Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Turning down a General Authority calling?


Recommended Posts

Posted

I turned down a nursery calling last year. My wife already had three callings (1 stake, 2 ward) and they were having a hard time calling people to the nursery. Since one of my wife's callings was in the nursery they wondered if I wouldn't mind.

Posted
9 hours ago, Calm said:

The part where no mortal is worthy to be one in your view apparently.

They generally have significantly more experience in teaching the Gospel and exposure to a variety of Saints, but unless they make it clear they are speaking in their roles as Prophet, seer, or revelator, I see no reason to not believe that a bishop or even just s member getting up to bear their testimony at that moment can be inspired by the Spirit to share wisdom from the Lord as strongly as any who speak at General Conference.

I was demonstrating the point that accepting the calling as Apostle could be deemed a catch 22, as I explained. I certainly don’t think Apostles are superhuman.

When was the last time an Apostle prefaced their remarks with the disclaimer that were speaking either as a man, or as a Prophet/Seer/Revelator? When they speak at Conference are speaking as man, or as Prophet/Seer/Revelator? 

Posted
12 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So what are you doing here, then? If that's how you really feel, you really ought to just log off and lose the MDDB website Url. I'm sure we'd get over not seeing your bright, witty repartee ever again. 😊

Oh come now, you know you wouldn’t.... ;)

Posted
6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I was demonstrating the point that accepting the calling as Apostle could be deemed a catch 22, as I explained. I certainly don’t think Apostles are superhuman.

When was the last time an Apostle prefaced their remarks with the disclaimer that were speaking either as a man, or as a Prophet/Seer/Revelator? When they speak at Conference are speaking as man, or as Prophet/Seer/Revelator? 

This may be of some help!

https://scottwoodward.org/doctrine_standardworks.html

Posted
29 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

How, specifically, is that of some help in response to the question “When was the last time an Apostle prefaced their remarks with the disclaimer that were speaking either as a man, or as a Prophet/Seer/Revelator? When they speak at Conference are speaking as man, or as Prophet/Seer/Revelator? 

That's something you'll have to come up with yourself. For me, the gist of what they are saying is that if it doesn't square with the revelations, the doctrine of the Church then it's just their opinion, something to consider but still their opinion

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I was demonstrating the point that accepting the calling as Apostle could be deemed a catch 22, as I explained. I certainly don’t think Apostles are superhuman.

When was the last time an Apostle prefaced their remarks with the disclaimer that were speaking either as a man, or as a Prophet/Seer/Revelator? When they speak at Conference are speaking as man, or as Prophet/Seer/Revelator? 

What a difference it would make at least at Stake Conferences/Firesides...to say..."this is my opinion"...so that members don't take this as from God.  No wonder so many are confused.  Confusion is the first step to all the questions thereafter. 

Edited by Jeanne
Posted
10 hours ago, Jeanne said:

What a difference it would make at least at Stake Conferences/Firesides...to say..."this is my opinion"...so that members don't take this as from God.  No wonder so many are confused.  Confusion is the first step to all the questions thereafter. 

I have actually heard that a number of times.

Posted
10 hours ago, Rain said:

I have actually heard that a number of times.

Have you heard on a gospel principle or anything new?  I am glad you have heard this.  I haven't heard this on any conference talk on any changes or gospel doctrine.

Posted (edited)
On 09/03/2018 at 5:33 PM, Duncan said:

That's something you'll have to come up with yourself. For me, the gist of what they are saying is that if it doesn't square with the revelations, the doctrine of the Church then it's just their opinion, something to consider but still their opinion

And that’s the point - they don’t preface their remarks with what is or what isn’t revelation. So nobody can reliably differentiate.

Edited by Marginal Gains
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...