Elder Poelman - October 1984 Conference Talk

[h_p]

Has anyone made a point of the original talk and what it means to them?

I really like the original talk, and comparing the two, I think the first is more accurate. I learned this principle the hard way, on my own, while on my mission, directly through the Spirit, and having learned that, it gave me a lot of peace then, and later helped when I saw the "church" screw my dad as a church employee a few years later. I understood that the church was not equivalent to the gospel, and it was only uninspired people who did the screwing, and not really the church, or God.

It's nice to see what I learned on my mission confirmed in a conference talk, and I have to admit, a little saddening to see it plastered over out of concern over people who are already apostate. Rewriting the talk probably just gave them more ammunition, instead of less. On the bright side, I think this might actually work to the benefit of the full truth, in that this talk will receive much more pondering and thought than if it had just been left alone. So maybe that $10-$15,000 redoing it was well-spent after all. 8-}

[Zathura]

Sorry for derailing the thread Jeremy, I'll withdraw from the thread

No apology needed. The content you shared had value even if it has been done to death..... repeatedly. Dash seemed to get something out of it. ajax shared some good quotes from the talk. rew came in with guns blazing and made some noise which attracted some views. Who knows, maybe some individuals who choose not to post also found some value in the content.

I guess that's true. Interesting how something positive can come even when something negative happens

[rewcox]

Can you or Jeremy explain what is in the original talk that you like? Quote it? Explain what it means to you?

Has anyone made a point of the original talk and what it means to them?

I really like the original talk, and comparing the two, I think the first is more accurate. I learned this principle the hard way, on my own, while on my mission, directly through the Spirit, and having learned that, it gave me a lot of peace then, and later helped when I saw the "church" screw my dad as a church employee a few years later. I understood that the church was not equivalent to the gospel, and it was only uninspired people who did the screwing, and not really the church, or God.

It's nice to see what I learned on my mission confirmed in a conference talk, and I have to admit, a little saddening to see it plastered over out of concern over people who are already apostate. Rewriting the talk probably just gave them more ammunition, instead of less. On the bright side, I think this might actually work to the benefit of the full truth, in that this talk will receive much more pondering and thought than if it had just been left alone. So maybe that $10-$15,000 redoing it was well-spent after all. 8-}

[Jeremy]

Can you or Jeremy explain what is in the original talk that you like? Quote it? Explain what it means to you?

I like how Poelman makes a distinction between "The Church" and "The Gospel" as well as emphasizing that it is an important distinction. I also appreciate how he illustrates the relationship between the two. Namely, the gospel being the substance and the church being the delivery system.

Why I find this of value is because, as Poelman explains, not understanding the relationship can result in confusion and misplaced priorities as well as disaffection. Not only have I learned this principle through observation of others, I have also experienced it. While I take responsibility for my own misunderstandings, I can not remember a time when this distinction was clearly made. Again, my misunderstanding and ignorance. It should be common knowledge and perhaps it is. I however lacked. This is why I appreciate this talk.

[abelchirino]

Has anybody asked Elder Poelman to see what HE thinks or feels about it? It doesn't seem as though "the church leaders" did not like his message and therefore wanted to censor him but just that they are cautious about what it might inadvertently imply. Some of us jump into conclusions too quickly.

I like his talk and I'm not offended by it but to say that your post wasn't meant as an attack is disingenuous. At the very least, you should be honest about your intentions. I'm almost certain that you got this from D. Christian Markham's second volume and he uses it to attack the church.

[Jeremy]

I like his talk and I'm not offended by it but to say that your post wasn't meant as an attack is disingenuous. At the very least, you should be honest about your intentions. I'm almost certain that you got this from D. Christian Markham's second volume and he uses it to attack the church.

Am I correct in assuming the "you" in your post is me? If so, I think your statement concerning jumping into conclusions too quickly is very timely and accurate. Your conclusion regarding my intent is inaccurate but understood.

I am not aware of D. Christian Markham or his "second volume" or his apparent attack of the church. With this talk I am only concerned about the content of what Poelman presented. The only time in this thread that I mentioned any history regarding this talk was due to inquiry.

I am glad you like the talk and are not offended by it. Would you like to share what specifically you like about it? Do you find the content valuable?

[rewcox]

You're not a novice Jeremy. You know this talk has been controversial. You could easy have titled the thread The Gospel and The Church. You can articulate well, you could have included why you liked it.

The first 2 posts from Stahura and Lizzy60 brought in the controversy.

The talk is fine. Not an issue with me. Maybe those who are disaffected have stronger feelings about it.

I like his talk and I'm not offended by it but to say that your post wasn't meant as an attack is disingenuous. At the very least, you should be honest about your intentions. I'm almost certain that you got this from D. Christian Markham's second volume and he uses it to attack the church.

Am I correct in assuming the "you" in your post is me? If so, I think your statement concerning jumping into conclusions too quickly is very timely and accurate. Your conclusion regarding my intent is inaccurate but understood.

I am not aware of D. Christian Markham or his "second volume" or his apparent attack of the church. With this talk I am only concerned about the content of what Poelman presented. The only time in this thread that I mentioned any history regarding this talk was due to inquiry.

I am glad you like the talk and are not offended by it. Would you like to share what specifically you like about it? Do you find the content valuable?

[h_p]

Can you or Jeremy explain what is in the original talk that you like? Quote it? Explain what it means to you?

Sure. I'm basing this on the comparison page on http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

BTW, I'm glad captainfearnot linked to the article giving some background on the change. Up until now, I could only speculate, and I do appreciate the clarification. I have no reason to doubt it, and I'm happy with it, and though I may not necessarily agree, it's not my call.

Here's one:

Sometimes traditions, customs, social practices and personal preferences of individual Church members may, through repeated or common usage be misconstrued as Church procedures or policies.

Occasionally, such traditions, customs and practices may even be regarded by some as eternal gospel principles.

Under such circumstances those who do not conform to these cultural standards may mistakenly be regarded as unorthodox or even unworthy. In fact, the eternal principles of the gospel and the divinely inspired Church do accommodate a broad spectrum of individual uniqueness and cultural diversity.

Another, related:

It is important therefore to know the difference between eternal gospel principles which are unchanging, universally applicable and cultural norms which may vary with time and circumstance.

I think we as a church body do not nearly appreciate this enough. I wish this were emphasized more today, as it's one of the big issues of our day, with a large world-wide church membership. There's a big difference between the sense of right/wrong taught by culture and gospel doctrine. One will change with time and location, the other is eternal. Unfortunately, it's difficult to separate the two in one's mind, and if you haven't even been taught to be aware that there is a difference, it leads to unrighteous judgement. For example: the expectation that men should wear white shirts to church. That's purely a cultural thing. Or wearing beards--our stake president requires everyone in bishoprics and stake callings to be clean-shaven. This is an arbitrary cultural tradition brought into the church and treated as doctrine.

In my wife's home country, women wearing fingernail polish used to be a sign of loose morals, and was highly frowned upon by church members there. My wife picked up the habit here in the US and would be wrongly judged when she'd go home. They couldn't accept simple cultural differences.

I don't know why the part in red was stricken from the edited version, as I think that's an important principle of working out your own salvation:

Every church member has not only the opportunity, right, and privilege to receive a personal witness regarding gospel principles and Church practices,but has the need and obligation to obtain such assurance by exercising his free agency, thereby fulfilling one purpose of his mortal probation.

I think a lot of people in the church want to sit back and let their leaders drive them to exaltation, just like the children of Israel tried outsourcing theirs to Moses. This is damming false doctrine.

Hope this helps.

[abelchirino]

I like his talk and I'm not offended by it but to say that your post wasn't meant as an attack is disingenuous. At the very least, you should be honest about your intentions. I'm almost certain that you got this from D. Christian Markham's second volume and he uses it to attack the church.

Am I correct in assuming the "you" in your post is me? If so, I think your statement concerning jumping into conclusions too quickly is very timely and accurate. Your conclusion regarding my intent is inaccurate but understood.

I am not aware of D. Christian Markham or his "second volume" or his apparent attack of the church. With this talk I am only concerned about the content of what Poelman presented. The only time in this thread that I mentioned any history regarding this talk was due to inquiry.

I am glad you like the talk and are not offended by it. Would you like to share what specifically you like about it? Do you find the content valuable?

Yes "you" are correct. My conclusion stems from the fact that at no point, since I joined LDSFF, has anybody brought this up. Many people here are anxious to see or read something that they can quickly point out as evidence that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is headed towards apostasy or is already there. D. Christian Markham mentions it in his book, which was published this month, and all of sudden we hear about it here. Too much of a coincidence if you ask me.

I like both talks. I don't believe there is any censorship of doctrine or principle from one to the other. I have known, for most of my life, that our priorities, faith, hope and heart should not be centered on the various programs of the Church, but on Jesus Christ and His Gospel That's how I was taught. I believe that it is human tendency to seek tradition, or to stay in the safe zone of authorized procedures. But I have seen the core of Elder Poelman's message preached constantly in church and to missionaries (when I was one). Elder Poelman did not teach anything new nor something since forgotten.

We have to constantly do what Elder Poelman attempted to do here, but without misinterpretations. Remind the members that everything has a purpose. Even the Gospel (faith, repentance, baptism, holy ghost and enduring to the end) has its purpose: to unlock the blessings, mercy and grace that are available to us only because of the eternal atonement of Jesus Christ. The Gospel, in and of itself, is just a system as well. It is not an independent principle, it completely depends on the merits of Jesus Christ. The only difference between the system of the Gospel and the system of the Church, is that one has principles or components which may and sometimes do change, the other doesn't. None of the principles and ordinances of the Gospel change in that they go from necessary to not necessary. The programs of the Church can and do change as necessary.

In other words, there are principles that do change, and there are principles that don't change. Both of these principles depend upon one thing, the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Without the Atonement of Jesus Christ, not even the Gospel would matter. The Church, in my opinion, matters for two reasons: one is that it holds the institution or government of the Priesthood (though which God and Christ govern), the second is that it is the system through which we can learn and implement the Gospel in our lives. The Gospel, in turn, is the system through which we can unlock the blessings of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. There's no such thing as a stepping stone. You don't graduate from the Church and move on to the Gospel-this is not Elder Poelman's message.

[Col. Flagg]

If I could give a talk today over the pulpit to the Saints as a whole, mine would be almost identical to Bro. Poleman’s (the original)… outstanding! Spot on!! I am also someone who the church attempted to ‘screw’ back in 2001… it had been about 7-8 months since I lost my job and I rec’d a letter in the mail one day… it was a loan solicitation from Beneficial Life for $5,000 at 23.99% interest (compound). I didn’t know it at the time, but found out years later that the church owned Beneficial Life at the time of the solicitation… I was VERY disappointed – here was my church loan sharking and preying on a member who was donating 10% of his income even after having lost a job and having his pay sliced in half after finally finding work. A very sad day for me as a member.

[Jeremy]

My conclusion stems from the fact that at no point, since I joined LDSFF, has anybody brought this up. Many people here are anxious to see or read something that they can quickly point out as evidence that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is headed towards apostasy or is already there. D. Christian Markham mentions it in his book, which was published this month, and all of sudden we hear about it here. Too much of a coincidence if you ask me.

Fair enough. I can see the thought process and how it would produce that conclusion. Though the conclusion is wrong, you have no reason to believe me. I think it is interesting how you observe this talk has not been brought up since you joined LDSFF while others seem to believe this has been brought up again and again. [Robin Hood - I would appreciate those thinks by the way]
Also, recognizing it was not you who said it, I apparently know how controversial this talk has been. That would imply that I have known about this talk for some time... probably even before D. Christian Markham's book that was allegedly (I am taking your word on it) published this month.

Again, you have no reason to believe me. I only point this out so that perhaps you might evaluate your conclusions. Sometimes coincidence is just that, coincidence.

I like both talks...

Thanks for sharing. It is refreshing to know that some others do not or have not suffered from the same ignorance as myself.

[Rose Garden]

So let me get this straight, Jeremy starts a thread entitled Elder Poelman - October 1984 Conference Talk, and he didn't intend/expect the thread to get derailed into an argument about the church? :-\

[Jeremy]

If I could give a talk today over the pulpit to the Saints as a whole, mine would be almost identical to Bro. Poleman’s (the original)… outstanding! Spot on!!

I notice you specifically mentioned the original. Do you think there is a significant difference between the two in principle? If so, what is the difference?

I am also someone who the church attempted to ‘screw’ back in 2001…

Well sharing that might turn people away rather quickly. [red flag! red flag!]
I am sorry for your very sad day.

[Jeremy]

So let me get this straight, Jeremy starts a thread entitled Elder Poelman - October 1984 Conference Talk, and he didn't intend/expect the thread to get derailed into an argument about the church?

=))
Intention and expectation are different principles. And while one may expect a thread to deteriorate, one can at the same time hope that valuable and interesting content can be shared.

So, did I intend the thread to get derailed into an argument about the church, no. Did I expect the thread to get derailed into an argument... absolutely. Did I hope that useful content would be shared, yes. I approach each thread I start in this same way.
:ymparty:

[rewcox]

If I could give a talk today over the pulpit to the Saints as a whole, mine would be almost identical to Bro. Poleman’s (the original)… outstanding! Spot on!! I am also someone who the church attempted to ‘screw’ back in 2001… it had been about 7-8 months since I lost my job and I rec’d a letter in the mail one day… it was a loan solicitation from Beneficial Life for $5,000 at 23.99% interest (compound). I didn’t know it at the time, but found out years later that the church owned Beneficial Life at the time of the solicitation… I was VERY disappointed – here was my church loan sharking and preying on a member who was donating 10% of his income even after having lost a job and having his pay sliced in half after finally finding work. A very sad day for me as a member.

Why can't you give a talk today?

[Jeremy]

Why can't you give a talk today?

It's Wednesday.

[Rose Garden]

So let me get this straight, Jeremy starts a thread entitled Elder Poelman - October 1984 Conference Talk, and he didn't intend/expect the thread to get derailed into an argument about the church?

=))
Intention and expectation are different principles. And while one may expect a thread to deteriorate, one can at the same time hope that valuable and interesting content can be shared.

So, did I intend the thread to get derailed into an argument about the church, no. Did I expect the thread to get derailed into an argument... absolutely. Did I hope that useful content would be shared, yes. I approach each thread I start in this same way.
:ymparty:

Ah, now that I can understand. Kind of like what I expect every time I bring up the subject of my first husband beating me up with him . . .

[h_p]

Why can't you give a talk today?

It's Wednesday.

:))

[Mcox]

The church leaders have to keep the doctrine pure. That's the bottom line here. The second talk is official the first talk is not. My neighbor back in the early 80's was Doctor Annie Osbourne who married Ron Poelman after his first wife died. They were a powerhouse couple, but I do remember my parents talking about him being controversial. I just saw them as cool.

[Stacy Oliver]

The church leaders have to keep the doctrine pure. That's the bottom line here. The second talk is official the first talk is not. My neighbor back in the early 80's was Doctor Annie Osbourne who married Ron Poelman after his first wife died. They were a powerhouse couple, but I do remember my parents talking about him being controversial. I just saw them as cool.

I don't think that there's anything incorrect in his first talk, and I don't think the fact that he revised it should tell us that anything was wrong with it.

I look at it like Paul's epistles. The early Christians had a problem with grace, so Paul hit grace pretty hard. If someone gave a talk like Paul's writings, it wouldn't be wrong, but some people might misinterpret it (see Protestantism). So, we often see people balance Paul with James. Elder Poelman simply decided to balance out his talk a little differently.

[caddis]

Back on point, from the talk:

"There is a distinction between them [Church and Gospel] which is significant and it is very important that this distinction be understood."

Failure to distinguish could lead to "confusion and misplaced priorities".

“When we understand the difference between the gospel and the church and the appropriate function of each in our lives, we are much more likely to do the right things for the right reasons."

“As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered.”

“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”--Joseph Smith

[Jeremy]

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered.

Is the dependency ever gone?

[rewcox]

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered.

Is the dependency ever gone?

Yes, when you graduated to LDSFF!

[Obrien]

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered.

Is the dependency ever gone?

I hope so. It's depressing to think that "the church" as it exists today could go on forever, given its "policies", obfuscations, vacillations and human weaknesses.

[Rose Garden]

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become gospel centered.

Is the dependency ever gone?

Yes, when you graduated to LDSFF!

My husband blames everything on this site. He might have a point.