I propose a much more serious hypothetical for your consideration, and one which would explain a very important aspect of apologetics in the Church of Jesus Christ:
What if Daniel C. Peterson, or Louis C. Midgley, or William R. Schryver were invited to speak at General Conference? What would happen?
Midgley Wrote:
I do have good friends who do speak in General Conference and for me much happens that is, despite the pain of repentance, I am profoundly blessed by their words. But I do not think that having Mike Coe lecture the Saints on how the Book of Mormon is rubbish would, and should be read as merely Joseph Smith opinions and not the Word of God, would enhance the faith of the Saints. But if the Church, understood as the community of Saints and Covenant People of God, is morphed into a kind of essentially secular social club in which the point staying in it is finding some way of being happy (without the love of God), then it really does not matter who speaks in Conference or even whether their is a Conference.
Schryver Wrote:
the point I was attempting to make is that I am quite confident, were one of us invited to speak in General Conference, it would ultimately be impossible to distinguish our address from that of any of the other speakers in terms of its overall tenor, tone, substance, etc. Why? Because I am confident each of us would appeal to the same source that would have inspired all the other addresses: the Holy Ghost. This is the difference between us and he who "walketh in his own way and after the image of his own god," seeking to mold the Church according to his own conception of how and what it should be.
Oh the arrogance. The narcissism. Unbelievable.
"Jesus gave us the gospel, but Satan invented church. It takes serious evil to formalize faith into something tedious and then pile guilt on anyone who doesn’t participate enthusiastically." - Robert Kirby
Beer makes you feel the way you ought to feel without beer. -- Henry Lawson
I do have good friends who do speak in General Conference and for me much happens that is, despite the pain of repentance, I am profoundly blessed by their words. But I do not think that having Mike Coe lecture the Saints on how the Book of Mormon is rubbish...blah...blah....blah
Does Midgley ever write something without complaining about Michael Coe or The Tanners or Grant Palmer?
I propose a much more serious hypothetical for your consideration, and one which would explain a very important aspect of apologetics in the Church of Jesus Christ:
What if Daniel C. Peterson, or Louis C. Midgley, or William R. Schryver were invited to speak at General Conference? What would happen?
Midgley Wrote:
I do have good friends who do speak in General Conference and for me much happens that is, despite the pain of repentance, I am profoundly blessed by their words. But I do not think that having Mike Coe lecture the Saints on how the Book of Mormon is rubbish would, and should be read as merely Joseph Smith opinions and not the Word of God, would enhance the faith of the Saints. But if the Church, understood as the community of Saints and Covenant People of God, is morphed into a kind of essentially secular social club in which the point staying in it is finding some way of being happy (without the love of God), then it really does not matter who speaks in Conference or even whether their is a Conference.
Schryver Wrote:
the point I was attempting to make is that I am quite confident, were one of us invited to speak in General Conference, it would ultimately be impossible to distinguish our address from that of any of the other speakers in terms of its overall tenor, tone, substance, etc. Why? Because I am confident each of us would appeal to the same source that would have inspired all the other addresses: the Holy Ghost. This is the difference between us and he who "walketh in his own way and after the image of his own god," seeking to mold the Church according to his own conception of how and what it should be.
If it were not attributed to "The Unpublished" himself, I would think this was a joke.
This is a great example of the first corollary of Poe's Law. (Sincere religiously motivated belief can be reasonably mistaken for a parody of that belief.)
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
the point I was attempting to make is that I am quite confident, were one of us invited to speak in General Conference, it would ultimately be impossible to distinguish our address from that of any of the other speakers in terms of its overall tenor, tone, substance, etc. Why? Because I am confident each of us would appeal to the same source that would have inspired all the other addresses: the Holy Ghost. This is the difference between us and he who "walketh in his own way and after the image of his own god," seeking to mold the Church according to his own conception of how and what it should be.
Oh the arrogance. The narcissism. Unbelievable.
I beg to differ with Frater Schryver. I think a series of GC talks by the classic-FARMS crew, if it took the form of their polemics, would deeply offend a healthy minority of the listeners, confuse others, and leave another healthy minority cleaning the drool off of their Sunday shoes after the talk was over. It would, in any case, be a polarizing display.
Now, I understand that Schryver is saying he knows how to temper his speech in such a way that he could deliver a sincere statement of belief in a talk that would approximate closely a GA talk. You know, I bet lots of people he disagrees with could do the same, and with equal sincerity. And that is something he should really think about.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
