Elder Poelmans 1984 Talk

[Questing Beast]

This isn't history. This is a conference talk. Conference talks should say what the Church wants them to say. Conference talks are guidance to members of the Church. They aren't historical events.

I suppose Elder Poelman could have taken the attitude that his talk was so important and historical that revising it would be the equivalent of "reworking history". Apparently he had a different attitude.

You have an interesting definition/perception of what is history!

"History in the making": that's an axiom. Everything is history in the making. Mostly it doesn't get noticed or recorded. But when it does, THAT is history. We could not discuss this topic if it was not part of recent history.

And not fudging the truth is always important. Let it stand as-is. As already noted, fudging history only points out the things you want to bury; especially in this age of instantaneous communication....

[sunstoned]

I find it very interesting that in Ash's book, Shaken Faith Syndrome, he references Poleman's original conference talk, and makes no mention that he is referencing the censored version. You can find this reference in chapter four of the book.

So, a talk that the church leadership had issues with and then censored was later used to defend Mormonism with the applied authority that it was a conference talk. Does anyone see the irony here?

[consiglieri]

I find it very interesting that in Ash's book, Shaken Faith Syndrome, he references Poleman's original conference talk, and makes no mention that he is referencing the censored version. You can find this reference in chapter four of the book.

So, a talk that the church leadership had issues with and then censored was later used to defend Mormonism with the applied authority that it was a conference talk. Does anyone see the irony here?

I had no idea!

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Irony can be a beautiful thing . . .

[consiglieri]

I don't apologize for asking questions.

And I stand by the observation that you are prone to asserting assumptions as fact.

Gracious in defeat . . .

[bobg]

I think the main issue for me here is not the fact that the church changed this talk, as much as myself and others appreciate the points made in the original the LDS church and im sure many other churches worldwide have the right to correct what they see as something incorrect taught from the front so that the right message is being put across.

However the way this has been done in such a quiet secretive way so that as ever the average (non internet searching) LDS member today will most likely have no idea of this and many issues discussed on here. If they happen to look up the October 1984 General conference and have a listen they will as far as they are aware be listening to what was taught at the conference. This is not the case.

LDS Apologists rightly point out to the Anti-Mormon crowd again and again that their leaders are human and make mistakes, I respect this point and know its true in any organization no matter how inspired, however it seems to me the LDS church does not want to communicate that message so rather than say look guys mistakes were made here is how we deal with it feel free to use this model in your ward its just secretly covered up.

This goes right back to Mormon history with the many strange to outright deceptive things Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were said to have done, none of this is ever communicated by the church these guys are portrayed as near perfect if not perfect inspired prophets, even in the last general conference we have the 14 fundimentals which are as powerful as any statements by Brigham young saying things like all my words are scripture.

This to me is another case of the church saying something different to the apologists, the apologists say they were correcting what might cause misinterpretation, or its not that big a deal etcetc, the church says....... NOTHING. Just keep following the prophet.

[MAsh]

I find it very interesting that in Ash's book, Shaken Faith Syndrome, he references Poleman's original conference talk, and makes no mention that he is referencing the censored version. You can find this reference in chapter four of the book.

So, a talk that the church leadership had issues with and then censored was later used to defend Mormonism with the applied authority that it was a conference talk. Does anyone see the irony here?

Perhaps reading the footnote to the SFS quote of Poleman would have prevented you from making this inaccurate claim.

[sjdawg]

I think the main issue for me here is not the fact that the church changed this talk, as much as myself and others appreciate the points made in the original the LDS church and im sure many other churches worldwide have the right to correct what they see as something incorrect taught from the front so that the right message is being put across.

However the way this has been done in such a quiet secretive way so that as ever the average (non internet searching) LDS member today will most likely have no idea of this and many issues discussed on here. If they happen to look up the October 1984 General conference and have a listen they will as far as they are aware be listening to what was taught at the conference. This is not the case.

LDS Apologists rightly point out to the Anti-Mormon crowd again and again that their leaders are human and make mistakes, I respect this point and know its true in any organization no matter how inspired, however it seems to me the LDS church does not want to communicate that message so rather than say look guys mistakes were made here is how we deal with it feel free to use this model in your ward its just secretly covered up.

This goes right back to Mormon history with the many strange to outright deceptive things Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were said to have done, none of this is ever communicated by the church these guys are portrayed as near perfect if not perfect inspired prophets, even in the last general conference we have the 14 fundimentals which are as powerful as any statements by Brigham young saying things like all my words are scripture.

This to me is another case of the church saying something different to the apologists, the apologists say they were correcting what might cause misinterpretation, or its not that big a deal etcetc, the church says....... NOTHING. Just keep following the prophet.

I agree with this. I don't have an issue with the LDS Church correcting the doctrine taught but it seems nothing is ever made public until someone forces it. Maybe they were hoping to save Elder Poelman some embarrasment.