Should Mormons Have A Personal Relationship With Jesus?

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

In regards to Pres. Faust's 76 and 99 articles, there is the addition of a reference to Christ and a removal of a quote by Spencer w. Kimball that doesn't refer to Christ, plus the removal of the intro that had nothing to do with the actual talk and the alteration at the end to reflect time passing (in the original he refers to his new calling).

I don't any removal of content referring to a personal relationship.  Perhaps you can point out where you think this is occurring.

In addition to the Spencer W. Kimball quote and the part about his new calling, here are the five main changes I see between the two versions of Elder Faust's talk:

1. Elder Faust (1976) told a personal story.

Recently in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked, “What is the greatest need in the world?” One wisely responded: “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with the Savior?”

But the 1999 version changed the wording:

Some time ago in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked, “What is the greatest need in the world?” One wisely responded, “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with Deity?”

2. Elder Faust (1976) said this:

May I suggest five beginning, essential measures which will greatly clear the channel for a daily flow of “living water” from the very source of the spring, even the Redeemer Himself.

But the 1999 version changed the wording, omitting the final clause:

May I suggest five beginning, essential measures that will greatly clear the channel for a daily flow of “living water” from the very source of the spring (see John 4:7–15).

3. Elder  Faust (1976) said this:

There is a great humility and timidity in my soul as I presume to speak about coming to a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world and the Son of God.

The 1999 version changed the wording:

There is great humility and timidity in my soul as I presume to discuss coming to a personal knowledge of God, the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world and the Son of God.   

4. Elder Faust (1976) said this:

A fervent, sincere prayer is a two-way communication which will do much to bring His Spirit flowing like healing water to help with the trials, hardships, aches, and pains we all face. What is the quality of our secret prayers when only He listens? As we pray, we should think of Him as being close by, full of knowledge, understanding, love, and compassion, the essence of power, and as having great expectations of each of us.

The 1999 version changed the wording, where in context the original suggested “His Spirit” was “Christ’s Spirit,” and “we should think of Him” meant “we should think of Jesus”:

A fervent, sincere prayer is a two-way communication that will do much to bring the Spirit flowing like healing water to help with the trials, hardships, aches, and pains we all face. What is the quality of our secret prayers? As we pray, we should think of our Heavenly Father as being close by; full of knowledge, understanding, love, and compassion; the essence of power; and having great expectations of each of us.

5. Elder Faust (1976) said this:

My witness is that we will be called upon to prove our spiritual stamina, for the days ahead will be filled with affliction and difficulty.  But with the assuring comfort of a personal relationship with the Savior, we will be given a calming courage.

The 1999 version changed the wording:

My witness is that we will be called upon to prove our spiritual stamina, for the days ahead will be filled with affliction and difficulty. But with the assuring comfort of a personal relationship with God, we will be given a calming courage.

 

As a final observation, nowhere does The Ensign reference that the reproduced 1999 talk is a reprint of the 1976 Conference address. 

Edited December 22, 2015 by consiglieri

[Duncan]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

In addition to the Spencer W. Kimball quote and the part about his new calling, here are the five main changes I see between the two versions of Elder Faust's talk:

1. Elder Faust (1976) told a personal story.

Recently in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked, “What is the greatest need in the world?” One wisely responded: “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with the Savior?”

But the 1999 version changed the wording:

Some time ago in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked, “What is the greatest need in the world?” One wisely responded, “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with Deity?”

2. Elder Faust (1976) said this:

May I suggest five beginning, essential measures which will greatly clear the channel for a daily flow of “living water” from the very source of the spring, even the Redeemer Himself.

But the 1999 version changed the wording, omitting the final clause:

May I suggest five beginning, essential measures that will greatly clear the channel for a daily flow of “living water” from the very source of the spring (see John 4:7–15).

3. Elder  Faust (1976) said this:

There is a great humility and timidity in my soul as I presume to speak about coming to a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world and the Son of God.

The 1999 version changed the wording:

There is great humility and timidity in my soul as I presume to discuss coming to a personal knowledge of God, the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world and the Son of God.   

4. Elder Faust (1976) said this:

A fervent, sincere prayer is a two-way communication which will do much to bring His Spirit flowing like healing water to help with the trials, hardships, aches, and pains we all face. What is the quality of our secret prayers when only He listens? As we pray, we should think of Him as being close by, full of knowledge, understanding, love, and compassion, the essence of power, and as having great expectations of each of us.

The 1999 version changed the wording, where in context the original suggested “His Spirit” was “Christ’s Spirit,” and “we should think of Him” meant “we should think of Jesus”:

A fervent, sincere prayer is a two-way communication that will do much to bring the Spirit flowing like healing water to help with the trials, hardships, aches, and pains we all face. What is the quality of our secret prayers? As we pray, we should think of our Heavenly Father as being close by; full of knowledge, understanding, love, and compassion; the essence of power; and having great expectations of each of us.

5. Elder Faust (1976) said this:

My witness is that we will be called upon to prove our spiritual stamina, for the days ahead will be filled with affliction and difficulty.  But with the assuring comfort of a personal relationship with the Savior, we will be given a calming courage.

The 1999 version changed the wording:

My witness is that we will be called upon to prove our spiritual stamina, for the days ahead will be filled with affliction and difficulty. But with the assuring comfort of a personal relationship with God, we will be given a calming courage.

 

As a final observation, nowhere does The Ensign reference that the reproduced 1999 talk is a reprint of the 1976 Conference address. 

very interesting! Thank you for doing that!

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

As a final observation, nowhere does The Ensign reference that the reproduced 1999 talk is a reprint of the 1976 Conference address. 

Thanks for the detailed comparison.  I love it, this is making me laugh today.  Perfect time for some comic relief right before Christmas.  Our church culture is so funny sometimes.... gotta love correlation and all its tentacles always trying to control the message.  

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Well, there is this for starters:
 

Sounds pretty "slamming" to me . . .

Do you believe Jesus is God?  If so, then why wouldn't you want a personal relationship?  If not, then why do you care? 

[Taking short odds that you won't answer.]

[Storm Rider]

After having skimmed the article I found what I think is the context of McConkie's statement:

• "It is true that there may, with propriety, be a special relationship with a wife, with children, with friends, with teachers, with the beasts of the field 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."

I think McConkie's intent was that some may feel encouraged to focus on having a special relationship with the Savior and forget that the relationship should be on God the Father.  He acknowledged that they are one, yet defines that we worship the same God that Jesus stated he worshiped.  

No need to parse his words, but I can understand how his context could easily be distorted.  It makes me realize that I have been too loose at times with my own discussion of the Godhead.

 

 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Do you believe Jesus is God?  If so, then why wouldn't you want a personal relationship?  If not, then why do you care? 

[Taking short odds that you won't answer.]

I'm not sure anyone does care, but he who has already passed on, apparently.  The question is why the differing views?  The inconsistent message?  And what does that mean? 
 

It doesn't seem to mean much, really, but it does seem to indicate we're victims of pharisaic-type thinking. 

[Russell C McGregor]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave a resounding “No”

<Snipped the rest>

As soon as I saw the thread title and the name of the originator, I said to myself: "I'll bet anything that Consig is doing the usual anti-Mormon trick of consciously, intentionally, deliberately and with malice aforethought, twisting, distorting and otherwise misrepresenting a talk by Bruce R. McConkie."

And I was right.

 

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

There was at the time a little cult going on at BYU among some students and it was spreading.

Context for why the 1982 talk was given is important.

It had a major rebound effect on a particular popular professor, who was not imo promoting the heresies of the group, but the group was using some of his material as justification.

 

Add-on:  my memory isn't that clear as I only attended one of his classes as an invite and his teaching style was not one I enjoyed, though he attracted a packed classroom.  After reading some others' remarks, I am reminded that there were some who took his teachings about Enos and praying as instruction to go up in the mountains behind the temple and pray until they had a similar experience. (in a separate incident, a student died up there, so I can understand why if only for the personal danger of wandering around on one's own, the leadership were concerned) One said it was a suggestion by Pace to do such, but I can't confirm that by my own recall.  Immediately after the talk. Pace corrected the possible extremes and counseled his students to avoid them, all reports I've read and remember relate him as being very gracious and faithful.  He rewrote the book and it was sold at Deseretbook under a new title and according to wiki had a good career at BYU afterwards, not staggeringly as popular, but one reported the drop wasn't that extreme.  The biggest issue is one of his son's reactions.  Whether the father saw the incident the same way would be interesting to find out.

You are correct. There was a cult of Savior worship (to the neglect of the proper worship of the Father and the Holy Ghost) going on among a certain clique at BYU at the time. Elder McConkie"s address was in direct response to this clique's imbalanced approach to worship that emphasized an intimate spiritual relationship with Christ while not giving all due focus of reverence and honor to the Father and the Holy Spirit. And if anyone doubts that Elder McConkie didn't himself have a properly focused and balanced personal relationship with Christ, then listen to his last General Conferenve address given shortly before he succumbed to cancer in 1985. 

"And now, as pertaining to this perfect atonement, wrought by the shedding of the blood of God—I testify that it took place in Gethsemane and at Golgotha, and as pertaining to Jesus Christ, I testify that he is the Son of the Living God and was crucified for the sins of the world. He is our Lord, our God, and our King. This I know of myself independent of any other person.

I am one of his witnesses, and in a coming day I shall feel the nail marks in his hands and in his feet and shall wet his feet with my tears.

But I shall not know any better then than I know now that he is God’s Almighty Son, that he is our Savior and Redeemer, and that salvation comes in and through his atoning blood and in no other way.

God grant that all of us may walk in the light as God our Father is in the light so that, according to the promises, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son will cleanse us from all sin.

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, amen." (Bruce R. McConkie's last General Conference address)

Edited December 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware
Added a reference

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

In addition to the Spencer W. Kimball quote and the part about his new calling, here are the five main changes I see between the two versions of Elder Faust's talk:

1. Elder Faust (1976) told a personal story.

Recently in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked, “What is the greatest need in the world?” One wisely responded: “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with the Savior?”

But the 1999 version changed the wording:

Some time ago in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked, “What is the greatest need in the world?” One wisely responded, “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with Deity?”

2. Elder Faust (1976) said this:

May I suggest five beginning, essential measures which will greatly clear the channel for a daily flow of “living water” from the very source of the spring, even the Redeemer Himself.

But the 1999 version changed the wording, omitting the final clause:

May I suggest five beginning, essential measures that will greatly clear the channel for a daily flow of “living water” from the very source of the spring (see John 4:7–15).

3. Elder  Faust (1976) said this:

There is a great humility and timidity in my soul as I presume to speak about coming to a personal knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world and the Son of God.

The 1999 version changed the wording:

There is great humility and timidity in my soul as I presume to discuss coming to a personal knowledge of God, the Eternal Father, and Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the world and the Son of God.   

4. Elder Faust (1976) said this:

A fervent, sincere prayer is a two-way communication which will do much to bring His Spirit flowing like healing water to help with the trials, hardships, aches, and pains we all face. What is the quality of our secret prayers when only He listens? As we pray, we should think of Him as being close by, full of knowledge, understanding, love, and compassion, the essence of power, and as having great expectations of each of us.

The 1999 version changed the wording, where in context the original suggested “His Spirit” was “Christ’s Spirit,” and “we should think of Him” meant “we should think of Jesus”:

A fervent, sincere prayer is a two-way communication that will do much to bring the Spirit flowing like healing water to help with the trials, hardships, aches, and pains we all face. What is the quality of our secret prayers? As we pray, we should think of our Heavenly Father as being close by; full of knowledge, understanding, love, and compassion; the essence of power; and having great expectations of each of us.

5. Elder Faust (1976) said this:

My witness is that we will be called upon to prove our spiritual stamina, for the days ahead will be filled with affliction and difficulty.  But with the assuring comfort of a personal relationship with the Savior, we will be given a calming courage.

The 1999 version changed the wording:

My witness is that we will be called upon to prove our spiritual stamina, for the days ahead will be filled with affliction and difficulty. But with the assuring comfort of a personal relationship with God, we will be given a calming courage.

 

As a final observation, nowhere does The Ensign reference that the reproduced 1999 talk is a reprint of the 1976 Conference address. 

As President Faust was the author of both the 1976 conference address and the 1999 Ensign article, I would assume that he would be free to make any changes that he felt were appropriate.  As with your claims in the OP, really doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Do you believe Jesus is God?  If so, then why wouldn't you want a personal relationship?  If not, then why do you care? 

[Taking short odds that you won't answer.]

Shouldn't you be asking Elder McConkie this question?

[consiglieri]

39 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

As soon as I saw the thread title and the name of the originator, I said to myself: "I'll bet anything that Consig is doing the usual anti-Mormon trick of consciously, intentionally, deliberately and with malice aforethought, twisting, distorting and otherwise misrepresenting a talk by Bruce R. McConkie."

And I was right.

 

No.

Actually you were wrong.

But you are wrong so often, it probably feels right to you by now.

[consiglieri]

24 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

You are correct. There was a cult of Savior worship (to the neglect of the proper worship of the Father and the Holy Ghost) going on among a certain clique at BYU at the time.

What Christian church would call too much focus on Jesus "a cult of Savior worship"?

The irony is so thick here, it is hard to know where to start.

Edited December 22, 2015 by consiglieri

[consiglieri]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

As President Faust was the author of both the 1976 conference address and the 1999 Ensign article, I would assume that he would be free to make any changes that he felt were appropriate.  As with your claims in the OP, really doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

First, you are assuming that President Faust had anything to do with the editing of his talk.

Second, and more importantly, the biggest change has to do not with what President Faust said, but with his quotation of a missionary.

In other words, it is not what President Faust said here that is changed, but the words of somebody else.

Lest we forget, here is the change.
 

Quote

 

1. Elder Faust (1976) told a personal story.

Recently in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked, “What is the greatest need in the world?” One wisely responded: “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with the Savior?”

But the 1999 version changed the wording:

Some time ago in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked, “What is the greatest need in the world?” One wisely responded, “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with Deity?”

 

The 1976 talk quotes the missionary as saying the greatest need in all the world is for every person to have a "continuing relationship with the Savior."

The 1999 talk changes the missionary's words to say a "continuing relationship with Deity."

Presumably President Faust's recollection of what the missionary said would have been fresher in 1976 when the incident was "recent."

(Note how the 1999 talk changes it to from "recently" to "some time ago"?)

Where does anybody get the right to change the words of somebody else?

That is what I am wondering . . .

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

What Christian church would call too much focus on Jesus "a cult of Savior worship"?

The irony is so thick here, it is hard to know where to start.

Any Church that follows the teachings of Christ.

John 15: 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you

John 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

 

I don't see Christ teaching us to worship him.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Whom should I believe on this issue?  Elder Faust or Elder McConkie?

Yes.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

SOunds like a big problem?  Maybe?  I wonder how many people went into the mountains and never came back back in 1982.  It must have happened.  Any deaths recorded? 

I suspect they came down when they got hungry in most cases, but even one case that might have led to death would have been enough imo for authorities to have been concerned about.   There are occasional deaths of hikers on their own in the area.  I believe there is one area that is particularly dangerous and inexperienced hikers/climbers get into problems on a regular basis there.  And there have been a number of rescues sent out for missing hikers who have been found.  I remember at least one while I was there which would have been probably before 82 since iirc I was still single at the time.

 

I remember a lot of talk around campus at the time about his stuff (I would have gone to his class in 79 just to see what the talk was about...I could not believe how crowded it was, very uncomfortable so I never was inclined to take a class from him...preferred OT anyway), the book came out in 81 but he was teaching the principles in his class and had been for quite sometime and the cult was going on before the book...though it really focused on the book after it came out iirc), but don't know how many people actually went out to try it or other stuff being discussed.  There was this sense of 'we have a special bond with Christ that others don't and won't be able to get' from the extremists, also a spiritual elitism (and yes, this can happen with any religious identity taken too far and I know many think all Mormons have it inherently, but this was way over that in my experience) that was just setting them up imo for a major fall once real life hit.  And it was, imo, causing problems with how those who adopted the extreme ideas interacted with others.  The day to day spiritual issues that were associated with the book being taken too far were enough imo to merit teaching caution.

 

I think it would have been better if there had been discussion prior to the talk with Prof. Pace so that he could have been prepared, but I think the 'shock' treatment was probably the best for the students involved.  If Pace had tried to explain how his book was acceptable on certain levels (which imo it certainly was) prior to the talk, the extremists might have had time to emotionally rationalize excuses for while their heresies/extreme practices were also acceptable (some probably did anyway, but as far as I could tell, it did away with the cultlike status of the book and if stuff occurred, it was much more on an individual level).

Edited December 22, 2015 by Calm

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

 

I don't see Christ teaching us to worship him.

 

Look again.

Quote

 

2 Nephi 25:29

And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

 

 

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes.

Maybe I should do odd days for one and even days for another?

And split school vacation 50/50?

[Russell C McGregor]

18 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

No.

Actually you were wrong.

But you are wrong so often, it probably feels right to you by now.

I regret that I am unable to give any credit to your denials.

This bit of McConkie-abuse is not original to you. I've seen it before.

It was dishonest then, too.

 

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

 

I think it would have been better if there had been discussion prior to the talk with Prof. Pace so that he could have been prepared, but I think the 'shock' treatment was probably the best for the students involved.  If Pace had tried to explain how his book was acceptable on certain levels (which imo it certainly was) prior to the talk, the extremists might have had time to emotionally rationalize excuses for while their heresies/extreme practices were also acceptable (some probably did anyway, but as far as I could tell, it did away with the cultlike status of the book and if stuff occurred, it was much more on an individual level).

This entire episode was not one of Elder McConkie's better moments.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

First, you are assuming that President Faust had anything to do with the editing of his talk.

Are you assuming that he didn't? That some kind of puppet-master changes the words of the apostles against their wishes? That they let this happen because they're afraid not to?

I'm an editor for an academic journal. In my role, I make all kinds of changes to approved texts in order to clarify meaning, remove potential ambiguity, etc. Then I send the edited text back to the author for her/his final sign-off. That's how it works.

Quote

Where does anybody get the right to change the words of somebody else?

Do you genuinely believe that either quote was the missionary's exact words?

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

I regret that I am unable to give any credit to your denials.

This bit of McConkie-abuse is not original to you. I've seen it before.

It was dishonest then, too.

 

So anything remotely negative about Elder McConkie is "dishonest" in your opinion?

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

Do you genuinely believe that either quote was the missionary's exact words?

Oh come now.

The change in the missionary's words was not random.

It was for a specific purpose.

Surely you can see that.

[Calm]

That is what comes from skimming as opposed to reading in detail.

Since I think one should put effort into establishing a relationship with more than just Christ to be spiritually balances as well as promoting a connection with God (which I used to apply to all who are God, not just the Father), I think the changes improve the talk in almost all the cases given.  The only thing I would have changed if consulted (LOL) would be where it uses Heavenly Father only in one case instead of all three being implied or specified.

I see this is a topic you have found interesting in the past, it seems to bother you more now though:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/53030-a-personal-relationship-with-jesus-christ/

[Russell C McGregor]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

So anything remotely negative about Elder McConkie is "dishonest" in your opinion?

No.

But claiming that Elder McConkie's talk (teaching against an inappropriate singling out of Jesus for devotion, to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Ghost) was actually "slamming" the concept of a personal relationship with Christ at all, is dishonest.

And that's not in my opinion. That's just a fact.