A Faith Promoting Rumor Too Far?

[_DarkHelmet]

I don't think people expect perfection from the Church's Leaders.
They do, however, expect honesty and substance; for their words and stories to stack up.

I think that this GC had honesty and substance in it. But I don't expect perfection from any GA who are giving talks during GC. They are first of all just human beings. I tend to make allowances. As was said at GC, judge not.

You share common ground with church critics. Critics also believe the GAs are just human beings. The obvious follow up question (once you understand that) is why should anyone be obedient to them?

[_Drifting]

I don't think people expect perfection from the Church's Leaders.
They do, however, expect honesty and substance; for their words and stories to stack up.

I think that this GC had honesty and substance in it. But I don't expect perfection from any GA who are giving talks during GC. They are first of all just human beings. I tend to make allowances. As was said at GC, judge not.

No. When they speak at General Conference they are doing so not as 'just human beings'. They are speaking as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. I'm going to start another thread about what struck you as 'Prophecy', 'Seership' or 'revelation'. I hope you can give some specifics.

[_DarkHelmet]

No. When they speak at General Conference they are doing so not as 'just human beings'. They are speaking as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

I don't believe they are. I believe they are speaking as regular human beings, and so does Why Me.

[_consiglieri]

I think that this GC had honesty and substance in it. But I don't expect perfection from any GA who are giving talks during GC. They are first of all just human beings. I tend to make allowances. As was said at GC, judge not.

Here's the deal, why me.

These guys have months to write a little talk that is going to take no more than 15-minutes, read at a mind-numbing soporific pace.

Then they have to submit it to the Correlation Committee who has to approve it.

This one passed muster and went out to millions of viewers.

Unless a drastic revision occurs, it will next be published in The Ensign, creating a public record that will qualify as "doctrine" even under bc's procrustean definition.

This is not a good thing, so far as I can tell.

It is not honest and is devoid of substance.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Stormy Waters]

I think it's worth noting that this is in the conference ensign.

A few months later, while I was serving a mission in London, England, a distinguished Oxford-educated teacher at London University, an Egyptian expert in Semitic languages, read the Book of Mormon, corresponded with President David O. McKay, and met with missionaries. He informed them he was convinced the Book of Mormon was indeed a translation of “the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” for the periods described in the Book of Mormon.20 One example among many he used was the conjunctive phrase “And it came to pass,” which he said mirrored how he would translate phraseology used in ancient Semitic writings.21 The professor was informed that while his intellectual approach based on his profession had helped him, it was still essential to have a spiritual testimony. Through study and prayer he gained a spiritual witness and was baptized. So what one famous humorist saw as an object of ridicule, a scholar recognized as profound evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon, which was confirmed to him by the Spirit.

Edit: In the footnotes it looks like it's referring to a Dr. Ebeid Sarofim. Is it a different story than the faith promoting rumor?

Here is more information found in this conference report

I should like to relate briefly the experience of a very talented and educated young Oxford graduate who is an Egyptian by birth. He studied and practised law in Cairo; he has taught law in the law schools of Luxembourg, he speaks six different languages including Arabic, Hebraic, Italian, French, German, and English, and teaches now in the London University. When he first read the Book of Mormon, he was greatly impressed by the style in which it was written. He noted that it, like the Semitic language, so often had sentences begin with the conjunction "behold" and with the phrase "and it came to pass." He was also impressed by the fact that names used throughout the book were names which occur so often in the Semitic language. He knew that an uneducated youth could not have translated or written this book. He noted, too, that Joseph Smith took no credit for its authorship but claimed that it was translated by the power of God. He accepted Joseph Smith's claim without doubt as he knew that this was the only way the book could have been written.

As the missionaries taught him the principles of the gospel, he joined with them in childlike faith in praying to his Heavenly Father that he might have an understanding of the gospel. His prayers were answered, and he learned by the Spirit that he had found the truth. He was converted to the Church with a deep and abiding testimony. He is an able and strong advocate of the gospel and defender of the Book of Mormon which he knows is true.

[_Drifting]

Who was the guy in the afternoon session who talked about the unnamed scholar during the McKay administration who said the Book of Mormon was such good Hebrew, he joined the Church?

I honestly believe this is a faith promoting rumor, though I would be happy to be proven wrong on that.

I mean, the best this scholar could come up with is "it came to pass" all over the place in the Book of Mormon is evidence of antiquity?

The lack of a name or any other identifying characteristics about this scholar is suggestive.

Maybe this GA is the next Paul Dunn?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

My Bishop used this example of why he believed the Church was true when I was meeting with him with my 'questions'. I don't think he knows the full picture about this guy, nor the fact that he has subsequently recounted his testimony.

Anybody got any links or references about Hanna's leaving of the Church?

[_Drifting]

No. When they speak at General Conference they are doing so not as 'just human beings'. They are speaking as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

I don't believe they are. I believe they are speaking as regular human beings, and so does Why Me.

I agree, but that wasn't how it was sold during the pre Conference marketing campaign!