I think the teacher's name was Glenn Pace. All the Best!--Consiglieri
Jason Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Yes, it was appropriate. Why?"It is better for one man's teaching style to have been dissed then that an entire church should endure bad teaching styles."It's quite possible that the incident in question was years ago and the teacher criticized changed his style after a talk with Elder Scott. The teacher could even have given Elder Scott his permission to mention him or her in this vague way as an example - we simply don't know.
Jeff K. Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 When people want to dismiss the words of a prophet or an apostle, they focus on the inane. They try to divert away from the truth of the matter in order to undermine what was said. Whether an apostle spoke with someone or not, does not make the talk inappropriate. If one feels that the words are hard, or the truth difficult to take there are two ways to respond. To humbly accept that those things stated reflect a need for repentance, or to harden one's heart and look for excuses to dismiss what is said.I worry that the latter appears to be what is happening here. When people question the "appropriatness" of an apostles words during general conference. They are largely attempting to undermine what was said in order to justify ignoring the words. It is rather obvious that the only ones who question such appropriatness are those who want to dismiss the words as not being inspired, or not being spoken by one of authority. One can imagine what would happen in the next gospel doctrine class when one begins with "I think Elder Scott's talk regarding Sunday School was inappropriate". Is this really what we want to justify? Are we so small minded that we cannot accept what is said?The adversary has many tools, and looks to undercut the apostles in anyway possible. Whether it is through poor scholarship on the part of a teacher that uses rumor as fact in history, or the focus on inane issues that overlook the fact an apostle felt these words needed to be said. It is apalling how easily some seem to buy into such a stance, to fall so easily.There was absolutely nothing inappropriate from Elder Scott regarding his talk. His words ring true and the reaction of some reflects that truth even more strongly given the attempts to downgrade the talk somehow. It would be unfortunate if such people continued to negate the apostles while teaching the doctrine of the gospel. Unfortunate indeed.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I would just like to announce that I was insulted by Elder Scott's talk and that I'm frothing with rage about it.
Deborah Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 This discussion reminds me of the hullabaloo that arose when Sis. Beck gave her talk a few conferences back. Seriously, people do you not understand that part of listening to these talks is having the spirit to discern what applies to or what is needed in your own life. If it doesn't apply then Elder Scott through the Spirit wasn't addressing you. If you are all in a tizzy then maybe you should ask yourself why.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I need to publicly declare that I was insulted by Sister Beck's talk and that I'm still frothing with rage about it.
Senator Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 When people question the "appropriatness" of an apostles words during general conference. They are largely attempting to undermine what was said in order to justify ignoring the words. Is it impossible for an Apostle to utter inappropriate words at GC?Just curious
Jeff K. Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Jeff K., on 06 October 2009 - 10:37 AM, said:When people question the "appropriatness" of an apostles words during general conference. They are largely attempting to undermine what was said in order to justify ignoring the words.Is it impossible for an Apostle to utter inappropriate words at GC?Just curious Is it possible for stiff necked members to humble themselves when an apostle speaks?Just curious.Elder Scotts talk was appropriate no matter how much you might dislike it senator. Again, focus on the inane instead of the talk. An excellent tactic, but only if you want to undermine an apostle.
Somebodyz Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I think the teacher's name was Glenn Pace. All the Best!--ConsiglieriWhy did you think it funny to pick his name out? or was it a While he was a member of the general presidency of the church's Sunday School for 3yrs, it was some time ago.Seems my humour is different than your on this one.
Jeff K. Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 It must have been a heck of a talk from Sister Beck. Unfortunately it was under my radar.
Senator Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Is it possible for stiff necked members to humble themselves when an apostle speaks?Just curious.Elder Scotts talk was appropriate no matter how much you might dislike it senator. Again, focus on the inane instead of the talk. An excellent tactic, but only if you want to undermine an apostle.Jeff,Retract the fangs man, I asked a simple question that is not implicating anything. I have not commented one way or the other regarding this topic. How you could possibly make those characterizations from my question is beyond me.
Doctor Steuss Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 So I take it that no one other than my parents saw the talk as a reminder that some people who dislike given teaching styles might need to repent for not supporting a person called by G-d by revelation to a given calling? And that the responsibility to receive personal revelation and the spirit from lessons is more dependent on the individual than the teacher?
Jeff K. Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Jeff,Retract the fangs man, I asked a simple question that is not implicating anything. I have not commented one way or the other regarding this topic. How you could possibly make those characterizations from my question is beyond me.Senator, The only fangs you see are the implications to what is being said nothing more. Do you senator believe that Elder Scott's talk was inappropriate and therefore the apostle should not have given it?
Somebodyz Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 So I take it that no one other than my parents saw the talk as a reminder that some people who dislike given teaching styles might need to repent for not supporting a person called by G-d by revelation to a given calling? And that the responsibility to receive personal revelation and the spirit from lessons is more dependent on the individual than the teacher?I didn't hear it that way, but I'll go hear it again and listen with perhaps more open ears. You've made a good point.
Senator Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 So I take it that no one other than my parents saw the talk as a reminder that some people who dislike given teaching styles might need to repent for not supporting a person called by G-d by revelation to a given calling? And that the responsibility to receive personal revelation and the spirit from lessons is more dependent on the individual than the teacher?I would say both points have been heavily advocated here.
consiglieri Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 Why did you think it funny to pick his name out? or was it a Unless my memory is still fading (note to JeffK!), Glenn Pace was the BYU Professor "outed" by BRM during his conference talk to which Dr. Steuss made reference above.(You know, a joke isn't funny when you have to explain it.) All the Best!--Consiglieri
consiglieri Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 So I take it that no one other than my parents saw the talk as a reminder that some people who dislike given teaching styles might need to repent for not supporting a person called by G-d by revelation to a given calling? I don't know.Did you see it that way, JeffK?
consiglieri Posted October 6, 2009 Author Posted October 6, 2009 I would just like to announce that I was insulted by Elder Scott's talk and that I'm frothing with rage about it.Please don't forget to crawl over the Book of Mormon on your way out.
Jeff K. Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I don't know consig. I thought the talk by Elder Scott was an interesting talk. I was surprised at some of the similarities to what I had said before. Beyond that I see it as simply a talk by an apostle reminding us of what we should do. Nothing complicated by that, though some take it hard.
Somebodyz Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 Unless my memory is still fading (note to JeffK!), Glenn Pace was the BYU Professor "outed" by BRM during his conference talk to which Dr. Steuss made reference above.(You know, a joke isn't funny when you have to explain it.) All the Best!--ConsiglierMy first thought was the Pace memorandum after your post.yeah and I know it loses it's flavour when explained.
Jeff K. Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I certainly did not consider any of the talks "inappropriate" in either tenor or doctrine.
Doctor Steuss Posted October 6, 2009 Posted October 6, 2009 I didn't hear it that way, but I'll go hear it again and listen with perhaps more open ears. You've made a good point.I'm personally have a hard time seeing it that way, but I also readily admit that I had unfortunately formed an opinion of the talk before actually hearing it (that, and I'm a heretic).In the overall context of the talk, it seems to make sense though (I think).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.