SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 I actually tried that, but its a bit harder than you might think. I do know the state where Bill lives, but can't find any postings about GA travel schedules or stake conference schedules in general. Think I figured it out. My problem was I was assuming it was a stake conference.
Bob Crockett Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 Closer than Bob!How is my factual analysis wrong? Please be specific.
CV75 Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 I actually tried that, but its a bit harder than you might think. I do know the state where Bill lives, but can't find any postings about GA travel schedules or stake conference schedules in general.I appreciate your gumption!
CV75 Posted June 3, 2014 Posted June 3, 2014 (edited) Think I figured it out. My problem was I was assuming it was a stake conference.Wow. I'm getting a kind of pathological kick out of this! LOL Reminds me of a training I was in recently where we had to bet "money" on our answers--our group kept betting it all 9at my behest)--and winning. By the end we beat all other teams by 20x more money but agreed to get some addiction counseling because it was way too much fun (not the winning, the reckless abandon!!!). Edited June 3, 2014 by CV75
DBMormon Posted June 4, 2014 Author Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) How is my factual analysis wrong? Please be specific. Sorry your fact checking has me skeptical and seeing no point in furthering the Conversation. Have a great night. Edited June 4, 2014 by DBMormon
Tiki Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 (edited) I love the biblical phrase: "strain at a gnat"Thanks, -Wade Englund-I don't know if this is so much about gnats as DBMormon enjoying the role of being the fly on the wall."Psst... False doctrine taught at General Conference!"What's your secret source of information?"Psst...email me!"LOLIn honor of DBMormon, I'll highlight D&C 20:1 with a purple marker and watch again Jeff Goldblum's role as he metastizes into "The Fly". Bzzz.. Bzzz... Edited June 4, 2014 by Tiki 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 Sorry your fact checking has me skeptical and seeing no point in furthering the Conversation. Have a great night.Unresponsive.
Stone holm Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Is not the problem that we tend to believe everything that gets said by a GA at Conference is necessarily inspired? Let alone doctrine. How many times do we have to travel down this blind alley?
wenglund Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Is not the problem that we tend to believe everything that gets said by a GA at Conference is necessarily inspired? Let alone doctrine. How many times do we have to travel down this blind alley? No. The problem here is nitpicking seemingly incessantly whether something is doctrine or accurate according to personal opinions or not and missing the essence of the uplifting message. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
CV75 Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 email me.Thank you for the invitation; I'm more comfortable waiting until the information can be comfortably posted on the discussion board.
stemelbow Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) No. The problem here is nitpicking seemingly incessantly whether something is doctrine or accurate according to personal opinions or not and missing the essence of the uplifting message. Thanks, -Wade Englund- They're not mutually exclusive. One can notice mistakes made in a GA's talk, inquire about it and also appreciate the essence of the uplifting message. The problem is many things in my mind. Some of us have the impression, for whatever reason, that it's okay for Apostles to claim knowing things by revelation when knowledge seems to misrepresent it. Some seem intent to think because an apostle said it, that means it must be true no matter what, or something. Some seem to think there was a mistake made and nothing more--that this is such a rare exception we don't have a thing to concern ourselves about. Some wonder if it be a mistake, how many other mistakes have been made and we've overlooked? It's worth discussing. Edited June 5, 2014 by stemelbow 1
cdowis Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 (edited) Some of us have the impression, for whatever reason, that it's okay for Apostles to claim knowing things by revelation when knowledge seems to misrepresent it. Some seem intent to think because an apostle said it, that means it must be true no matter what, or something. I agree that some people believe in very silly things. Last Sunday a stake high counselor quoted a statement (some dubious doctrine) from a counselor in the Primary Presidency and said it was doctrine because she said it in General Conference. He was quite shocked when I disagreed with him. I guess I am just "weak in the faith". I am a teacher in the HP group, but who knows how long that may last. Edited June 5, 2014 by cdowis
amo Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 cdowis : " I agree that some people believe in very silly things. Last Sunday a stake high counselor quoted a statement (some dubious doctrine) from a counselor in the Primary Presidency and said it was doctrine because she said it in General Conference. He was quite shocked when I disagreed with him. I guess I am just "weak in the faith". I am a teacher in the HP group, but who knows how long that may last." I totally agree. Try to disagree with some-1 who comes up with a quote from a GA written/published in the Ensign to back up his believe -such as the April 6 "b-d celebration". Good luck !
jkwilliams Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) I agree that some people believe in very silly things. Last Sunday a stake high counselor quoted a statement (some dubious doctrine) from a counselor in the Primary Presidency and said it was doctrine because she said it in General Conference. He was quite shocked when I disagreed with him. I guess I am just "weak in the faith". I am a teacher in the HP group, but who knows how long that may last. I used to teach the high priests group, so you're just following in my footsteps. Come on over to the dark side. You'll love it. Edited June 6, 2014 by jkwilliams
rodheadlee Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that aantichrist shall come, even now are there many bantichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
omni Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 I agree that some people believe in very silly things. Last Sunday a stake high counselor quoted a statement (some dubious doctrine) from a counselor in the Primary Presidency and said it was doctrine because she said it in General Conference. He was quite shocked when I disagreed with him. I guess I am just "weak in the faith". I am a teacher in the HP group, but who knows how long that may last. This is how it all starts, a simple disagreement with a high counselor and next thing you know you've got one foot onto that slippery slope. Pretty soon you're going to start calling us softies.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 This is how it all starts, a simple disagreement with a high counselor and next thing you know you've got one foot onto that slippery slope. Pretty soon you're going to start calling us softies. People, it's high councilor, as in a member of a high council, not as in one who counsels from on high. 1
cdowis Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 People, it's high councilor, as in a member of a high council, not as in one who counsels from on high. Perhaps, but D&C 107:79 And the Presidency of the council of the High Priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors; and thus the Presidency of the High Priesthood and its counselors shall have power to decide upon testimony according to the laws of the church.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 Perhaps, butD&C 107:79And the Presidency of the council of the High Priesthood shall have power to call other high priests, even twelve, to assist as counselors; and thus the Presidency of the High Priesthood and its counselors shall have power to decide upon testimony according to the laws of the church.This of course refers to the Quorum ofvthe Twelve Apostles, not to a typical stake high council as we know it today. While they may do some counseling in the course of their duties, in contemporary normative usage, the word is councilor, reflecting that collectively they make up a council.
Gray Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 People, it's high councilor, as in a member of a high council, not as in one who counsels from on high. Today I learned I've been using the wrong spelling. Thanks!
David T Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) This of course refers to the Quorum ofvthe Twelve Apostles, not to a typical stake high council as we know it today. While they may do some counseling in the course of their duties, in contemporary normative usage, the word is councilor, reflecting that collectively they make up a council. There was, of course, no Quorum of 12 when this was first presented in 1831. It is very much in reference to the establishment of the High Council, which as an established body, pre-dates the Quorum of 12 Apostles in the modern Church. (The 12 Apostles originally didn't have any jurisdiction in the organized Stakes). The President of the Church was also de-facto Stake President, which caused some confusion with David Whitmer's appointment as a President in another stake in terms of equality of power with THE President. That said, spelling and correct usage of homophones is not expected to be consistent in these early texts. Edited June 6, 2014 by David T 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 6, 2014 Posted June 6, 2014 Today I learned I've been using the wrong spelling. Thanks!You're not alone. Another thing people do that is colloquial but non-standard is to say "high councilman."
DBMormon Posted July 12, 2014 Author Posted July 12, 2014 Great Podcast on the subject if I may say so myselfhttp://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2014/05/was-jesus-born-on-april-6th/ Also Cinepro you asked about those GA's who disagreedhttp://gospelcougar.blogspot.com/2008/06/was-jesus-born-on-april-6.html
aaron0005 Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 (edited) Are you under the impression that any of those publications have authority to declare doctrine?I'm just curious and I have great respect for Elder Bednar, but when did he have the right to come to conference and declare doctrine, without the sanctioning of the presiding bodies, especially the prophet? Let alone that other prophets have disagreed with Elder Bednar. I hope this does not turn into a "the current apostles" have the say. Since when in the world did everything that came from Brighams or any other church leader have revelatory sanctioning or was without any error? Elder Bednar did not claim a revelation on the matter. That is simply his interpretation. Come on guys! As great as these men are they are allowed to be human also. This is where I really start getting concerned. We should be over the 19 to 20 year old mentality that everything a GA says is the word of the Loord. It does no one good. Have we not learned better and should our apostles not be open to some learning? I do not see how its possible that that verse in section 20 could be considered to say April 6th is Christs birthday. One, I don't even see it as clear. Two, the history and the facts surrounding that verse say otherwise. three other prophets disagree. It's not a big deal to me. They make mistakes, but this undermine them to others, as they cannot get the story straight in line with other prophets. Besides, why make a big deal out that verse anyway? Why did he have to share his view (not very researched) as if its important we know that when church leaders disagree? It seems to me that like they need to come out with a long list of church doctrine. Edited July 13, 2014 by aaron0005
Storm Rider Posted July 13, 2014 Posted July 13, 2014 I find that almost all of us at one time another would really prefer to live under the law of Moses where all things were directed; no thought was necessary; just follow the rules. It is much harder to live the New Covenant that Christ taught us. Joseph and Brigham both made it clear that we individually have a responsibility to follow the Spirit and that the leaders of the church were not nearly as perfect and righteous as the membership wants to make them. We continue to push these fellows into very narrow parameters that are just not acceptable from their very human viewpoint. I would also say that some of the leaders begin to breathe their own ether too much. The leadership self-corrects and they do not need a bunch of members running around telling them when they made an error, when they misspoke, when they are imperfect. If a teaching has not be presented before the membership to accept as doctrine and added to the Standard Works then it is not doctrine, regardless of how much some want some teaching to be doctrine. These tempests in a teapot are not helpful to anyone.
Recommended Posts