False Doctrine in GC?

[ERCougar]

People keep alluding to statements made by prophets that are "obviously" wrong. The example continually cited is the "man on the moon" comment by JFS. I have yet to see this quote, but I'll assume it's out there somewhere. Anyway, does anyone have examples of this occurring in GC? I think it's difficult to draw the line between personal opinion and divine revelation, but it seems like GC would be a forum which one could assume to be divinely directed.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

People keep alluding to statements made by prophets that are "obviously" wrong. The example continually cited is the "man on the moon" comment by JFS. I have yet to see this quote, but I'll assume it's out there somewhere. Anyway, does anyone have examples of this occurring in GC? I think it's difficult to draw the line between personal opinion and divine revelation, but it seems like GC would be a forum which one could assume to be divinely directed.

Brigham Young made the lions share of his whacky comments in General Conference, but I think we have come to general consensus that BY was rarely divinly inspired amd all the prophets since DOM have been trying to mop up his mess.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

Brigham Young made the lions share of his whacky comments in General Conference, but I think we have come to general consensus that BY was rarely divinly inspired amd all the prophets since DOM have been trying to mop up his mess.

Again, I ask...examples?

I know this seems to be a common sentiment, and I'm not necessarily arguing with you, I'm just curious what the sentiment is based on.

[MikeWaters]

There have been things said in GC that were later not included in the Ensign, etc. I can't remember examples off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure this is why no one is allowed to speak extemporaneously, and why all talks are reviewed beforehand.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There have been things said in GC that were later not included in the Ensign, etc. I can't remember examples off the top of my head. I'm pretty sure this is why no one is allowed to speak extemporaneously, and why all talks are reviewed beforehand.

Now that you mention it, I'm reminded of some entertaining Elder Haight talks. He had to be an exception to the extemporaneous speaking rule, no? No false doctrine per se, just interesting meanderings.

So can we at least rely on the printed GC editions of the Ensign as being divine revelation?

Anyway, I suspect I'm not going to get a lot of specific examples (sort of like the "racism in the BOM" arguments people make). It's much more comfortable making points with vague impressions.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Now that you mention it, I'm reminded of some entertaining Elder Haight talks. He had to be an exception to the extemporaneous speaking rule, no? No false doctrine per se, just interesting meanderings.

So can we at least rely on the printed GC editions of the Ensign as being divine revelation?

Anyway, I suspect I'm not going to get a lot of specific examples (sort of like the "racism in the BOM" arguments people make). It's much more comfortable making points with vague impressions.

<yawn>

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Now that you mention it, I'm reminded of some entertaining Elder Haight talks. He had to be an exception to the extemporaneous speaking rule, no? No false doctrine per se, just interesting meanderings.

So can we at least rely on the printed GC editions of the Ensign as being divine revelation?

Anyway, I suspect I'm not going to get a lot of specific examples (sort of like the "racism in the BOM" arguments people make). It's much more comfortable making points with vague impressions.

You're a newbie and many examples have been cited here. Do your own work and research what's been cited.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You're a newbie and many examples have been cited here. Do your own work and research what's been cited.

Fair enough. If this issue's been settled and no one really cares to revisit it, then fine. I do have to say I have spent a fair amount of time reading this board and have yet to come across a specific example from GC (which was my original question). I do think it's an important distinction to make, and I'm not sure people are making that distinction in quoting past prophets/apostles. But maybe I'm wrong...

Also, if there are truly "many examples", citing one wouldn't seem to difficult. But you're right--you have no obligation to do so.

Look, the question is sincere--I'm really not trying to make a point. The question came up between my wife and I as we were discussing whether GC could be looked at as doctrine. I brought up examples of prophets making statements that seem sort of ludicrous, i.e. SWK's warning that women shouldn't wear shorts, and she asked the question if any of these statements were made in GC. I couldn't come up with any examples.

I'll just pass on the answer to go research it on her own. She'll like that one.

[non sequitur]

Here's something that SWK said in conference that I hope isn't doctrine:

“The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah* are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.”At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was a doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 34 [Infobases Collectors Library ‘97])

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Here's something that SWK said in conference that I hope isn't doctrine:

“The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah* are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.”At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was a doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 34 [Infobases Collectors Library ‘97])

President Kimball, as one familiar with weather in AZ and UT, should have known that the NA's in the placement program in Mapleton or Ibapa were just losing their tans. LOL!