Elder Scott's Talk

[Senator]

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?

"The only fangs you see are the implications to what is being said nothing more. "

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but ok, whatever.

I could say yes or no to your question and it would be entirely irrelevant to the question I asked.

I asked, "Is it impossible for an Apostle to make inappropriate remarks in a GC. A simple yes or no would be an acceptable answer.

Dependant on the answer, would then inform the next question, as to whether it would ever be appropriate for someone to call an Apostles remarks inappropriate. That's all

[Note to self: remember to do cervical vertebrael exercises]

[Jeff K.]

I have never in my life and in all my readings read of an apostle making inappropriate remarks in conference, so I have nothing to guage the answer by. It hasn't happened. While not to the level of "Can God sin", the question would appear to similar in nature.

[changed]

I think the fact Elder Scott pinpointed the individual makes his comment completely inappropriate for General Conference.

the scriptures are full of people being pinpointed... What was he supposed to say? It is all speculations/hand waving/imaginative fairy story telling without bringing up some actual real examples...

The church is very serious about not telling stories over the pulpit that are not true, if it is just a story, you better make sure everyone knows it is just an Aesop's fable so to speak. If it is a real story, you had better be able to give the details/names/places so that it can be verified. Otherwise anyone could say anything, rumors/Mormon myths get started, everything gets discredited/ truths mixed in with stories, who knows what is what?

It is appropriate to share true stories, with enough details that everyone knows it is true, and address problem areas in the church at GC. IMO.

If some decide not to listen/follow advice - to learn from it, say "thanks for the tip" (like saying thanks for telling me my fly was down, how embarrassing, let me fix it so I don't further embarrass myself) learn from it and change, or don't learn and be offended - and then lose your calling.

your choice.

There has been plenty of accounts shared at GC.... Should the people who refused to wear the safety gear and hung on the bottom of the bridge for an hour before being rescued be offended that they were used as an example of what not to do? 7 individuals pinpointed!!! That was a true story too... we can all google to see who was stupid enough not to wear their safety gear. But then there is no thread on that talk, because no one here has that specific problem, no one here refuses to wear ropes while doing construction work, and so it is not an issue.

[changed]

While not to the level of "Can God sin", the question would appear to similar in nature.

LOL! Isn't there something about being struck dead by lightning if...?

[Senator]

I have never in my life and in all my readings read of an apostle making inappropriate remarks in conference, so I have nothing to guage the answer by. It hasn't happened. While not to the level of "Can God sin", the question would appear to similar in nature.

Yes the question is philosophical in nature, and doesn't require any precedence or personal experience.

Is it possible?

[staccato]

Please don't forget to crawl over the Book of Mormon on your way out.

[changed]

Yes the question is philosophical in nature, and doesn't require any precedence or personal experience.

Is it possible?

If it happened, the person who gave the comment would immediately be corrected. That is one of the jobs of the bishop/councilors in sacrament meeting. the job of the prophet/other apostles at GC.

Haven't you ever been in a meeting in which someone said something off the wall, and then the bishop got up and said something like "I just want to stand and clarify a certain subject before we move on..."

[consiglieri]

Yes the question is philosophical in nature, and doesn't require any precedence or personal experience.

Is it possible?

While you are waiting for a response from JeffK to the interesting interrogatory, Senator, I will remark that his equating the question of whether an apostle can say something "inappropriate" in conference to the question of whether God can sin is telling, if misplaced.

One thinks of statements made in conferences past to the effect of Adam being the only God with whom we have to do (appropriate?) to Jesus having more than one wife (appropriate?) to the shedding of one's own blood to atone for sins (appropriate?).

Although I think none of the above comes close to the inappropriate nature of BRM's outing of Brother Pace almot 30-years ago, and I see Elder Scott's comment as a paler lower-profile version of the same.

It is also necessary to once more point out that JeffK is shifting the issue. All I have asked is whether this one comment by Elder Scott was appropriate, and he is subtly turning it into the issue of whether his entire talk was appropriate and whether he should have given the talk at all.

It should also be pointed out that we are talking about the appropriateness of one comment by Elder Scott in which he commented on the inappropriateness of the lesson of a Sunday school teacher.

Does the license to make such comments run only one way?

Is it okay for an apostle to say a member's comment is inappropriate, but not okay for a member to return the favor?

We'll see what JeffK has to say . . . maybe.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

There has been plenty of accounts shared at GC.... Should the people who refused to wear the safety gear and hung on the bottom of the bridge for an hour before being rescued be offended that they were used as an example of what not to do? 7 individuals pinpointed!!! That was a true story too... we can all google to see who was stupid enough not to wear their safety gear. But then there is no thread on that talk, because no one here has that specific problem, no one here refuses to wear ropes while doing construction work, and so it is not an issue.

This is a good point.

Although it does raise the question of how the members of the family of any of the deceased might feel should they happen to be Mormon and tuned into Conference this past weekend.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

Sorry for interrupting your attempt to undermine Elder Scotts talk consig. Nothing, absolutely nothing he said was inappropriate.

You however seem to think that his talk contains inappropriate elements. Does doing so make you feel better? Why not humbly accept that the talk was not inappropriate in any sense rather than let your pride lead the way.

No, I know of no talk by an apostle that has been inapprpriate. The fact that you are so deseperately seeking an escape from the talk speaks volumes to how close it has come to what you may erroneously presumed earlier.

I am not shifting the discussion, I am starkly pointing out what is being attempted.

It is unfortunate that people persist in undermining apostles because their own pride interferes with greater introspection.

Thomas Marsh comes to mind.

[changed]

Is it okay for an apostle to say a member's comment is inappropriate, ...

What if the member's comment was inappropriate? Obviously they need to be corrected before the problem propagates. What are you supposed to do, stand by and say nothing? That no one in GC can ever make any suggestion to anyone again, that only praises and good things can be said about anyone? We're all human, we all make mistakes. We can all be better. What is wrong with someone suggesting "here is something you can do to be better?" The only way to move forward is to correct what needs to be fixed don't you think?

[Jeff K.]

I still have trouble understanding why some people dislike a talk by the apostle, why the need to undermine is so great, that they persist when in fact the talk is endorsed by an apostle and the prophet himself. Are such people presuming that they speak for God in their attempts? Or is their pride such that they are more right than apostle and prophet?

[consiglieri]

What if the member's comment was inappropriate? Obviously they need to be corrected before the problem propagates. What are you supposed to do, stand by and say nothing? That no one in GC can ever make any suggestion to anyone again, that only praises and good things can be said about anyone? We're all human, we all make mistakes. We can all be better. What is wrong with someone suggesting "here is something you can do to be better?" The only way to move forward is to correct what needs to be fixed don't you think?

I agree with you wholeheartedly, changed.

But I think the same rules should apply if the member in question happens to be an apostle.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

It is unfortunate that people persist in undermining apostles because their own pride interferes with greater introspection.

Thomas Marsh comes to mind.

Thomas Marsh, whom you just undermined, was an apostle.

[Jeff K.]

What is wrong with someone suggesting "here is something you can do to be better?" The only way to move forward is to correct what needs to be fixed don't you think?

Obviously some people cannot hold with the idea that they can improve upon what they do, or the direction they are going in is the wrong direction. How dare an apostle disagree with those choice elite individuals who obviously know better.

[Jeff K.]

Thomas Marsh, whom you just undermined, was an apostle.

Thomas Marsh reflects the folly of someone who puts their own pride before correction. And he was an apostle for a season, but ceased being one when he chose to undermine the church rather than correct his course of action.

Which reflects a certain dishonesty in the way you presented the context. I am sure you would have used Judas Isacariot also to support your position. But is that really a wise thing to do?

[Senator]

If it happened, the person who gave the comment would immediately be corrected. That is one of the jobs of the bishop/councilors in sacrament meeting. the job of the prophet/other apostles at GC.

Haven't you ever been in a meeting in which someone said something off the wall, and then the bishop got up and said something like "I just want to stand and clarify a certain subject before we move on..."

I'm referring specifically to an Apostle, or lets say Pres. Monson.

[changed]

This is a good point.

Although it does raise the question of how the members of the family of any of the deceased might feel should they happen to be Mormon and tuned into Conference this past weekend.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If I were family of one of the deceased, I would do everything I could to encourage others to use their safety equipment. It would be sad if the mistake was repeated due to lack of info... lack of info due to information not being passed on/openly shared.

either learn from mistakes, and let others learn from them too... or hide mistakes, let everyone repeat them.

[Calm]

consig, you are concerned with Brother Scott's criticizing someone in public without identifying them and without knowing the background (whether or not he talked to the man, etc.), but you are apparently quite comfortable with criticizing Brother Scott in public for criticizing someone else.

I am puzzled why you think it's inappropriate for him to do it...especially in a vague and ambiguous way and it is okay for you to do it in specific detail. Surely if it's inappropriate for Brother Scott in any situation, it is inappropriate for you.

[Jeff K.]

Why should one presume that an apostle is constrained to do things specifically one way or another? Isn't that between the quorum and the first presidency?

Which is more likely when an apostle speaks, the need for introspection or the need to correct an apostle for presumed misdeeds of inappropriatness?

[changed]

I'm referring specifically to an Apostle, or lets say Pres. Monson.

from the lesson manual (see - I'm using the manual, there is good stuff in it!)

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=3518b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

...Despite these challenges, the large majority of the leaders and members of the Church remained faithful. ..

Orson Hyde, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, reported: ?Joseph the Prophet ? said, ?Brethren, remember that the majority of this people will never go astray; and as long as you keep with the majority you are sure to enter the celestial kingdom.? ?16

William G. Nelson reported: ?I have heard the Prophet speak in public on many occasions. In one meeting I heard him say: ?I will give you a key that will never rust,?if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.? The history of the Church has proven this to be true.?17

Ezra T. Clark remembered: ?I heard the Prophet Joseph say that he would give the Saints a key whereby they would never be led away or deceived, and that was: The Lord would never suffer a majority of this people to be led away or deceived by imposters, nor would He allow the records of this Church to fall into the hands of the enemy.?18

the apostles are prophets too. If the majority of the aposltes, GA's members disagree with the prophet, or anyone, go with the majority. There is safety in numbers.

[CV75]

And it doesn't make any difference if it was the one he was actually referring to; instead of pinpointing the teacher, he laid out a general kind of comment that would have any teacher where he was present feel bad, being ostensibly called out in front of the whole church; and how would those teachers feel about showing up to teach next Sunday?

I think if Elder Scott really had such an impression about a particular Sunday school teacher, he should have just spoken to that teacher personally after class, and not waited to bring him up at General Conference.

Chastening by the Lord (or His Spirit, or His servants) is not designed to be convenient to our sensibilities (He. 12:5-11), but is always beneficial (D&C95:1-2) if we receive it well (Job 5:17). There is no better way to receive assistance to repent (D&C 1:27, 61:8 ).

It would be good for teachers to take heed to what they are feeling when they hear this talk and use it to become better teachers if the example of poor teaching behavior is what they keyed-in on.

We do not know if Elder Scott had spoken to the offending teacher. If he had, anyone who knows the sweet outcome of repentance knows that the teacher will not feel offended by having old ineffective behaviors anonymously mentioned in general conference as part of an example that supports a much greater principle. If Elder Scott hadn't spoken to the teacher, then the teacher has an opportunity to be chastened, depending on his or her readiness to recognize and receive it.

edited to remove that bubble-blowing icon!

[Calm]

I'm referring specifically to an Apostle, or lets say Pres. Monson.

I believe Brigham Young corrected himself and JS corrected others on occasion.

I would be reluctant to do so myself publicly unless it was under my jurisdiction to do so. That seems to be a significant difference between the examples given and what is happening here, especially since in this case the comments were vague enough to not be likely to be speculated about by anyone save the individual himself.

As to the families of those who died on the bridge, I suspect if they were listening they only heard a version of what they had said themselves hundreds of times...

If we have to tiptoe around and not point out other people's mistakes for fear of possible offense (just like people are so carefuly about Brother Scott's feelings in this thread ), then we will have to resort to pure fantasy situations which is absurd. If we can't learn from other people's mistakes, we better have a long afterlife prior to the judgment day. Personally I'm hoping that watching others screwup may just help lessen a few of my own and if someone wants to use my mistakes to help others, I applaud the effort.

[consiglieri]

It is my hope that the anonymous teacher to whom Elder Scott obliquely referred will take his message to heart and change whatever he needs to change in the manner he presents the Gospel.

Is it wrong for me to have the same hope for Elder Scott?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

It is my hope that the anonymous teacher to whom Elder Scott obliquely referred will take his message to heart and change whatever he needs to change in the manner he presents the Gospel.

Is it wrong for me to have the same hope for Elder Scott?

Yes. Your hope pre-supposes that Elder Scott must change, when you are in no position to judge such. Elder Scott, as an Apostle, is in a position to judge whether the teacher should change.