Two talks in church yesterday

[MikeWaters]

the second talk was partially about grace. I don't remember what the exact topic was, but he segued into works/grace (the segue did make sense). And then referred pretty extensively to Stephen Robinson (sp?).

Then the next speaker stood up and talked about how we can go astray, esp. when reading material from non-general authorities.

Irony. LOL.

Speaking of which, is it possible to argue that Stephen Robinson has been more influential, doctrinally speaking, than any general authority alive? I think the argument can be made. Of course I have read no Robinson book, and I have never read a book by a GA that I can remember, other than the Groberg self-homage.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the second talk was partially about grace. I don't remember what the exact topic was, but he segued into works/grace (the segue did make sense). And then referred pretty extensively to Stephen Robinson (sp?).

Then the next speaker stood up and talked about how we can go astray, esp. when reading material from non-general authorities.

Irony. LOL.

Speaking of which, is it possible to argue that Stephen Robinson has been more influential, doctrinally speaking, than any general authority alive? I think the argument can be made. Of course I have read no Robinson book, and I have never read a book by a GA that I can remember, other than the Groberg self-homage.

I can't think of any living GA who has made any doctrinal contributions via books. Anyone?
But, then the last thing I've read are some of Maxwell's books, many years ago.

Our HC speaker sang a song. He picked up his guitar, invited his wife up and sang this song that he wrote for his son when he left on his mission. Not much into twangy country stuff, but it was really nice song.
The song quoted Paul, so I guess nobody was in danger being led astray.

[hyrum]

Originally Posted by Brian

The song quoted Paul, so I guess nobody was in danger being led astray.

From when he was with the Beatles?

[Archaea]

For the most part, our leaders, from the observations of an interested but otherwise uninformed outsider, are chosen for their administrative abilities and loyalty, not due to academic or theological contributions.

I've thought quite a bit about this but it doesn't seem to me that we have a systematic theological order, but more of a business order.

Thus, most of our intellectuals or those who contribute theologically, intellectually, or philosophically are for one or another reason not in leadership. And without meaning to demean CES, most of those are in the business of teaching the basics so as to not being able to develop more advanced thought.

The Maxwell works were the last GA works I've read very closely. I scan titles and see almost nothing worth reading from the GAs.

[SeattleUte]

I didn't know Stephen E. Robinson was a general authority.

[BYU71]

I didn't know I was so far away from church books and doctrine. I don't even know who Stephen Robinson is. I thought Stephen L. Richards was still the best selling GA.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

the second talk was partially about grace. I don't remember what the exact topic was, but he segued into works/grace (the segue did make sense). And then referred pretty extensively to Stephen Robinson (sp?).

Then the next speaker stood up and talked about how we can go astray, esp. when reading material from non-general authorities.

Irony. LOL.

Speaking of which, is it possible to argue that Stephen Robinson has been more influential, doctrinally speaking, than any general authority alive? I think the argument can be made. Of course I have read no Robinson book, and I have never read a book by a GA that I can remember, other than the Groberg self-homage.

Than any alive, yes. Mormon Doctrine and Man, His Origin and Destiny were and still are immensely influential, much more than Robinson and is bicycle allegory. Of course, they are also the reason that GA's aren't permitted to write things like that anymore.

[MikeWaters]

It's going to be interesting when non-GAs are the ones largely influencing Mormon thought.

I mean, you have more discussion on more topics on this website, than have been addressed in GC in 30 years.

Of course there are some good reasons why certain things aren't discussed.

I wonder if in the future, it will not be permissible to read quotes or refer to non-Mormon GA authors in sacrament meeting.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's going to be interesting when non-GAs are the ones largely influencing Mormon thought.

I mean, you have more discussion on more topics on this website, than have been addressed in GC in 30 years.

Of course there are some good reasons why certain things aren't discussed.

I wonder if in the future, it will not be permissible to read quotes or refer to non-Mormon GA authors in sacrament meeting.

That would be sad. I do so love hearing Nietzsche quoted across the pulpit. "Whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger."

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It's going to be interesting when non-GAs are the ones largely influencing Mormon thought.

I mean, you have more discussion on more topics on this website, than have been addressed in GC in 30 years.

Of course there are some good reasons why certain things aren't discussed.

I wonder if in the future, it will not be permissible to read quotes or refer to non-Mormon GA authors in sacrament meeting.

You think we will have non-mormon GA's in the future. I highly doubt it.