Interest in General Conference - whose responsibility?

[_UnicornMan]

Yep -- what I have found is there is a double standard applied to the words of the leaders.

If it's a smart comment full of truth and profound, and not objectionable, it's revelation. It's quoted everywhere and often described as inspired.

If it's a mistaken comment (like the one someone made about parents would rather see their kids buried than be subject to sexual immorality, or blood atonement, Adam-God theory), then the person is speaking as a man.

I find the prophets of today are more than willing to say "With what I'm about to say, I'm not prophesying" than they are to commit to a statement, calling it revelation.

At least we don't have the doctrin of Papal Infallibility to further box our leaders into a corner. Leaving it ambiguous as to when they are revelating and when they are simply talking opinion makes it highly convenient for the upper leaders....

[_bcspace]

This is an important topic, it must be for it to be a 'First Presidency Topic'. It signals that the top echelons of the Church have a problem in that the members just aren't listening to them.

I don't think so. What's happening is that the word of God is being taught and it's essentially the same word of God that has always been taught with emphasis on something important for our times. According to the scriptural/lexical definition, "prophecy" does not require something new to be taught or predicted. So I it think it very likely if, in the example given, the LDS person had mentioned a specific talk or two, the curious neighbor would simply have shrugged anyway.

[_jon]

This is an important topic, it must be for it to be a 'First Presidency Topic'. It signals that the top echelons of the Church have a problem in that the members just aren't listening to them.

I don't think so. What's happening is that the word of God is being taught and it's essentially the same word of God that has always been taught with emphasis on something important for our times. According to the scriptural/lexical definition, "prophecy" does not require something new to be taught or predicted. So I it think it very likely if, in the example given, the LDS person had mentioned a specific talk or two, the curious neighbor would simply have shrugged anyway.

bcspace, you use rather a lot of words to say precisely nothing.
If the word of God is being taught at conference then you must believe that Adam is God?
When Paul H. Dunn spoke at conference were his the words of God?

Complete speculation your honour...
But we can all play that game can't we:
If, at conference, the Leaders said something memorable or worth noting, then the member in the example would have had something to tell his neighbour.

The point Uchtdorf was clearly and explicitly making (and the point to this thread that you seem to want to avoid contributing to) is that the First Presidency is concerned that people aren't listening to Conference and that it is the members sole responsibility to sort that problem out.