Gen Conf = Scripture

[mes5464]

I need a quote that communicates that general conference is the source of modern revelation. I have a knucklehead in my ward that disputes the existence of secret combinations and ETB testimony that their is one overthrowing the government in "I Testify". Maybe something from a church manual?

[shadow]

Have him read Elder Hollands Sunday afternoon talk during last general conference.

[mes5464]

Have him read Elder Hollands Sunday afternoon talk during last general conference.

Thank you.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

IF GC is automatically scripture then I will tell all the antis about it because they often use our GC talks to attack us unmercifully. Can't have it both ways. Certainly I ponder them and pray about them but my principla guidnace comes from the cannonizeed scripture. Do as you wish.

[John Locke]

IF GC is automatically scripture then I will tell all the antis about it because they often use our GC talks to attack us unmercifully. Can't have it both ways. Certainly I ponder them and pray about them but my principla guidnace comes from the cannonizeed scripture. Do as you wish.

So does the first presidency before they approve the talk for General conference

[Samuel the Lamanite]

If true, that would explain why the talks are NOT sponatneouisly give under the Spirit at the time of presentation. When did this change as even Elder Haight and Elder LeGrand Richards spoke as the Spriit directed right then and there. I realize that the GAs also speak by the Spirit but IMO its NOT the same. I guess I'm just old fashioned. :-ss

[Fiannan]

Just wondering then...if a talk is delivered in GC, but then the controversial parts are edited out for the written edition sent out to the Church, then why not skip GC and merely read the talks in the Ensign?

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Fianan: Great question. Do you know of instances where the talk had parts edited out?

[Tetraman]

There was a forum thread here that was very active just before I joined that was addressing a case where an original conference talk was modified and even re-recorded to correct some things. The presiding priesthood authority has the duty to make sure any false doctrine presented in a meeting is corrected. In the case of general conference, that's the prophet.

I personally think that being a part of a live general conference has a unique spirit about it, so it's worth the spiritual feeding I get to listen. The printed version is the authentic version.

Is everything presented in GC scripture??? Once it's approved by the prophet, I would say yes it is. Some of it might only be relevant to the time it was given, based on what the saints needed at that time.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Tetrta: Perhaps today something in GC given the OK of tsm is right but it is a major change from the early Church to obtain cannonized scripture. It was presented in Conference for a sustaining vote and before that by unanimous agreement of the 12. Why the change? Is this an example of the living prophet being able to change the words and methods of past prophets?

[Tetraman]

Hmmm... What's the difference between scripture and canonized scripture? I don't know. I would love some insight there.
I wasn't aware that conference talks were ever canonized, except those by Joseph Smith that are in the D+C.

I was taught in my youth that it is our obligation get a spiritual conformation of anything taught from the pulpit. If we don't get one we don't have an obligation to follow it. If we could have gotten one but never sought for it we would be held accountable before God. I think the same goes for scripture.

[Fiannan]

Fianan: Great question. Do you know of instances where the talk had parts edited out?

Best recent example? Boyd K. Packer's talk in the Autumn. You can easily google it and see where elements that were essentially consistent with long-standing interpretations of social issues were deleted from the talk.

[Amore Vero]

I was taught in my youth that it is our obligation get a spiritual conformation of anything taught from the pulpit.

I agree. For once & a while over the years a Prophet or Apostle will seem to teach opposite things on a particular subject & only the Holy Spirit & a study of the scriptures can help us know what is correct.

It takes revelation to recognize revelation.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Scripture has come to be a loose term. GC is in general not part of the canonical works I don't think, but is considered "scripture" in a sense that it comes from the spirit of revelation and hence is "scripture," much like the Lectures on Faith that used to be part of the canonical works but was removed, because of it's format and purpose. It brings to mind this quote:

DESERET NEWS,
W WOODRUFF AUG:1863

While you stand in the towers of the Temple and your eyes survey this glorious valley filled with cities and villages, occupied by tens and thousands of Latter-day Saints, you will then call to mind this visitation of President Young and his company. You will say: That was in the days when Presidents Benson and Maughan presided over us; that was before New York was destroyed by an earthquake. It was before Boston was swept into the sea, by the sea heaving itself beyond its bounds; it was before Albany was destroyed by fire; yea at that time you will remember the scenes of this day. Treasure them up and forget them not. President Young followed and said: 'What Brother Woodruff has said is revelation and will be fulfilled'.

Brigham Young stated that revelation came perfectly but was never received perfectly. We always have to put it into our own words though it comes in purity. Where do we draw the line of what constitutes scripture? Personally I think we must receive the revelation and then have a confirmation of our interpretation of it for that purpose within the authority vested in us. First Presidency messages hence are scripture as well as anything that undergoes that heavenly approval process. But many speeches do not and hence are not necessarily canonical scripture although they may meet the Lord's standard and be perfectly acceptable to Him as a representation of His word. Of course whatever the prophet says to us is binding and need not be prefaced or otherwise delivered in the context of binding scripture. What he says may well be flawed but it will not lead us astray. We have that guarantee.

Take blacks and the priesthood for instance. Were the early prophets wrong? Yes in stating that blacks would never in this life hold the priesthood. But did that lead anyone astray? No because the priesthood was not then offered to them at any rate. Same with statements about polygamy (that we'd never give it up etc...) they were wrong but led no one astray because those asked to live it were not led astray by doing so and then when the change came those who followed the prophet were not led astray. Only those who didn't follow the prophet but instead followed flawed opinion in spite of the prophet were led astray, not by the prophet but by their disobedience to the prophet. The most scriptural scripture is what the prophet says to us now.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Tetra: I use cannonized scipture as a shortcut. The process is the issue. To become scripture in the eraly prohets time was to present the talks, ect to a vote of the 12 and the memebrs in Conference. Check out how the D+C became scripture. Does sraing our hands sustaining in everyy GC the same as raising our hands for say the newest addition to the D+C which was done that way? Just asking if there was any revelation changing the process? If no, why not?

[Amore Vero]

Tetra: I use cannonized scipture as a shortcut. The process is the issue. To become scripture in the eraly prohets time was to present the talks, ect to a vote of the 12 and the memebrs in Conference. Check out how the D+C became scripture. Does sraing our hands sustaining in everyy GC the same as raising our hands for say the newest addition to the D+C which was done that way? Just asking if there was any revelation changing the process? If no, why not?

I don't believe merely 'voting' can make something true (real scripture) if it's not completely true. It must really be true to be real scripture, no matter how many people accept it.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Amore: I highly doubt that when the 12 and TR holders vote UNANIMOUSLY that there will be error.

[Tetraman]

Tetra: I use cannonized scipture as a shortcut. The process is the issue. To become scripture in the eraly prohets time was to present the talks, ect to a vote of the 12 and the memebrs in Conference. Check out how the D+C became scripture. Does sraing our hands sustaining in everyy GC the same as raising our hands for say the newest addition to the D+C which was done that way? Just asking if there was any revelation changing the process? If no, why not?

I believe when new sections are added to the D+C, a sustaining vote in general conference would be in order. Was not that the case when section 138 was added and the official Declaration I and II were added?. I would assume that before such a move was made they would have 100% consensus from the first presidency and the quorum of the twelve. I would not be surprised to see the Declaration on the Family eventually added to the D+C with a sustaining vote.

Did the church ever do that kind of sustaining for conference talks not intended to be in the D+C? I don't know my church history to that level of detail, so did any process change? Got me!

I often wonder if the history of the Church and a highlights of the teachings in our day will be eventually be condensed or abridged into a book, like the Book of Mormon, and canonized for the benefit of the saints that live during the millennium. Perhaps the D+C will be extended to fill that purpose.

[gkearney]

Fianan: Great question. Do you know of instances where the talk had parts edited out?

Best recent example? Boyd K. Packer's talk in the Autumn. You can easily google it and see where elements that were essentially consistent with long-standing interpretations of social issues were deleted from the talk.

There was Elder Polman's talk a number of years back where they had him re-record it to make changes.

[Amore Vero]

The process is the issue. To become scripture in the eraly prohets time was to present the talks, ect to a vote of the 12 and the memebrs in Conference.

The process was different with D&C 132, it was not added to the D&C or presented in Conference until many years after many members & leaders were living it secretly.

[SpeedRacer]

I know our stake president had it under good authority, that it was good to carry a copy of the GC ensign with your Scriptures until you got the next edition.

As for the speaking by the spirit as they stand you have to begin to see that the chuch has grown since they could do that. Now the Lord gives his inspiration as they prepare their talks so they can be submitted to the translators. With a world wide church, and GC in english, the Lord has to take the language issue into account. Especially since over 50% of the church does not speak english.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Amore: True about later publishing but it was sustained in a GC and then practiced. There was NOT a unanimous vote. The majority won.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

SpeedRacer: Excellent point about needing translation but I thought that translaters were there as the spoke? But, I don't know if the translators comments go out on real time to other nations viewing on TV or listening on radio. No question about translation of the Ensign and other written documents.

FYI, years ago before I met my wife, she worked as a Secretary in the Translation Dept. I used to say to peole that she was the one who pushed the button on the machine which translated people. You'd be surprised how many Saints actually believed that at first. @-)

[Amore Vero]

Amore: True about later publishing but it was sustained in a GC and then practiced. There was NOT a unanimous vote. The majority won.

Do you know what year it was sustained in GC?

I have read that 132 was not presented officially to the Saints until they were in Utah, but it was practiced by many back in Nauvoo, years before hardly anyone had heard about Section 132. It appears that Joseph Smith never talked about 132 from the pulpit.

That would be one example of a doctrine being practiced before it was voted on by the Saints.

[Samuel the Lamanite]

Don't know the year but during the Nauvoo period. Plural marraige became public knowledge during this time. Was very controversial withing the Church (Emma really got angry) and was a major cause for JS being murdered.