Pres Eyring Equates GC Talks with Revelation

To me, this is dangerous.

Good topic to discuss, OON.

I agree with your points. I read over it (thanks for the link) and agree with you that HBE is saying that GC is revelation, and the speakers are speaking for the Lord.

It still has the human element in it though, doesn’t it? The GC talks are delivered through mortals (who draft and proofread, as JS did also).

So…I guess I take 2 things from this reminder from a member of the first presidency:

1) Perhaps revelation is not always so glorious and amazing. Sometimes (most of the time) it is small and little and still from God but not angels and some big revelations that JS had. Just little inspiration can be defined as revelation. An inspirational thought can be revelation.

2) “Hal, if you want to get revelation, do your homework.” Revelation requires preparation and work (as taught to Oliver Cowdery in D&C 8-10), it is not given to us on a CD or video tape and stands on it’s own…it is more than just a message from God to people. It is not the words. Homework means there has to be stuff done to prepare the mind and heart to understand the revelation and meaning. Despite the mortals screwing up the words, or only using limited words, or using the words they have in their brain from their homework…the message from God goes beyond it and is caught in the meaning.

I guess I think those things are important to me because it helps me define revelation, and what it is and what it isn’t. Because, if I am sincere, and prepare my heart, and the prophet says something that doesn’t sound right to me…well…I can work through that by understanding there may be a meaning behind things that is revelation, or only partial revelation was given, because I can’t just take things for face value that everything in Conference is simply a transcript God penned and gave to robots to deliver. It is more complex. And in that complexity, leaves me more comfortable to be involved in the revelatory process, to receive it and learn from it. And allow others to receive and learn from it how they need to.

It is what I do with the revelation that matters, even if I have a slightly different tweak on it. Because I think there are things in Conference I may not agree with.

I think that is OK. I think defining revelation as HBE is presenting it opens the doors to a broader definition of revelation that makes more sense to me.

I also believe that other religions and other church leaders and other good people outside the church can receive revelation that fits into the kind of revelation that HBE is talking about with Conference. And that makes sense to me.

In other words, not “revelation” in the JS sense, but authority to deliver messages that they come up with, and have them be treated as if from God.

I just think Joseph Smith established this as part of the organized church in the same way. I would not agree it is different now than from JS. I think JS had the grand visions (which were outliers of revelation), but most revelation JS had was similar to these Conference talks. In fact, I think many of the things we have as revelations from JS were written down by other people, and JS was cool with that as long as it caught the meaning he approved of. There were few things (including the First Vision accounts) that came directly from JS’s hand.

I think there is danger with people taking a too shallow approach to revelation and just saying “Well, it was said in General Conference, which is revelation, so…therefore…it is perfect and can only be understood one way”. That is not what revelation is to me. That would be dangerous, as you said, for my kids to take it that way. And so I want to teach them and myself it is not so simple. It takes homework, before, during and after Conference. There is no short cut.

What then, is the value of a prophet if it is such a broad revelation definition? Perhaps that is the question we should discuss.

This makes me wince as it makes me think that as good as the Women’s session was, is this preparing for some retrenchment? Maybe I shouldn’t fear as a serious buckling down will probably make some decisions a bit easier and more clear cut.

LH, what are some examples or what do you mean about “buckling down”?

I expect this conference to be similar to most others, not more or less.

I think the process (as pointed out by the 22 drafts and proof readers) that the speakers come up with their own materials, not assigned specific topics to try to retrench or influence the masses in one way or another. Just inspiration and revelation on lots of subjects.

Do you think it will be something different? Like a specific call to arms on something?

Careful reading of this article implies that the “revelation” part of “personal revelation” comes through the Prophets and Apostles, while the “personal” part of “personal revelation” is our recognition of these words as coming from God:

Personally, I see this one as a reminder that we should always be open to the Spirit for confirmation of any message we receive, whether it comes from that slightly off guy in your Gospel Doctrine class, Thomas S Monson, or a burning bush. Certainly, I don’t see any GA claiming that Conference talks cover every situation any of us will ever encounter where we would benefit from revelation.

Personally, I see this one as a reminder that we should always be open to the Spirit for confirmation of any message we receive, whether it comes from that slightly off guy in your Gospel Doctrine class, Thomas S Monson, or a burning bush. Certainly, I don’t see any GA claiming that Conference talks cover every situation any of us will ever encounter where we would benefit from revelation.

:thumbup: That is how I see it too. But I also think they want to try to market it as important enough to listen to … but will stop short of saying it is revelation like Moses or Joseph Smith accounts. I think most GAs want a “sliding scale” of revelation so they have wiggle room to claim inspirational and important messages will be delivered that should be listened to, even if they know it is just another talk with them doing the best they can praying and preparing to deliver something meaningful…so members don’t just take the weekend off without church.

Normally I thank people for sharing stuff. In this case I’m not so sure I’m happy you did – I probably wouldn’t have otherwise noticed it.

Honestly I don’t think Pres. Eyring (whom I also like) is saying anything the vast majority of believing active members don’t already “know.” I think every conference I hear the “if you pray about it and listen you will get answers to your questions.” These statements are directed at the general audience and not me personally, of course – but oh how I would love for that to be true! There ain’t no way no how any of them are going to answer some of my questions! I think we can take this in the context of Pres. Nelson declaring the policy revelation as well. Is this a bit of buckling down on “follow the prophet” and “the prophet can’t lead us astray?” It very well could be.

GC is always a mixed bag for me, as well. I hope there’s more good than”meh” and more “meh” than bad – if such is the case it’s a good conference.

The intro verbiage introducing GC says the members gather to receive guidance and counsel from the leaders.

I am fine with that.

To stir the pot a bit, he seems to say that prophets and apostles speak for the Lord, not all speakers in conference. It may not apply to women and the occasional non GA speaker (like Lavell Edwards back in the day).

Also would not apply to any of the Seventy or Presiding Bishopric.