One of my favorite hobbies is reading old LDS General Conference talks. You’d be forgiven for thinking that sounds boring. Today’s conference talks are usually boring. But that wasn’t always the case. I’m going to start a new series to highlight some of the most interesting conference talks ever given.
The conference talk that will be discussed in this post is one I discovered only a week ago. It’s a 1984 talk given by Elder Ronald Poelman of the Seventy. (Several blogs have written about this talk, and I’m indebted to their analysis.)
Alan over at the Pure Mormonism blog provides a nice summary of Poelman’s talk:
Elder Poelman began his talk by reminding the congregation that there is an important difference between the gospel and the Church. “There is a distinction between them which is significant”, he said, “and it is very important that this distinction be understood.”
Poelman cautioned that failure to distinguish between the two, and to comprehend their proper relationship, could lead to “confusion and misplaced priorities”.
The gospel, he explained, is the substance of the divine plan for personal, individual salvation and exaltation. The Church, on the other hand, is the delivery system that provides the means and resources to implement that plan.
As Elder Poelman explained it, the gospel of Jesus Christ is eternal and unchanging. The Church of Jesus Christ is not. “Policies, programs, and procedures do change from time to time as necessary to fulfill gospel purposes.”
“When we understand the difference between the gospel and the church and the appropriate function of each in our lives, we are much more likely to do the right things for the right reasons.”
Elder Poelman admonished the congregation to remain mindful that every church member has not only the right, but also the obligation to exercise his free agency and receive a personal witness not only of gospel principles, but also of Church practices.
According to Elder Poelman, the ultimate goal of each of us should be to eventually get to that point in our spiritual and intellectual growth where we will no longer need the institutional Church in our lives. Here is how Elder Poelman put it:
“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.”
Pretty tame, no? Apparently not. Poelman’s suggestion that Mormons should distinguish between the Church and the Gospel—a distinction Joseph Smith himself made—was too radical for the Brethren. His saying that spiritually mature members will become “less dependent on Church programs” was likely met with disapproval, too.
The talk aired live during the October 1984 General Conference, so church leaders were unable to exercise editorial control over the talk. But after the talk aired, church leaders quickly swept it toward “the memory hole.” The next day, Poelman was asked to re-deliver his talk—this time with dozens of church-approved edits. The revised talk was given in front of an empty tabernacle (conference was over), and a cough track was added to the video recording to hide that fact. It’s this version of the talk that was distributed and archived. (You can watch the original video here). And when the talk was published in the Ensign months later, it was also heavily edited.
Below are just a few of the edits; you’ll notice that they totally change the intended meaning of Poelman’s talk.
Both the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ are true and divine. However, there is a distinction [an essential relationship] between them which is significant and it is very important that this distinction be understood.
As individually and collectively we increase our knowledge, acceptance, and application of gospel principles ,we become less dependent on Church programs. O [can more effectively utilize the Church to make o]ur lives become gospel-centered.
The orthodoxy upon which we insist must be founded in fundamental principles and eternal law, including free agency and the divine uniqueness of the individual [and direction given by those authorized in the Church].
Indeed, it is not enough that we [We should] obey the commandments and counsel of Church leaders. In response to [but also through] study, [through] prayer, and by the influence of the Holy Spirit we may seek and obtain an individual and personal witness that the principle or counsel is correct and divinely inspired.
When we understand the difference [see the harmony] between the gospel and the church and the appropriate function of each in our daily lives, we are much more likely to do the right things for the right reasons. Institutional discipline is replaced by self-discipline. Supervision is replaced by a [We will exercise self discipline and] righteous initiative [guided by Church leaders] and a sense of divine accountability.
The LDS Church claims that the changes were Poelman’s own, but I have my doubts.
wow…
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve laughed at the fact that this happened in the year 1984. Orwell would /facepalm if he were still alive.
I read about this several months ago. Just another instance of the church’s obsession with retconning everything that either could possibly make the church look bad, or would in any way call the authority of the hierarchy into question. Ironic that in this case, in order to preserve their authority, they undermined it even further by more lying and whitewashing.
So God is Big Brother, & the church is the Ministry of Truth, where are the other 3 Ministries?
In my view, these policies really hurt the church in the long run. I was musing with a friend that perhaps many “apostates” (including the two of us) would stay within the church, at least to enjoy the social benefits of the community, if the church did not insist on denying historical events and requiring blind obedience. The reasoning used in this brethren’s original talk, that the gospel and the church are essentially different and that is why the policies of the church change, might even allow some struggling members to reconcile their differences and retain their testimony. It seems the church is hanging so tightly to an “all or nothing” approach that it back fires on everyone; doubting members feel a greater urge to leave, and, in my experience anyway, true believing members are stressed out even more as the doctrine becomes more strict with little “breathing room” for members with different perspectives. As I have learned from my recent study of church history, this was not always the case, which is really sad to me. It was unthinkable to many members, myself included at the time, to vote against the will of the church when the brethren spoke in favor of proposition 8 in California. However, when the First Presidency published an editorial in the Deseret News opposing FDR in 1936, Utah later went on to help re-elect him, despite this opposition. Unfortunately, after such statements as “When our prophet speaks, the thinking has been done” became part of the norm, this changed. Perhaps, if/when the church feels the backlash from their “faithful history” policy in light of the information age, it will have to be more flexible. I am not asking them to become a liberal church, but at least change policy to allow members to faithful to the gospel and their own conscience at the same time. Members can, technically, do this, but I was always taught (by general authorities, in church-approved teaching materials, etc etc) that this member was not the ideal, nor the member HF expected you to be.
Not surprised. You could fill a library with all the bs the LDS church puts out.
Insightful. Way to elevate the discussion Dennis.
They routinely do. They’re called church libraries.
Imagine if you were in elder Poleman’s shoes. Being forced to fake a conference talk to say just the opposite of what you had just finished saying. Warning of the pressures, and then giving in to them. Was that a monumental pressure, or was it easy to cave in. Sadly, we will never know.