Personal Relationship?

[altersteve]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.)

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]

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]

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.

[Ron Beron]

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.

While on the face of it it does seem to be ridiculous, but there has to be something deeper in the thought pattern of those GA's commenting on it. As for me, there is a relationship that I would consider personal because, after all how personal is salvation anyway. I think that Elder McConkie was probably deriding the flippancy of some in addressing this relationship. I am reminded of those who asked when I was young, "Have you found Jesus?" I always wanted to ask, "Why? Is he lost?"

[KevinG]

I also think Elder McConkie was reacting to the less than reverant "Jesus movement" that advocated having the Savior as a personal pal. I am just as uncomfortable with the heavy metal t-shirts graphically portraying Christ bleeding on the cross, or pop music services intended to attrach a more casual audience to worship. In the end it is a delicate balance keeping respectful tradition, worshipping in a way God instructs and not causing offense that would drive others away.

For you Ron:

[katherine the great]

, "Have you found Jesus?" I always wanted to ask, "Why? Is he lost?"

I like that!

[Ron Beron]

I also think Elder McConkie was reacting to the less than reverant "Jesus movement" that advocated having the Savior as a personal pal. I am just as uncomfortable with the heavy metal t-shirts graphically portraying Christ bleeding on the cross, or pop music services intended to attrach a more casual audience to worship. In the end it is a delicate balance keeping respectful tradition, worshipping in a way God instructs and not causing offense that would drive others away.

For you Ron:

Very good...thanks.

[followerofemmanuel]

I have been bothered by the insistence of some EV's that we can have a personal relationship with Jesus. The scriptures state that we should have a fellowship with God and Jesus, but an relationship? It seems, at least to me, that this falls within blasphemy since it would be impossible for us to comprehend the nature and personality of Jesus and secondly, because we would need to have relationship not specifically to the son, but to our Father. In I Cor. 2:14 Paul states that, "The unbeliever(or natural man) does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." There are two assumptions that have to be made here. One, that we have the spiritual "necessities" to understand Jesus or God. And, two, should we seek after a personal relationship with Jesus when He tells us that we need to give all glory to the Father?

Bruce R. McConkie touched on this a few years back when he wrote in Sunstone 6:6/59 (Nov 81)

So, what exactly is our relationship with the son. My personal belief is that he is our mediator with the Father, but I seek a fellowship or at-one-ment with the Father based on the strength of the spirit and faith within me.

What is the opinion out there? I'd be interested in knowing how all feel about this.

I think that having a personal relationship with God begins when we realize and remember our need for Him, acknowledging our sin and depravity, and our hope and faith in our savior. Heavenly Father desired to have relationship with us before Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis 3 Adam and Eve walked with God in the garden and talked directly to Him. We know that their sin caused us to need a savior. Heavenly Father again demonstrates his desire to be in relationship through Jesus death on the cross and his atonement for our sins.

For me understanding that I have a relationship with our saviour means helps me to set my priorities, guides my decisions, inspires me to try and live my life in away that would please him, causes me to remember to spend time with him through prayer and through learning about him in scripture. As with all relationships we need to be intentional otherwise distance can set in and you can loose priorities. I aggree that we should be irreverrant in any way but balancing that thought, he is not distance and has shown that he desires to dwell with us. Psalm 139. Well anyway, thats my humble contribution. Great discussion!