LDS General Conference

Great Debates
41

So, in your quest for originality, what laws have you broken Iconoclast?

Sorry to quote again, but if an appeal to the obvious isn’t good enough…

You have proposed a false dichotomy. The choices are not between a single rigid standard or be disobedient to the “rulers”.

What’s to evaluate? When God asks me to do something, I endeavor to do it. When a servant of God asks me to do something, I endeavor to do it. You don’t seem to see the difference between counsel which I believe to be inspired of God, and counsel which is someone stating his informed opinion. You’ll note in this very thread I made a clear distinction between what various church leaders’ opinions were on the issue of caffeine vs. what official church teachings were. And when something is opinion, I evaluate it using logic and reason, and of course using the Holy Spirit as a guide (you missed that one, but that’s okay).

You see, when the advice comes from God, and I believe that it comes from God, my choice is whether to obey God or not. Since I’ve already decided to obey God, I don’t have to make that decision each time some counsel is offered. Instead I can invest my efforts into becoming the kind of person God has shown me is happiest.

So, when you’re pulled over by the police, you debate whether you should pull over or not? :slight_smile:

Hey, if you want to choose not to follow US government authority, that’s fine with me. A representative of government is not the same thing as a representative of God though, so it’s also an invalid analogy.

I have explained above how I’m not simply “blindly” doing whatever they tell me. I’m quite informed, and I quite conciously make the decision to follow God’s counsel, with my eyes wide open.

42

In A Gathering of Saints, Lindsey quotes a Mormon teachers’ handbook as saying the following:

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan, it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe.”

I think this was a 1950s-era document, so it’s possible that LDS policy and attitudes might have changed somewhat since then - although, unlike with American society at large, there is little reason to believe the Mormons respond differently to questions of authority simply because it’s not the 1950s anymore.

But assuming no change of church policy, it would seem that the Mormon leadership has pointed the way on earrings, and deviation from that path is ‘unsafe’.

emarkp:

That’s silly. And I didn’t choose that word lightly.

We’re talking ‘counsel’ here - not inspired utterances, but the counsel of a wise leader.

First of all, there’s plenty of ground between following counsel, and ignoring counsel. One can listen to counsel, consider it, and then decide it applies, or fails to apply, to one’s circumstances in varying degrees. If my parish priest tells me what toothbrush he thinks is best, I’ll listen to and consider his words, but if I choose to buy another brand of toothbrush, that didn’t mean I was ignoring him.

And if one has to actually follow the counsel of a leader in every last triviality to demonstrate that one is showing proper reverence for said leader, then that does equate to an incredibly micromanaging sort of religious totalitarianism, kind of like being in Mao’s China during the Cultural Revolution. Those who, on reflection, choose to not do what the Prophet or the Apostle recommends, even in some trivial matter like earrings, can’t “talk about following the counsel of the prophet”; their witness is somehow hollow, if I read you right, and their spiritual trustworthiness somewhat questionable.

43

Wait a minute here. The way I used ‘counsel’ was very much to mean “inspired counsel,” whereas something that is not inspired I called “opinion.” In the case of the earrings, it was not a random comment tossed out under Hinckley’s breath. He stated it at a Youth Conference (for young men and women ages 12-18), then at the Relief Society (adult women) general meeting, and then again at the priesthood session of General Conference (men ages 12+).

Statements from the leaders of the LDS church are considered inspired counsel when stated in official church meetings. Church leaders who make statments that are their own opinions make the effort to state them as such, to make sure people understand the difference (see several of the quotes I linked to at mormons.org about caffeine for examples, or 1 Corinthians 7:6 for another example).

Again, this was not just any leader, but someone we LDS consider to be a prophet of God, equal in office to Moses, Elijah, Peter, etc. And the counsel I’m talking about is accepted in the LDS community to be inspired by God. Hence, not following it means not following God’s counsel. I repeat that Hinckley repeated the statement about earrings three times. He wanted to make the point crystal clear. He was showing the link between multiple earrings and tatoos and body piercing. He reminded us that our body is a temple and we’re to treat it well (both inside and out).

As for the comparison to Mao, I think you’ll find Hinckley’s track record to be significantly better.

Correct–precisely on the nose. The issue about following the prophet is central to how LDS live every day. It is one of the things that makes LDS different from much of mainstream Christianity. It may be difficult to understand, but there it is. This was central to the talk I mentioned above about murmuring (the LDS site states that the text will be up this evening).

44

My apologies. I was relying on the following, which had gone uncorrected:

45

emarkp is correct, with regard to usage of the word “opinion.” I was not particularly eloquent in my usage. Thanks for the correction. President Hinckley’s statement, while less than a commandment, was certainly more than a simple opinion.

46

A question, emarkp and/or Schadenfreude - what’s the difference, then, between ‘counsel’ and flat-out prophecy? (Or, is there a difference?) Reason I ask is that it sounds like counsel pretty much has ‘this is the word of the Lord’ status to you folks, which to a non-Mormon Christian equates to either prophecy or Scripture itself.

47

RT, if I may:

Prophecy is words uttered by command of the Lord. Counsel is advice issued as a person.

Those who decide to follow prophetic commands do so because they have decided on their own (thus free will) to follow that. Those who decide to follow the Church President’s counsel have decided on their own (thus free will) to follow that counsel because they respect the counsel and the counsellor.

48

Hrm. I’m going to have to disagree with Monty here. There is no clear distinction, but I think a good rule of thumb is that there is a difference between counsel and the canon of scripture. That is, if the statements made are of sufficient import, they will be added to the LDS scriptures–the last time that happened was 1978.

It’s very hard to clearly define what is and what isn’t revelation. I know when I’ve received it, but I don’t always state it as such. Others might think that what I say is merely opinion, even though I know it to be revelation or inspired counsel (I don’t really differentiate between the two). Now that I’ve been asked to serve as a leader in our local ward (the LDS name for units gathered together for the same meetings), I’ve been even more careful to label my opinions as opinion. In fact, I started that practice when I was teaching the “Gospel Essentials” class for a year (an introductory class geared for new LDS members and people investigating the religion).

I would say that unless otherwise indicated, I’d consider as inspired counsel anything in General Conference, and just about anything said by a leader speaking in his or her position of leadership (I’ll exclude jokes about the weather as being amusing, but perhaps not inspired :)). That is, when the ecclesiastical authority for a ward (a Bishop) speaks to the congregation about a topic germane to religion, I would consider it inspired unless he explicitly labels it as opinion. His comments to a co-worker or friend, etc. when he is not acting in his role as Bishop would be just his own opinion (IMO, of course :)).

Counsel from a church leader is almost always offered in the role of leader to led, so I’d almost always consider it inspired. Does that make sense?

49

Gee, Monty, thanks for researching me. Makes me feel real special.

I don’t post much because my system makes it hard for me to read threads when they get long. So I will probably never see your response to this post, if any.

50

Well, tacky is my middle name. Actually, I didn’t slap it together, I lifted it from another board. So there, you can make some more judgments about me.

I wonder, if I read GBH’s entire address, will I change my mind about it? Well, it’s worth a try, I guess. Be back in a few, Hugh.

51

With such a low post count, it doesn’t take much research.

Still doesn’t explain your inaccurate (and cheap) shots at the LDS church. It does, though, show your laziness in regard to the subject at hand.

Big whoop.

52

Because you admit to it does not make it acceptable.

That’s called “plagiarism” in most parts. Especially because you pretty much posted it here in a manner to appear that it was Monson’s posting and not yours.

Only one: DISHONEST.

I doubit it. After all, you have already proved here you have an agenda against the LDS church and the World of Facts is not on your travel itinerary.

53

Well, trust that I will be able to join this thread in the spirit of Polycarp’s comments… (which seem to have been overlooked in the crossfire)

I have a few questions that I hope one of you would choose to answer:

I take it that the General Conference of the LDS Church is akin to the Episcopal Synods? (i.e. a gathering of the top brass to seek the “way forward” and to lay down the position of the church on contentious issues)
Is the entire event open to public scrutiny, or are some sessions private to members of the Church? (When my local (Anglican) church has its AGM, there is a section open to anyone living in the parish and then a section open only to members on the Electoral Roll)
Is the focus of the Conference business or spiritual or both? (By business I mean, financial or “housekeeping” matters, by spiritual I mean worship, teaching, prayer, meditation, religious ceremony, etc.)

That will do for now…
Thanks,
Gp

54

Hm. It’s not like the synod at all. General Conference is a semi-annual gathering of everybody who wants to attend (it’s broadcast all over the world by satellite, cable, radio, and Internet).

All the leaders of the Church get together and speak. There are four general sessions on the Saturday and Sunday, one session for the priesthood, and one a week earlier for the women. You can see or read them all at http://www.lds.org by now. During the conference, you’ll generally hear something from a) the prophet (he likes to take some time in every session), b) each of the apostles, c) a couple of the auxiliary leaders such as Relief Society (women) and Primary (children), and d) a few General Authorities. The talks are usually on gospel basics, such as repentance, the Atonement, family, and so on.

Business is also conducted. It’s usual for everyone to sustain the leaders of the Church (that is, they read out the names, and everyone raises their hand in assent–or in disagreement, if they want to–it’s standard practice for virtually every calling in the Church). At the April conference, there is an auditing report and a membership/missionary report. Any special announcements are also made at Conference; for example, in April 2001 they announced the Perpetual Education Fund.

There are also periodic conferences at the regional, stake and ward levels, which are similar, but smaller.

55

Hello again, Monty. Why the defensive and superior attitude? Could it be a basic insecurity in a faith that makes extraordinary claims with no evidence?

I have said nothing inaccurate; I’m merely coming from a different perspective, and a completely valid one.

I did read the address and posted last night, but the board went off for maintenance and the post didn’t work. I found nothing in GBH’s talk a prophetic nature. Nothing I ain’t heard before many times.

I also mentioned, in response to the earring discussion (nothing to do with you, Monty, as you’ve said nothing of substance in this thread so far), that I have two earrings in each ear, no other piercings, no tattoos. Not very original. Nor disobedient. I no longer give anyone, not even self-proclaimed prophets, authority over my jewelry, what I drink, what movies I watch, or any other details of my life, large or small. It’s been working out great for quite awhile now.

Rock on, Monty.

56

They can raise their hands in dissent if they want to be escorted out by Security!! That statement was just a teeny bit disingenuous, wouldn’t you have to admit? The presiding authority never took his eyes off his paper, never looked at the audience. He knew he would get nothing but assent, and that’s just what he got.

The conference is nothing like a synod, true. It’s nothing like a conference, either. There is no conferring, no give and take, the leaders talk, the members listen.

57

Angela, were you at Conference? I mean actually, physically present? Because I just went and watched that part of the broadcast, and when President Faust is reading the sustaining of the authorities (at the 14:30 mark, if you’d like to check), they cut away from him as he asks for a sustaining vote, and did not cut back until after he asks for any opposing manifestations. You can check here if you like.

Prior to the cut, President Faust was looking up frequently. If you were watching on TV or interent, you would have no way of knowing if he looked up for the sustaining vote. Whatever your opinions about how the church operates, please refrain from making demonstrably false statements.

58

One of these days I’m gonna get rid of this web tv and get a real computer, but not so much to re-watch conference!

Whatever, you just keep on trying to discredit me as long as you have to. If you can’t deal with the message, attack the messenger. I’m getting a real kick out of you and Monty. What a couple of reactionaries. Bless your obedient little hearts.

59

genie (If we can ignore the interference pattern Adverse is running for the moment…) thank you for dealing with my questions in the spirit in which they were asked. Can I therefore ask you this - you spoke of “the prophet” -

(my bolding)

Is this a title given to just one person? Is it an honorary or “promotional” position or do they have to “prove” their prophetic giftings? Is he (Can it ever be a she?) the one in the church who speaks with “the voice of God”? Is there ever any kind of a power struggle with the President? Are there other prophets within the body of the church, of which he is Chief? What about the apostles - is this another name for “church elders” or does it have greater spiritual significance?

Thanks again
Gp

60

The actual LDSers had better check me on this, grimpixie, but as I understand it, the President of the Church is has the title of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. As was said in the other active LDS thread, others can prophesy, but only he has the authority to receive revelation from God for the Church.

Again, LDSers please correct my picture if necessary, but as I understand it, there are 85 persons at the top of the Church hierarchy known as General Authorities. These include (from highest to lowest in authority) the President/Prophet, his two counselors known as the First Presidency, the twelve Apostles, and another 70 whose specific designation I can’t remember.

I find two notions about the President/Prophet business troublesome from a Biblical perspective. In the Old Testament, any sort of prophetic succession was clearly the exception (Elijah/Elisha is the only instance I can think of offhand); nobody laid hands on Isaiah or Amos or Ezekiel that we know of, and passed on prophetic authority to them. Instead, it came from God by a path outside the sight of mortal man; prophets received no imprimatur to let the faithful know of their calling.

So I find the idea that the Church thinks they can say who has the authority to receive revelation from God for the Church, and who doesn’t, fundamentally flawed. God’s calling always has, and IMHO always will, overflow our human structures, even those that are divinely ordained. (Did not the Israelites have a king and a priesthood?) God gets to decide who has the authority to receive his revelation, not man. Placing limits on God is always a bad idea, because you never actually succeed in doing so; if He wants to pick some vine-dresser out of the back-country and have him deliver His message to His people, then He will do so.

And secondly: certainly in the Old Testament era, it’s clear that one of the reasons God overflowed the existing structures by speaking through prophets that were not kings or priests, is that He was aware of the need to speak truth to power. By combining - in theory, anyway - the roles of Prophet and Church President, the LDS Church (again, in theory) shuts the door on that sort of prophetic role.

And to be frank, it’s hard to think of a major church considering itself Christian that needs that role more. Even the Catholic Church has far more room for healthy dissent and criticism than the LDS, and it’s probably the worst offender, in terms of stifling dissent (or even honest inquiry), of the mainstream Christian churches. If God’s not saying what the leadership thinks He’s saying, then there’s no alternative way for the Church to get it right.