The Church and the Gospel are not the same thing.

I don’t know. To me the “party line” simply reinforces, or illustrates the difference. The “party line” is driven by culture, and imperfect human understanding. That makes it extra clear to me that it is not Gospel, even though the vast majority may mistake it as such.

It appears to me that your struggle is with the power of church culture, and the difficulty of swimming up-stream makes you think about climbing out of the water and walking up the shoreline instead. The only thing I can think to say about that right now is: What is more likely to cause someone to think about the direction they are swimming – a fellow swimmer going the other way, or someone that they can’t see walking out on the shore?

But my reason is not simply to try to turn the tide, personally I really like swimming in this pond, even if at times I’m overcome by the current of the masses. Lately I’ve noticed a few more “fish” swimming in a similar direction as myself, and it renews my energy to hold my course.

Pres. Uchtdorf has talked explicitly about the difference between the Church and the Gospel – and the tendency to build unnecessary rules around the true law of love.

Rather than highlight one talk, I would recommend going to the General Conference talks section of lds.com and simply reading every one of his talks since he was called as an apostle – and especially after he became a counselor in the First Presidency. For those not aware of his focus already, reading his talks will be an astounding experience, imo.

I agree flowerdrops, but I also think the process of happiness may rely a little more on “loving what you’ve got” than “getting what you love.”

Overall, the apostles are as inclusive and “liberal” as a group as at any time in my lifetime.

For sure. Overall I am optimistic about the direction the LDS church is heading when it comes to politics, policy and procedure.

What was curious to me about that whole business was that his talk was written out to be reviewed by the Ensign staff during the presentation to be sure the printed copy would be the same as presented and as I understand to be reviewed before hand by the correlation committee. Even at that it went through and then had to be redone when there was objection from someone higher. It’s an interesting foot note from 26 years ago but that’s all. Then was then and now is now.

Wow….I read Poleman’s talk, and watched it on You Tube. Then followed the pure mormonism link. There was an article there that I found had an amusing analogy, which I’ll reprint here:

The Cheese Man Cometh

How’s this for a metaphor:

As I’ve sat at my desk this morning writing the words above, I’ve also been excitedly awaiting the arrival of a special visitor. His name is John, and he’s my local UPS driver. I’m looking forward to John’s visit because today he is scheduled to deliver me a case of cheese. Real cheddar cheese packed in tin cans.

Two weeks ago I didn’t even know canned cheese existed, and if the reports are true, this variety of cheddar cheese is going to suit me just fine. People say it’s firm and delicious like regular cheddar, and just like deli cheese it can be shredded, sliced, and melted. Best of all it can be stored almost indefinitely. I ordered this cheese because I love, love, love cheese; I eat it every day. If the day arrives when fresh cheese is hard to come by, I’ll now have something other than a No.10 can of dehydrated cheese powder on hand. I’ll be able to retreat to my precious stash of cheddar ‘neath the stairs, thanks in part to the noble efforts of John the UPS guy. I can’t wait until he gets here.

Now, it should be obvious that it’s not really John that I’m excited about seeing today; what I’m all a-dither about is what he’s bringing with him. When John arrives I’ll answer the door and sign his electronic gizmo, he’ll hand over the box, then he’ll leave. He will be entitled to, and he will receive, my effusive thanks.

Every couple of months or so John brings me something. Sometimes it’s food. More often he brings me books that teach me things I didn’t know or hadn’t thought about before. So I suppose you could say that in some small way I am indebted to John for my spiritual and intellectual edification. I like John. John and his wonder truck are part of an impressive system that delivers sustenance to me. But neither John, nor his truck, nor that system is the actual sustenance.

You would certainly think it odd if I were to fawn all over John and his delivery truck to the point of forgetting all about any package he’s trying to hand me. Likewise I would think John a bit screwy if he were to hint that I should accept deliveries from no other source but him, or that I obey his pronouncements and follow his counsel because he is so adept at getting stuff to me. I greatly appreciate the role John plays in my life. But I keep that role in perspective.

So here’s my point. As Poelman taught, the Church as an institution has a divine function. It provides resources and materials that edify us and enrich our lives. The intrinsic purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring people to Christ, so by publishing and distributing that book, the Church is providing an incalculable service. The Church also manages a way for us to gather together as a community of fellow believers. Perhaps most importantly, the Church disseminates the word of God and boldly proclaims the gospel of the restoration.

The Church provides us with spiritual sustenance. But the Church is not the sustenance. The Church is merely the vehicle that delivers the sustenance. As Elder Poelman insisted, it is very important that this distinction be understood.

How often do we hear our fellow saints extol the virtues of The Brethren and remark upon what a blessing they are in our lives? It’s been my experience that few of these adulators exhibit the same high level of passion for Christ and His gospel. They seem to have a crush on the delivery man.

The other link above showing the editing of the original to the sanitized version is also very interesting. People who commented on the article through the blog at the puremormonism link thought the parallel betwee 1984 (Orwell) and the re-writing of Church broadcasts to remove objectionable statements (or even objectionable people such as Spencer Kinnard) was a bit melodramatic. I’m not so sure.

I’m reminded of the Tylenol scare a few decades ago. Someone placed cyanide in one of the bottles. So, Tylenol went on the air, openly admitted the problem, recalled everything, and sucked up the consequences. They then followed up their openness with the statement “Tylenol, the name you can trust”.

Personally, I think it’s better to be open about your warts and weaknesses when matters are public like this, or else you hurt the perception that you’re an honest organization….the truth should be able to explain the truth about itself.

I love Poelman, and I loved the talk. It spoke to me then, and it still speaks to me today.

It was VERY disheartening to me when it was “shredded” and redone and put into the ensign and rerecorded. It totally changed the spiritual message that Poelman was trying to convey to the listeners.

I think GB is correct though with this comment,

It’s an interesting foot note from 26 years ago but that’s all. Then was then and now is now.

and I agree, it’s not something that I can continue to harp on and I haven’t heard of this happening since? It appears the days of BRM “It is my providence to define what the doctrine is. It is your providence to repeat what I say, or keep your mouth shut.” are over.

BTW – that quote by BRM WAS directed at Brother Poelman.