CASteinman Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 I'm asking for solid PROOF that the general authorities did what you CLAIM they did.What do you feel that I claim that they said? I said that they objected to Elder Poelman's talk because it was in error. 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.I can respond appropriately but I do not think I am required to be bound to the limitations you want to place upon me. If you do not want to lift the tight restrictions you have placed, then I am OK if it is the last time you will issue the CFR. However, if you want to just let me respond without restrictions then I will do so. Please realize that I do not have to provide a CFR for something I did not claim. I'm recognizing the correctness of the two talks as they are respectively different talks and NOT polar opposites of each other.One is the correction of the other. Your failure to recognize this is not helpful to the thread.
CASteinman Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Folks, the quote was not "will need the Church less". He said,"will become less dependent on the Church."In fact, what he said was even milder than that. He actually said "less dependent upon Church programs". Which takes me a moment to think about but even that mild statement is probably not exactly right, but it is absolutely able to be used by those who wish to do so -- to argue for abandonment of Church for "higher causes" through slippery slope approaches.Elder Poelmans talk was not as radical as reinterpreted here, but he retracted and corrected it anyway. Which is a good thing.
Damien the Leper Posted August 7, 2012 Author Posted August 7, 2012 What do you feel that I claim that they said? I said that they objected to Elder Poelman's talk because it was in error.I can respond appropriately but I do not think I am required to be bound to the limitations you want to place upon me. If you do not want to lift the tight restrictions you have placed, then I am OK if it is the last time you will issue the CFR. However, if you want to just let me respond without restrictions then I will do so. Please realize that I do not have to provide a CFR for something I did not claim.One is the correction of the other. Your failure to recognize this is not helpful to the thread.If you cannot answer the CFR then I respectfully ask you to leave the thread. If your source is NOT an official church position made public by official avenues then it is heresay or speculation.PROVE that one is the correction. If you can cite a comment from Elder Poelman concerning the change then I will retract my claim. However, if you are unable to do so then you are simply stating an opinion, speculating or heresay.My CFR is not unreasonable. I'm done asking and I'm done discussing this with you.
Damien the Leper Posted August 7, 2012 Author Posted August 7, 2012 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.I'm not saying that I have no need nor that I will reach a point in life where I do not need the church. I'm saying that the church isn't my permanent crutch. Jesus and His Gospel are. The church is one of many vessels by which we are able to experience God and return to Him.
cwald Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 I'm not trying to cause trouble...I'll go away from this thread.
Damien the Leper Posted August 7, 2012 Author Posted August 7, 2012 I'm not trying to cause trouble...I'll go away from this thread.Don't do that! I respect your comments.
CASteinman Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) If you cannot answer the CFR then I respectfully ask you to leave the thread.OK. But I can answer the CFR when you remove your restrictions.I'm done asking and I'm done discussing this with you.You were done asking before this. Again... if you remove your restrictions, I will give you the reference. You get to ask for a reference. You don't get to restrict it and say that only certain things are references.I earnestly encourage you to remove the restrictions. I am eager to show you the reference. Edited August 7, 2012 by CASteinman
Carborendum Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 I'm not saying that I have no need nor that I will reach a point in life where I do not need the church. I'm saying that the church isn't my permanent crutch. Jesus and His Gospel are. The church is one of many vessels by which we are able to experience God and return to Him.I guess I'm having difficulty figuring out why you're making this distinction. I think we all agree that :1) The Lord will work on us through many means.2) One of those means is the Church.3) The true and only doctrine of importance is the Atonement of Christ that we are all dependent upon, now and always.(if I'm wrong, please indicate by the uplifted mouse).So, I kind of see a point that Christ & revelation is what you want to lean on. So...what is the Church to you?
cwald Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Don't do that! I respect your comments.Thanks. I'm on vacation....hv better things to do tonight.
CASteinman Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) I guess I'm having difficulty figuring out why you're making this distinction.I think we all agree that :1) The Lord will work on us through many means.2) One of those means is the Church.3) The true and only doctrine of importance is the Atonement of Christ that we are all dependent upon, now and always.(if I'm wrong, please indicate by the uplifted mouse).So, I kind of see a point that Christ & revelation is what you want to lean on. So...what is the Church to you?I raise my mouse to disagree.To state that the Church is one of many means by which the Lord operates is to incorrectly describe the situation. The Church is the Only Entity on the earth through which the Ordinances and Laws of the Gospel are effective. It is not merely one of many possible paths. There may be many paths that lead you to the Lord's Church, but it is the only approved source of salvic ordinances and systems on this earth for mankind in general.It is, after all, the Only True and Living Church on the Face of the Whole Earth. Edited August 7, 2012 by CASteinman
Damien the Leper Posted August 7, 2012 Author Posted August 7, 2012 I guess I'm having difficulty figuring out why you're making this distinction.I think we all agree that :1) The Lord will work on us through many means.2) One of those means is the Church.3) The true and only doctrine of importance is the Atonement of Christ that we are all dependent upon, now and always.(if I'm wrong, please indicate by the uplifted mouse).So, I kind of see a point that Christ & revelation is what you want to lean on. So...what is the Church to you?The church is a spiritual home that I have traditionally identified with. The church is not the means by which I attain salvation but one of many vessels leading people to God. The church is a physical and temporal institution led by human beings doing the best they can with the best spiritual gifts they've got. Jesus and His Gospel are not personified by any specific organization or institution.
zerinus Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 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!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. Many conference talks are later edited before being published in print form. These editorial changes are made by their authors, not imposed from above. It is like us when we post messages here, and afterwards discover that we can improve it, so we go back and edit it to make it better. The editorial changes may not always be extensive, but sometimes can be. Nothing unusual about that.
zerinus Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 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.Nither the gospel nor the Church is a crutch. The Church is the kingdom of God on earth (and in heaven). If you are not in the Church, you are not in the kingdom; and there is no salvation outside of that kingdom, in this world or the next. The Church is Zion, the community of the saved.
zerinus Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 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.The Church is not its programs; it is its people, its membership. It is a community of people bound by a certain agreement with God.
zerinus Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Not buying it. In the New Jerusalem after the complete redemption of the Earth there is no temple there according to the Book of Revelation. If there are Sacrament Meetings in heaven I am not sure I want to go.I agree that as you advance in the gospel you need the Church less. In the same way you need the scriptures less as you are a fount of revelation yourself. The Church remains a conduit for ordinances and service.The Church is a community of people, of believers who need, serve, and minister to each other. There is no such thing as being outside of, or not needing, the Church, here or hereafter. Heaven is a Church, or the Church. If you are not in the Church, you are not in heaven in the next life.
zerinus Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 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?Being a prophet does not mean that you cannot edit your prophetic utterances to make them better. Joseph Smith edited many of his revelations (by the Holy Ghost) to improve on them before being published.
zerinus Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Someone else saying scriptures are not of paramount importance:Wilford WoodruffI 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.It is true that scripture does not do away with prophets; but prophets don't do away with scripture either. What is the point of having scripture at all, if all we need is prophets? Prophets are as much bound by the word of the Lord which has been given as anybody else is.
zerinus Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 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".He remained prophet an awful long time though!
zerinus Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Well, here is proof then that what is spoken of in conference can't be ascribed to revelation eh? What is spoken at general conference is a revelation "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost" (D&C 68:4). The fact that Elder Poelman later edited his talk, however, does not mean that it was not inspired by the Holy Ghost. See my previous posts. Your reasoning is badly flawed throughout.
zerinus Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Oh? How so? I have been taught fundamentally that when General Conference comes around we are hearing the Words and Will of God, BECAUSE God's spirit is leading the brethren what to say. It is OFFICIAL church doctrine. Now we see Poleman can't get it right (what was the Spirit napping or something?) so the brethren in their "inspiration" corrected the Word of the Lord?! Please do tell me how that works......As a general rule that is the case; see my previous post.
zerinus Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 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?There is no indication that the First Presidency was organized in the primitive Church. The Twelve were organized, which can perform the same function as the First Presidency in their absence (D&C 107:22-24). The First Presidency is a very ancient institution (D&C 107:29), and pre-dates the organization of the Twelve Apostles in the previous dispensation. There is no indication that the Twelve Apostles was organized in earlier dispensations, or the First Presidency in the early Christian Church.
zerinus Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 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.They are closely bound up together. How would you know anything about Jesus at all, without the revelation of Himself that He has given in the scriptures? Faith in the scriptures seems to come before even faith in Jesus Christ.
cwald Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 Nither the gospel nor the Church is a crutch. The Church is the kingdom of God on earth (and in heaven). If you are not in the Church, you are not in the kingdom; and there is no salvation outside of that kingdom, in this world or the next. The Church is Zion, the community of the saved.Wow. I truly feel sorry for you.
cwald Posted August 7, 2012 Posted August 7, 2012 The church is a spiritual home that I have traditionally identified with. The church is not the means by which I attain salvation but one of many vessels leading people to God. The church is a physical and temporal institution led by human beings doing the best they can with the best spiritual gifts they've got. Jesus and His Gospel are not personified by any specific organization or institution.This feels true to me. I think you are correct. Universalism feels right...and I think it is the message that bro Poelman was trying to give. 1
Recommended Posts