General Conference Discussion Thread!

[Deborah]

Does anyone know the original source of that Brigham Young quote. I need it!

[Garden Girl]

Is it possible that "these times are a changing"? This talk was much more like the church I was raised in as a child and young girl.

This talk could actually make me consider coming back to the church someday.

My prayer Bridget, of course, is that that will be sooner than later, and that this conference will open the way for you to ponder those things you've heard...

All good wishes... GG

[mercyngrace]

This talk could actually make me consider coming back to the church someday.

Awesome Bridget I've been saving you a seat...

[KevinG]

Just because not every utterance of a Prophet is prophetic (many of us already knew that before Elder C's talk) does not mean we can pick and choose which of God's laws we should follow or sustain.

I see strength in his talk if we use it to search out the will of God but danger if we use it to justify which teachings we choose to follow or ignore (cafeteria belief). There is also danger in blindly accepting anything a prophet says as doctrine without applying some sense and verifying it with God.

Discipleship is an ongoing process of faith and shedding our own biases through humility and obedience to God.

Edited April 1, 2012 by KevinG

[Nominee]

Just because not every utterance of a Prophet is prophetic (many of us already knew that before Elder C's talk) does not mean we can pick and choose which of God's laws we should follow or sustain.

I see strength in his talk if we use it to search out the will of God but danger if we use it to justify which teachings we choose to follow or ignore (cafeteria belief). There is also danger in blindly accepting anything a prophet says as doctrine without applying some sense and verifying it with God.

Discipleship is an ongoing process of faith and shedding our own biases through humility and obedience to God.

BIG TIME.

*could someone please give DaddyG a rep point for me again? Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

BIG TIME.

*could someone please give DaddyG a rep point for me again? Thanks.

Sorry, I've already used up my rep point privilege for his post.

[Sky]

I was stuck this morning that two separate speakers spoke about "some of the sweetest spirits are housed in less than perfect bodies" meaning some kind of handicap or something to that effect.

[zerinus]

I think it would be a good idea if a separate thread was created for each conference speaker about whose talk(s) people may wish to comment. It is impossible to carry out a serious discussion of all the talks that were given in one long thread.

[Nominee]

I think it would be a good idea if a separate thread was created for each conference speaker about whose talk(s) people may wish to comment.

Yes, after conference has ended.

[rongo]

I especially liked the story Elder Christopherson told of Brigham Young who had spoken in a morning confer

ence session about some soldiers he was upset about and something else and then in the afternoon a GA contradicted him by saying that what BY said this morning was BY talking. This afternoon the Lord would be speaking and contradicted all that BY had said that morning.

I also liked that he said that it is only by personal inspiration of the audience members can they know if what the leader spoke is from God and that is what the early church taught . . . This talk could actually make me consider coming back to the church someday.

I wrote a long paper with several similar quotes from the Brethren along these lines. Brigham Young was foremost among these, but there are a lot of good ones. Admonitions to sift and weigh what *they* tell us and to reject that which is wrong.

http://www.fairlds.org/authors/jones-mckay/well-nigh-as-dangerous

I really like this one from John Taylor (while president of the Church):

It requires the Presidency of the Church to seek after God in all of their administrations . . . Now we ought not to allow our feeling to have any place in these matters. No man has a right to use his priesthood to carry on his own peculiar ideas, or to set himself up as a standard, with the exception of the First Presidency, and they have no right to do it unless God be with them, and sustain them, and they are upheld by the people.

Note that, according to President Taylor, not even the First Presidency (the governing quorum of the Church) has the authority to make doctrinal declarations unless these three criteria are met: 1) God is with them 2) God sustains them in it 3) the people sustain it.

This was ridiculed by senators in the Smoot hearings ("So, church members have veto power over God?"), but it is a key as to why the Brethren can't lead astray: it has nothing to do with physical hindrance or removal, and everything to do with the power and duty of independent confirmation of individual members. As Brigham Young said, "it would not be an hour" after one of the Brethren said something false that it would be rejected by the people:

"How do you know that your humble servant is really, honestly, guiding and counseling you aright, and directing the affairs of the kingdom aright? . . . How do you know but I am teaching false doctrine? How do you know that I am not counseling you wrong? How do you know but I will lead you to destruction? . . . Live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord, and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God . . . But to return to my question to the Saints, “How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?” By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin?. . . But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? . . . If I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!” All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach . . . It would not sit well on the mind . . . and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it."

[Pahoran]

Paraphrasing Elder D. Todd Christopherson - "Just because a general authority, apostle or prophet says something over the pulpit, or writes something, doesn't make it doctrine." I see this as a very important/constructive/positive thing to tell the membership.

I agree.

And it is orthodox LDS doctrine.

I was pleasantly surprised. I especially liked the story Elder Christopherson told of Brigham Young who had spoken in a morning conference session about some soldiers he was upset about and something else and then in the afternoon a GA contradicted him by saying that what BY said this morning was BY talking. This afternoon the Lord would be speaking and contradicted all that BY had said that morning.

Just so you know, Brigham was the GA who spoke in the afternoon and contradicted what Brigham said in the morning.

I also liked that he said that it is only by personal inspiration of the audience members can they know if what the leader spoke is from God and that is what the early church taught. I certainly know that some of the things BKP has said about gays is not from God.

What BKP said, or what he has been misrepresented as saying?

I am satisfied that everything he actually said on the subject is of God. The fact that it contradicts the prevailing sentiment of the world is evidence in its favour.

Is it possible that "these times are a changing"? This talk was much more like the church I was raised in as a child and young girl.

I don't know that anything has actually changed.

My real takeaway from the talk is that the important stuff is the doctrine of Christ. The simple, profound truths Christ taught. The atonement. This doctrine hasn't changed much over the years, right? I felt like there was a subtext of "Anything not the doctrine of Christ is actually less important. Use your own judgment and discernment."

Elder Bednar (among others) has taught that the impressions that come into our minds as we listen to the Lord's servants may well be our own personal revelation. Which is to say, if that is the impression you got, then that message may well be there -- but it is a message for you. So instead of hoping that someone else gets it, perhaps you might ponder what it means for you. Because you are who it is for.

This talk could actually make me consider coming back to the church someday.

I hope you do.

I know President Packer would welcome you back with open arms.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nominee]

"Put everything you do outside the home in subjection to everything you do inside the home." NICE!

Blown away! Fantastic talk, M. Russell Ballard, fantastic talk.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Nominee

[why me]

This talk could actually make me consider coming back to the church someday.

I don't think that he said anything new for us old timers. I remember the JoD before the internet. I don't remember anyone reading it, thinking that everything in it was doctrine. it is the internet that has confused many members as critic sites post quotations as doctrine. The joseph smith quotation was known in the past. I also like the reference in the talk. It was important not just for the members but also for the media that may be listening. I think that this talk scored a bullseye.

[why me]

I don't know that anything has actually changed.

Regards,

Pahoran

I think that this conference was a tad different with its messages. I can't put a reason for that though. It just seems that way. I think that maybe one reason could be the tone and topics of the talks. They all were spot on and topical for us today. Also, I do believe that many outside the church who may have been listening because of Mitt Romney got a very good impression of the lds church and its leaders as decent men and women who are attempting regardless of imperfections to do the work of god on this earth.

[blooit]

OK - help me open my mind to this talk about unrighteous dominion... really having a hard time with this.

So it's wrong to counsel your wife to slow down when she might get a ticket that you and she have to pay for, or could get in an accident and kill you?

So the term "men" in the scriptures when it is positive means men and women, but when it refers to something negative it is specifically referring to men?

Man... I need some hardcore heart softening with this talk.

[Sine Saw Square]

Trending topic: Raising children and family life.

[bluebell]

OK - help me open my mind to this talk about unrighteous dominion... really having a hard time with this.

So it's wrong to counsel your wife to slow down when she might get a ticket that you and she have to pay for, or could get in an accident and kill you?

I don't think he meant that his counsel to his wife to slow down was wrong but that his reasoning for giving it was wrong.

His holding the priesthood did not give him a right to tell his wife how to drive. His being in the car, and having to help pay the ticket and share in the consequences gave him the right, but not him being a man, a husband, or a priesthood holder.

That's how i understood his personal example.

So the term "men" in the scriptures when it is positive means men and women, but when it refers to something negative it is specifically referring to men?

Man... I need some hardcore heart softening with this talk.

I didn't get this at all from the talk and have no idea where the idea came from so i can't speak on it.

[altersteve]

I'm LOVING this Conference!

[Nominee]

OK - help me open my mind to this talk about unrighteous dominion... really having a hard time with this.

So it's wrong to counsel your wife to slow down when she might get a ticket that you and she have to pay for, or could get in an accident and kill you?

So the term "men" in the scriptures when it is positive means men and women, but when it refers to something negative it is specifically referring to men?

Man... I need some hardcore heart softening with this talk.

I pray your heart be softened.

I heard what he was saying to mean that you shouldn't say, "Because I have the Priesthood" in the same way that one would say, "Because I said so." Not to say that the reason isn't valid but to say that out of respect for your wife, maybe just a more in-depth answer would have been better.

[why me]

Just because not every utterance of a Prophet is prophetic (many of us already knew that before Elder C's talk) does not mean we can pick and choose which of God's laws we should follow or sustain.

This is true. But I also think that in the past going back to Brigham and Joseph words were said as opinions, resembling the frontier environment and times that they lived in. And this is what the critics pick up on...putting opinions that were said, against the current lds church and calling it doctrine. I think that the current leaders are more careful these days.

[Sine Saw Square]

OK - help me open my mind to this talk about unrighteous dominion... really having a hard time with this.

So it's wrong to counsel your wife to slow down when she might get a ticket that you and she have to pay for, or could get in an accident and kill you?

So the term "men" in the scriptures when it is positive means men and women, but when it refers to something negative it is specifically referring to men?

Man... I need some hardcore heart softening with this talk.

I don't think he meant saying "slow down" is wrong but claiming that priesthood authority was the basis for having the "right" to tell his wife to do it was wrong. I imagine if he had said "because I am your husband who loves and cares about you and i don't want you to get a ticket or get killed in a car crash." would have gone a lot better.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Sine Saw Square

[Nominee]

I'm LOVING this Conference!

Soooo LOVING this conference!

[blooit]

I pray your heart be softened.

I heard what he was saying to mean that you shouldn't say, "Because I have the Priesthood" in the same way that one would say, "Because I said so." Not to say that the reason isn't valid but to say that out of respect for your wife, maybe just a more in-depth answer would have been better.

You're a good man (assuming male here)

[why me]

I heard what he was saying to mean that you shouldn't say, "Because I have the Priesthood" in the same way that one would say, "Because I said so." Not to say that the reason isn't valid but to say that out of respect for your wife, maybe just a more in-depth answer would have been better.

This is what I heard too as did the audience since they laughed. I think that he was trying to tell the men not say Because I have the priesthood if they still want to keep their heads.

[Nominee]

You're a good man (assuming male here)

I am a woman, a good woman.