Ronald E. Poelman: The Gospel And The Church

[Damien the Leper]

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.

[media=]

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 August 2, 2012 by Valentinus

[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.

[Damien the Leper]

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 August 2, 2012 by Valentinus

[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!

[media=]

Edited August 2, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Damien the Leper]

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.

[Damien the Leper]

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/general-conference/1984/10/the-gospel-and-the-church?lang=eng&media=video

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

[CV75]

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 August 2, 2012 by CV75

[Damien the Leper]

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]

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.

[Damien the Leper]

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 August 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[Damien the Leper]

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]

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]

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 August 2, 2012 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

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.

[Damien the Leper]

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]

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.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

The church is not a permanent crutch. The Gospel is. I won't need to lean on the church forever but I will the Gospel.

I realized that what I said could be perceived as disrespectful. Not my intent.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Valentinus

[CASteinman]

The church is not a permanent crutch. The Gospel is. I won't need to lean on the church forever but I will the Gospel.

The Church is a permanent crutch as far as we are concerned in this mortality. As for immortality, the Church will evolve and its new role will also be permanent but in a different form.

[Damien the Leper]

The Church is a permanent crutch as far as we are concerned in this mortality. As for immortality, the Church will evolve and its new role will also be permanent but in a different form.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

[rongo]

The Church is a permanent crutch as far as we are concerned in this mortality. As for immortality, the Church will evolve and its new role will also be permanent but in a different form.

Well, one of the early worldwide leadership training broadcasts (ca. 2002-2004) had a series of talks by Elder Scott, President Faust, etc. quoting Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee along the lines of people mistaking the scaffolding for the building (in terms of church structure, programs, policies, etc.). A Joseph F. Smith quote stated that many aspects of the Church, including the auxiliaries, are temporary and will be done away with when they are no longer needed.

[Duncan]

Well, one of the early worldwide leadership training broadcasts (ca. 2002-2004) had a series of talks by Elder Scott, President Faust, etc. quoting Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee along the lines of people mistaking the scaffolding for the building (in terms of church structure, programs, policies, etc.). A Joseph F. Smith quote stated that many aspects of the Church, including the auxiliaries, are temporary and will be done away with when they are no longer needed.

http://www.lds.org/l...-4827-1,00.html

Bruder Rongo has the memory of an Elefant!!!

Edited August 2, 2012 by Duncan