why me Posted December 25, 2015 Share Posted December 25, 2015 (edited) On 22.12.2015 at 7:51 PM, consiglieri said: Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave a resounding “No” to this question in a 1982 BYU speech, where he condemned the idea of Mormons having a So my questions are these: Is it important to my eternal salvation whether I have a personal relationship with Jesus? If so, should I have such a personal relationship or should I not? Whom should I believe on this issue? Elder Faust or Elder McConkie? I think that Mormons have a very personal relationship with heavenly father. I suppose one can ask: what is more important? To have a personal relationship with one's father or with one's brother? Or both. I tend to think that Mormons have a personal relationship with both. It is in their prayers. And no one forbids such personal relationships. A quotation from a GA back in the early 80s doesn't mean much. If I were to take all GAs words as the word of god, I would go absolutely crazy. And if I would read a paste without the context, I would go even more crazy. The point is: decide for oneself if one has a personal relationship with heavenly father and with jesus. And go for it if that is what one wants to have. Edited December 25, 2015 by why me Link to comment
consiglieri Posted December 26, 2015 Author Share Posted December 26, 2015 On 12/25/2015 at 10:11 PM, why me said: If I were to take all GAs words as the word of god, I would go absolutely crazy. Many do. And many have. 1 Link to comment
theplains Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 On 25/12/2015 at 1:11 AM, why me said: A quotation from a GA back in the early 80s doesn't mean much. It seems that words spoken at a General Conference carry as much weight, or more, than current scriptures. "When compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writings in the books." To which Joseph Smith responded: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth." (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 2008). Regards, Jim Link to comment
The Nehor Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 On 12/25/2015 at 0:11 AM, why me said: I think that Mormons have a very personal relationship with heavenly father. I suppose one can ask: what is more important? To have a personal relationship with one's father or with one's brother? Or both. I tend to think that Mormons have a personal relationship with both. It is in their prayers. And no one forbids such personal relationships. A quotation from a GA back in the early 80s doesn't mean much. If I were to take all GAs words as the word of god, I would go absolutely crazy. And if I would read a paste without the context, I would go even more crazy. The point is: decide for oneself if one has a personal relationship with heavenly father and with jesus. And go for it if that is what one wants to have. In some senses our relationship is personal but in many ways not. I think we get in trouble throwing around the term without defining what it means in the context of a relationship with a God. It is certainly nothing like any personal relationship I have had with others on this earth. The closest equivalent would be my parents when I was young but even that is a stretch. 1 Link to comment
Anakin7 Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 Yes we have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ by way of how we live our lives in the Covenant we enter when we accept Him as our Lord of Life/Lord/Redeemer/Savior/God/King/Master. In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Link to comment
Teancum Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 1 hour ago, theplains said: It seems that words spoken at a General Conference carry as much weight, or more, than current scriptures. "When compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writings in the books." To which Joseph Smith responded: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth." (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 2008). Regards, Jim Until the church wants to back peddle from one thing or another. Link to comment
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted December 27, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted December 27, 2015 11 hours ago, consiglieri said: Many do. And many have. But the point is, many truly understand that GA's are humans just like everyone else, and with that, out go most of the criticisms leveled against the church. Most critics do not understand this- if they did they would not bother with silly threads like this one about conflicting statements by GA's. The reality is that most Mormons get it 6 Link to comment
Popular Post mikegriffith1 Posted December 27, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted December 27, 2015 I'm sorry, but I have hard time taking threads like this seriously. Elder McConkie did not say you should not have a personal relationship with Christ. He did not say that. He said we should not have some special relationship with Christ that is improper and perilous, i.e., in the sense that sectarians teach, but that we should have a relationship with each of the members of the Godhead and that we pray to and worship the Father. He never said we should not have a personal relationship with the Savior, but that it should be the kind of relationship sanctioned by scripture. 7 Link to comment
Anakin7 Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 1 hour ago, mikegriffith1 said: I'm sorry, but I have hard time taking threads like this seriously. Elder McConkie did not say you should not have a personal relationship with Christ. He did not say that. He said we should not have some special relationship with Christ that is improper and perilous, i.e., in the sense that sectarians teach, but that we should have a relationship with each of the members of the Godhead and that we pray to and worship the Father. He never said we should not have a personal relationship with the Savior, but that it should be the kind of relationship sanctioned by scripture. Thank you Michael for that observation. In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7 Link to comment
Ahab Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 UFWIW what I mean by having a personal relationship with Jesus, which I do have as well as with our Father and the Holy Spirit, is a relationship that enables me to get to know him/them personally, for myself, without being reliant on others to tell me about them, as if I have to take their word for what they tell me about them. In other words I hear and otherwise receive information directly from Jesus and the other big 2 in the holy Trinity without having to be dependent on what (other) people called prophets tell me, with me being a prophet myself as God shares the spirit of prophecy with me. In other words I am not reliant on words spoken or books written by other people called prophets because I know God personally. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 21 hours ago, mfbukowski said: But the point is, many truly understand that GA's are humans just like everyone else, and with that, out go most of the criticisms leveled against the church. Most critics do not understand this- if they did they would not bother with silly threads like this one about conflicting statements by GA's. The reality is that most Mormons get it 10 hours ago, mikegriffith1 said: I'm sorry, but I have hard time taking threads like this seriously. Elder McConkie did not say you should not have a personal relationship with Christ. He did not say that. He said we should not have some special relationship with Christ that is improper and perilous, i.e., in the sense that sectarians teach, but that we should have a relationship with each of the members of the Godhead and that we pray to and worship the Father. He never said we should not have a personal relationship with the Savior, but that it should be the kind of relationship sanctioned by scripture. So far that's 9 rep points for these two posts. Can we now stop responding to these stupid threads started by critics who do not understand what we are about, and discuss something substantial? Link to comment
theplains Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 12 hours ago, mikegriffith1 said: He said we should not have some special relationship with Christ that is improper and perilous, i.e., in the sense that sectarians teach, What type of relationship with Christ is improper and perilous? Thanks, Jim Link to comment
Calm Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Can you not think of any such for yourself? Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 20 hours ago, theplains said: What type of relationship with Christ is improper and perilous? Thanks, Jim Maybe you should read the article, instead of asking for spoon feeding. Link to comment
consiglieri Posted December 29, 2015 Author Share Posted December 29, 2015 On 12/27/2015 at 4:46 PM, theplains said: It seems that words spoken at a General Conference carry as much weight, or more, than current scriptures. "When compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writings in the books." To which Joseph Smith responded: “Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth." (Teachings of Joseph Smith, 2008). Regards, Jim If I recall correctly, this is a story Wilford Woodruff came up with about 60-years later and unattested in any other contemporary sources. And that likely Wilford Woodruff came up with this story in order to buttress his claim to authority in reversing the commandment to practice plural marriage. 1 Link to comment
consiglieri Posted December 29, 2015 Author Share Posted December 29, 2015 On 12/27/2015 at 7:06 PM, mfbukowski said: But the point is, many truly understand that GA's are humans just like everyone else, and with that, out go most of the criticisms leveled against the church. Most critics do not understand this- if they did they would not bother with silly threads like this one about conflicting statements by GA's. The reality is that most Mormons get it But this is a sword that cuts both ways. Of course, GA's are human. Which means they can make mistakes, and even act in ways not in accordance with our best principles, as President Uchtdorf said recently. But the entire authority structure of the LDS Church is based on the idea that the leaders cannot lead the Church astray. So we are left with the conflicting ideas that Church leaders can make mistakes, but they can't lead the Church astray. See how this is a hard balancing act to maintain? Where is the line? Link to comment
Bob Crockett Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) Why do you ask? You've said plenty of times that you became disillusioned with the church and stopped believing when you were released from your Gospel Doctrine teaching position. (Time to celebrate not question the inspiration.) Why even ask the question? Who cares? Edited December 29, 2015 by Bob Crockett Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: But this is a sword that cuts both ways. Of course, GA's are human. Which means they can make mistakes, and even act in ways not in accordance with our best principles, as President Uchtdorf said recently. But the entire authority structure of the LDS Church is based on the idea that the leaders cannot lead the Church astray. So we are left with the conflicting ideas that Church leaders can make mistakes, but they can't lead the Church astray. See how this is a hard balancing act to maintain? Where is the line? The answer is so simple you cannot see it. Each member needs to have his or her own testimony of each principle. That is what defines doctrine and what one should do in any situation or with any belief. There is no way to even know if one should follow ANYONE if that is not confirmed by the spirit. Those who follow the spirit will not be led astray, because what the spirit tells them confirms their belief in what they should do. You who have been born into the church and followed blindly have this problem because you have followed blindly. We who have testimonies and so have joined the church- and those born to it who actually are "converts" in their own right- do not have the problem. This is not Jonestown. We do not follow any leaders blindly. We follow the spirit and our consciences. If you have internal conflict you will go crazy. You must do what you think is best no matter what. If necessary you vote with your feet. It really is that simple. No one can force you to do what is not right for you unless you let them by not doing what you know is right. We are not children any more and must put off childish things. That covers virtually every single silly thread you start. 2 Link to comment
sunstoned Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Quote Each member needs to have his or her own testimony of each principle. That is what defines doctrine and what one should do in any situation or with any belief. There is no way to even know if one should follow ANYONE if that is not confirmed by the spirit. Those who follow the spirit will not be led astray, because what the spirit tells them confirms their belief in what they should do. This is all well and good as long as what the spirit confirms is in lock step with current church teachings/policy. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: This is all well and good as long as what the spirit confirms is in lock step with current church teachings/policy. It seems you missed more than half the post. Quote You who have been born into the church and followed blindly have this problem because you have followed blindly. We who have testimonies and so have joined the church- and those born to it who actually are "converts" in their own right- do not have the problem. This is not Jonestown. We do not follow any leaders blindly. We follow the spirit and our consciences. If you have internal conflict you will go crazy. You must do what you think is best no matter what. If necessary you vote with your feet. It really is that simple. No one can force you to do what is not right for you unless you let them by not doing what you know is right. If it is not you walk. Unless you are a robot. You either act or are acted upon. Take your pick. You want to have your cake and eat it too. It doesn't work that way. The world doesn't owe you anything and neither does the church. Edited December 29, 2015 by mfbukowski Link to comment
salgare Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 On 12/23/2015 at 2:25 PM, JLHPROF said: I don't think the ego explanation is necessary (although some of his discourses and writings feature something close to ego). Elder McConkie was just wrong on several issues of doctrine. It happens. Can you enumerate these issues? Link to comment
salgare Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Jesus washing my feet ... It does not get more personal than that. Is this no longer a goal of the Latter Day Saint? Link to comment
stemelbow Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 (edited) 14 hours ago, consiglieri said: But this is a sword that cuts both ways. Of course, GA's are human. Which means they can make mistakes, and even act in ways not in accordance with our best principles, as President Uchtdorf said recently. But the entire authority structure of the LDS Church is based on the idea that the leaders cannot lead the Church astray. So we are left with the conflicting ideas that Church leaders can make mistakes, but they can't lead the Church astray. See how this is a hard balancing act to maintain? Where is the line? With this conflict in mind I decided it is possible for leaders to lead the Church astray. Something had to fall. Edited December 29, 2015 by stemelbow Link to comment
stemelbow Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: The answer is so simple you cannot see it. Each member needs to have his or her own testimony of each principle. That is what defines doctrine and what one should do in any situation or with any belief. There is no way to even know if one should follow ANYONE if that is not confirmed by the spirit. Those who follow the spirit will not be led astray, because what the spirit tells them confirms their belief in what they should do. You who have been born into the church and followed blindly have this problem because you have followed blindly. We who have testimonies and so have joined the church- and those born to it who actually are "converts" in their own right- do not have the problem. This is not Jonestown. We do not follow any leaders blindly. We follow the spirit and our consciences. If you have internal conflict you will go crazy. You must do what you think is best no matter what. If necessary you vote with your feet. It really is that simple. No one can force you to do what is not right for you unless you let them by not doing what you know is right. We are not children any more and must put off childish things. That covers virtually every single silly thread you start. to be fair that was kind of a confusing response. It seems like you would suggest it is possible leaders can lead members astray, thus members have to look to God personally. I'd agree with that. But I'm not sure how the conflict works in your mind, based on this response. Link to comment
consiglieri Posted December 29, 2015 Author Share Posted December 29, 2015 13 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: Why do you ask? You've said plenty of times that you became disillusioned with the church and stopped believing when you were released from your Gospel Doctrine teaching position. (Time to celebrate not question the inspiration.) Why even ask the question? Who cares? I have never said that I became disillusioned with the church and stopped believing when I was released from being Gospel Doctrine teacher. Why do you feel it necessary to construct apocryphal stories about me and my spiritual journey? Does it make you feel better? More secure? Link to comment
Recommended Posts