64 replies to this topic

[Nominee]

mercyngrace, on 28 November 2011 - 10:57 AM, said:

We don't pray to Christ but we most certainly should have an intimate relationship with Him.

Precisely. We do not pray to Christ, we do not worship Christ. We love him dearly, respect him greatly, know him intimately and thank him endlessly. I think that McCronkie, Pace & Faust are all in agreement. In reading McCronkie's "notorious rebuke" I felt that he simply misunderstood what Pace was saying an let his emotions get away from him. He showed us his humanity and imperfection. You said somewhere earlier in this thread (maybe this thread, maybe another) something about how McCronkie could have been better about it by first approaching Pace in which case the misunderstanding would have most likely been cleared up. I concur.

[altersteve]

Nominee, on 28 November 2011 - 11:16 AM, said:

We do not pray to Christ, we do not worship Christ.

Really? I do:

Gordon B. Hinckley said:

We believe in Christ. We worship Christ. We take upon ourselves in solemn covenant His holy name. The Church to which we belong carries His name. He is our Lord, our Savior, our Redeemer through whom came the great Atonement with salvation and eternal life.

Like President Hinckley, I worship the Lord Jesus Christ. I love Him and I have a personal relationship with Him. He is my Savior, and He is also my Father in almost every way God the Father is.

They are one.

Edited by altersteve, 28 November 2011 - 02:49 PM.

[Sargon]

I know a lot has already been said and that I'm late to the conversation, but I want to add my two cents here.

This is one of those areas where I have "holy envy" for our Evangelical friends' passion for Christ. I think that expressing one's status before God and Christ as a "personal relationship" is not only fitting but desirable. Our scriptures in several places describe various individuals as being the "friend(s)" of God. To me, exaltation (theosis) is nothing more nor less than becoming a close friend to God and thus sharing in the fulness of his glory.

I have absolutely no qualms, as a faithful Latter-day Saint, saying that I worship Jesus Christ. I don't find it the least bit blasphemous and I am greatly puzzled by the LDS majority that is hesitant to see things that way. Jesus Christ is our God, as expressed numerous times throughout the Book of Mormon and D&C, and if we don't worship our God I don't know what we are doing with him.

[Sargon]

This also seems like an appropriate place to make a comment about our tendency to refer to Christ as our "elder brother". This phrase usually, though not explicitly, assumes a literal "spiritual offspring" model for our relationship to God and to each other. This is surely the most widespread view among North American Mormons (I can't confidently comment on the rest of the LDS world). There are other models that are viable.

At any rate, referring to Jesus Christ as our "elder brother" is perhaps the closest thing we've got to expressing our love for Christ as a "personal relationship." The phrase "elder brother" in reference to Christ signifies a closeness and love that is found in an immediate family. We can all appreciate the tender relationship that exists in a proper brother/sister brother/brother relationship. It is personal. It certainly is not a vision of Christ as a cosmic creator too busy and important to dedicate time and effort to a personal relationship with us, his "younger siblings".

And it is this implied personalization of Christ that introduces tension into the way we think about Christ. On the one hand we do in fact have a cosmic creator, a warrior God marching against evil and dishing out justice, and on the other hand we have a very personal and intimate "elder brother" who is willing and wanting to go out of his way to make "the one" feel loved. He leaves the 99 to go after the lost 1 (an interesting twist on the Occupy Wall Street movement!).

I personally cringe just a little when I hear Christ referred to as our "elder brother". After all, Satan (and many other cruel and evil people) is also our "elder brother". It is a technicality that threatens to blur the important distinctions that exist between Christ, Satan, and us. It is this exact technicality that our critics exploit when they assail us for believing that Jesus and Satan are brothers. We should give a mental nod to the technical fact that yes, Jesus, Satan, and all men are siblings, but perhaps we should not let that be the defining parameter for how we approach Christ or Satan. After all, we don't reverence Jesus just because he is our elder brother. It just happens to be so, and is not grounds for holding him in high esteem. Many older brothers can be unworthy of our devotion.

Let us instead approach Christ through a different set of parameters: his qualities and achievements. He is our Creator, Redeemer, Shepherd, Rock, Advocate, and Savior. We devote ourselves to him because of the things he has done for us and the love he has shown for us; not because he is our elder brother.

You may be wondering how these comments square with my previous comments (my last post) about desiring a "personal relationship" with Christ. I think it is desirable to have a personal relationship with Christ, but not one based solely on the fact that he is our elder brother. That is merely a tangential coincidence. It is not why we want a relationship with him, or to be his "friends" (as the scriptures say). We want a personal relationship with Christ because he is our Savior.

[LeSellers]

Sargon, on 28 November 2011 - 03:26 PM, said:

Satan (and many other cruel and evil people) is also our "elder brother".

I do not recall ever reading anything about others among those who who born spiritually prior to me (and, presumably, you) being cruel and evil. I'll have to request that you reference this. (That's a formal CFR, if you please.)

In fact, I cannot recall anyplace where we read that Satan is older than any of the rest of us. The Doctrine and Covenants does say that Lucifer was an "authority in the presence of God", but that's not the same thing at all.

Doc&Cov 76:25~26 said:

25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son, 26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.

There is no doctrinally secure place that I remember as saying that Satan or anyone else is our elder brother except Jesus.

Lehi

[Nominee]

I'm with McCronkie on this one. I pray to my Heavenly Father in the name of Christ. I do not pray to Christ. Father is my father, my God; and Jesus is my brother,my Lord, my King, etc. I worship God the Father and I believe in His son, Jesus the Christ. I love them both with all of my heart. However, I can always stand to learn more and have a greater understanding.

Edited by Nominee, 28 November 2011 - 06:53 PM.

[altersteve]

Nominee, on 28 November 2011 - 06:50 PM, said:

I'm with McCronkie on this one. I pray to my Heavenly Father in the name of Christ. I do not pray to Christ. Father is my father, my God; and Jesus is my brother,my Lord, my King, etc. I worship God the Father and I believe in His son, Jesus the Christ. I love them both with all of my heart. However, I can always stand to learn more and have a greater understanding.

You can worship Jesus Christ without praying to Him. And Heavenly Father is also my God, but so is Jesus Christ.

[DaddyG]

I always took the admonition that we don't have "personal relationships" with Christ as a rebuke of a casual attitude towards worshipping Christ. Not that our relationships aren't spiritually intimate and respectful but that they aren't too casual or disrespectful of God.

If our relationship is proper and respectful no amount of closeness to God is inappropriate. In fact we are encouraged to be close to God through faith, worship and obedience to the commandments.

[Ron Beron]

Mudcat, on 28 November 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

I think there is a great deal of consistency amongst Trinitarian theologians, of the view that they are of the same substance. Personally, I see holding to such a notion as difficult given that the same folks lend the word "immaterial" to God's nature, which seems to make this view a bit problematic. I think we often times create more issues than we resolve when we try to define something that is beyond our comprehension.

I don't have a clear answer for you though Ron. I know the Scriptures point towards the three being one, so this is what I accept. I don't pretend to know exactly how that all works and I am very thankful that the same Scriptures note that this is a bit of a mystery to us.

Thanks for your honesty, Mudcat, but I have trouble seeing a trinitarian notion in the scriptures. Surprisingly, Neoplatonism seems to have originated the concept of the trinity which may or may not be based on something much older. Frankly, like the German poet, Rilke, I tend to not worry about the answers, but have learned to love the questions themselves.

[Ron Beron]

altersteve, on 28 November 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

Really? I do:


Like President Hinckley, I worship the Lord Jesus Christ. I love Him and I have a personal relationship with Him. He is my Savior, and He is also my Father in almost every way God the Father is.

They are one.

In the D&C 59:5 it states, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy might, mind, and strength; and in the name of Jesus Christ thou shalt serve him.‘

An interesting discussion on this can be found here... http://mormonmatters...-worship-jesus/

[altersteve]

Ron Beron, on 28 November 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

In the D&C 59:5 it states, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy might, mind, and strength; and in the name of Jesus Christ thou shalt serve him.‘

An interesting discussion on this can be found here... http://mormonmatters...-worship-jesus/

I don't believe that verse is in any way contradictory to what I said.

[Storm Rider]

altersteve, on 27 November 2011 - 08:22 AM, said:

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I think it's extremely important that we have a testimony of Him. I don't see why having a testimony of and relationship with Christ is such a problem. I think that to see it as a problem is, actually, a problem itself.

It is not that I do not have a testimony of Jesus Christ; quite the contrary. However, my primary relationship has always been with the Father. I just thought it was strange that I was being asked to bear testimony of the Son and not the Father. Does that make sense?

[altersteve]

Storm Rider, on 28 November 2011 - 11:07 PM, said:

It is not that I do not have a testimony of Jesus Christ; quite the contrary. However, my primary relationship has always been with the Father. I just thought it was strange that I was being asked to bear testimony of the Son and not the Father. Does that make sense?

Yeah, it does. I guess it's just that since Jesus Christ is the focus of the Church, our testimonies focus on Him as well. Of course, if it is focused on Him, then it is focused on Heavenly Father as well. Everything in the Church points to the Son, and the Son points to the Father.

I get what you're saying, though.

[Ron Beron]

altersteve, on 28 November 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:

I don't believe that verse is in any way contradictory to what I said.

It wasn't meant to be Steve, simply an addition to it. Obviously, this topic is one that involves a lot of semantics and how we seek a fellowship with Jesus. Some see it as personal while others see it in a more austere manner. There is probably room for all. We just need to keep our mind on the heart of the issue.

[Sargon]

LeSellers, on 28 November 2011 - 06:40 PM, said:

I do not recall ever reading anything about others among those who who born spiritually prior to me (and, presumably, you) being cruel and evil. I'll have to request that you reference this. (That's a formal CFR, if you please.)

In fact, I cannot recall anyplace where we read that Satan is older than any of the rest of us. The Doctrine and Covenants does say that Lucifer was an "authority in the presence of God", but that's not the same thing at all.

There is no doctrinally secure place that I remember as saying that Satan or anyone else is our elder brother except Jesus.

Lehi

Well, unless Satan was the very last "spirit child" of God he is someone's "elder brother". Furthermore, regarding the one-third host who was cast out it stands to reason that statistically they would be a good mix of older and younger. But, I think your nitpickiness misses the point, or at least doesn't acknowledge the point, that the mere fact that someone is our "elder brother" isn't grounds to devote our hearts to him.

I also have personal reservations about the assumption that all of God's spirit children were "born", and that if they were that they were born one after another in chronological order.

[altersteve]

Ron Beron, on 29 November 2011 - 08:57 AM, said:

It wasn't meant to be Steve, simply an addition to it. Obviously, this topic is one that involves a lot of semantics and how we seek a fellowship with Jesus. Some see it as personal while others see it in a more austere manner. There is probably room for all. We just need to keep our mind on the heart of the issue.

Oh, sorry. My bad, haha.

I agree with you.

[LeSellers]

Sargon, on 29 November 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

Well, unless Satan was the very last "spirit child" of God he is someone's "elder brother".

A point I do not contest. However, he was not "our elder brother" even though he may have been yours or mine.

Sargon said:

Furthermore, regarding the one-third host who was cast out it stands to reason that statistically they would be a good mix of older and younger.

You raise two points here. The second, that there was nearly certainly a mix of older and younger (assuming "time" meant anything in premortality, not a given) I will not counter.

However, as I have pointed out many times here (even though you may not have seen it), the scriptures never say that ⅓ of the host of heaven followed Satan. They say, ambiguously I admit and allow for, that "the third part" did so. Just as in English, the Greek may be understood in any of several ways, not least of which is that there were (at least) three "parts", and only the third fell with their preferred master, Lucifer.

Sargon said:

But, I think your nitpickiness misses the point, or at least doesn't acknowledge the point, that the mere fact that someone is our "elder brother" isn't grounds to devote our hearts to him.

I did not miss the point—you are right, though, in that I did not address it.

If that Elder Brother is the Heir of God, then His being the Elder Brother is, indeed, reason to worship Him. We do not know why Jesus was "born" first among our Parents' children, but whatever that reason was, His "birth" entitled Him to the heirship, providing He did not fail to receive it. He did not. He was the most obedient, the most intelligent, the most righteous of all of us. (The other extreme, was the least obedient, the least intelligent, the least righteous was Lucifer. Whatever title he may have been "in line" for, he lost by virtue of his rebellion.)

Sargon said:

I also have personal reservations about the assumption that all of God's spirit children were "born", and that if they were that they were born one after another in chronological order.

We do not have a complete understanding of how God organizes His spirit children, but we have great reason to believe that He and Mother are jointly involved. It is, after all, only in the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage that a couple is exalted, and wherein they receive "eternal lives". Without that covenant, they can have no increase.

I reject a parallel to physical birth for a variety of reasons. However, it seems clear that Both are involved, and whatever that mechanism is, it is of sufficient intimacy with us that They merit the titles of "Father" and "Mother".

As for "chronology", we must assume that "First Born (of all Creation)" has some logical meaning that we can discover in the words of this title. "First" implies, nay, demands, "second", or, at least, "subsequent".

Lehi

[altersteve]

Sargon, on 29 November 2011 - 10:55 PM, said:

Well, unless Satan was the very last "spirit child" of God he is someone's "elder brother". Furthermore, regarding the one-third host who was cast out it stands to reason that statistically they would be a good mix of older and younger. But, I think your nitpickiness misses the point, or at least doesn't acknowledge the point, that the mere fact that someone is our "elder brother" isn't grounds to devote our hearts to him.

I also have personal reservations about the assumption that all of God's spirit children were "born", and that if they were that they were born one after another in chronological order.

Lucifer was our spirit brother in the premortal life, but not anymore. He and his followers are no longer members of God's family. That's the way I see it, at least. Satan is no brother of mine.

[LeSellers]

altersteve, on 30 November 2011 - 08:13 AM, said:

Lucifer was our spirit brother in the premortal life, but not anymore. He and his followers are no longer members of God's family. That's the way I see it, at least. Satan is no brother of mine.

A point I have tried to make many times over the decades.

Satan divorced himself from Father's family, and is no longer a brother in any meaningful sense.

Alas! it doesn't seem too many people have grasped this, especially those who attack us with the "fact" of Lucifer's supposed brotherhood with Christ. .

Lehi

[katherine the great]

There seem to be a variety of opinions on this topic. I was at BYU when Elder McConkie basically blasted Brother Pace for teaching that we can have a "personal relationship" with the Savior. I thought it was ridiculous then and I think it's ridiculous now. Jesus Christ died for us--each of us. What could possibly be more personal than that? I think it boils down to how we interpret the saying.