Seminary: General Conference Talks Are Scripture(?)

[CA Steve]

Magic 8 ball?

"Reply hazy try again"

[3DOP]

St. Paul said to the Thessalonians that they should heed the words the traditions they have heard from him, "...whether by word, or my epistle." (2 Th. 2:14)

 

It seems like it might be more accurate to magnify the importance of Conference teaching by observing that the Word of God is not always written. When spoken it might be equally authoritative, but how can it be scripture before it is written down and put alongside the other Scriptures? 

 

My question would be as to why, if Conference talks do indeed carry scriptural authority, are they not carefully transcribed as more authentic books of Latter-day canonical revelation? 

[The Nehor]

My question would be as to why, if Conference talks do indeed carry scriptural authority, are they not carefully transcribed as more authentic books of Latter-day canonical revelation?

Because we cannot get our membership to read the canon we have. Adding more will probably exacerbate the problem. While General Conference is near to the level of scripture it tends to be more immediate. Counsel from the beginning of the 20th century is less likely to be helpful then conference a few months ago. The Book of Mormon was written specifically for our day, the D&C tells the important story of the beginning of our dispensation, the Pearl of Great Price is a summary of every major dispensation, and the Bible is traditional and contains the vital story of the mortal ministry of the messiah and the much lauded Isaiah. They are all needed. Journal of Discourses? Falls under better but not best.

[Avatar4321]

Anything anyone says by the power of the Holy Ghost can be considered scripture.

[JLHPROF]

Scripture is the word of ancient and modern prophets.  Conference talks are more words of modern prophets.

As long as they don't contradict I see no reason why either should be considered MORE perfect.

 

If they contradict, well, Joseph Smith taught us that a modern revelation won't contradict a previous one.

 

I've never understood why scripture is valued more than the prophet.  Scriptures are words of prophets.

True is true, no matter where is comes from.  Error is error, whether from the prophets or the scriptures.

Edited December 10, 2014 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

St. Paul said to the Thessalonians that they should heed the words the traditions they have heard from him, "...whether by word, or my epistle." (2 Th. 2:14)

 

It seems like it might be more accurate to magnify the importance of Conference teaching by observing that the Word of God is not always written. When spoken it might be equally authoritative, but how can it be scripture before it is written down and put alongside the other Scriptures? 

 

My question would be as to why, if Conference talks do indeed carry scriptural authority, are they not carefully transcribed as more authentic books of Latter-day canonical revelation?

Canonization doth not a scripture make (necessarily),,,

 

The LDS definition allows the following as “scripture” even though it may not be written down or canonized: “…whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D&C 68:4).”

Just as there are many forms and expressions of God’s love, there are many forms and expressions of His will, mind, word, voice, power and scripture. Not all have to be canonized, and their eternal significance for those receiving them in the particular the time and place in which they are given is not measured by canonization.

[Robert F. Smith]

Anything anyone says by the power of the Holy Ghost can be considered scripture.

That's the wonderful thing about Fast & Testimony meeting once a month.  I wait for some real gems to come forth then.  Some of us just need to hear it.

[The Nehor]

Anything anyone says by the power of the Holy Ghost can be considered scripture.

 

True, but it is not general scripture. I was told to do a very specific thing this evening via revelation. Missionaries and bishops give specific counsel but often it is good only for the hearer. Publishing it to the world as scripture would be useless or even harmful.

[strappinglad]

The Bible is scripture , right? Hands up all those who have read the Bible cover to cover at least once. Is there any verse on those pages that you might hesitate calling the " word of God " ? Personally , I have no problem at all calling all Conference talks scripture given that they are far and away more Spirit directed than some of the writings found in the Bible. Now, if you want to discuss doctrines found within the scriptures, that is a whole other kettle of fish.

[Freedom]

Hi Robert,

 

I tend to doubt that the average seminary student understands any distinction between scripture and cannon when it comes to being the infallible  word of God

They would if the teacher taught them the material that is found in the lesson book. 

[cinepro]

Faith. And study, ponder and pray. Is that a proper Seminary Answer?

No. It was a trick question because the Church has never explicitly acknowledged that there might be a time when a leader is not speaking the "truth" in General Conference. The idea that the Holy Ghost might tell us a leader has made an error in General Conference has never been taught by the Church, so such a thing would never be taught to Seminary students (unless a teacher goes off-manual).

Edited December 11, 2014 by cinepro

[rockpond]

Starting this year, the kids in my stake (and from what I've heard, elsewhere) are being given tests in Seminary to gauge their comprehension. 

 

I found the following question interesting, because it implies that all General Conference talks should be considered "scripture."  Hopefully the nuances of leaders making mistakes when they teach in General Conference are being covered in each class, but I could see such questions misleading the rising generation:

 

 

I think they are looking for answer "A".

 

But the question is way to simplistic (as others have already pointed out).

 

For example, is what they *speak* that is scripture or what is *published* afterward?  If it's what they speak, then we ought to stop changing the talks.  If it's what is published, than answer "A" needs to be clarified.

[CV75]

No. It was a trick question because the Church has never explicitly acknowledged that there might be a time when a leader is not speaking the "truth" in General Conference. The idea that the Holy Ghost might tell us a leader has made an error in General Conference has never been taught by the Church, so such a thing would never be taught to Seminary students (unless a teacher goes off-manual).

Huh? Of course we can "know when a leader is speaking the truth in General Conference." The Spirit testifies of truth through the mechanisms described in my Seminary Answer.

I didn’t mean it to be a trick answer, but you didn’t ask, “How can we know when a leader has made an error in General Conference?” Perhaps that isn’t in the curriculum for the same reason you didn’t actually ask that question!

I’m not sure what part of your link to focus on, but we are certainly taught how to seek and find spiritual truth (GC is one source of that). Through that process we can discern error when it comes across our path, which is purpose of our life's probation (the light shines in darkness, we find it, the adversary seeks to take it away--in that order). If we practice how to seek and find error, the truth won’t show up again (that would be out of order). That is because intent makes all the difference in what we discover and retain.

An example is, did President Hunter fall into the flowers, or did he teach us to recognize the many miraculous and blessed manifestations of God and Christ in our lives? Can we indulge in his error and follow his counsel at the same time, or better had we not focused on his error?

Edited December 11, 2014 by CV75

[Stroopwafel]

Edit: nevermind

Edited December 12, 2014 by Stroopwafel

[theplains]

The mantra should be "stop expecting infallibility".

 

... and this mantra needs to be corrected:

 

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this

Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to

attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who

attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. God

bless you” (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13).

 

Regards,

Jim

[The Nehor]

 

... and this mantra needs to be corrected:

 

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this

Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to

attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who

attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. God

bless you” (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13).

 

Regards,

Jim

 

 

Which are two different things. Prophets can make mistakes but they will not be permitted to lead us to damnation. My father never led me astray in regards the gospel but he was sometimes wrong about doctrinal points. I expect the prophet is less likely to be wrong but may still make errors.

[omni]

Which are two different things. Prophets can make mistakes but they will not be permitted to lead us to damnation. My father never led me astray in regards the gospel but he was sometimes wrong about doctrinal points. I expect the prophet is less likely to be wrong but may still make errors.

President Woodruff makes no mention of "damnation". I've been taught this dozens of times throughout my life from Sunday School to GC and never have I heard the speaker mention "damnation".

It seems every time that quote (or one of its iterations) is brought up here someone qualifies it as pertaining to salvation or damnation. You might consider giving the brethren a heads next time you see them so they don't confuse us simpletons who take their teachings at face value.

[The Nehor]

President Woodruff makes no mention of "damnation". I've been taught this dozens of times throughout my life from Sunday School to GC and never have I heard the speaker mention "damnation".

It seems every time that quote (or one of its iterations) is brought up here someone qualifies it as pertaining to salvation or damnation. You might consider giving the brethren a heads next time you see them so they don't confuse us simpletons who take their teachings at face value.

You should have attended my Gospel Doctrine class. You might have heard it.

I do take what it says at face value. President Woodruff defines it: "...astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." That to me reads salvation versus damnation.

[cinepro]

Huh? Of course we can "know when a leader is speaking the truth in General Conference." The Spirit testifies of truth through the mechanisms described in my Seminary Answer.

How often in your lifetime have you ever listened to a talk in General Conference and had the Spirit testify to you that the speaker just said something wrong?

Now, that's not a tough question. We've all heard teachings in conference that we feel inspired not to agree with.

But here's the tough question: how often has this happened to you while at the same time the other Apostles and Prophets have also been so inspired?  Certainly, if we are to rely on the Holy Ghost to alert us to error in Conference talks, then every time a false statement is made we should expect everyone who is spiritually in-tune to have it so revealed.  How often has that happened?

 

For example, in 1984 Apostle Bruce R. McConkie taught the following:

 

 

True believers know that this earth and man and all forms of life were created in an Edenic, or paradisiacal, state in which there was no mortality, no procreation, no death.

 

I know a bunch of LDS who think he was wrong.  So that must mean that the Holy Ghost has witnessed to them that Elder McConkie made a mistake when he said this.  But as far as I can tell, none of the other 11 Apostles or members of the First Presidency were given the same revelation.  And many other LDS (the "True believers") would claim the Holy Ghost has witnessed to them that Elder McConkie was telling the truth.

 

So while the idea that the Holy Ghost can alert Church members to error in Conference is good in principle, in practice it is unworkable and will lead to confusion.  That's why the Church teaches that the Holy Ghost will confirm that the talks are true, not if the talks are true.

Edited December 14, 2014 by cinepro

[CV75]

So while the idea that the Holy Ghost can alert Church members to error in Conference is good in principle, in practice it is unworkable and will lead to confusion.  That's why the Church teaches that the Holy Ghost will confirm that the talks are true, not if the talks are true.

The Church does teach that the Holy Ghost warns us of danger or temptation (I Googled “lds.org holy ghost warns” and got all sorts of curricula). Drilling it down to apply to a Conference talk as dangerous or tempting for sin would be an odd example to use for that, and I suppose that to be why the Church doesn’t teach it (and instead focusing on the sources of truth and the attitudes and practices we can use to seek truth by the power, guidance and confirmation of the Holy Ghost).

I’m not sure about the practical difference between the Holy Ghost testifying that something is true vs. if it is true (compare Moroni 10: 4 and 7).

[cinepro]

I’m not sure about the practical difference between the Holy Ghost testifying that something is true vs. if it is true (compare Moroni 10: 4 and 7).

 

The difference is simple.  If someone prays about a Conference talk and they say that the Holy Ghost told them the talk was in error, is the problem with the person, or with the Conference talk?

[thesometimesaint]

The difference is simple.  If someone prays about a Conference talk and they say that the Holy Ghost told them the talk was in error, is the problem with the person, or with the Conference talk?

 

Those are not mutually self exclusive.

[CV75]

The difference is simple.  If someone prays about a Conference talk and they say that the Holy Ghost told them the talk was in error, is the problem with the person, or with the Conference talk?

Since Moroni 10 verses 4 and 7 don't indicate a difference between "that" and "if,", can you at least define the problem?

[theplains]

You should have attended my Gospel Doctrine class. You might have heard it.

I do take what it says at face value. President Woodruff defines it: "...astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." That to me reads salvation versus damnation.

 

The words of President Woodruff don't limit themselves to certain states of being, like what happens

to those who end up in the telestial, terrestrial, or celestial kingdoms.  From what I have seen on

this forum, the belief is prevalent that certain teachings can be false (thus leading people astray)

but it would not impact a person's final destination (all depending on how big a lie it was). For

example, leading one astray to worship a false god would definitely result in damnation.  But

teaching that the Holy Ghost is a spirit child of Heavenly Mother and Father would not impact

one's salvation if this teaching was wrong.

 

Maybe another example would be on the issue of whether or not Adam sinned in the Garden of

Eden. I have seen so much contradictory teaching on this by LDS leaders that some might even

end up saying, "Who cares? This doesn't impact my salvation anyways".

 

In the end, it all boils down to .... "Who cares if its false when it doesn't impact salvation?".  But

the important thing is that, if false, it really is leading people astray.   That was the point that

I was trying to make.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Grundelwalken]

Also, I am going to go with D. I suspect Amos helped out with Elder Holland's talk on the poor.

The focus of this question is D&C 1:37-38 -- which several here disagree with but which is still doctrine. MW