183 Semiannual General Conference Thread

[byu71]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but no, I don't think expressing an opinion is the same as claiming revelation.

That said, I think the category of folks I call Milquetoasters are particularly bad at discerning revelation generally, and tend to rely on their own counsel and judgment too much.

Do you ever think you rely on your own opinion and judgement too much when deciding who is Milquetoaster?

[clackamascoug]

Homemade bread, toasted, butter on both sides, warm milk, salt, pepper, deep bowl, big spoon. I love me some milktoast.

[LA Ute]

I think the phrase "prophetic counsel" is interesting. My impression is that it has been gaining traction over the last few years in the church and it's easy to imagine why. On the one hand, it suggests gravitas; the adjective "prophetic" reminds us of the keys held by those who offer it. On the other hand, it makes no claim to be binding upon the membership of the church in a legal sense. The implication is that one may choose to disregard it: to be sure, one may suffer certain consequences for taking it lightly or failing to heed it, but one would not necessarily be subject to church discipline per se for disagreeing with it or not conforming to it. In fact, the phrase is equivocal: it may mean that the counsel itself is prophetic in a kind of Amos 3:7 sense; or it may mean that it is simply counsel given by those who hold prophetic keys (without necessarily implying that the utterance itself is infallible or even inspired in a strong sense).

I think there is a world of difference between presenting the PoF as inspired, "prophetic counsel" and canonizing it as scripture. Obviously, the brethren accept this distinction as well. It would have been pointless otherwise for BKP to alter the language of his conference address.

I think you are right.

Straw man alert.

I think you misread me. Just trying to explain how I see prophetic counsel in terms of my own response to it. I wasn't talking about anyone else.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Do you ever think you rely on your own opinion and judgement too much when deciding who is Milquetoaster?

If we know two things about Tex, they are:

1. He can't change his mind.

2. He can't change the subject.

When Tex shows up around Conference time and, like an Old Testament prophet, tries to call down fire and feed us to the she-bears, we're best served to interpret him metaphorically.

[Indy Coug]

Do you ever think you rely on your own opinion and judgement too much when deciding who is Milquetoaster?

Does that have jelly or preserves on it?

[Tex]

If we know two things about Tex, they are:

1. He can't change his mind.

2. He can't change the subject.

When Tex shows up around Conference time and, like an Old Testament prophet, tries to call down fire and feed us to the she-bears, we're best served to interpret him metaphorically.

I prefer tacos, but will take a California roll if offered one.

[UVACoug]

Just explain why you think gays should have no right to be married and adopt kids if that's what you believe. Why is that right and fair?

I promise my response to whatever you say won't be: "But you're so arrogant. You don't respect my beliefs! You think anybody who disagrees with you is stupid!"

Aren't you a lawyer? What the hell kind of argument is that? Have you tried that in front of a judge?

I've already made my position on gay marriage clear here and have put forward an explanation for why I hold the belief I have, for which I was widely mocked. I am not arguing about gay marriage. You were the one that asserted that it was arrogant to disagree with your position. You have the burden of proof, not me. You also claimed you have respect for others beliefs. You can't have respect for someone's belief while calling them arrogant for holding them. There really isn't much more to argue on that point. Either you respect my beliefs ... or you think I am arrogant for holding them. You can't have it both ways.

I really don't care which one you choose. I don't need you to respect me or my beliefs. I just think it is silly for you to claim you respect my position while at the same time calling it arrogant.

[UVACoug]

This is fascinating. If you want to get a tiny glimpse into power struggles that are almost entirely invisible when the GAs present themselves as speaking with a single voice, this is the kind of thing that should get your attention. It is not insignificant that this change was made. The question is what or who instigated the change. Presumably a senior apostle found the language objectionable and requested that the change be made. So, who would have been sufficiently sensitive to recognize that this kind of language--which is accepted without batting an eye by perhaps a significant majority of church members--is divisive/misleading/misguided/hurtful? It heartens me to think that someone of presumably a higher pay grade than Elder C cares about such things.

Of course the truly significant case of discrete editing in the recent past was the talk that BKP was obliged to emend. For the pres of the Q12 to be forced to downgrade his characterization of the PoF from a "revelation" to something else was stunning, especially given that he had not called it a "revelation" in an off-the-cuff way but had actually argued for it to be such in his original talk. One wonders who in the 1P (presumably) called his attention to it, told him it was wrong, and asked him to change it. To do that to someone that DHO once characterized as a "grizzly bear" takes real cojones. I'll go out on a limb and say that there is a hell of a lot more diversity of thought among the GAs than the ordinary church member would ever guess.

My guess is that it was someone in the P.R. department that suggested the change, and Elder Christofferson didn't object. I highly doubt there is some senior apostle combing over every word in every talk.

[CardiacCoug]

I've already made my position on gay marriage clear here and have put forward an explanation for why I hold the belief I have, for which I was widely mocked. I am not arguing about gay marriage. You were the one that asserted that it was arrogant to disagree with your position. You have the burden of proof, not me. You also claimed you have respect for others beliefs. You can't have respect for someone's belief while calling them arrogant for holding them. There really isn't much more to argue on that point. Either you respect my beliefs ... or you think I am arrogant for holding them. You can't have it both ways.

I really don't care which one you choose. I don't need you to respect me or my beliefs. I just think it is silly for you to claim you respect my position while at the same time calling it arrogant.

Oh brother. I have no interest in this nonsense.

[Harry Tic]

My guess is that it was someone in the P.R. department that suggested the change, and Elder Christofferson didn't object. I highly doubt there is some senior apostle combing over every word in every talk.

So your hypothesis is that the PR guys are the ones vetting the GAs' talks (with their permission, of course!)? Wow. And to think that someone earlier today insinuated that I am jaded.

[UVACoug]

Oh brother. I have no interest in this nonsense.

Of course you don't. You can't stand it when people call out your B.S. double speak.

[UVACoug]

So your hypothesis is that the PR guys are the ones vetting the GAs' talks (with their permission, of course!)? Wow. And to think that someone earlier today insinuated that I am jaded.

In consultation with the person giving the talk ... yes. I'm not sure what would be wrong with that.

[Harry Tic]

In consultation with the person giving the talk ... yes. I'm not sure what would be wrong with that.

Yeah, I can imagine how that conversation goes:

Anonymous News Room intern: "Um, President Packer? We were wondering if we could tweak the language of your talk just a bit before we go to press. We don't want to offend our all-important liberal constituency that always raises a stink about the PoF. I know you had explicitly argued that the PoF met the criteria to be defined as a 'revelation' but it would be easier for our office if we softened the language a bit and just called it 'inspired counsel' instead."

BKP: "Perhaps you're right. I don't want to ruffle the feathers of any feminists, intellectuals, or liberals. Go ahead and make any changes you see fit to keep them happy. And get me a Coke on your way out."

[jay santos]

My guess is that it was someone in the P.R. department that suggested the change, and Elder Christofferson didn't object. I highly doubt there is some senior apostle combing over every word in every talk.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthr...=1#post1029787

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, I can imagine how that conversation goes:

Anonymous News Room intern: "Um, President Packer? We were wondering if we could tweak the language of your talk just a bit before we go to press. We don't want to offend our all-important liberal constituency that always raises a stink about the PoF. I know you had explicitly argued that the PoF met the criteria to be defined as a 'revelation' but it would be easier for our office if we softened the language a bit and just called it 'inspired counsel' instead."

BKP: "Perhaps you're right. I don't want to ruffle the feathers of any feminists, intellectuals, or liberals. Go ahead and make any changes you see fit to keep them happy. And get me a Coke on your way out."

lol.