Is it more permissible to oppose the Beck talk

[MikeWaters]

than the talk of an apostle?

Meaning, if you sign a petition protesting the Beck talk, are you less likely to be disciplined (probation, excommunication) than if you had signed a petition protesting the talk of an apostle?

I think the answer is "yes", because the women speakers are not taken nearly as seriously by members of the church from the very top to the very bottom.

It can be argued that no priesthood = no authority. Whether it is overtly admitted, or subconsciously accepted.

I can't say that this is ideal or that I like it. But it appears to be the state of affairs.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

than the talk of an apostle?

Meaning, if you sign a petition protesting the Beck talk, are you less likely to be disciplined (probation, excommunication) than if you had signed a petition protesting the talk of an apostle?

I think the answer is "yes", because the women speakers are not taken nearly as seriously by members of the church from the very top to the very bottom.

It can be argued that no priesthood = no authority. Whether it is overtly admitted, or subconsciously accepted.

I can't say that this is ideal or that I like it. But it appears to be the state of affairs.

I'd personally have no more an issue with someone protesting an apostle over the female General Relief Society president.

I think you're probably correct in your assessment of the current state of affairs.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Meaning, if you sign a petition protesting the Beck talk, are you less likely to be disciplined (probation, excommunication) than if you had signed a petition protesting the talk of an apostle?}

I would surmise it is not inherently evil to disagree with a GA talk. Given the events of the past week, the act of any public dissent probably crosses the current tolerance line. Right or wrong, I admire the courage of the women who signed the "What Women Know" petition.

Time has a way of giving perspective. Most of us would now disagree with Mark E. Peterson's infamous speech entitled "Race Problems - How They Affect the Church". Yet in 1954 would any Mormons have dared to publicly oppose this quote?

"I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....

We are all fallible - even the GA's. I thought the April 2007 News Release addressing doctrinal statements was significant:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...ormon-doctrine

For those of an orthodox bent, keep in mind one of my favorite quotes from that release:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine"

So much for Conference talks representing doctrinal pronouncements.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Requiem

So much for Conference talks representing doctrinal pronouncements.

This is news to you?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is news to you?

You will agree it is news to a lot of people and probably some right now think they said that because they have to, but they still believe words from conf. are scripture. Didn't Indy refer to that in an earlier post.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is news to you?

With all due respect to your esteemed status, yes. My powers of discernment are still developing. Also trying to decipher the implied meaning of "not putting trust in the arm of flesh".

You asking this question prompts me to inquire what your position is on the definition of what GA talks constitute doctrine? I would have thought your strident defense of Sister Beck placed you in the all believing category.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Requiem

With all due respect to your esteemed status, yes. My powers of discernment are still developing. Also trying to decipher the implied mening of "not putting trust in the arm of flesh".

You asking this question prompts me to inquire what your position is on the definition of what GA talks constitute doctrine? I would have thought your strident defense of Sister Beck placed you in the all believing category.

General Conference is neither scripture nor official doctrinal pronouncement, except as indicated. What it is is valued counsel; the application and expounding of existing doctrine.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Requiem

I would surmise it is not inherently evil to disagree with a GA talk. Given the events of the past week, the act of any public dissent probably crosses the current tolerance line. Right or wrong, I admire the courage of the women who signed the "What Women Know" petition.

Time has a way of giving perspective. Most of us would now disagree with Mark E. Peterson's infamous speech entitled "Race Problems - How They Affect the Church". Yet in 1954 would any Mormons have dared to publicly oppose this quote?

"I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....

We are all fallible - even the GA's. I thought the April 2007 News Release addressing doctrinal statements was significant:

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/...ormon-doctrine

For those of an orthodox bent, keep in mind one of my favorite quotes from that release:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine"

So much for Conference talks representing doctrinal pronouncements.

I think more of us need to be aware of these kinds of statements in our past. I see people brushing off the racism concerns of our past leaders far too lightly.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by Tex

General Conference is neither scripture nor official doctrinal pronouncement, except as indicated. What it is is valued counsel; the application and expounding of existing doctrine.

GC is a not always successful attempt to expound on existing doctrine (whereas CG is the inverse). Thankfully, we are still allowed to exercise free agency and distill for ourselves that which has personal relevance.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Requiem

GC is a not always successful attempt to expound on existing doctrine. Thankfully, we are still allowed to exercise free agency and distill for ourselves that which has personal relevance.

Ok, fine. I think you're parsing a little but whatever. I think I generally agree with that, and I'm pretty sure the general authorities would too.

The idea is to not take their counsel lightly and to prayerfully seek guidance in how best to (or not to) apply it. As opposed to, "The hell with THAT!"