Are Mormons Christians?

[Hannah Rebekah]

I know it's so lame. Especially since God didn't give them the authority to define who is and who isn't "Christian".

MatthewG,

I don't think it's so lame...wouldn't that be extra Biblical...have they received revelation outside the 'sola scripta' that gives them this authority they think they have? Nope, nada...none!!!

[Tanyan]

By that do you mean that I came over to you to say hi after I noticed you there standing up front near the podium? I had asked you (jokingly) where the suit and tie was (or at least shirt and tie) as it what was most Mormon males in attendance were wearing. You did point out that you had a shirt with a picture of Jesus on your back in which you turned around to show me. I never have seen a Mormon do that until you (you claim to be Mormon, but you sound somewhat more Evangelical in the way you discuss things) .

The reason why I said that was because in the previous meetings I noticed that the way you were talking was more like EV's do, not the way Mormons usually talk in having discussions with Ev's. As an side I was saying that to illustrate that why not identify with the way Mormon culture minimally represents itself in its public image as it usually does in southern California.

No I mean that look that you have on your face as I watched walking around the LDS/EV Venue at Mariners Church.

And that intense look you gave me when you asked for my telephone # . I was watching Charlette also in action as well briefly . As to my way of attire I have had several LDS/non LDS give me compliments about my shirt. How is your Pistis ?. In His Debt/Grace, Tanya LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[LeSellers]

How is your Pistis ?

You can't ask that in polite company.

Lehi (who does know what "πίστις" means)

[Tanyan]

glennthigpen

It seems you are not aware of what the Mormon Church teaches, it teaches

• Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 2 "All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. ... The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ ... "
  

Mormons do not believe and teach what the Bible teaches. Joseph Smith taught "three Gods", see below

• Joseph Smith Teachings â??I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Godsâ?
  

Again you differ with what the Mormon Church teaches, it teaches

• Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 12 "Christ did his part to atone for our sins. To make his atonement fully effective ... we will keep his terms, which are to repent and keep his commandments ...we may return to live with our Heavenly Father."
  

Again you differ with what the Mormon Church teaches, it teaches

• Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 38 "Eternal Marriage Is Essential for Exaltation"
  
• -
  
• Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 47 "Exaltation is eternal life ..."
  

The Bible does not teach what the Mormon Church teaches about eternal life.

I mean that the Jesus taught by the Mormon Church is so different than the Jesus revealed in the Bible that a Mormon Baptism is not considered valid by the Catholic Church. The Jesus of Mormonism was born of heavenly parents, has a Father that has a body of flesh, and has a brother name Satan

The Jesus of Mormonism "is also a God", the Jesus of Mormonism is not "God". The Mormon Church teaches that Elohim and Jehovah are two separate Gods, see below:

• Mormon Bible Dictionary - God "When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God."
  

"It is God which worketh in you" (Phil 2:13) to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling", this is different that the words found in the Book of Mormon which reveal â??after all we can doâ?.

I do not believe what the Lord told Joseph Smith because the Christian Creeds are consistent with the Christian scriptures. Christians are disciples of Christ, the disciples of Christ continue in his word, Christians continue in "there is one God". Mormons continue in the words of Joseph Smith, who taught "three Gods.

More Motes/Beams/Casting Stones ? once again check your own back yard that many non LDS Christians are trying to get you to correct your beliefs - http://www.christianissues.biz/romancatholicism.html

In His Debt/Grace Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Tanyan]

You can't ask that in polite company.

Lehi (who does know what "πίστις" means)

.

[Hoops22]

More Motes/Beams/Casting Stones ? once again check your own back yard that many non LDS Christians are trying to get you to correct your beliefs - http://www.christianissues.biz/romancatholicism.html

In His Debt/Grace Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

Your website isn't any kinder to Mormons either. Can we trust both evaluations equally well?

[Hannah Rebekah]

glennthigpen said:

Absolutely wrong. The Bible teaches that Christ is the only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father and an earthly, mortal parent, Mary. That is what the LDS Church teaches. That Jesus is the Son of God.

Johnny responded:

It seems you are not aware of what the Mormon Church teaches, it teaches

* Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 2 "All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. ... The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ ... "

Johnny,

It seems you don't understand our teachings and are combining two separate teachings. So let me clarify for you the LDS beliefs as what you stated is a distortion.

Pre-Mortal Existence:

We were all spirit children of God the Eternal Father (El Elyon, the Most High God along with a Heavenly Mother known as Asherah in the Bible)

Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 2 "All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. ... The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ ... "

There Christ was the 'first' spirit born to our heavenly parents...before that he and all of us were intelligences and have always been.

Earth Life:

The Bible teaches and the LDS believe that Christ is the 'only Begotten Son' of our Heavenly Father and an earthly, mortal parent, Mary. That is what the LDS Church teaches. That Jesus is the Son of God.

Christ is the 'ONLY Begotten Son' of God on earth and he was never 'begotten' by the Holy Ghost even though from scripture we know that the Holy Ghost had a part in this event that is a mystery. There are no others on earth who have been 'begotten' by God...Christ only and he is mortal by his mother and Holy, Divine and Godly by his Father.

[Tanyan]

Your website isn't any kinder to Mormons either. Can we trust both evaluations equally well?

As if I was not already aware of that , however his anti LDS material I believe are copies of other anti LDS Material already out there. His Catholic material is his own research [perhaps from others as well] maybe.

No problem . In His Debt/Grace Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Billy]

Pre-Mortal Existence:

We were all spirit children of God the Eternal Father (El Elyon, the Most High God along with a Heavenly Mother known as Asherah in the Bible)

Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 2 "All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. ... The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ ... "

Do you believe that your Heavenly Mother conceives, gets pregnant, and delivers in the same way that earthly parents do?

Do you know why God the Father and Heavenly Mother who have physical bodies have spiritual children instead of physical children?

Heavenly Mother known as Asherah in the Bible

What is your favorite verse that talks about Heavenly Mother?

[ttribe]

Do you believe that your Heavenly Mother conceives, gets pregnant, and delivers in the same way that earthly parents do?

Do you know why God the Father and Heavenly Mother who have physical bodies have spiritual children instead of physical children?

What is your favorite verse that talks about Heavenly Mother?

Answer to both questions - don't know; don't care. Since neither issue has ANYTHING to do with my salvation, then it's just speculation.

Am I the only one who thinks Billy designs his questions to elicit responses which will end up as material on his own personal anti-LDS website or tract?

[Hoops22]

As if I was not already aware of that , however his anti LDS material I believe are copies of other anti LDS Material already out there. His Catholic material is his own research [perhaps from others as well] maybe.

No problem . In His Debt/Grace Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

So if his lds stuff is bogus, why should we believe his catholic stuff? Don't make no sense.

[Billy]

Am I the only one who thinks Billy designs his questions to elicit responses which will end up as material on his own personal anti-LDS website or tract?

Hey, you are no fun.

No I don't have a website. By the way, do you know how to set one up?

[ttribe]

Hey, you are no fun.

No I don't have a website. By the way, do you know how to set one up?

No...and I'm not sure I'd tell you if I did.

[Tanyan]

So if his lds stuff is bogus, why should we believe his catholic stuff? Don't make no sense.

His LDS "stuff" has been responded to he just is not aware I suppose . As to his Catholic "stuff" you would need to ask him. But what about his OSAS material ?. Some people are more adept at one group than another.

In His Debt/Grace Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you believe that your Heavenly Mother conceives, gets pregnant, and delivers in the same way that earthly parents do?

Do you know why God the Father and Heavenly Mother who have physical bodies have spiritual children instead of physical children?

What is your favorite verse that talks about Heavenly Mother?

Sure they have celestial sex, so I have heard from our anti mormon websites and such,

As to why they have spiritual children versus physcial children, I dont know that that dont have physical children, do you?

[why me]

Rommelator

Below is what ETWN, a Catholic TV station, wrote on the matter:

There are other differences that would cause one to say that Mormons are not Christians, they are Mormons. These truths are said not in condemnation, but simply stated as truth. All Christians, Mormons, Muslims, and all humanity are dependent upon the grace and mercy of God

I am often on the catholic apologetic site defending mormonism and battling against those who claim that mormons are not christian. Of course, it is a non-sensical argument since only christ himself can judge who is a christian and who is not. But for the catholics, mormons are not christian, at least for those hardlined catholics on the apologetic site.

But of course, mormons are christians and quite often they make better christians than the catholics and the protestants. But to give the lds church a christian title would create a threat for the more mainstream christian sects and so, mormons will never be christians for these faiths.

[why me]

What is a christian? To my understanding the word christian did not exist in the new testament. Rather the followers of christ were called something else. And those involved as a group were termed as follwers of not christianity but of something totally different by name.

It was the church of men and women who determined just who can and cannot be called a christian. I say: let christ decide just who is a christian and it seems that mormons would make the grade.

[Glenn101]

I am often on the catholic apologetic site defending mormonism and battling against those who claim that mormons are not christian. Of course, it is a non-sensical argument since only christ himself can judge who is a christian and who is not. But for the catholics, mormons are not christian, at least for those hardlined catholics on the apologetic site.

But of course, mormons are christians and quite often they make better christians than the catholics and the protestants. But to give the lds church a christian title would create a threat for the more mainstream christian sects and so, mormons will never be christians for these faiths.

Actually I do not really care a whit whether an evangelical or a Catholic or any other sectarian thinks that LDS are Christians or not. As you pointed out, only Christ is qualified and has the right to make that judgment. The term was applied in the New Testament to those who professed to believe in Christ and in the Book of Mormon. This term was adopted by those people because it set them apart from the other extant religions of the time.

God told the children of Israel that they would be a peculiar treasure to to him "if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant" (Exodus 19:5). The religious beliefs and practices of the children of Israel were strikingly different from those of the nations surrounding them. It was the desire of the children of Israel to be like their neighbors in religious beliefs and practices as well as governmental form that led to their downfall.

Paul in his epistle to Titus (2:14) and Peter in his first general epistle to the church (1 Peter 2:9) noted that the covenant was upon the members of Christ's church and were a peculiar people to the Lord. They were peculiar because their religion and religious practices were very different from those of the other religions of the time, including those of Judaism.

Over the centuries the Christian beliefs have evolved and as they evolved, schisms arose causing a splintering of what was one denomination, the Church of Christ, into roughly 39000 different Christian denominations. They do not all believe the same things about God the Father,, the Christ, and the Holy Ghost, but they are pretty much dogmatically united in the belief that the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are not Christian. And it is doubtful that they will ever willingly recognize our Christianity. But that is really their problem and not ours.

The debates are interesting but will never change many minds. It was not too many years ago, relatively speaking, that each of the main mainstream denominations felt that the other denominations were so far off base that all the others were doomed to hell. Methodists thought that only Methodists would go to heaven, the Baptists thought that only Baptists would go to heaven, etc. Over the years there has been a great accommodation among those sects in which they have mostly agreed, at least publicly, that the denomination doesn't matter, it is the belief in Christ that matters.

I would rather that the LDS remain a "peculiar people" to the world, but especially to God. If we struggle mightily to be included into the "Christian club" we may cease to stand out and be that peculiar people.

Glenn

[coolrok7]

I initially responded (post #75) to Dr. Petersons comment to me (post #74). You commented (post # 76):

(ttribe @ Aug 29 2008, 09:33 AM)

It seems I most often hear that in order to be Christian, I must have a personal relationship with Christ. Well, I have that, and I believe that His Atonement is the only means by which I can enter God's Kingdom. As a consequence, I believe I am a Christian. What matters is that I have that relationship and it is beyond presumptuous for any human being to say that I am not a Christian based on his or her interpretation of scripture coupled with the fact that I am a member of a church which espouses doctrines they find objectionable - they simply have no such right. I am a Christian, and aside from Christ Himself, I am the only person who gets to make that determination.

I responded (post # 80 Aug 29 2008, 11:05 AM ):

Having a "personal relationship" is not a Biblical phrase of course but I think can be justifiably derived from Scripture, "in other words". Bruce R. McConkie, a past Mormon apostle, did't agree and opposed the use of the term. A verse where this relationship I believe exists is the following:

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)" . . .

You responded:

Aug 29 2008, 11:26 AM

So, if I read all of this correctly, you went through all of this to tell me that you are more qualified to determine whether I am a Christian than I am. Again, presumptuous.

In (post # 80) I wanted to include these quotes of Elder McConkie, which speaks directly to the comment you made concerning "a personal relationship with Christ" but didn't have them at the time- found them after I posted. They're from an article entitled, 'What is our relationship to members of the Godhead?' in the Deseret News concerning a BYU Devotional he spoke at on March 2, 1982:

Devotion to the Father should be uppermost in all minds

I shall speak of our relationship with the Lord and of the true fellowship all saints should have with the Father. I shall set forth what we must believe relative to the Father and the Son in order to gain eternal life. I shall expound the doctrine of the Church relative to what our relationship should be to all the members of the Godhead, . . .It is no secret that many false and vain and foolish things are being taught in the sectarian world and even among us about our need to gain a special relationship with the Lord Jesus. . . .There is no salvation in believing any false doctrine, particularly a false or unwise view about the Godhead or any of its members. . . .I am well aware that some who have prayed for endless hours feel they have a special and personal relationship with Christ that they never had before. I wonder if this is any or much different however, from the feelings of fanatical sectarians who with glassy eyes and fiery tongues assure us that they have been saved by grace. . .I wonder if it is not part of Luciferâ??s system to make people feel they are special friends of Jesus when in fact they are not following the normal and usual pattern of worship found in the true Church. (Deseret News, Church News section, Page 5, March 20, 1982)

I wasn't making a direct comment of your relationship to God in the sense of having salvation. I had already stated:

You have the right to believe as you see fit but also the responsibility to believe the "truth". I have always stated that Mormons can be Christian in some of what they believe. The specifics of what makes "Mormonisn" "Mormon" through Joseph Smith is what I would say is not "Christian". To each is the choice of whom/what to believe.

[ttribe]

I initially responded (post #75) to Dr. Petersons comment to me (post #74). You commented (post # 76):

I responded (post # 80 Aug 29 2008, 11:05 AM ):

You responded:

In (post # 80) I wanted to include these quotes of Elder McConkie, which speaks directly to the comment you made concerning "a personal relationship with Christ" but didn't have them at the time- found them after I posted. They're from an article entitled, 'What is our relationship to members of the Godhead?' in the Deseret News concerning a BYU Devotional he spoke at on March 2, 1982:

I wasn't making a direct comment of your relationship to God in the sense of having salvation. I had already stated:

Give it a rest coolrok; grabbing quotes from General Authorities and Joseph Smith in attempt to demonstrate a lack of Christianity in Mormonism isn't going anywhere, nor does it bear on whether I believe I am a Christian. However, it does speak volumes about whether you believe I have the right to so call myself - and that's my real point.

[Pahoran]

In (post # 80) I wanted to include these quotes of Elder McConkie, which speaks directly to the comment you made concerning "a personal relationship with Christ" but didn't have them at the time- found them after I posted. They're from an article entitled, 'What is our relationship to members of the Godhead?' in the Deseret News concerning a BYU Devotional he spoke at on March 2, 1982:

Devotion to the Father should be uppermost in all minds

I shall speak of our relationship with the Lord and of the true fellowship all saints should have with the Father. I shall set forth what we must believe relative to the Father and the Son in order to gain eternal life. I shall expound the doctrine of the Church relative to what our relationship should be to all the members of the Godhead, . . .It is no secret that many false and vain and foolish things are being taught in the sectarian world and even among us about our need to gain a special relationship with the Lord Jesus. . . .There is no salvation in believing any false doctrine, particularly a false or unwise view about the Godhead or any of its members. . . .I am well aware that some who have prayed for endless hours feel they have a special and personal relationship with Christ that they never had before. I wonder if this is any or much different however, from the feelings of fanatical sectarians who with glassy eyes and fiery tongues assure us that they have been saved by grace. . .I wonder if it is not part of Luciferâ??s system to make people feel they are special friends of Jesus when in fact they are not following the normal and usual pattern of worship found in the true Church. (Deseret News, Church News section, Page 5, March 20, 1982)

Thank you, Coolrok.

Now let me ask you: where in all that does Elder McConkie say there is no such thing as a relationship with Christ?

You and your fellow anti-Mormons really need to lose the arrogant presumption by which you arrogantly presume to tell us(!) what our(!) leaders have taught, and what their(!) teachings are supposed to mean to us!

Elder McConkie was doing what apostles are supposed to do, and what Paul--another of our leaders--was doing in a lot of his letters: directly addressing a false idea that was popular in a particular area of the Church at the time.

It is utterly and palpably false, and completely absurd, to assert that the author of the beloved hymn I believe in Christ was opposed to anyone seeking to have a personal relationship with Christ. That is a fact--something you have little time for, of course--but it remains nonetheless.

Elder McConkie was teaching against the idea that anyone can have a relationship with Christ that excludes or eclipses the Father. That is it, and that is all of it.

So now that you know this, may we expect that you will cease and desist from misrepresenting and manipulating his words in the future?

Regards,

Pahoran

[ed2276]

I initially responded (post #75) to Dr. Petersons comment to me (post #74). You commented (post # 76):

I responded (post # 80 Aug 29 2008, 11:05 AM ):

You responded:

In (post # 80) I wanted to include these quotes of Elder McConkie, which speaks directly to the comment you made concerning "a personal relationship with Christ" but didn't have them at the time- found them after I posted. They're from an article entitled, 'What is our relationship to members of the Godhead?' in the Deseret News concerning a BYU Devotional he spoke at on March 2, 1982:

Devotion to the Father should be uppermost in all minds

I shall speak of our relationship with the Lord and of the true fellowship all saints should have with the Father. I shall set forth what we must believe relative to the Father and the Son in order to gain eternal life. I shall expound the doctrine of the Church relative to what our relationship should be to all the members of the Godhead, . . .It is no secret that many false and vain and foolish things are being taught in the sectarian world and even among us about our need to gain a special relationship with the Lord Jesus. . . .There is no salvation in believing any false doctrine, particularly a false or unwise view about the Godhead or any of its members. . . .I am well aware that some who have prayed for endless hours feel they have a special and personal relationship with Christ that they never had before. I wonder if this is any or much different however, from the feelings of fanatical sectarians who with glassy eyes and fiery tongues assure us that they have been saved by grace. . .I wonder if it is not part of Luciferâ??s system to make people feel they are special friends of Jesus when in fact they are not following the normal and usual pattern of worship found in the true Church. (Deseret News, Church News section, Page 5, March 20, 1982)

Of course, your characteristic Tannerism goes on. Why did you fail to include the details of what he was getting at? Why did you fail to cover the context of the speech, as it related to George Pace? Why did you fail to put it into context with George Pace's apology letter?

Here are more of his remarks from the talk you quoted above, which you FAILED to include:

"our relationship with the Father is supreme, paramount and pre-eminent over all others. He is the God we worship. It is His gospel that saves and exalts. ... He is the one to whom we have direct access by prayer, and if there were some needâ??which there is notâ??to single out one member of the Godhead for a special relationship, the Father, not the Son, would be the one to choose."

And again, if it were properâ??and I repeat, it is notâ??to single out one member of the Godhead for some special attention, we might well conclude [that] that member should be the Holy Ghost. We might well adopt as a slogan: Seek the Spirit. The reason, of course, is that the sanctifying power of the Spirit would assure us of reconciliation with the Father. And any person who enjoys the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit will be in complete harmony with the divine in all things.

excessive zeal that causes them to go beyond the mark. ... In an effort to be truer than true they devote themselves to gaining a special, personal relationship with Christ that is both improper and perilous.

I say perilous because this course, particularly in the lives of some who are spiritually immature is a gospel hobby that creates an unwholesome holier-than-thou attitude. In other instances it leads to despondence because the seeker after perfection knows he is not living the way he supposes he should.

Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed. In this connection, a current and unwise book, which advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus, contains this sentenceâ??"Because the Savior is our mediator, our prayers go through Christ to the Father, and the Father answers our prayers through His Son."

This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father, and to Him only. They do not go through Christ, or the Blessed Virgin, or St. Genevieve or along the beads of a rosary. ... Perfect prayer is addressed to the Father, in the name of the Son; it is uttered by the power of the Holy Ghost; and it is answered in whatever way seems proper by Him whose ear is attuned to the needs of His children.

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 school house. But I am not. There is a fine line here over which true worshippers will not step.

It is true that there may, with propriety, be a special relationships with a wife, with children, with friends, with teachers, with the beasts of the fields and the fowls of the sky and the lilies of the valley. But the very moment anyone singles out one member of the Godhead as the almost sole recipient of his devotion, to the exclusion of the others, that is the moment when spiritual instability begins to replace sense and reason.

... Clearly there is a difference between a personal and intimate relationship with the Lord, which is improper, and one of worshipful adoration, that yet maintains the required reserve between us and Him who has bought us with His blood.

Now I sincerely hope no one will imagine that I have in the slightest degree downgraded the Lord Jesus in the scheme of things. I have not done so. As far as I know there is not a man on earth who thinks more highly of Him than I do. ... but you have been warned, and you have heard the true doctrine taught.

Here is George Pace's apology letter:

At the BYU devotional of March 2, 1982, Elder Bruce R. McConkie spoke about our proper relationship with the Father and the Son and expressed concern about some misinterpretations which are abroad. In the course of his remarks he characterized my book, What It Means to Know Christ, as unwise because it "advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus." I sincerely desire to be in total harmony with the Churchâ??s teachings and take this means to correct a statement in the book and to clarify what is said there about our proper relationship with the Savior.

In the book I stress the importance of knowing Christ. If that has given the impression that I give some precedence to the Son over the Father, I am sorry. Christ himself taught us to worship and pray to the Father. We have faith in Christ, but we do not pray to him, and we recognize that what he has done he has done under the direction of the Father, to whom both he and we pay allegiance. In our reverence for the Son we acknowledge that his great atoning sacrifice was for the purpose of reconciling us with the Father. On page 29 of my book I stated that our prayers go through Christ to the Father. That is incorrect doctrine. That Christ is our mediator does not mean that we speak to the Father through him; our prayers go directly to the Father.

My urging that we develop a relationship with Christ is not intended to suggest that we thereby deemphasize the Father or the Holy Ghost. I might better have urged that we develop a relationship with all the members of the Godhead, because I have not meant to urge any divisive distinction among them. I only mean to emphasize that we need to live more spiritual lives, drawing close to them all. Sometimes we can become so busily engaged in the mechanics of Church work that we fail to develop our spiritual powers. Christ is our example; we should follow him and seek to become like him. Though we should be respectful and avoid an effort at inappropriate familiarity, we need to draw closer to Christ and the Father than we have.

Elder McConkie warned against excess and noted that it is possible to pray too much and demand too much of God. People who follow this road may consider themselves holier than others or may become despondent because their extravagant expectations for themselves are disappointed. If my teaching the importance of a more intense prayer life than most of us engage in has led people to excess, I regret that. The example of Enos and the statements of many Church leaders remind us that there are times, especially when we are struggling for a testimony or for forgiveness, for extended prayer, but praying is not a substitute for living the gospel and should not become an end in itself.

I mean to stay in the mainstream of the Church, urging any with whom I have influence to listen to the words of our leaders, to pray earnestly for guidance, and to grow spiritually in our capacity to be obedient to the will and mind of God for us, giving full and appropriate reverence to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

George W. Pace

That is the sum-and-substance of the matter. McConkie was not saying that we are to not have personal relationship with the Saviour at all. He was saying we are not to have a relationship which places Christ in an exclusive club apart from the other members of the Godhead; nor are we to have a relationship with Christ that is over-familiar with Him, as with our best buddy, that which is zealous but irreverant. This is the type of "sectarian non-sense" of which he spoke.

And your twisting of his words is the type of sectarian non-sense that I deplore.

[Tanyan]

coolrok7 Do you now "Get It "/Understand ?. Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.