Ronald E. Poelman: The Gospel And The Church

[rongo]

The teaching that as you advance in the gospel you need the Church less. Which is not even as far as Elder Poelman went in his talk but it is, I believe, the sort of extension that the Apostles were concerned would arise from his rather shaky wording. It has been expressed here directly and is a doctrine that will if fully developed will lead people to openly rebel against the Prophet and Apostles -- and moreover, they will believe that they are exceptionally righteous to do so.

Thanks!

Have a good flight, and a good time at your destination.

[Tacenda]

So, I am going to leave this thread for a while.. for 3 reasons that I can think of:

1. I am tired and I think when I get tired, I don't say things well.

2. I have to pack to get on an airplane early tomorrow.

3. I'm not enjoying this exchange.

I wish I had some power to supernaturally bless everyone here. I don't. Still... God bless you all.

God bless you too! c:

Edited August 4, 2012 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

It's an interesting question as to whether the three Nephites, John the Revelator, et. al. are under the current President's keys. There was a duly constituted First Presidency in Jerusalem, but Jesus ordained twelve in the New World. Were they under Peter's keys?

Joseph Smith taught that a major portion of John's ministry is among the ten tribes. Elder Wirthlin taught us in Hamburg (in the Wartenau chapel) in November 1994 that John was instrumental in the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Soviet Union's regime, and the opening up of Eastern Europe for the gospel. I definitely wanted more information on the details there, but was too timid as a brand new missionary to ask.

Elder John Madsen taught us in zone conference in Aug. 1998 that the "Three Nephites had more to do with the Fall of Communism then you think" can't speak for anyone else but not really a subject I had much thought about. Not to derail the thread but aren't the Ten Tribes all over the place and not in one body?

Edited August 4, 2012 by Duncan

[rongo]

Elder John Madsen taught us in zone conference in Aug. 1998 that the "Three Nephites had more to do with the Fall of Communism then you think"

Nice that there are other data points! Kind of wish that modern Conference talks went into these (they are infinitely more cautious than they used to be ---- I'm writing a multi-volume Journal of Discourses commentary, and members used to be exposed to these sorts of very interesting and intriguing things much more often).

can't speak for anyone else but not really a subject I had much thought about.

Me, either, but it really got the juices flowing. You also have the City of Enoch and City of Salem people, and others we don't know about. Paul talking about entertaining angels unawares ----- I think we have much more contact and influence from translated beings than most people think about.

Not to derail the thread but aren't the Ten Tribes all over the place and not in one body?

Fiercely controversial, and nothing authoritative or definitive. I'm a huge B.H. Roberts fan, but I disagree with him (and McConkie, and others) who say that the ten tribes are scattered among us and found through baptism and patriarchal blessings. A handful are, but Joseph Smith's comment above about John, D&C 133, and other things lead me to think that they are in one body, wherever that is. They have their own prophets and scriptures, and their return will be much more dramatic than simply found through missionary work.

Other smart and devoted members sharply disagree with this, and think that they are among us. This is a really fun topic to get people's thoughts on, and everybody's on an equal footing as far as authority and evidence.

[Duncan]

Nice that there are other data points! Kind of wish that modern Conference talks went into these (they are infinitely more cautious than they used to be ---- I'm writing a multi-volume Journal of Discourses commentary, and members used to be exposed to these sorts of very interesting and intriguing things much more often).

Me, either, but it really got the juices flowing. You also have the City of Enoch and City of Salem people, and others we don't know about. Paul talking about entertaining angels unawares ----- I think we have much more contact and influence from translated beings than most people think about.

Fiercely controversial, and nothing authoritative or definitive. I'm a huge B.H. Roberts fan, but I disagree with him (and McConkie, and others) who say that the ten tribes are scattered among us and found through baptism and patriarchal blessings. A handful are, but Joseph Smith's comment above about John, D&C 133, and other things lead me to think that they are in one body, wherever that is. They have their own prophets and scriptures, and their return will be much more dramatic than simply found through missionary work.

Other smart and devoted members sharply disagree with this, and think that they are among us. This is a really fun topic to get people's thoughts on, and everybody's on an equal footing as far as authority and evidence.

Elder Madsen also shared a John The Revelator story as well and near as I can recall this woman was shopping in a near eastern country, Hungary? anyways, this old man approached her and he had a backpack type thing and he asked her to help him adjust it and she did and she felt through the material like he was carrying plates or books of some kind and he gave her a thing we learn about in the Temple and then he disappeared and the spirit whispered that it was John the Revelator. Course we were sitting like wha? Communism, ill-fitting backpacks???? but through that experience and another I LOVE Elder Madsen!!!

Edited August 4, 2012 by Duncan

[The Nehor]

Whatever. I retract that you said the former and assert the latter is the false doctrine that the Apostles did not want to have taught. Regardless of the distinction you see, it has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.

Regrettably I must insist that truth has a bearing on every discussion.

In your judgment. I don't really care if you believe it on your own -- you are an agent to do as you will. It is the teaching of it that is of concern to me. And if you have taught it, you are not doing Okay.

Why would I teach this?

There you go.

A winning argument.

[The Nehor]

I don't know exactly about "dispensation" -- what that means -- but I agree that they are part of the Church under a different aegis and have an alternative authority under Christ and the Father.

A dispensation is a period when the gospel is on the Earth. The great divide between dispensations is each dispensation has sufficient revelation at their beginning to establish the gospel independent of all previous revelations in other dispensations. The seven big ones were headed by Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Joseph Smith. There are a few others. Lehi and Nephi jointly started one. So did the Brother of Jared. There was probably another one amongst the Ten Lost Tribes too.

[The Nehor]

But you can go into details. I am not going to stop you. The problem that I have is the words you have typed that I quoted previously in blue. If you think some other paraphrase of those has been used to misrepresent your views.. I renounce them now. And yet.. the problem still remains.

So.. what have I read between the lines, now that I have renounced these wordsmithing problems and yet still completely reject your notions as unsupported by the apostles and also unsupportive of the apostles?

Nothing. Now that we've clarified your misrepresentations. Now we're just left with simple disagreement.

The teaching that as you advance in the gospel you need the Church less. Which is not even as far as Elder Poelman went in his talk but it is, I believe, the sort of extension that the Apostles were concerned would arise from his rather shaky wording. It has been expressed here directly and is a doctrine that will if fully developed will lead people to openly rebel against the Prophet and Apostles -- and moreover, they will believe that they are exceptionally righteous to do so.

I don't particularly care whether a doctrine will lead people to rebellion. I care if it is true.

[CASteinman]

I don't particularly care whether a doctrine will lead people to rebellion. I care if it is true.

This may be a key difference between you and the Apostles. Remember... satan told the truth to Adam and Eve. Did not make him right or righteous. God has even given us a clue about this and said that sometimes things that are true should not be preached if they would lead people to sin.

Note: I am not saying that in this case there is a choice to be made between "the truth" and "avoiding rebellion". I don't think so. But I am pointing out that your criteria for being faithful to covenants is not exactly what has been taught by God and appears to be in opposition to the counsel of the Apostles in this very exact instance. So even if this were a case where there would be a choice -- you could very easily still be on the wrong side.

[The Nehor]

This may be a key difference between you and the Apostles. Remember... satan told the truth to Adam and Eve. Did not make him right or righteous. God has even given us a clue about this and said that sometimes things that are true should not be preached if they would lead people to sin.

Yes but deception is always wrong. I agree that one should not tell everyone everything just because it is true. I am saying that preaching an untruth to "help" people is a sin.

Note: I am not saying that in this case there is a choice to be made between "the truth" and "avoiding rebellion". I don't think so. But I am pointing out that your criteria for being faithful to covenants is not exactly what has been taught by God and appears to be in opposition to the counsel of the Apostles in this very exact instance. So even if this were a case where there would be a choice -- you could very easily still be on the wrong side.

I haven't said anything about covenants. I don't think what I said should be taught regularly and often (and I only once taught something like it in a meeting to a small group that were well seasoned in the gospel. I still believe it to be true.

[CASteinman]

Yes but deception is always wrong. I agree that one should not tell everyone everything just because it is true. I am saying that preaching an untruth to "help" people is a sin.

Well, no such thing occurred.

I don't think what I said should be taught regularly and often (and I only once taught something like it in a meeting to a small group that were well seasoned in the gospel. I still believe it to be true.

I don't think it should ever be taught. On the other hand, I believe things that I keep a secret and never teach. One thing in particular comes by revelation and was, upon being revealed, declared emphatically to me in revelation to never teach it. Since that time, I have seen other people who have (very very rarely) taught it, but because I received a command to not do so, I do not even refer people to talks where I have seen it taught.

[The Nehor]

Well, no such thing occurred.

Unless you are wrong to say that the scriptures and prophets diminish in necessity as the light of personal revelation flourishes.

I don't think it should ever be taught. On the other hand, I believe things that I keep a secret and never teach. One thing in particular comes by revelation and was, upon being revealed, declared emphatically to me in revelation to never teach it. Since that time, I have seen other people who have (very very rarely) taught it, but because I received a command to not do so, I do not even refer people to talks where I have seen it taught.

I also have teachings that I always keep close. This isn't one of them.

[CASteinman]

Unless you are wrong to say that the scriptures and prophets diminish in necessity as the light of personal revelation flourishes.

I cannot possibly be wrong in that. Because I never said it. I objected to that idea.

I also have teachings that I always keep close. This isn't one of them.

And yet, the Apostles think its bad teaching. It seems that their guidance is irrelevant to you. Perhaps its because you are closer to the Spirit than they are?

[Damien the Leper]

And yet, the Apostles think its bad teaching. It seems that their guidance is irrelevant to you. Perhaps its because you are closer to the Spirit than they are?

Ugh...The apostles aren't always right. Members of the church know this. I don't believe anyone is discounting their counsel and guidance but just like any counsel and guidance, we must be wise and use the gift of discernment and take things said with a grain of salt.

For the sake of my own sanity, I don't take everything ANYONE says to heart immediately and definitely not based on their certain social/political/religious status.

Why does it always come down to the typical strawman accusation "You think you know better?" or "You think you're closer to the Spirit?". This is disgusting thought process. I wish people could grow out of such idolatrous ideologies.

[The Nehor]

I cannot possibly be wrong in that. Because I never said it. I objected to that idea.

And yet, the Apostles think its bad teaching. It seems that their guidance is irrelevant to you. Perhaps its because you are closer to the Spirit than they are?

I meant the reverse of the first statement as I imagine you knew.

I have never heard an apostle suggest that this would be bad teaching. I have no idea what that means in any case. Bad because it is false? Therefore I reject your conclusion that the guidance of apostles is irrelevant to me as it has not been established that they guided us towards any such thing.

I have no idea how my spirituality stacks up against that of the apostles. They have a special duty that entitles them to guidance I their stewardship. Other then that they are working out their salvation line upon line just like everyone else. My guess is that most or all of the apostles are spiritually more advanced then I am if that has any meaning at all. I suspect that it is not a linear scale in any case.

[CASteinman]

Ugh...The apostles aren't always right.

"I will give you a key that will never rust: if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles ... you will never be led astray." - Joseph Smith

Why does it always come down to the typical strawman accusation "You think you know better?" or "You think you're closer to the Spirit?".

It doesn't always. But in this case, that is exactly the whole issue. Too bad you don't like it, but that is what this is about.

[CASteinman]

I meant the reverse of the first statement as I imagine you knew.

Your imagination has fooled you. I had no idea that you meant the exact opposite of what you typed and I don't know how i am supposed to know that. How am I to take your words in the future?

I have never heard an apostle suggest that this would be bad teaching.

What you have reliably heard is that apostles listened to a talk that did not go half as far as you went -- raised their concerns -- and the author of the talk agreed with the apostles.

Despite this, you feel that your teaching -- which is more extreme than what Poelman said -- is perfectly fine. You disagree with both the apostles and Poelman.

[Damien the Leper]

"I will give you a key that will never rust: if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles ... you will never be led astray." - Joseph Smith

It doesn't always. But in this case, that is exactly the whole issue. Too bad you don't like it, but that is what this is about.

What is the context of what Joseph said? Anyone can make a statement such as that. Because the membership of the LDS church recognizes JS as a prophet, just as I DO, does not mean that everything Joseph said was prophetic. I trust JS because he said what he thought was correct. Based on what JS, there is nothing the apostles can say or do to lead me astray because God will not allow them to do so. This does not mean that the annointed cannot say things that could give any of us the wrong idea but that will be as far as it will go because God will not allow for His power to be abused and God will not let His servants do more than their mandate.

As for your second comment, is that what is about because YOU say so? You seem to view things too narrowly.

[CASteinman]

What is the context of what Joseph said? Anyone can make a statement such as that.

The context was (as I recall -- I have not rechecked to be sure) that people were wondering whether they should believe William Law who was saying that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and that, he, William Law, was the right person to lead the Saints.

Based on what JS, there is nothing the apostles can say or do to lead me astray because God will not allow them to do so.

The majority.

Joseph Smith is not the only person to express the sense that the Lord will not allow the Church to be led astray like that.

As for your second comment, is that what is about because YOU say so?

No. Its because that is what it is about.

You seem to view things too narrowly.

Except that you seem to be the one who has closed his mind to what the conversation is about. You could open your mind to a wider possibility rather than restricting it too narrowly. (Anyone can play that game you know).

Edited August 6, 2012 by CASteinman

[The Nehor]

Your imagination has fooled you. I had no idea that you meant the exact opposite of what you typed and I don't know how i am supposed to know that. How am I to take your words in the future?

When I say the exact opposite of what I've said repeatedly elsewhere in the same thread you can suspect a typo.

What you have reliably heard is that apostles listened to a talk that did not go half as far as you went -- raised their concerns -- and the author of the talk agreed with the apostles.

Despite this, you feel that your teaching -- which is more extreme than what Poelman said -- is perfectly fine. You disagree with both the apostles and Poelman.

What were said concerns?

Oh right, you don't know. You're just guessing.

[CASteinman]

When I say the exact opposite of what I've said repeatedly elsewhere in the same thread you can suspect a typo.

OK.. makes sense. I had no idea what was up before. I just read what you typed and accepted it.

What were said concerns? Oh right, you don't know. You're just guessing.

No. Not a guess. You have described your beliefs and said you teach them.

[The Nehor]

No. Not a guess. You have described your beliefs and said you teach them.

If by teaching you mean share them on this messageboard then yes. If you mean teach from the pulpit or in a church setting then no.

[CASteinman]

If by teaching you mean share them on this messageboard then yes. If you mean teach from the pulpit or in a church setting then no.

I mean: Teach them in the home, teach them on this board or teach them in the Church -- Which I believe you said you did.

[mfbukowski]

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!

"Bummer" and "groovy"??

How old did you say you are??? Clearly you are an old soul, but I am not so sure about this reincarnation stuff....

[The Nehor]

I mean: Teach them in the home, teach them on this board or teach them in the Church -- Which I believe you said you did.

I don't teach them at home (I'm single) or at Church (never comes up in most lessons). I must admit the grievous sin of sharing my heresy on this board. It being such a doctrinally pure board I am sure I have led hundreds of people to apostasy and hell.

Keep up the doctrinal purity crusade. Maybe you can save a few of them.