195 replies to this topic

[Valentinus]

I loved this talk that my brother sent me a link to. I went to search for it on the church website but didn't find it.





Definitely one of the best Conference talks ever!

Edit to add: It is disheartening that the talk was altered. The version that appeared in the Ensign was, in my opinion, a poor alteration of Elder Poelman's talk. This is very unfortunate.

Edited by Valentinus, 02 August 2012 - 12:24 AM.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Thanks for the linkage, Valentinus; I've been looking for this talk for quite awhile, and kicking myself for not remembering the name of the speaker from the first time I saw it.

[Valentinus]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 02 August 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

Thanks for the linkage, Valentinus; I've been looking for this talk for quite awhile, and kicking myself for not remembering the name of the speaker from the first time I saw it.

You're very welcome.

Here is a link to the side by side comparison of the original with the edited version.

Here is the edited version provided on the church website.

Here is a transcript of the talk unaltered.

Edited by Valentinus, 02 August 2012 - 12:43 AM.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Yeah, the revised version is definitely a bummer. That's why The Internet is so groovy: it allows us to distribute the original in all its glory!

Edited by JeremyOrbe-Smith, 02 August 2012 - 12:54 AM.

[Valentinus]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 02 August 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

Yeah, the revised version is definitely a bummer.

It definitely changed the meaning of the first. It's not even the same talk. I really hope that it wasn't Elder Poelman's decision to revise it...that would be a disservice, IMO, to his intent in the original, to his conviction and to himself.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

My understanding is that they (and he) were concerned that fundamentalist groups would use it to justify not participating in the mainstream church. Which is a silly thing to change a perfectly good talk over, but not exactly the ominous 1984-esque retconning that some have insisted upon seeing it as.

[Valentinus]

JeremyOrbe-Smith, on 02 August 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

My understanding is that they (and he) were concerned that fundamentalist groups would use it to justify not participating in the mainstream church. Which is a silly thing to change a perfectly good talk over, but not exactly the ominous 1984-esque retconning that some have insisted upon seeing it as.

I agree. There was such unnecessary paranoia over the talk.

[Duncan]

http://www.lds.org/g...eng&media=video

it's been up on the church website for awhile now

[CV75]

Valentinus, on 02 August 2012 - 12:07 AM, said:

I loved this talk that my brother sent me a link to. I went to search for it on the church website but didn't find it.

Definitely one of the best Conference talks ever!

1984? I thought it was smuch more recent than that, or someone taught something similar in General Conference more recently.

Another Seventy taught a similar concept to us missionaries in the 70s -- the Church moving toward a "home centered"  vs "chapel-centered" Gospel, albeit more about spending time with family than in meetings and less about navigating one's spiritual growth through the nuances of Utah culture or the Church's organizational and programmatic changes.

Can a person for whom the first version resonates benefit just as well from the second version? It seems the first version is designed for a specific paradigm, and the second, being more general, allows a much broader application by various paradigms. The first emphasizes agency and individual responsibility and the second obedience and reliance on the Lord and His servants. I suppose if you do one correctly, you do the other correctly, but most people have to start with learning obedience so that they can exercsise their agency (which was used to obey in the first place) more fully.

Exercising agency seems to come almost naturally/inherently, and obedience in a God outside ourselves not so much. Reinforcing and relearning that which comes naturally and which is good puts learning that which does not come naturally asnd which is just as good, at a disadvantage.

Edited by CV75, 02 August 2012 - 06:42 AM.

[Valentinus]

CV75, I'm not sure if Elder Poelman intended any kind of mutual dependence between the two talks. Not to say that he didn't. For me, there was a unique and different spirit about both versions that appealed to two separate parts of my spiritual mindset.

[CV75]

Valentinus, on 02 August 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

CV75, I'm not sure if Elder Poelman intended any kind of mutual dependence between the two talks. Not to say that he didn't. For me, there was a unique and different spirit about both versions that appealed to two separate parts of my spiritual mindset.

That sounds maximally beneficial! Same here, in a way -- both talks ring true; one just seems more generally applicable in a positive way to a broader audience than the other.

[Valentinus]

CV75, on 02 August 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

That sounds maximally beneficial! Same here, in a way -- both talks ring true; one just seems more generally applicable in a positive way to a broader audience than the other.

This I also agree with. I would rather both have been published in the Ensign. There is so much to gain from such inspirational talks.

[Tacenda]

I remember reading that there was an edited video version that was distributed in the church of this talk also, where he had to give it again and a cough track was provided.  Is this false?  Anyone hear of it?  I'm sure I read it on a questionable website back in the day.

Edited by Tacenda, 02 August 2012 - 09:51 AM.

[Valentinus]

Tacenda, on 02 August 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

I remember reading that there was an edited video version that was distributed in the church of this talk also, where he had to give it again and a cough track was provided.  Is this false?  Anyone hear of it?  I'm sure I read it on a questionable website back in the day.

Wikipedia says exactly what you do.

[Verum]

Tacenda, on 02 August 2012 - 09:48 AM, said:

I remember reading that there was an edited video version that was distributed in the church of this talk also, where he had to give it again and a cough track was provided.  Is this false?  Anyone hear of it?  I'm sure I read it on a questionable website back in the day.

Yes, you can actually find both audio versions of the original and altered talk online.

[Tacenda]

Verum, on 02 August 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Yes, you can actually find both audio versions of the original and altered talk online.

Thanks, I guess I was pretty lazy to find it on my own.  I'll take the original version.  Maybe one day we'll hear more talks similar to it again.  I'm sure we've have had them close to it perhaps, anyone know of one?

Edited by Tacenda, 02 August 2012 - 10:34 AM.

[Duncan]

Tacenda, on 02 August 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

Thanks, I guess I was pretty lazy to find it on my own.  I'll take the original version.  Maybe one day we'll hear more talks similar to it again.  I'm sure we've have had them close to it perhaps, anyone know of one?

I think Elder Hallstom of the 70 in this past general conference gave a very similar talk, I could be wrong about the name but I think he had a black suit on

[CASteinman]

I believe it had to be revised because it contained some doctrine that was not really true and could easily lead to confusion.    Of course some people prefer the confusion creating version that is disapproved by the Apostles and Prophets.

[Valentinus]

CASteinman, on 02 August 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

I believe it had to be revised because it contained some doctrine that was not really true and could easily lead to confusion. Of course some people prefer the confusion creating version that is disapproved by the Apostles and Prophets.

I don't see evidence that such is the case. He didn't say anything that wasn't true.

[CASteinman]

Valentinus, on 02 August 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

I don't see evidence that such is the case. He didn't say anything that wasn't true.

I am pretty sure he did.   One thing he said, was not true.  As I recall his original talk said something to the effect that as you followed the Gospel more you would need the Church less.    Which is false.