A Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ

[consiglieri]

Hi, All!

I ran across a guy who has an LDS friend with a question he is trying to resolve for her.

This is his post, complete with links.

How would you answer this question?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

____________________________________________

Hi folks. A member of a Mormon-related group on Facebook recommended this board to me, so I hope my post is appropriate for this forum. Basically, I'm trying to help one of my friends who is struggling with her faith right now. She knows about FAIR and Jeff Lindsay's website and other things like that, but she's really hung up on one issue more than any others right now, and I'm not sure how to help her. I can provide more details later if I need to, but the basics are that she was writing a talk and was using LDS.org for some quotes, and she came across two different versions of a talk, which for some reason is really bothering her.

The first version is here: http://lds.org/ensign/1976/11/a-personal-relationship-with-the-savior?lang=eng

The second version is here: http://lds.org/ensign/1999/01/that-we-might-know-thee?lang=eng

I'm not sure if those are going to link or not, so just copy and paste if they don't work. I'm going to quote a couple of the actual changes that she has pointed out as being troublesome to her so you can get an idea of what we are talking about.

Version 1: Recently in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked,

[Jeff K.]

Pfft, a quibble that overlooks context.

[Zakuska]

Why can't an author take an old talk and rework it?

Elder Faust wrote both talks after all.

1) The first as young 70

2) The second as the Second Councilor in the First Presidency.

Can't a man change his own words as he pleases?

Or must he be a broken record and repeat everything he has ever said verbatim everytime he tells a story?!

All he is doing is using the same story to highlight two different things. I agree with Jeff K. she is ignoring context.

I can already see how this is going to play out. The critics are going to accuse President Faust of making stories up like Elder Dunn.

[mercyngrace]

Obviously we can't address why Pres. Faust altered the talk. Only he knows for sure. I can speculate as to why I think the changes are warranted but I don't know that it would help resolve the issue for the woman in question...

The Savior acted on behalf of the Father. His role as redeemer allows us to be resurrected and cleansed from our sins, conquering both death and hell but it is the Father's plan which allows us to progress eternally until we reach our potential (following the pattern of our parentage).

For most of the Christian world, absolution is enough, and Christ, being the one through whom absolution comes, is the central figure.

For LDS, absolution is a means to an even greater end. We become clean not solely for the sake of cleanliness but because it allows our progression to continue toward emulating our Father in Heaven, whom Christ Himself acknowledged as the pattern for His own life.

DAMG(doctrine according to MnG):

As we come to understand the fulness of the gospel, we start to see these distinctions. It is natural for us to focus on the agony of Gethsemane and to marvel in atonishment at the condescension of the Son of God. But there comes a point in our spiritual maturity when we realize that it is not enough to sing "How Great Thou Art" and we must ask "Lord, how is it done?" And more importantly, why?

Those questions allow us to look beyond the Messiah at the Grand Architect of the plan and to examine His purposes. Just as all things in this telestial world testify of Christ, Christ Himself testifies of and glorifies the Father in all things. This is the relationship, then, which we must seek out.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What this proves is that the church is false. Imagaine, now if you showed her one of the changes in the BoM.

I don't have an issue with the change. Certainly he can change his own talk. Perhaps the 2nd edition is more accurate to what the elder said and he mis quoted him. She will need to take it up with Elder Faust as he will be the best canidate to tell us why it was altered.

[consiglieri]

I think the answer to this relatively insignificant aspect of Mormon revisionism is simply a matter of timing: Brother Faust (a truly kind and gentle man) gave the first talk in 1976 and the second talk in 1999.

It is what happened in between that made all the difference.

It is called Elder Bruce R. McConkie's talk, Our Relationship with the Lord, given in 1982, in which we find the following:

Now I know that some may be offended at the counsel that they should not strive for a special and personal relationship with Christ. It will seem to them as though I am speaking out against mother love, or Americanism, or the little red schoolhouse. But I am not. There is a fine line here over which true worshipers will not step.

* * *

And you have never heard one of the First Presidency or the Twelve, who hold the keys of the kingdom, and who are appointed to see that we are not "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14)--you have never heard one of them advocate this excessive zeal that calls for gaining a so-called special and personal relationship with Christ.

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6843

The most logical answer to the change in the talk is that Elder Faust's 1976 talk was amended in 1999 in order to avoid his being deemed something other than a "true worshiper."

Thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mercyngrace]

The most logical answer to the change in the talk is that Elder Faust's 1976 talk was amended in 1999 in order to avoid his being deemed something other than a "true worshiper."

Thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well, I'm not surprised you went here. I hoped you wouldn't but...

The real question isn't why Elder Faust reworked the talk but why Elder McConkie said what he did. Which is what I responded to above.

No contraversy, just continued movement out of the wilderness and toward the promised land. Line upon line, precept upon precept, progression.

[Zakuska]

Well, I'm not surprised you went here. I hoped you wouldn't but...

The real question isn't why Elder Faust reworked the talk but why Elder McConkie said what he did. Which is what I responded to above.

No contraversy, just continued movement out of the wilderness and toward the promised land. Line upon line, precept upon precept, progression.

Do the words of a 70 out way the words of a Second Counselor in the Presidency?

Obviosuly the later meaning would hold more weight. I mean didn't even Peter seem shacky in doctrine when he was a mere disciple verses the Peter we see later preaching? He also seemed a little unsure about things when he first started taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. Even He and Paul had a dispute at Antioch which had to be taken to the Jerusalem council to be resolved.

Even If Consig is correct and Bruce R. McConkie did happen which made President Faust edit his talk and re give it, none of this points to anything foundation cracking.

[bluebell]

Could it be that Pres. Faust revised the talk because he wanted to indicate that a personal relationship with Heavenly Father was also necessary?

I read the change as being akin to "personal relationship with your mother" changing to "personal relationship with your parents".

As everyone here should know, having to clarify your words is not always the same thing as changing them.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The McConkie quote is disturbing.... just sayin'

[bluebell]

The McConkie quote is disturbing.... just sayin'

If i'm remembering right (and i may not be) this quote was in relation to a trend in Utah of church members holding special (secret?-i don't remember for sure) meetings and doing very specific things that were frowned upon where Christ was being put above God the Father.

Maybe i'm really mauling what was going on so hopefully someone can confirm or correct but that's what i remember about it.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

If i'm remembering right (and i may not be) this quote was in relation to a trend in Utah of church members holding special (secret?-i don't remember for sure) meetings and doing very specific things that were frowned upon where Christ was being put above God the Father.

Maybe i'm really mauling what was going on so hopefully someone can confirm or correct but that's what i remember about it.

I would hope there is some context akin to what you are saying. Because people "be havin' " personal relationships with Christ all throughout the Book of Mormon and Bible.

[TAO]

I would suggest to your friend to tell her that having a relationship with both God the Father and Christ I think would be the ideal =).

I spent about a year in confusion over this issue, over whether I should worship God the Father, or whether I should worship Christ... and I ended up discovering, we worship both! They are of one mind, and so it is possible; their commandments do not conflict because they are the same, though different individuals. It is important for us to have a personal relationship with both of these great people!

Hope that helps... yah, my answer is both =D. Ask her to pray about it, and she will understand the degrees of worship expected.

The important thing to remember about the Savior... is that he lead you to Father. And likewise with the Father to the Savior. The Father glorifies his name in the Savior, but also leads you to him =). And the Savior leads you to pray to the Father.

[Zakuska]

If i'm remembering right (and i may not be) this quote was in relation to a trend in Utah of church members holding special (secret?-i don't remember for sure) meetings and doing very specific things that were frowned upon where Christ was being put above God the Father.

Maybe i'm really mauling what was going on so hopefully someone can confirm or correct but that's what i remember about it.

It's funny. John seems to tell us that knowing Jesus' Father as the one True God is life eternal.

John 17:3

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

But Later he seems to change his stance on things in just the opposite way as Elder Faust seems to have done.

1 John 5:20

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

[mercyngrace]

Even If Consig is correct and Bruce R. McConkie did happen which made President Faust edit his talk and re give it, none of this points to anything foundation cracking.

I agree with you Zak. It's not foundation cracking in the least.

Would it surprise anyone to know that the general leadership of the church is still learning and progressing? Is their knowledge perfect in all things already? Of course not. I would think they learn from each other and from others all the time.

Which brings me full circle. If Pres. Faust altered his words in response to Elder McConkie's talk - or even due to personal revelation - the question is "WHY?".

I doubt the motive had anything to do with fear.

[mercyngrace]

Do the words of a 70 out way the words of a Second Counselor in the Presidency?

P.S. I don't "weigh" words based on a person's calling. If the Spirit confirms words from different sources are inspired and they seem to contradict, then my job is to increase my understanding until I can reconcile them.

[Zakuska]

P.S. I don't "weigh" words based on a person's calling. If the Spirit confirms words from different sources are inspired and they seem to contradict, then my job is to increase my understanding until I can reconcile them.

Neither do I. But in this particular case the words are coming from the same person and beings how he got a promotion and then revised his previous talk.... I think it plays to the Idea of precept on precept.

[mercyngrace]

Neither do I. But in this particular case the words are coming from the same person and beings how he got a promotion and then revised his previous talk.... I think it plays to the Idea of precept on precept.

We understand each other

[CV75]

If i'm remembering right (and i may not be) this quote was in relation to a trend in Utah of church members holding special (secret?-i don't remember for sure) meetings and doing very specific things that were frowned upon where Christ was being put above God the Father.

Maybe i'm really mauling what was going on so hopefully someone can confirm or correct but that's what i remember about it.

Yes, there was a fad in connection with George Pace's books that turned the idea of a personal relationship with Christ into a zealous hobby for many and Elder McConkie stepped in on that in the early 80's. I think a lot has been made of that by some; Pace's son eventually left the Church over it. In any case, Elder Faust's revised talk may have had something to do with needing to dampen an unhealthy (and in at least one case, deadly) fanatic focus on the Christ and encourage a broader attitude. There have been other statements clarifying the roles and our relationship with the members of the Godhead.

As far as changing the quote ("Savior" to "Deity") goes, Elder Faust is responsible for that; we don't know which one is the accurate citation (and maybe there were two statements or two missionaries, or two occasions where a wise missionary was present--we know the Q&A the general authorities give in missions and stakes and elsewhere all play out very similarly, with the same types of people saying the same types of things and the GAs responding with the same answers they gave before--and one said "Savior", one said "Deity"); maybe he carelessly employed paraphrasing surrounded by quotation marks, or did so deliberately to accommodate the refined message.

If dishonesty were the case, I think Elder Faust would admit he is a sinner, that we are all sinners, that the Lord calls sinners into callings and qualifies us or operates through us as a function of His grace in behalf of others, giving the servant opportunities to repent and receive His forgiveness--this is true of all of who have callings and yet sin in our own way according to the light we possess. Or if not sin, weakness or mistakes.

If we are to believe the story, how the friend can help the girl, who discovered these matters through her diligent preparation of a church talk, not to be stuck in or discouraged by her preliminary conclusions: present these responses, or better ideas from other posters, in a way that facilitates the Holy Ghost to lead her to an open attitude toward the limited facts at hand, and more importantly, an application of true principles a) on how to view our leaders; and b) on how to receive the teachings in the later talk.

[sunstoned]

As I recall, Elder McConkie's talk was somewhat controversial and was viewed by some as an attack on George Pace's book, What It Means to Know Christ. George W. Pace was professor at BYU at the time. I have never read Brother Pace

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pfft, a quibble that overlooks context.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The most logical answer to the change in the talk is that Elder Faust's 1976 talk was amended in 1999 in order to avoid his being deemed something other than a "true worshiper."

Thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

THat it, it has to be that. He was so worried that every one would think that he was not a "true worshipper" that he changed the talk, that or the church is really false and this proves it?

What would have made this better is if you had said" It is obvious what Elder Faust was thinking. He was thinking that he needed to edit his talk so people wouldn't think he was not a true worshipper."

[ELF1024]

Pfft, a quibble that overlooks context.

I have to agree with Jeff K. This is really a senseless concern.

Version 1: Recently in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked,

[frankenstein]

I have to agree with Jeff K. This is really a senseless concern.

if jeff had a point it would post more than a dismissive one liner, but rather some explanation.

Elf, I think your response better on your analysis of Savior v. Deity.

However, it could also be the concern is that "The Mormon Church is reusing talks and changing them, thus there is something wrong with the Mormon Church" (the preceeding sentence is the essence of a response this person received on website that is less than friendly to the LDS Church.)

Any little discrepancy can shake someone, flippant dismissive responses, which claim to know something but provide zero substance do not help those who may be truely seeking help.

[ELF1024]

I would that if jeff had a point he would post more than a dismissive one liner.

Elf, I think your response better on your analysis of Savior v. Deity.

However, it could also be the concern is that "The Mormon Church is reusing talks and changing them, thus there is something wrong with the Mormon Church" (the preceeding sentence is the essence of a response this person received on website that is less than friendly to the LDS Church.)

Any little discrepancy can shake someone, flippant dismissive responses, which claim to know something but provide zero substance do not help those who may be truely seeking help.

Would you rather just have them reuse the exact same talk, without revision? Or would you then just complain that they weren't coming up with anything new? (This would be my response to the website that is less than friendly to the LDS Church.)

People reuse material all the time. Just because something is old (like the Bible) doesn't mean it isn't correct. It also means a bit of spit and polish isn't going to hurt. The word change does not change the essencial meaning of the sentence.

I would say that the revising of the talk was along the same lines of updating bibical language from KJV to NIV (in those cases where the meaning hasn't been altered).