How will we know what in Conference is revelation?

[_stemelbow]

What level of obedience do you believe the general church membership needs to attain for God to actually speak to the prophets and give us further light and knowledge?

If I knew I'd probably be somewhere else doing something else, but I wouldn't be able to tell you what that was and where I was.

[_Sophocles]

How will we know what in Conference is revelation?

The more pressing question is "how will we know what in Conference is Conference?"

However, keep in mind that the majority of Church members--even of active Church members--do not attend conference in person. They see the video or read the Ensign, and this is the first acquaintance any of them have with what is said there. Thus, for most of us, the video and the Ensign are not simply a record of Conference--they are Conference.

This is changing now, of course, with the extension of the Church's satellite network. But nonetheless, given that most people still do not hear Conference talks in real time, Conference is less a two-day event than a month-and-a-half process. Thus, for most members, the version of the talk on the video and in the Ensign is nothing less than the talk that Elder Poelman gave. And this is not "deception" or "doctoring" but the simple truth--he did in fact give it.

The point being that it is entirely possible that one or more speakers could deliver the wrong draft of their talk during the live broadcast, and thus we can't really know what was said until the final reports have been edited, re-taped as necessary, and published.

[_jon]

In actual fact, it's not worth going/listening to General Conference 'live' at all.

You could go, listen intently, make notes etc and go away intending to act upon and remember the words spoke. But what if they change?

Nope, you're much better off waiting for the LDS.org/Ensign to come out with the printed versions of what the speakers meant to say or what the FP/PR wished them to have said...

For example, had you listened live to Packer a couple of Conferences ago you'd have heard him tell you that the Family Proclamation was a revelation. And when you repeated that message to your non member neighbour who was asking what revelations you got at Conference, you'd have been lying to him. Because it became said in the printed version that actually the Family Proclamation isn't a revelation at all.

No, best wait to see the words in black and white...

[_Buffalo]

In actual fact, it's not worth going/listening to General Conference 'live' at all.

You could go, listen intently, make notes etc and go away intending to act upon and remember the words spoke. But what if they change?

Nope, you're much better off waiting for the LDS.org/Ensign to come out with the printed versions of what the speakers meant to say or what the FP/PR wished them to have said...

For example, had you listened live to Packer a couple of Conferences ago you'd have heard him tell you that the Family Proclamation was a revelation. And when you repeated that message to your non member neighbour who was asking what revelations you got at Conference, you'd have been lying to him. Because it became said in the printed version that actually the Family Proclamation isn't a revelation at all.

No, best wait to see the words in black and white...

Even then, there's no guarantee that the church won't distance itself from the talk later.

Best to wait and see if someone says something that rises above the level of something said in High Priests quorum.

[_DarkHelmet]

Excellent points. In fact, it is best to wait 20-30 years, or maybe a couple generations to see how well the conference talk stands the test of time, and to make sure the apologists still consider it doctrine.

[_Buffalo]

Excellent points. In fact, it is best to wait 20-30 years, or maybe a couple generations to see how well the conference talk stands the test of time, and to make sure the apologists still consider it doctrine.

I think you'll find that the vast majority won't hold up well at all.