Gospel v. Church

[UtahDan]

Ronald Poelman died this week. Below is a side by side of the original and print versions of his 1984 general conference talk. Poelman tried to draw a distinction between the gospel and the church, the same distinction that you hear members frequently draw. The talk, however, was heavily redacted and edited in the print version to remove those arguments.

Is this be a situation similar to Orson Pratt and Brigham Young's disagreement over whether God progresses (Brigham put and end to the argument by declaring he does progress, but it is Orson's view that he does not that won out over time)? Did Poelman get it right or did the correlation committee get it right?

http://www.lds-mormon.com/poelman.shtml

[Clark Addison]

Was this the talk that was re-recorded later?

[UtahDan]

Was this the talk that was re-recorded later?

Hmmmm. That sounds right now that you say it but I'm not sure.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Was this the talk that was re-recorded later?

Yes. Personally, I preferred V.1.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes. Personally, I preferred V.1.

Me too.

They are editing the wrong talks.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I remember the controversy when it happened, but never heard the original talk until a few weeks ago. It was plain, simple, and beautiful, and reminds me of the unique beauty that we have in the gospel. I wish we could hear talks like that again, especially in the place of anything Packer says.

The neutered, redacted, rerecorded talk lacked the same sense of freedom. The original was more libertarian, while the latter was more authoritarian. It changed the church from being a vessel which provides the Lord's gospel, to the organization that IS the gospel. It almost seems to suggest that the structural church organization itself should be worshipped, rather than God and His gospel.

FWIW, the rerecorded talk contains a canned audience track (coughs and 'Amen' at the end).

[Surfah]

I like to believe that this talk wouldn't be edited today. I could see Uchtdorf delivering that talk.

[jay santos]

I've seen this before. They cut him off at the knees, didn't they?

I'm generally optimistic about the church and the direction it's going. Others see correlation as weakening the power of the doctrine and distrust of the members. I see it as continuous improvement and making sure the crazies of the church don't corrupt doctrine.

This is a really weird example, and pretty much indefensible. The guy had a pretty good point to make and they slaughtered him. But it was 20 years ago. I could see that same talk being given today without any recourse, but maybe I'm too optimistic.

[Moliere]

Very interesting and thanks for posting UD. I was a CTR at the time so I remember nothing of this. It is interesting to see the correlation committee at work.

It's also interesting to see the transformation of the church. As many have mentioned and I agree, the original talk could very well be given today without mug of a flutter. The waning emphasis of church "programs" is making room for personal application of the Gospel, which I think is great.

[UtahDan]

I am interested to know why some of you think it could be given now. Can you point to any talks or actions that support the idea that the current leadership see the Church v. Gospel distinction in a different light today? Or is it just a more general sense or hope? I agree that leaders like Utchdorff seem much more universal in their messages but there was also the talk last conference that emphasized the reliability of the OT.

My sense is that this talk would not be given in the first place today. I think the rhetorical focus is what has changed but not necessarily the beliefs. On the other hand my experience here tells me that even guys like Surfah are a great deal more progressive than leadership is.
Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk

[Jeff Lebowski]

I am interested to know why some of you think it could be given now. Can you point to any talks or actions that support the idea that the current leadership see the Church v. Gospel distinction in a different light today? Or is it just a more general sense or hope? I agree that leaders like Utchdorff seem much more universal in their messages but there was also the talk last conference that emphasized the reliability of the OT.

My sense is that this talk would not be given in the first place today. I think the rhetorical focus is what has changed but not necessarily the beliefs. On the other hand my experience here tells me that even guys like Surfah are a great deal more progressive than leadership is.
Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk

I have a friend who was a Seventy and he gave a talk in GC. He said that he and many of the other speakers (especially the first-timers) spent days up in SLC in the week prior to GC rehearsing their talks at the podium and getting feedback. Pretty tough for me to imagine anyone being surprised by the content of a talk these days. He said none of the Q12 did any rehearsal (that he witnessed).

[Sullyute]

I am interested to know why some of you think it could be given now. Can you point to any talks or actions that support the idea that the current leadership see the Church v. Gospel distinction in a different light today? Or is it just a more general sense or hope? I agree that leaders like Utchdorff seem much more universal in their messages but there was also the talk last conference that emphasized the reliability of the OT.

I really don't see anyone today suggesting that the more we progress in the gospel the less we need the church.

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs.

[All-American]

I am interested to know why some of you think it could be given now. Can you point to any talks or actions that support the idea that the current leadership see the Church v. Gospel distinction in a different light today? Or is it just a more general sense or hope? I agree that leaders like Utchdorff seem much more universal in their messages but there was also the talk last conference that emphasized the reliability of the OT.

My sense is that this talk would not be given in the first place today. I think the rhetorical focus is what has changed but not necessarily the beliefs. On the other hand my experience here tells me that even guys like Surfah are a great deal more progressive than leadership is.
Sent from my MB865 using Tapatalk

Boyd K. Packer drew the distinction once. Sort of.

Once in a stake meeting, I noticed a larger than usual number of older members, most of them widows. I mentioned to the stake president how impressive they were.

The president replied, “Yes, but they are not active in the Church,” meaning they did not serve as leaders or teachers. He spoke as though they were a burden.

I repeated his words, “Not active in the Church?” and asked, “Are they active in the gospel?” He did not quite understand the difference at first . . .

[Paperback Writer]

I'm less optimistic or perhaps my corner of Zion is more orthodox. What I hear many weeks are derisive comments about cafeteria mormons contrasted with a dose of self righteous true discipleship. These comments are not about whether my family obeys certain commandments like tithing or WofW but how frequently we hold FHE and how fully my kids participate in Scouts and YW. IOW, members here like to reference the church handbook a lot...but also very selectively.

I find it interesting that the edited version of the GC address has omissions of applying free agency in adopting chuch programs and that the gospel presented in the scriptues does not necessarily come in the form of an indexed manual.

[NorthwestUteFan]

First, RIP Ronald Poelman. He seemed to be a very good and intelligent man. He must have been greatly embarrassed by the situation. I do not recall whether he spoke again in GC.

I have a friend who was a Seventy and he gave a talk in GC. He said that he and many of the other speakers (especially the first-timers) spent days up in SLC in the week prior to GC rehearsing their talks at the podium and getting feedback. Pretty tough for me to imagine anyone being surprised by the content of a talk these days. He said none of the Q12 did any rehearsal (that he witnessed).

My cousin is involved with all of the church's broadcast productions. I was a bit shocked to learn that they have THREE lecturns similar to that on the podium in the Conference Center: the one in the CC, and two on sound stages elsewhere (one in the COB, the other...basement of the Tabernacle still?). It makes sense they would get together to practice, work on delivery, pacing, reading from a teleprompter, smiling (harder than it sounds), etc.

I recall when I lived in New England attending a special Stake Conference including a broadcast from SLC from one of the soundstage lecturn setups, so it makes sense they would have a simple setup as well as the big setup in the CC. IIRC a few conference talks over the past several years have been given from a soundstage setup when the person giving the talk was too sick.

When i was in the MTC (for the Oct 1990 conference) several of my teachers acted as translators for the foreign language broadcasts of conference. They were given copies of the talks one week in advance of the broadcast, to work out the translation. During one of the sessions, Hartman Rector, Jr. went completely off-script and my poor instructor had to scramble to keep up.

As I understand it, there is not much in the way of editorial oversight for conference talks. But they do 'correlate' (for lack of a better word) their material so they don't step all over one another.

Back to the topic.

I really don't see anyone today suggesting that the more we progress in the gospel the less we need the church.

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we become less dependent on Church programs. Our lives become Gospel centered

This quote was changed to:

As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles, we can more effectively utilize the Church to make our lives more gospel centered.

The modified talk of course stresses the need for the structure of the church, as opposed to growing to rely on our own strength in the Gospel.

Isn't this essentially the same argument that pitted Paul's idea of the Gospel in his writings vs Peter et al? Doesn't this go back to Paul's (paraphrasing) 'live a life above reproach and grow together in Christ Jesus', while other biblical writings demand adherance to all of the old Jewish laws in addition to Christ's teachings? Perhaps nothing is new under the sun.