Should Mormons Have A Personal Relationship With Jesus?

[consiglieri]

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.

Perhaps it does cover every single silly thread I start.

But what I hear you saying is that you either believe everything you are told by current Church leaders or get out.

It is a simple answer, to be sure.

But not entirely satisfactory.

For me, at least.

[Tacenda]

On 12/27/2015 at 7:44 AM, 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.

I have been envious of the EV's personal relationship with Jesus.  They stress that it must be done.  I don't think it's stressed in our church, ever.  I remember a lesson about knowing Him though. And will never forget the lesson by a woman from the south, to put our problems at his feet, give them totally to Him.  That was so foreign to me.  But might just be me.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Tacenda

[consiglieri]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The world doesn't owe you anything and neither does the church. 

This is one of the primary problems with Mormonism, in my opinion.

The idea that the members exist for the church, and not the church for the members.

It is all a one-way street.

We are expected to sacrifice and sacrifice for the church in vast amounts of time, labor and money.

But the church does not "owe" us anything in return.

It sounds to me like an unhealthy relationship.

And subject to abuse.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I have been envious of the EV's personal relationship with Jesus.  They stress that it must be done.  I don't think it's stressed in our church, ever.  I remember a lesson about knowing Him though. And will never forget the lesson by a woman from the south, to put our problems at his feet, give them totally to Him.  That was so foreign to me.  But might just be me.

It is not just you.

20th century Mormonism teaches of a Jesus whose primary role is to forgive us of our sins, but it is up to us to keep all the commandments and perfect ourselves by our own sheer force of will.

As President Kimball put it, to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps.

In this way, the teaching has been that we must perfect ourselves, but that Jesus is there to clean up after us when we make mistakes.

This led me to the concept of a "janitor Jesus" with a mop and pail.

[Bobbieaware]

29 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It is not just you.

20th century Mormonism teaches of a Jesus whose primary role is to forgive us of our sins, but it is up to us to keep all the commandments and perfect ourselves by our own sheer force of will.

As President Kimball put it, to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps.

In this way, the teaching has been that we must perfect ourselves, but that Jesus is there to clean up after us when we make mistakes.

This led me to the concept of a "janitor Jesus" with a mop and pail.

What a load of hooey! We are repeatedly taught throughout the scriptures and repeatedly in our General Conferences that it is impossible to do the will of God and grow in his grace and knowledge unless we are mightily aided in that quest by the power and gifts of the Spirit of God, extended to man only in and through the merciful infinite and eternal sacrifice of Christ.

23 And Christ truly said unto our fathers: If ye have faith ye can do all things which are expedient unto me.

 24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

 25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, HE SHALL WORK BY THE POWER AND GIFTS OF GOD.(Moroni 10)

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[consiglieri]

48 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

What a load of hooey! We are repeatedly taught throughout the scriptures and repeatedly in our General Conferences that it is impossible to do the will of God and grow in his grace and knowledge unless we are mightily aided in that quest by the power and gifts of the Spirit of God, extended to man only in and through the merciful infinite and eternal sacrifice of Christ.

23 And Christ truly said unto our fathers: If ye have faith ye can do all things which are expedient unto me.

 24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

 25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, HE SHALL WORK BY THE POWER AND GIFTS OF GOD.(Moroni 10)

 

 

 

The passage you cite is a stinging indictment against the modern LDS Church.

[Bobbieaware]

48 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The passage you cite is a stinging indictment against the modern LDS Church.

Baloney! The doctrine is taught all the time in General Conference and in the Ensign.

[consiglieri]

14 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Baloney! The doctrine is taught all the time in General Conference and in the Ensign.

Yes, it is.

And it is still a stinging indictment against the modern LDS Church.

Or perhaps you would like to prove me wrong by providing instances of modern LDS Church leaders "working by the power and gifts of God"?

[jwhitlock]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

It is not just you.

20th century Mormonism teaches of a Jesus whose primary role is to forgive us of our sins, but it is up to us to keep all the commandments and perfect ourselves by our own sheer force of will.

As President Kimball put it, to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps.

In this way, the teaching has been that we must perfect ourselves, but that Jesus is there to clean up after us when we make mistakes.

This led me to the concept of a "janitor Jesus" with a mop and pail.

If that's what you think Mormonism is all about, then you're operating under some severe misconceptions.

[jwhitlock]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

The passage you cite is a stinging indictment against the modern LDS Church.

The fact that you don't think such things happen in the church is a stinging indictment against you.

Faithful members of the church who frequently experience the power and gifts of God in the church know otherwise.

[Bobbieaware]

5 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

The fact that you don't think such things happen in the church is a stinging indictment against you.

Faithful members of the church who frequently experience the power and gifts of God in the church know otherwise.

Bullseye!

[jwhitlock]

2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Bullseye!

There's some kind of weird misconception by critics of the church that the power and gifts of God must fit their preconceived criteria in order to be valid. Criteria such as being public or sensational. Private experiences such as healing blessings, speaking in tongues while preaching the gospel, a bishop exercising the power of discernment, or even overpowering comfort from the Spirit and the unmistakable forgiveness of sins don't really count in their minds.

Yet, that's what the current church is all about. Such private experiences happen countless times each day and are a testimony to those who experience them that the gifts and power of God do indeed operate in the church today.

The power and gifts of God in the church operate at an individual level where they can do the most good. They're not there to try to satisfy some critic's curiosity.

I'm just shaking my head at how far from reality the claims consiglieri is making are. Those claims and the OP are evidence of some significant lack of understanding on his part.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Fair enough.

You follow the leader as a discipline until something hits you as "weird".  "Why would he tell us to do that?"

At that point you pray about it.  Presumably you are in effect praying about everything every minute anyway- but I am certainly not at that point yet.

You pray about it and it still feels weird.  You think about it and find that it is inconsistent in some way with your beliefs.  It is a serious matter of doctrine- not a trivial matter.

If you really do disagree in your heart, you stand up and make your opinion known, talk to the bishop etc.

If there is a genuine disagreement, you walk, you find another church or no church.  You must always follow your conscience and what the spirit is telling you or you are fo9llowing blindly in a principle with which you disagree.   Not good.

Does that help?  That's the way I see it.

[Bobbieaware]

8 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

There's some kind of weird misconception by critics of the church that the power and gifts of God must fit their preconceived criteria in order to be valid. Criteria such as being public or sensational. Private experiences such as healing blessings, speaking in tongues while preaching the gospel, a bishop exercising the power of discernment, or even overpowering comfort from the Spirit and the unmistakable forgiveness of sins don't really count in their minds.

Yet, that's what the current church is all about. Such private experiences happen countless times each day and are a testimony to those who experience them that the gifts and power of God do indeed operate in the church today.

The power and gifts of God in the church operate at an individual level where they can do the most good. They're not there to try to satisfy some critic's curiosity.

I'm just shaking my head at how far from reality the claims consiglieri is making are. Those claims and the OP are evidence of some significant lack of understanding on his part.

So very well said. But perhaps we should marvel not, seeing the book of Alma solemnly warns that those who reject the truth after first receiving it are left bereft of the spiritual insight and scriptural knowledge they once possessed. 

 11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries ...(Alma 12)

 

 

[salgare]

25 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

There's some kind of weird misconception by critics of the church that the power and gifts of God must fit their preconceived criteria in order to be valid.

I followed an interesting thread the other day that took this same course ... it was in the terms of "by their fruits yea shall know them"  The critic was trying to apply this test to the Prophets, Seers and Revelators while the faithful pushed to burden/test onto the individual members.

Are there not (and should there not) be preconceived criteria on our modern day Prophets and Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ?

If so, what might some of these expectations be?

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Bobbieaware said:

So very well said. But perhaps we should marvel not, seeing the book of Alma solemnly warns that those who reject the truth after first receiving it are left bereft of the spiritual insight and scriptural knowledge they once possessed. 

 11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries ...(Alma 12)

 

 

Not pertaining to this post, but do you feel that the church got away from the teachings of Grace, in the BoM.  Like IMO, it got away from the teachings that God is Jesus, or Jesus is God.

[Ahab]

I understand the phrase "follow the prophet" by first understanding what a prophet is while also understanding that any man who is a prophet, sometimes, is not always speaking as a prophet.  So the phrase "follow the prophet" does not mean the same thing to me as "follow the man who (sometimes) speaks as a prophet" or "follow the President of the church".

I follow a prophet only because I know a prophet is always speaking for God, but it's still up to me to find out if or when any man is speaking as a prophet.

 

[salgare]

6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I follow a prophet only because I know a prophet is always speaking for God, but it's still up to me to find out if or when any man is speaking as a prophet.

 

And you do that by examining their fruits ... right?

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Perhaps it does cover every single silly thread I start.

But what I hear you saying is that you either believe everything you are told by current Church leaders or get out.

It is a simple answer, to be sure.

But not entirely satisfactory.

For me, at least.

No, that is 180 degress from what I thought I was saying. Honestly I am not sure how you got that from that post.

You must have a testimony of every principle.  If the testimony disagrees with the leader you either take the leader's statement with a grain of salt, or if it is serious enough, you walk.

Overall I agree with 85% of what "the leaders" teach, but I keep a big salt shaker by the side of my bed.  Overall I totally agree with what I understand the philosophy of the church to be.  I joined the church for the philosophy and certainly not for BRM's "Mormon Doctrine".  I joined in 1980, and read that book and almost walked immediately.

Then I realized that it was one man's take on what I had found by the spirit.  I kept believing what I believed and stayed.

These are human beings, not demi-gods. They look at everything through their prejudices and I look at everything through mine.  To me, 85% agreement is pretty darn good.

But the bottom line is that these disagreements are not serious issues.  They have been remedied.  I joined after blacks were allowed to receive the priesthood.  I would not have joined before that.  I figured - "Oh- these guys used to be racist like everyone else, but now they are trying to change, like everyone else."  No biggie.

Same with polygamy.  As a principle I actually have no problem with it- it is authorized in the OT, but was Joseph actually authorized by God to do that?  To me it was irrelevant.  It didn't concern me personally.  Maybe it was from God, maybe not.  This is and was the best church humanity has to offer, in my opinion, but guess what- we ARE talking about humans here.  Inspired humans- no question in my mind.

But in the final analysis if there is something serious that I disagree with and the spirit tells me to disagree, I am out of here.

I sympathize with people who leave over ssm- but I happen to think they are wrong.  I see no good argument for ssm and the spirit tells me it is wrong, so here I stay. 

I have no clue how you got that understanding out of my post, if indeed you honestly did.

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

 

I'm just shaking my head at how far from reality the claims consiglieri is making are. Those claims and the OP are evidence of some significant lack of understanding on his part.

Agreed.

He is a perfect compass that always points south.  Just turn it around 180 degrees and you have North.

[jwhitlock]

17 minutes ago, salgare said:

I followed an interesting thread the other day that took this same course ... it was in the terms of "by their fruits yea shall know them"  The critic was trying to apply this test to the Prophets, Seers and Revelators while the faithful pushed to burden/test onto the individual members.

Are there not (and should there not) be preconceived criteria on our modern day Prophets and Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ?

If so, what might some of these expectations be?

There are very few, if any, valid preconceived criteria about how a prophet should act or what they should do. The only thing I'm really aware of is that when they speak as prophets (and not as mortal individuals), then if the Spirit confirms what they are saying to me is of God, then I need to pay attention.

There is no other fruit outside of that witness of the Spirit for validating a prophet of God.

[salgare]

6 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

There are very few, if any, valid preconceived criteria about how a prophet should act or what they should do. The only thing I'm really aware of is that when they speak as prophets (and not as mortal individuals), then if the Spirit confirms what they are saying to me is of God, then I need to pay attention.

There is no other fruit outside of that witness of the Spirit for validating a prophet of God.

interesting (but disturbing to me) stance, what do others here say?

[jwhitlock]

Getting back to the OP, what did Elder McConkie do or say that is proof that his apostolic calling was false or invalid? What specific criteria are critics demanding that we use in order to prove the prophets and apostles false? Generalized insinuations don't count.

What we seem to get from them is a generic (and invalid) rationalization that if they're wrong on one thing, then they're probably wrong on everything else and we can't believe them or the church that they're leaders of.

So there must be some specific, smoking-gun type of evidence from Elder McConkie that the critics can point to and say "Here. This is unmistakable proof that he wasn't called of God and never, ever spoke for God." What is that evidence? I certainly haven't found it in this thread. All that the critics have proven is that the leaders of the church are - gasp! - mortal, fallible individuals, which is to be expected. Trying to link infallibility to the truth claims of the church is simply ludicrous.

Perhaps the scriptures can tell us definitively how to recognize a prophet without using the Spirit, which is what the critics want. Maybe a prophet should do no miracles, like John the Baptist, or lots of miracles like Elijah. Maybe a prophet should personally kill God's enemies, like Elijah did with the priests of Baal. Maybe a prophet should lie about his wife and say he's his sister, like Abraham did. Maybe a prophet should kill someone and hide the body, like Moses did. Maybe all prophets should have visions like Peter did, or receive recorded revelation like John did.

The point is, if there's some kind of preconceived notion a person has about what a prophet should be like, it's probably wrong. Reading about prophets in the scriptures should make it very clear that our individual expectations of what prophets do or how they act or what they say probably are irrelevant.

So, we're back to understanding prophets by the Spirit when they speak as prophets, and letting them otherwise participate in mortality like the rest of us when they're not speaking as prophets.

Unless, of course, our esteemed critics can enlighten us on why that's wrong.

[jwhitlock]

19 minutes ago, salgare said:

interesting (but disturbing to me) stance, what do others here say?

Why should that be disturbing? What specific criteria do you have for validating a prophet?

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, jwhitlock said:

If that's what you think Mormonism is all about, then you're operating under some severe misconceptions.

Perhaps your objections would best be registered with President Kimball.