Ronald E. Poelman: The Gospel And The Church

[CASteinman]

More seriously I have heard a General Authority when asked about them say that they don't report to the Brethren.

But that does not mean that they are outside of the Church.

Okay, I will pray for you then.

I'm fine with that.

[CASteinman]

Thank you. I kind of expected that response. No need to ask god. The church has already given me an answer.

You should re-read what I wrote. You have placed words in my mouth that I did not say, think, write or mean.

Maybe if you re-read the words and you get the correct meaning without adding weird things I did not say, you won't be as grateful, but at least your emotions will be honestly founded.

[cwald]

More importantly, he would also disagree that you harmlessly leave the Church behind as you grow in Gospel knowledge... the way you indicated: "as you advance in the gospel you need the Church less". Joseph Smith would have declared that doctrine to be a stink in the nostrils of heaven because his whole life was dedicated to helping bring the Church out of obscurity and darkness. There is no way he would have turned his back on that merely to please a few ears.

Really? And how do you know Joseph would have said such a thing? Did he ever say or write such a thing? I assume this is just your opinion, which is fine, and I won't bother you with a CFR.

There is simply no way to need the Church less and at the same time improve your dedication to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It cannot be done, for Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments". The more you seek to keep those commandments, the more you will need the Church, not less.

I disagree...as did Brother Poelman.

[cwald]

You should re-read what I wrote. You have placed words in my mouth that I did not say, think, write or mean.

Maybe if you re-read the words and you get the correct meaning without adding weird things I did not say, you won't be as grateful, but at least your emotions will be honestly founded.

Okay. Done. I still get the same thing.

Well, the second version is at least official doctrine approved by apostles, prophets, seers and revelators. The first version... apparently not.

cwald, on 02 August 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

When was Poelman a prophet, and when was he just speaking as a man?

Apparently when his words were in contradiction with the prophets and apostles, he was just speaking as a man - despite your adoration. His corrected words have obviously met with the approval of prophets, seers and revelators.

Perhaps you might clarify your position. It seems to me you are stating that the printed version is "truth." Am I wrong?

Which version is the truth? The one spoken from the pulpit in general conference, or the one printed in the Ensign?

Should I ask God, or, ask the church?

Edited August 3, 2012 by cwald

[CASteinman]

Really? And how do you know Joseph would have said such a thing? Did he ever say or write such a thing? I assume this is just your opinion, which is fine, and I won't bother you with a CFR.

I believe he would have said such a thing because he was a true follower and prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ. And since Christ made it very clear that the Church and the Gospel were connected in depth, I feel that Joseph Smith would have agreed and attended to it vigorously. Which is what he did. To the extent that this discussion would be absurd to him.

I disagree...as did Brother Poelman.

Actually you are not in a club with Elder Poelman, because he did not agree with you.

Edited August 3, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Okay. Done. I still get the same thing.

Only by egregious addition and misrepresentation of my words. Specifically I challenge you -- and I insist since you are being stubborn about this misrepresentation of my words -- to point out where I ever said that you do not have to pray or ask God or that the Church provided all of the answer -- or even that it can. When have I even come close to a ghost of a whisper of a mist of a vapor of hinting at such a thing?

I insist on this, because you are stubbornly lying about me and I consider it insulting. I doubt, seriously, that you would want to be treated to the same abuse of having words put in your mouth and then, when you object, rather than correct the situation, the person doubles down on it.

[Storm Rider]

So which version is the truth, the one spoken over the pulpit during general conference, or the one that was rerecorded and printed in the Ensign?

When was Poelman a prophet, and when was he just speaking as a man?

Before you jump to that position, could you please point out any errors in either edition? You assume that one is truth and the other is not; please prove it.

[CASteinman]

Perhaps you might clarify your position. It seems to me you are stating that the printed version is "truth." Am I wrong?

Well of course you are. I did not say any version was "the truth". I said one was Official Doctrine and the other was not. I do not consider any written words to be pure truth. None at all. (I don't even consider equations such as e=mc^2 to be perfect truth, even if they have a good mapping to reality). I consider Official Doctrine issued with the approval Or (even better) over the signatures of the Apostles and the First Presidency to have an isomorphic mapping to truth, preserving and communicating elements but not in total and not in perfection. I also do not consider it to be the only or all the truth in the world.

Which version is the truth? The one spoken from the pulpit in general conference, or the one printed in the Ensign?

The one printed in the Ensign is the official doctrine as approved. It would be reasonable to say it is the more correct version.

Should I ask God, or, ask the church?

Its up to you, but either one would get you the same general answer if you had a good and correct channel of communication. Asking God is to be recommended because though it is so very very hard to hear and understand the answers, it is good to practice and the answer once obtained is more pure. Asking the Church is to be recommended because though the Church is imperfect, it is sufficiently in tune not to lead you astray and is much easier as well. You might get an answer within a day that way, whereas waiting to be able to hear God might take your lifetime.

Edited August 3, 2012 by CASteinman

[CV75]

So which version is the truth, the one spoken over the pulpit during general conference, or the one that was rerecorded and printed in the Ensign?

When was Poelman a prophet, and when was he just speaking as a man?

Both versions are fundamentally true, actually. It's what can be done with them that makes the second version more broadly applicable.

[CASteinman]

I actually do have a photographic memory. I'm just not very tech-savvy.

I have heard of people who have photographic memories. I think it must be sort of cool! I used to have an absolutely phenomenal memory for events and statements. I could quote whole passages of scripture merely from having read them a few times. But I was never able to just do it on command. For example, actually memorizing something -- I seemed to have just slightly above normal capability. But when I was not trying, when I had no specific purpose, things would cling to my mind like glue. I can recall, I was in a Bishopric, and the Bishop would ask me arcane details of meetings we had 3 or 4 years earlier -- because (as he said), he knew I would instantly remember every detail in perfect clarity. On the other hand, I have had (all my life) absolutely terrible ability to remember names of people with their faces. I could remember details about people if their names were on lists that I would work with. But if you were to introduce me to someone, I would not recall their name 20 seconds later. I have been told that this is because of some sort of mental disrespect for people... but I consider that baloney.

Somehow, as time has moved on, I have become less capable in retaining memories. And alarmingly, I can be sitting in front of someone I know very very well, and forget their name. This is more distressing than embarrassing for me, but both rank pretty high. Can you imagine sitting across from someone you have known for years -- even worked with every day -- and thinking "What on earth is his name? -- Why don't I get it?" Its really uncomfortable when that happens.

Edited August 3, 2012 by CASteinman

[Kenngo1969]

So which version is the truth, the one spoken over the pulpit during general conference, or the one that was rerecorded and printed in the Ensign?

When was Poelman a prophet, and when was he just speaking as a man?

The Seventy are not sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. Thanks fer playin'!

P.S.: Frankly, I'm not familiar enough with the back story behind The Poelman Incident to know whether the Twelve asked Elder Poelman to change his address or whether he took that initiative on his own. If the former, please feel absolutely free to ignore my comment. If the latter, it stands as written.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

I have heard of people who have photographic memories. I think it must be sort of cool! I used to have an absolutely phenomenal memory for events and statements. I could quote whole passages of scripture merely from having read them a few times. But I was never able to just do it on command. For example, actually memorizing something -- I seemed to have just slightly above normal capability. But when I was not trying, when I had no specific purpose, things would cling to my mind like glue. I can recall, I was in a Bishopric, and the Bishop would ask me arcane details of meetings we had 3 or 4 years earlier -- because (as he said), he knew I would instantly remember every detail in perfect clarity. On the other hand, I have had (all my life) absolutely terrible ability to remember names of people with their faces. I could remember details about people if their names were on lists that I would work with. But if you were to introduce me to someone, I would not recall their name 20 seconds later. I have been told that this is because of some sort of mental disrespect for people... but I consider that baloney.

Somehow, as time has moved on, I have become less capable in retaining memories. And alarmingly, I can be sitting in front of someone I know very very well, and forget their name. This is more distressing than embarrassing for me, but both rank pretty high. Can you imagine sitting across from someone you have known for years -- even worked with every day -- and thinking "What on earth is his name? -- Why don't I get it?" Its really uncomfortable when that happens.

I had the same problem, remembering in detail things that happened years ago, was tested with perfect reading comprehension with high speed reading as well (not speed reading, I read every word fast enough to qualify for an A in my speed reading class, just didn't use the method) but not being able to remember names and faces....unless they were younger than 10 or so...and I know it is not "mental disrespect". Now I've got no memory because the drugs I take interfere with it.

And the whole name thing...same problem. If you ever find out a name for whatever is going on, let me know because it is so very, very embarrassing.

Edited August 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

I believe he would have said such a thing because he was a true follower and prophet of the Lord Jesus Christ. And since Christ made it very clear that the Church and the Gospel were connected in depth, I feel that Joseph Smith would have agreed and attended to it vigorously. Which is what he did. To the extent that this discussion would be absurd to him.

Good thing what YOU believe about JS isn't necessarily realistic especially given how YOU say JS would act. Your speculation into the mind and will of JS as a prophet of Jesus Christ is irrelevant.

Actually you are not in a club with Elder Poelman, because he did not agree with you.

Apparently neither would he with you.

[Tacenda]

I have heard of people who have photographic memories. I think it must be sort of cool! I used to have an absolutely phenomenal memory for events and statements. I could quote whole passages of scripture merely from having read them a few times. But I was never able to just do it on command. For example, actually memorizing something -- I seemed to have just slightly above normal capability. But when I was not trying, when I had no specific purpose, things would cling to my mind like glue. I can recall, I was in a Bishopric, and the Bishop would ask me arcane details of meetings we had 3 or 4 years earlier -- because (as he said), he knew I would instantly remember every detail in perfect clarity. On the other hand, I have had (all my life) absolutely terrible ability to remember names of people with their faces. I could remember details about people if their names were on lists that I would work with. But if you were to introduce me to someone, I would not recall their name 20 seconds later. I have been told that this is because of some sort of mental disrespect for people... but I consider that baloney.

Somehow, as time has moved on, I have become less capable in retaining memories. And alarmingly, I can be sitting in front of someone I know very very well, and forget their name. This is more distressing than embarrassing for me, but both rank pretty high. Can you imagine sitting across from someone you have known for years -- even worked with every day -- and thinking "What on earth is his name? -- Why don't I get it?" Its really uncomfortable when that happens.

Forgetting names is a biggey for me also. It's extremely difficult when introducing someone. I think it's at it's worst when put on the spot, and the stress of possibly forgetting their name is what blocks the neurons, I'm guessing. I, like you CA, have forgotten people's names that I've known for years.

[The Nehor]

OK.. maybe you don't preach that they are utterly useless. Just not so useful. Which is merely a matter of degree -- and is not how Joseph Smith lived. Joseph Smith received his revelations by reading the scriptures, getting questions and going to God in prayer. He then continued to use his new wisdom when reading the scriptures to better understand and expound upon them. The scriptures did not become less important to him, just because he also had great light from heaven -- What you have preached to me: " you need the scriptures less as you are a fount of revelation yourself" is not something that can in even the remotes manner be detected in anything Joseph Smith said or did.

And I think he would know.

More importantly, he would also disagree that you harmlessly leave the Church behind as you grow in Gospel knowledge... the way you indicated: "as you advance in the gospel you need the Church less". Joseph Smith would have declared that doctrine to be a stink in the nostrils of heaven because his whole life was dedicated to helping bring the Church out of obscurity and darkness. There is no way he would have turned his back on that merely to please a few ears.

There is simply no way to need the Church less and at the same time improve your dedication to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It cannot be done, for Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments". The more you seek to keep those commandments, the more you will need the Church, not less.

Someone else saying scriptures are not of paramount importance:

Wilford Woodruff

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.” When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the written oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.” “And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the [p.23]writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” (Conference Report, October 1897, p.22)

I would say that individual revelation becomes a better guide then prophets too. Note that you never discard either the scriptures or the prophets. They are still useful. They are just not the priority.

[The Nehor]

But that does not mean that they are outside of the Church.

They probably couldn't get a Temple Recommend since they exercise the Priesthood without deference to the guy holding the keys (Monson).

[Duncan]

Someone else saying scriptures are not of paramount importance:

Wilford Woodruff

I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: “You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.” When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, “Brother Brigham I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the written oracles and the written word of God.” Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: “There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day.” “And now,” said he, “when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the [p.23]writing in the books.” That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.” (Conference Report, October 1897, p.22)

I would say that individual revelation becomes a better guide then prophets too. Note that you never discard either the scriptures or the prophets. They are still useful. They are just not the priority.

I think it was either Pres. Cannon or Elder Whitney who said that LDS don't do something just because it is written in a book and you couldn't pile books high enough to lead the church (maybe I am fusing two quotations together)

[CASteinman]

Someone else saying scriptures are not of paramount importance:

I am well aware of that quote and have used it often. However, take note: That was not Joseph Smith. That was a man who admitted he was not nearly as good as Joseph Smith and who said he felt that compared to Joseph Smith he was not entitled to be called a prophet. In addition, I believe, he was taken by the Lord before he could lead the Church astray. He was so flamboyant and bombastic that its OK to say "OH... brother Brigham... sometimes I worry about him".

Nevertheless... even this quote does not say that the Scriptures become LESS important with MORE Revelation. This is simply describing the relative values of each. The scriptures have the same value all along. Which is not what you are preaching.

Edited August 4, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

They probably couldn't get a Temple Recommend since they exercise the Priesthood without deference to the guy holding the keys (Monson).

How would you know that they exercise the Priesthood without deference to the guy holding the keys? (Jesus)

[CASteinman]

Good thing what YOU believe about JS isn't necessarily realistic

But it is realistic. Joseph Smith was a dedicated follower of Jesus. He gave his life up in that discipleship and never looked back. Its beyond silly for you to imagine he would abandon that on some point that actually never was considered worthy of discussion during his lifetime.

Apparently neither would he with you.

Tautologically impossible since I agree with him completely.

[CASteinman]

Your speculation into the mind and will of JS as a prophet of Jesus Christ is irrelevant.

Its not speculation. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and dedicated his life to his calling. You would search in vain for even one instance of Joseph Smith describing the teachings of Jesus as invalid -- or seeking to have them overthrown as you are advocating. He just would not have done that. It was contrary to his whole life program.

Your denials are silly.

[Damien the Leper]

They probably couldn't get a Temple Recommend since they exercise the Priesthood without deference to the guy holding the keys (Monson).

I wonder what part of the Temple Recommend interview they could answer affirmatively to? I wonder if they recognize President Monson or President Veazey. Actually, I doubt they answer to or have any affiliation with any modern church.

[Duncan]

I wonder what part of the Temple Recommend interview they could answer affirmatively to? I wonder if they recognize President Monson or President Veazey. Actually, I doubt they answer to or have any affiliation with any modern church.

actually you are all wrong the Three Nephites play Rook with John The Revelator

[media=]

Edited August 4, 2012 by Duncan

[The Nehor]

I wonder what part of the Temple Recommend interview they could answer affirmatively to? I wonder if they recognize President Monson or President Veazey. Actually, I doubt they answer to or have any affiliation with any modern church.

I think they could answer that God is real, the atonement is real, and that President Monson is the Prophet. Who knows if they took up the Word of Wisdom since then? They exercise the Priesthood without deference to President Monson as they operate under a different hierarchy.

[The Nehor]

How would you know that they exercise the Priesthood without deference to the guy holding the keys? (Jesus)

Part of the Temple Recommend interview involves acknowledging that President Monson is the only one on Earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys. They are on earth at least some of the time.