Ronald E. Poelman: The Gospel And The Church

[Calm]

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.

I am burning as we speak....

[CASteinman]

I don't teach them at home (I'm single) or at Church (never comes up in most lessons).

Well, previously you said you did. Now you say you don't.

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.

So, its Ok to operate against the desires of the Apostles in some places as long as you don't reveal that contradiction in other places. Hmmm..

[The Nehor]

So, its Ok to operate against the desires of the Apostles in some places as long as you don't reveal that contradiction in other places. Hmmm..

You have not established that this gospel hobby of yours is the "desires of the Apostles". So what I am doing is contradicting you which I am content to do in a box or with a fox or here or there or anywhere.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

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.

No. Its because that is what it is about.

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).

Going back to the OP...Elder Poelman was correct in his conference talk whether you or anyone else or any of the church authorities agree with the talk. It seems that you took away from the talk exactly what Elder Poelman didn't want to be taken from the talk. My guess is that HE CHOSE to change it for various reasons and this is one of them.

Just for clarification...my faith is in Jesus and not in scripture or the LDS church. It would be illogical to in anyway claim that somehow they are the same thing.

[CASteinman]

You have not established that this gospel hobby of yours is the "desires of the Apostles". So what I am doing is contradicting you which I am content to do in a box or with a fox or here or there or anywhere.

Yes, it has been established. Now you are just in denial and being insulting to boot. You don't appear to have anything more on the subject.

Edited August 6, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

Going back to the OP...Elder Poelman was correct in his conference talk whether you or anyone else or any of the church authorities agree with the talk.

Uh huh. The Apostles and Elder Poelman himself are wrong... .but you insist your wisdom is superior to theirs... and know what is right more than they do.

Edited August 6, 2012 by CASteinman

[Damien the Leper]

Uh huh. The Apostles and Elder Poelman himself are wrong... .but you insist your wisdom is superior to theirs... and know what is right more than they do.

I didnt say that either the apostles or Elder Poelman were wrong. You are deliberately misrepresenting my post to further your position. Knock it off. Both talks by Elder Poelman were spirit-filled and correct. I see no reason to believe that Elder Poelman was ordered by a higher church authority to change his talk because I see no reason to believe that the higher authorities disagreed with him. Whatever ELDER POELMAN'S reasons, I believe he did what was right by giving the first talk but was also right in giving the second.

[The Nehor]

Yes, it has been established.

If you define established as "you saying it" then yes. I disagree with that definition.

Now you are just in denial and being insulting to boot. You don't appear to have anything more on the subject.

I'm hurt and insulted that you think so little of me that you imagine that post was insulting. I assure you that when I insult someone I do a much better job then that. Please do not impugn my honor again sir or we may have to settle this with the time-honored tradition of a duel at dawn.

[CASteinman]

I didnt say that either the apostles or Elder Poelman were wrong.

You said that Elder Poelman was correct in his former talk which was objected to by Apostles and upon review, by Poelman himself. So they do not consider it correct but you do.

You are deliberately misrepresenting my post to further your position.

I am unaware that I am misrepresenting your post. I do, however, think your position is incorrect. How do you believe I misrepresented your post? I am willing to correct any misrepresentation of what you obviously said at the time.

Both talks by Elder Poelman were spirit-filled and correct.

That's a silly perspective. The Church did not spend tens of thousands of dollars to correct the speech and Elder Poelman did not change the meaning 180 degrees because the first one was so correct. That's irrational.

I see no reason to believe that Elder Poelman was ordered by a higher church authority to change his talk because I see no reason to believe that the higher authorities disagreed with him.

That's ok. You aren't required to pay attention to the information presented.

Edited August 6, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

If you define established as "you saying it" then yes. I disagree with that definition.

No, that is not how I define it. You seem to have nothing left.

I'm hurt and insulted that you think so little of me that you imagine that post was insulting. I assure you that when I insult someone I do a much better job then that. Please do not impugn my honor again sir or we may have to settle this with the time-honored tradition of a duel at dawn.

Whatever.

[cwald]

I have taken the advice given, prayed and asked God. The spirit tells me that the message I heard in GC spoken from the pulpit, is true and prophetic. I will listen to the spirit...this is what my religion has taught me to do my whole life.

[Damien the Leper]

You said that Elder Poelman was correct in his former talk which was objected to by Apostles and upon review, by Poelman himself. So they do not consider it correct but you do.

CFR. Official statements made by general authorities will suffice.

I am unaware that I am misrepresenting your post. I do, however, think your position is incorrect. How do you believe I misrepresented your post? I am willing to correct any misrepresentation of what you obviously said at the time.

The strawman you demonstrate is that I somehow think myself wiser than Elder Poelman or the Apostles. Nowhere did I demonstrate such an attitude. To believe that anything I said implied such a position demonstrates a deeply rooted ignorance that not even I can begin to help remedy.

That's a silly perspective. The Church did not spend tens of thousands of dollars to correct the speech and Elder Poelman did not change the meaning 180 degrees because the first one was so correct. That's irrational.

Again, CFR. I would like to see an official statement that such money was spent because the talk was incorrect. Such a stance is audaciously and childishly silly and irrational.

That's ok. You aren't required to pay attention to the information presented.

What's problematic is that you have provided no substantial evidence to support your case. I presume that you do not wish to speak officially on behalf of the general authorities on this issue unless you have some plausible and official information that the general authorities would consider to be authentic.

[CASteinman]

CFR. Official statements made by general authorities will suffice.

You may request a reference, but you cannot dictate limitations on those.

The strawman you demonstrate is that I somehow think myself wiser than Elder Poelman or the Apostles. Nowhere did I demonstrate such an attitude.

I think you did.

Again, CFR. I would like to see an official statement that such money was spent because the talk was incorrect. Such a stance is audaciously and childishly silly and irrational.

Again, you get to request a reference but you do not get to dictate limits on those references.

What's problematic is that you have provided no substantial evidence to support your case.

Because other people in the thread have done so. Have you not read the thread?

[CASteinman]

I have taken the advice given, prayed and asked God. The spirit tells me that the message I heard in GC spoken from the pulpit, is true and prophetic. I will listen to the spirit...this is what my religion has taught me to do my whole life.

Everyone gets to choose. We even get to choose to reject the words of the very person who gave that speech and corrected it.

[Nemesis]

I have taken the advice given, prayed and asked God. The spirit tells me that the message I heard in GC spoken from the pulpit, is true and prophetic. I will listen to the spirit...this is what my religion has taught me to do my whole life.

Stop trolling.

Everyone gets to choose. We even get to choose to reject the words of the very person who gave that speech and corrected it.

Knock off the personal insults.

Nemesis

[Damien the Leper]

You may request a reference, but you cannot dictate limitations on those.

IOW, you got nothing.

I think you did.

This shows how disconnected from reality that you are.

Again, you get to request a reference but you do not get to dictate limits on those references.

IOW, again, you got nothing.

Because other people in the thread have done so. Have you not read the thread?

I don't think you have been paying close enough attention to exactly what people have said. This is primarily demonstrated by your current conversation with Nehor.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Valentinus

[Damien the Leper]

Stop trolling.

Nemesis

I'm not necessarily sure cwald was trolling, IMHO, of course.

[CASteinman]

Knock off the personal insults.

I know you can't read minds, but to me an insult would require an intent to insult. I had none. When I say "Everyone gets to choose" I always mean that as a simple acknowledgement that even if I think that they are wrong -- they have a God given right to choose. Implicit in that is even "and I will defend your right to make choices" (up to a point). But also "Just as you have a right to make a bad choice, I have a right to disagree with your choices."

Because this is what was in my mind -- I don't exactly understand the command to Knock of personal insults. It confuses me. And I am not playing coy here. I am being straight up and honest. It is confusing to me. How do I follow it better if I can't really understand how I failed?

Seeking clarification: Do you mean that I should not judge the things that other people say as wrong or incorrect? Is that the idea? Because I admit I have done that -- and did not know it was wrong to do. If that is what was meant, I am less confused about how I was wrong.

[CASteinman]

I'm not necessarily sure cwald was trolling, IMHO, of course.

I didn't think he was trolling! That's why I answered him as I did.... I was acknowledging his opinion -- and his right to have it -- while expressing my objection to it. Nemesis has the power to do as he wants... but I did not understand his post either to CWald or to me. But this would absolutely not be the first time I was confused at something the mods have said or done. In fact, I would say they confuse me about 85% of the time. I feel like a nitwit because I don't understand them.

[CASteinman]

IOW, you got nothing.

No. In the exact same words -- you get to ask for a reference but you don't get to limit my response -- as you attempted to do.

This shows how disconnected from reality that you are.

Or perhaps you. After all, the talk was revised. It was revised after counsel from the Apostles. The talk you "like" is not official Church doctrine and is contradicted by official Church doctrine --which you contradictorily also claim to like, even thought it is recognized as 180 degrees different.

I don't think you have been paying close enough attention to exactly what people have said. This is primarily demonstrated by your current conversation with Nehor.

OK... as before, I am always open to correction. What exactly did other people say that I did not recognize? (Please be aware though that if someone has said something I agreed with, I might not have mentioned the agreement -- and only mentioned the disagreement -- but that does not mean I did not pay attention to it).

[Damien the Leper]

I didn't think he was trolling! That's why I answered him as I did.... I was acknowledging his opinion -- and his right to have it -- while expressing my objection to it. Nemesis has the power to do as he wants... but I did not understand his post either to CWald or to me. But this would absolutely not be the first time I was confused at something the mods have said or done. In fact, I would say they confuse me about 85% of the time. I feel like a nitwit because I don't understand them.

I kinda feel the same because I don't know why treehugger was banned from the board, not just a thread, in the Will Schryver thread in the News section of MDD. No reason was given in the thread nor to treehugger. But I shouldn't speculate too much.

[CASteinman]

I kinda feel the same because I don't know why treehugger was banned from the board, not just a thread, in the Will Schryver thread in the News section of MDD. No reason was given in the thread nor to treehugger. But I shouldn't speculate too much.

I don't think I can speak to that even on speculation. I know nothing. Anyway, I don't really understand the board rules well enough anyway. I am always running afoul of them.... and am clueless when it happens. But I do sort of recall thinking that treehugger was trying to cause or create problems of some sort. And if my memory is right, I could see this as a definite distinction: If you appear to be intent on causing strife you may be in trouble. If you appear to merely be reacting rather than inciting, maybe you get a bit of grace. But really... I give myself a 10% chance of being right because I don't really understand things...

[Damien the Leper]

No. In the exact same words -- you get to ask for a reference but you don't get to limit my response -- as you attempted to do.

Or perhaps you. After all, the talk was revised. It was revised after counsel from the Apostles. The talk you "like" is not official Church doctrine and is contradicted by official Church doctrine --which you contradictorily also claim to like, even thought it is recognized as 180 degrees different.

OK... as before, I am always open to correction. What exactly did other people say that I did not recognize? (Please be aware though that if someone has said something I agreed with, I might not have mentioned the agreement -- and only mentioned the disagreement -- but that does not mean I did not pay attention to it).

I'm asking for solid PROOF that the general authorities did what you CLAIM they did. Can you provide an official church source for this? If you cannot respond appropriately for the CFR then you should retract your statement. This is the last time I'm going to issue a CFR for your claims. If it is not an official church position on the matter then it does not answer the CFR. Opinion or speculation on behalf of yourself or anyone else does NOT satisfy the CFR.

Let me be explicit...can you provide a source that demonstrates the official opinion of the 15 General Authorities on the matter? Can you provide a direct quote?

Also, as I have stated before and I WILL NOT REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN, I oppose neither talk. I'm recognizing the correctness of the two talks as they are respectively different talks and NOT polar opposites of each other.

Your failure to recognize this is becoming your downfall in this thread.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't think I can speak to that even on speculation. I know nothing. Anyway, I don't really understand the board rules well enough anyway. I am always running afoul of them.... and am clueless when it happens. But I do sort of recall thinking that treehugger was trying to cause or create problems of some sort. And if my memory is right, I could see this as a definite distinction: If you appear to be intent on causing strife you may be in trouble. If you appear to merely be reacting rather than inciting, maybe you get a bit of grace. But really... I give myself a 10% chance of being right because I don't really understand things...

Read through the thread. Treehugger was not causing contention. He was addressing comments made by Schryver that were considered to be inappropriate.

We shouldn't talk about that in this thread. I apologize for bringing it up. The thread was closed so it is a "done" issue.

[Carborendum]

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.

Folks, the quote was not "will need the Church less". He said,"will become less dependent on the Church."

Remember the title of one of the last priesthood manuals prior to the new "Teachings of the Presidents of the Church" manuals? When thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren".

The church is there to help us come closer to God. If you you ever believe you've "made it" to the point you no longer need the Church, you've just lost it. If you are truly strong in the faith and in obedience, it is your turn to help another up. Hence, the Church can still be your crutch to help others along. And we always remember to sharpen the saw.

If you have had your calling and election made sure, you could make an argument to no longer "need" the Church. But it is a bit like the Law of Moses was for Nephi and his people. It may be dead. But they obeyed it because it was commanded of them.