Elder Poelman - October 1984 Conference Talk

[Obrien]

Mote and beam, brother.

Consider the possibility that some of your posts may put darkness for light. It's possible, you are human.

Isaiah 5:20
20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

What's wrong with you folks?

Why do you go about trying to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

Let's try polygamy. Proved that God authorized it.

Well, how about kneeling during the sacrament. Showed that is distracting. Selfish people want to do it anyway.

You are spiritually sick. You claim to be born again, but you're not. You're sick. All you can do is bring up one negative thing after another. If you dislike it so much, why don't you leave.

If you have anything good, talk about it. But you can't, because you don't have anything good.

Simmer down king Noah...don't start the trial before your wicked priests get here...otherwise it wont make for a very good show trial now will it?

Lol!

[rewcox]

Mote and beam, brother.

Consider the possibility that some of your posts may put darkness for light. It's possible, you are human.

Isaiah 5:20
20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Certainly if you are fighting the church, good is considered evil. Disaffecteds don't like someone telling them their doctrine is misguided. Just like this thread, Jeremy did it on purpose knowing the disaffecteds would bring up the controversy.

2066 brought up King Noah. Add that to your hate mongering. And calcified.

[Robin Hood]

I made a comment about this "being done to death" earlier in the thread.
The reason for that is that it has been.

I remember first looking at this around 19 years ago.
Rock Waterman likes to quote parts of it and has done so on a number of times.
Ditto all the other ark steadiers.

The NOM website has had several debates about it over the years.
It has been the subject of discussions over the years on the Mormon Dialogue board and many others.
To be honest, I'm surprised this is news to anyone.

I don't know the motives for bringing it up yet again. But I am aware that Elder Poelman himself has stated that there was noting sinister about the editing. Apparently as soon as it was pointed out to him how some may interpret his remarks (especially the plural marriage fundamentalists) he was as keen as anyone to make the changes.

[Rose Garden]

Robin Hood, I don't know if you noticed, but only the Catholic guy didn't already know about it. He does now, though.

[Robin Hood]

Robin Hood, I don't know if you noticed, but only the Catholic guy didn't already know about it. He does now, though.

Yeah, sorry.
My fault.

[Obrien]

I don't fight against the church, and certainly not the gospel. I am, however, glad to see you're using all those mad mind reading skills you apparently possess (intuiting both Jeremy's and my own thoughts).

Mote and beam, brother.

Consider the possibility that some of your posts may put darkness for light. It's possible, you are human.

Isaiah 5:20
20 ¶Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Certainly if you are fighting the church, good is considered evil. Disaffecteds don't like someone telling them their doctrine is misguided. Just like this thread, Jeremy did it on purpose knowing the disaffecteds would bring up the controversy.

2066 brought up King Noah. Add that to your hate mongering. And calcified.

[gkearney]

The only real problem here is the lack of any annotation as to the change made. A simple editorial note that Elder Poelman had made changes to his original talk would have put this topic to rest years ago.

[rewcox]

I don't fight against the church, and certainly not the gospel. I am, however, glad to see you're using all those mad mind reading skills you apparently possess (intuiting both Jeremy's and my own thoughts).

Read the thread. Jeremy admitted it. You have an interesting concept when you say you don't fight against the church, what do you call it?

[Jeremy]

Jeremy admitted it. You have an interesting concept when you say you don't fight against the church, what do you call it?

What was it I admitted to?

[rewcox]

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:

So you do want arguments.

[Jeremy]

The reason for that is that it has been.

Do you have links on LDSFF? I think 3 or 4 threads would somewhat help in validating the "done to death" comment.

I remember first looking at this around 19 years ago.

That is awesome you did this 19 years ago. I didn't.

Rock Waterman likes to quote parts of it and has done so on a number of times.

I don't follow Rock Waterman. I have read on many occasions others speaking of him though. I would have to use a search engine just to find out the name of his site.

Ditto all the other ark steadiers.

Who are these ark steadiers who have the nerve of quoting general authorities? It seems they have something in common with "ark defenders"... quoting "authorities".
[these labels are dumb]

The NOM website has had several debates about it over the years.

I wouldn't know, never been there.

It has been the subject of discussions over the years on the Mormon Dialogue board and many others.

I've never been there either. I wonder if it's possible that others are as inexperienced as I am.

To be honest, I'm surprised this is news to anyone.

I used to have similar thoughts relating to conference talks, sunday lessons, HT visits, etc. But it seems that someone, somewhere, finds value in what I was already well aware of.

I don't know the motives for bringing it up yet again.

For some reason my motives are the general topic of this thread, rather than the content of the talk. So far there hasn't been anyone to say they disagree with the content but only a few have commented on what they like. (Thanks rew for encouraging this)

But I am aware that Elder Poelman himself has stated that there was noting sinister about the editing. Apparently as soon as it was pointed out to him how some may interpret his remarks (especially the plural marriage fundamentalists) he was as keen as anyone to make the changes.

A quote would be awesome. It's probably in the sunstone article.

What do you like about the talk Robin Hood?

[Zathura]

The only real problem here is the lack of any annotation as to the change made. A simple editorial note that Elder Poelman had made changes to his original talk would have put this topic to rest years ago.

+1

[rewcox]

Jeremy, where did you get the idea for a talk from 31 years ago. Were you researching LDS.org? Where did the original video come from?

The reason for that is that it has been.

Do you have links on LDSFF? I think 3 or 4 threads would somewhat help in validating the "done to death" comment.

I remember first looking at this around 19 years ago.

That is awesome you did this 19 years ago. I didn't.

Rock Waterman likes to quote parts of it and has done so on a number of times.

I don't follow Rock Waterman. I have read on many occasions others speaking of him though. I would have to use a search engine just to find out the name of his site.

Ditto all the other ark steadiers.

Who are these ark steadiers who have the nerve of quoting general authorities? It seems they have something in common with "ark defenders"... quoting "authorities".
[these labels are dumb]

The NOM website has had several debates about it over the years.

I wouldn't know, never been there.

It has been the subject of discussions over the years on the Mormon Dialogue board and many others.

I've never been there either. I wonder if it's possible that others are as inexperienced as I am.

To be honest, I'm surprised this is news to anyone.

I used to have similar thoughts relating to conference talks, sunday lessons, HT visits, etc. But it seems that someone, somewhere, finds value in what I was already well aware of.

I don't know the motives for bringing it up yet again.

For some reason my motives are the general topic of this thread, rather than the content of the talk. So far there hasn't been anyone to say they disagree with the content but only a few have commented on what they like. (Thanks rew for encouraging this)

But I am aware that Elder Poelman himself has stated that there was noting sinister about the editing. Apparently as soon as it was pointed out to him how some may interpret his remarks (especially the plural marriage fundamentalists) he was as keen as anyone to make the changes.

A quote would be awesome. It's probably in the sunstone article.

What do you like about the talk Robin Hood?

[Jeremy]

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:

So you do want arguments.

Is that a question or a statement? Either way the answer is the same. No.

I don't want them. I expect them. But I hope for better.

When I taught my children to ride their bike, I took off their training wheels. Did I expect then to fall? Yes. Did I intend for them to fall? Did I want then to fall? No and no.

[rewcox]

i haven't seen any arguments on the talk.

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:

So you do want arguments.

Is that a question or a statement? Either way the answer is the same. No.

I don't want them. I expect them. But I hope for better.

When I taught my children to ride their bike, I took off their training wheels. Did I expect then to fall? Yes. Did I intend for them to fall? Did I want then to fall? No and no.

[Jeremy]

Jeremy, where did you get the idea for a talk from 31 years ago. Were you researching LDS.org? Where did the original video come from?

I was on YouTube. And as many of you may be aware, it is possible to start watching a video about subject "A" and quickly find yourself on subject "Y". How you got there is a mystery. It could be discovered... But I have no desire to trace those footsteps. However, I will say that my motives for being on YouTube were not to steady or defend the ark.

LOL - no, I was not researching on LDS.org. I only go there for quotes from the scriptures. Great resource for that.

[Jeremy]

[happy thanksgiving]

[Zathura]

It appears that the Original video came from general conference. #scripture!

[Robin Hood]

What do you like about the talk Robin Hood?

[/quote]

It's ok as conference talks go.
I find there are a lot of people who don't realize that the church and the gospel are different things.
Bit of a no brainer I would have thought... but to some apparently not.

[gfnelson]

I agree with brother rwcox.
The most important thing is to follow the current church leaders. Don't worry about the other things.

[Zathura]

I agree with brother rwcox.
The most important thing is to follow the current church leaders. Don't worry about the other things.

you do realize that he is calling his fellow saint "sick", "spiritually sick", deceived by a false Spirit apostates?
You do realize that he is telling others that they have not been born of God because they don't agree with his narrow point of view?

If I were you, I'd be careful about sustaining such words. Proceed with caution. If you support someone who is not loving their neighbor, you are guilty of the same.

[gfnelson]

I agree with brother rwcox.
The most important thing is to follow the current church leaders. Don't worry about the other things.

you do realize that he is calling his fellow saint "sick", "spiritually sick", deceived by a false Spirit apostates?
You do realize that he is telling others that they have not been born of God because they don't agree with his narrow point of view?

If I were you, I'd be careful about sustaining such words. Proceed with caution. If you support someone who is not loving their neighbor, you are guilty of the same.

Well I don't know about all that...guilty of someone else's sins? How can we truly know if people love their neighbor or not?
The logic is just stay with the church and its leaders no matter what. If you are tempted to fight against the church you are being deceived.

[Zathura]

I agree with brother rwcox.
The most important thing is to follow the current church leaders. Don't worry about the other things.

you do realize that he is calling his fellow saint "sick", "spiritually sick", deceived by a false Spirit apostates?
You do realize that he is telling others that they have not been born of God because they don't agree with his narrow point of view?

If I were you, I'd be careful about sustaining such words. Proceed with caution. If you support someone who is not loving their neighbor, you are guilty of the same.

Well I don't know about all that...guilty of someone else's sins? How can we truly know if people love their neighbor or not?
The logic is just stay with the church and its leaders no matter what. If you are tempted to fight against the church you are being deceived.

When you have the temple recommend interview, they ask if you support any individual or group that opposes any church doctrine.
If you do support them, then you cannot have your recommend. It's the same principle.

Yes Rewcox is right when he says we need to follow our leaders when they are inspired by the Holy Ghost.

But You said you support him. IIm just letting you know the other things he has said on this very thread., you are supporting him when he calls his fellow saint "apostates" and tells them they are sick and can't have been born again because they disagree with his opinion.

If that's the fruit of a true Saint, I want nothing to do with it. If That's how perfect Mormons are supposed to treat their neighbor, I want nothing of that.

That's why I say, be careful what you support. Rewcox may have many good things to say , but he has been very rude to his fellow saint, and you are publicly endorsing him and his words.

[gfnelson]

Where did I say I support him?

[Zathura]

Where did I say I support him?

That you agree with him.
It's not a big deal, don't want to cause any problems.
Anyways,
Have you read Elder Poelmans talk?