Should Mormons Have A Personal Relationship With Jesus?

[consiglieri]

9 minutes ago, Deborah said:

My son recently went through this as well. In order to do his calling, which was in scouting, he would have to sacrifice his daughter's night at karate (his wife doesn't drive) and also working in the temple Saturday morning. The temple where they are desperately needs temple workers. Son told him it just wouldn't work and so the Bishop told him to pray about as would he. They both did and son still felt strongly he should not accept. Bishop also came to the same conclusion and ended up calling someone who was perfect for scouting and who had done it for years and loved it. Bishop got up at next testimony meeting and said that if there is a conflict to let him know because he doesn't know everything and then they can pray about it. Son ended up teaching Sunday School which he could do.

I also had an experience several years ago where I was called to Nursery. It wasn't that I didn't want to do this but I didn't want to get released from my Laurel class. Being a wise bishop he too asked me to pray. I did and all of a sudden all these ideas came to my mind of what I would do if I were Nursery leader. I called the Bishop and told him I was so excited and would love to do the calling. I did it for 3 years at that time and it was absolutely the best calling I've ever had.

Prayer and fasting work wonders.

And a good bishop.

Thanks for sharing!

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

More accurate.

But you are completely inaccurate here.

I never said what you attributed to me.

And when I called you on it, you said I insinuated it.

When I called you on it again, you said you feel "more accurate."

You are revealing your intractability when faced with the facts.

This lessens your credibility in everything you say.

[Rain]

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 8:15 AM, 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.

I don't  think it is just you. I've found something similar happened on several occasions to me. Something so new and so big to myself that it just stuck. The funny thing is when I have continued to study the scriptures and past conferences, lesson manuals etc. I find it has been there all along. I wonder how I did not see this before. 

I know the idea you speak of has escaped others because there are still conference talks and books about it. But I think if you search now you will find it all over the place as well. 

On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 at 8:20 AM, 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.

That's what I used to think. It's the "after all we can do" misconception. A lot of people put the emphasis on "it is by grace that we are saved". They forget about the context of the passage. Some of it is a problem because it is used to argue against the idea of grace alone - the grace becomes forgotten. But just as in everything, it is important to take things as a whole and recognize both are needed and our part is nothing without his part.

17 hours ago, salgare said:

Hamba,

I honestly think that is where I went wrong, trying to line up and do all of those required things in order have an increase in personal revelation, leading hopefully right up to that personal relationship of which I sought, one's own calling and election, the administration of the second anointing by Jesus himself.

I associated the level of adherence to all of those things you list to my level of worthiness towards that end.

For me, this resulted in over two years of the heavens becoming brass to me, and a following seven years of me not even approaching it again.  I was shocked the first time I really prayed again, some nine years later and the brass had been withdrawn.

Was it not when God the father withdrew his spirit, that the drops of blood formed?  I described it a gaping wound into my soul.  PaPa's term of being blinded by the light, in my case is a fear of ever going there again.  And yet its right there, for free, no demands, no requirements.

 

I think we forget the blessings sometimes. I know that I had such a rough time with my first pregnancy that I wouldn't take having another one to the Lord for some time. I didn't want to hear I should have another one and I didn't want to hear that I shouldn't and now that I look back I know I certainly didn't want to be told to decide on my own. But I forgot about how He guided me with the first. How it was worth it. How he gave me peace over this or that. Intellectually I knew that whatever the answer was it would be ok, but emotionally and spiritually I had to have faith and walk one more step in the dark.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Rain
typos, redundant words etc.

[jwhitlock]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

You do know that what you quoted from President Kimball supports my position, don't you?

I said that the 20th Century Mormon teaching in this regard was that Jesus's role was simply to forgive us of our sins when we goof up, but the onus to become perfect is upon ourselves, by our own will power.

Your quote corroborates this.

It does nothing of the sort. It emphasizes the absolute necessity of Christ in enabling us to do anything at all, and that anything we do is due to His atoning power. It's not to "simply forgive us of our sins when we goof up".

That's a rather strained interpretation of the quote I posted.

[consiglieri]

8 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

It does nothing of the sort. It emphasizes the absolute necessity of Christ in enabling us to do anything at all, and that anything we do is due to His atoning power. It's not to "simply forgive us of our sins when we goof up".

That's a rather strained interpretation of the quote I posted.

I'm afraid the straining is on your part.

[jwhitlock]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I'm afraid the straining is on your part.

So you say. Yet it is rather clear that many of the conclusions you're trying to draw on this thread and on others that you're starting - whose sole purpose is to denigrate the church and its leaders - don't hold up logically. You're basically shoehorning anything you can find to fit your preconceived agenda of attacking the church.

I'll leave it to those reading to determine who is right. Of course, those who are critical of the church by nature will agree with you. But I doubt either you or they really want to understand what the church is really about, and how the power of the Spirit and God that are manifest in it bless the lives of so many people.

[jwhitlock]

12 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I'm afraid the straining is on your part.

Actually, I'm curious about one thing. Your methodology in posting and responding to things that contradict your claims is something I've seen before from anti-Mormons. What anti-Mormon groups or individuals have become the basis for your training?

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

 Of course, those who are critical of the church by nature will agree with you.

Actually, in the instant case, I think those with basic reading comprehension skills will agree with me.

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, jwhitlock said:

Actually, I'm curious about one thing. Your methodology in posting and responding to things that contradict your claims is something I've seen before from anti-Mormons. What anti-Mormon groups or individuals have become the basis for your training?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

[salgare]

wow, this went downhill fast

[jwhitlock]

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Actually, in the instant case, I think those with basic reading comprehension skills will agree with me.

Basic reading comprehension is pretty shallow. I think you're right.

[jwhitlock]

9 hours ago, consiglieri said:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Cute, but shallow.

[Bob Crockett]

11 hours ago, consiglieri said:

But you are completely inaccurate here.

I never said what you attributed to me.

And when I called you on it, you said I insinuated it.

When I called you on it again, you said you feel "more accurate."

You are revealing your intractability when faced with the facts.

This lessens your credibility in everything you say.

I wouldn't worry about what I think.  But my recollection is completely accurate.  You were quite public about it, but then again, you're anonymous and I can see how you might have made it up.  The reason I bring it up is that it goes to my original questions posed to you in this thread.   What's wrong with having a personal relationship with Jesus?  And, if you don't believe in Jesus, what is the point of the thread?  It doesn't concern me what you believe and don't believe except that I find it interesting that an atheist would poke fun at a Jew for eating a cheeseburger.  Good Church critics don't expose themselves to criticism with overtly disingenuous posts; they're much more interesting when they're subtle about it all or they simply are not disingenuous.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Bob Crockett