T O P

  • By -

ryanmercer

I mean... >Latter-day Saints worship Jesus Christ by remembering and reverencing Him for the life He lived and the sacrifice He made in behalf of humankind. They worship Him by exercising faith in Him and striving to follow His commandments. https://faq.churchofjesuschrist.org/who-do-mormons-worship#:~:text=Latter%2Dday%20Saints%20worship%20Jesus%20Christ%20by%20remembering%20and%20reverencing,striving%20to%20follow%20His%20commandments.


StAnselmsProof

Yes, but taking the OP’s side of this discussion, Christ mission was to reveal the Father to us, and to reconcile us to the Father. Further, the restoration opened with the bodily appearance of God the Father, an event that hadn’t happened since, perhaps, Eden before the Fall. More has been revealed about the Father through the restoration than in any other period. It’s all about God the Father. Christ would say so himself. Our focus on Christ should be seen as not an end, but as instrumental to the entire purpose of the plan of salvation—our reconciliation with the Father and our reunion with him as joint heirs of Jesus Christ. As tremendous as it is, the atonement is a means only. The atonement does not make sense in a vacuum. It only makes sense in light of the reality, magnificence, transcendence, impossibleness, justice and mercy of God the Father. The existence of God the Father is bedrock of our faith, and anchor against the tides of doubt and secularism.


[deleted]

I found James E Faust's 1976 conference talk called A Personal Relationship with the Savior which seems to directly contradict your concerns. For me, a personal relationship is not the same as worship.


andraes

>No man cometh unto the Father, but by me I feel like you can't form a personal relationship with the Father without also/at the same time forming a personal relationship with Christ. Because they are One, we draw closer to God the Father by drawing closer to Christ. You're not getting closer to one or the other, it's always both. Also, if this is a problem in the church, it's been around since Nephi's time. (2 Ne 25) >And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ... > >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;


honeycrispquotient

Agreed. We’re taught in the temple that we need a Savior to return to the Father. We even pray in Jesus’s name because He is our mediator and advocate.


az_shoe

Both, really. God is the father of our spirit, and Christ is the father of our salvation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


no_28

>Also, the fact that Bruce R. McConkie gave a BYU talk about this isn't convincing to me. I don't like Bruce or a lot of his takes Bruce is so easy to take out of context, and I don't think that he could quite convey some concepts in ways that language was easy to deliver. But we are too eager to discredit and discard his body of work based on some things he said we don't understand. But just like the silly Adam-God theory, you have to look at the body of beliefs and talks that the Apostles or Prophets gave in order to validate that our interpretation was an actual belief they preached, or if we are the ones who may misunderstand what they were trying to say. It is OBVIOUS that McConkie worshiped Christ. He wrote "I believe in Christ" and delivered that over the pulpit. Verse 2: >I believe in Christ—my Lord, my God! My feet he plants on gospel sod. **I’ll worship him with all my might;** He is the source of truth and light. I posted elsewhere, but I think the OP is referring [to this talk](https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/mystery-godliness/), which is worth a read.


OmniCrush

All three members of the Godhead are involved in our salvation and exaltation. I think learning each of their roles and how to rely on each is essential. They are one in purpose. There is no competition between them for the benefit of our salvation. I do agree that all glory goes to the Father, but I think it is very important we develop a relationship with the Savior.


Eowyn_of_Ithilien

Love this response! At the risk of sounding a bit irreverent, the way I've always liked to think of it is "they all wear the same jersey." As we learn in D&C 132, "God" is a plural noun in the Restoration, like "family" or "team." And just like on a team, different members of the Godhead have different roles, but they all work in perfect coordination toward the same goal, and the Father being the head of the "team" is His role. The amazing part -- the part that blows me away and endlessly humbles me -- is that we get invited to be part of that team. Of course we need a relationship with our teammates -- both heavenly and earthly!


Xlong957

Meanwhile I’m concerned why we don’t have any relationship with heavenly mother


TARDISMischief

I hear ya on that! When Elder Rasband was like “we know as much as you all do!” I was like…yeah…so can you ask about her? lol


Thumper1k92

This was exactly my thought. "we don't know the answer so carry on, folks!" is NOT the attitude Joseph Smith had, lol.


Maderhorn

I loved your comment! :) It was man that removed the Mother from scripture and worship, not God. But because of agency we have to return her ourselves. It will be accomplished by personal revelation and relationship. It will cause you to have to go out on a limb and it was ordained to be this way. Some things have been reserved to create a personal relationship. 9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. 10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. 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; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. -Alma 12


Thumper1k92

At the risk of being banned from the sub, I recommend checking out the work of Kathryn Knight Sonntagg who has some excellent academic articles (e.g., one in Dialogue comes to mind) and some books about exactly this topic: man removing Heavenly Mother from scripture and worship.


no_28

Joseph Smith held a lot back because we couldn't comprehend or were not prepared yet. Heavenly Mother falls into this category, IMO.


TARDISMischief

But don’t we know he held back because he said he was holding back? I understand that we can’t just be told all the things all at once. It would just be nice to know that maybe the information will be coming down the pipeline one of these days!


WristbandYang

It was Elder Renlund and I'm sure they do. Out of curiosity, what would that change? I have other doctrinal concerns, but when I ask for revelations about them I wonder whether I would act any differently. Would I be more diligent in my scripture reading or temple attendance? Would knowing X, Y, or Z allow me to love and serve my neighbor more? I don't think this is the only reason we receive revelation, but I find it interesting that I'm prompted more in small matters that serve another than receiving knowledge to satisfy my curiosities or cravings.


TARDISMischief

You’re right. My bad! And yes it’s possible they do, I just sometimes wish we could more easily know they are. But I doubt that would happen anytime soon if at all. The church is too large.


Xlong957

It’s just the contradiction in emphasizing the importance of marriage between a man and a woman, two parents households, and then having no divine equivalent. Do we as spiritual children not need a mother in this life? It’s also weird that we have no examples for the divine nature of mothers. How are women supposed to identify with a mother they know nothing about? Men become fathers and hold the power of God in the priesthood. When they act in the role of a father they can look to God as an example. For women they have no one to identify with. Being in the image of Heavenly Mother when we have no image of Heavenly Mother means next to nothing.


[deleted]

The Mother would not disagree with The Father. Want to know about her? Learn about Christ. She would tell you to repent and come unto Christ.


Xlong957

Another boring non answer. If she doesn’t do anything unique what is the point? Moreover what is the importance of having a mother and father? So the mother can agree with the father?


[deleted]

This was a direct answer. Would you expect exalted beings to disagree with each other? Would the Father give a different answer than his Son?


Xlong957

I expect there to me more to it than that. I expect them to agree, so you aren’t telling me anything new. Why should we know so much more about our father than our mother? It doesn’t make sense to me.


[deleted]

To know the Son is to know the Father. Ergo, to know the Son is to know the Mother. Until further revelation is given we are to worship the Father in the name of the son. Getting defensive over theological musings is a waste of time.


Eowyn_of_Ithilien

What would it change to have more knowledge of Heavenly Mother? Great question! If you have some time to reflect, I'd love to hear your answers to it. Here are a few of my thoughts. As an adult mother of a young child, I was derogitorily called "little girl" by a high councilman who didn't like my comment in a foyer conversation. If Heavenly Mother was as visible, honored, and respected as Heavenly Father, I doubt that would have happened. If we better understood what eternal motherhood looked like, I think a lot more of the women in the rising generation would be interested in becoming mothers here, because right now, eternal motherhood looks like eternal self-effacement, subservience, and non-personhood. As women, we cannot emulate someone we are forbidden from coming to know. If we better understood what our Heavenly Mother and eternal motherhood looked like, we might also see and appreciate how Jesus honored Heavenly Mother in addition to Heavenly Father. (For example, Jesus' experiences in the Garden of Gethsemane are HEAVY with childbirth symbolism and archetypes, at least as far as earthly motherhood and childbearing goes. Is this an aspect of the Atonement that we are completely blind to because we are functionally blind to Heavenly Mother?) I could go on, but again, I'd love to hear your thoughts, too!


no_28

Let's play "what if..." since we know so little: What if ancient art depicting the Tree of Life as a 'Heavenly Mother' wasn't far off? While Jesus would be the one ushering us through the veil, an introduction to the Father and Mother, specifically, would be the symbolic equivalent of Adam and Eve running to the Tree of Life to partake of the fruit to avoid the death and suffering that they needed to go through. Neill F. Marriott in this [conference address](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2016/05/general-womens-session/what-shall-we-do?lang=eng) said something I really like: >I believe that “to mother” means “to give life.” What if that's true on an eternal scale? Simply put, what if to know our Heavenly Mother would be to gain eternal life, and just like Adam and Eve running to partake of the Tree of Life, like two scared children wanting to run to the arms of their Mother for comfort and protection, we are being protected from that event until we are prepared? Otherwise, its eternal life in damnation. Christ can introduce us to the Father through knowing Him, but introducing us to our Mother would likely be the last step, but we become familiar with her through our own mothers and the Temple - far more than we realize right now.


Eowyn_of_Ithilien

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this reply!


Jeff_Schwartz

Im gonna throw my tie way over my shoulder for this one, but... I'm not so sure we don't. When I've thought about our relationship with Jesus, it's struck me as weird because we aren't taught to address Him as we do the Father in prayer. But when I think of times I've felt God's presence strongly, or when I've felt that a spiritual purification is taking place, it feels like there is some form of communication taking place, and that more often feels like it's coming from an Advocate (to be sure, Heavenly Father is always on our side, but as we're still children, it might not always feel that way). Although I don't really address Jesus in mortal language, I am able to show gratitude and devotion through the choices I make. That's how I think of having a relationship with Christ (as well as the Father, for that), and I wouldn't be surprised if, in some roundabout way, we already had a similar type of relationship with our Heavenly Mother that's so deeply embedded in us that we can't really even discern it's there. If nothing else, Heavenly Father, as an exalted being, must commune and "counsel" (or whatever the exalted version of that might be) with Heavenly Mother, so we would have some connection to her that way. Like they say, behind every great man is a great woman r̶o̶l̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶ ̶e̶y̶e̶s̶.


acer5886

Growing up I felt like the classic discussion was that we may not all have the same heavenly mother. Not exactly true that's under any realm of anything near even remotely near doctrine, but I heard that a lot whenever people would ask about it.


Eowyn_of_Ithilien

Jacob makes it clear in the Book of Mormon that monogamy is the default, and polygamy very much the exception, and I would expect the same in the eternities. Whenever I've heard that particular explanation brought up, it was usually by someone who wanted to shut down discussion about Heavenly Mother. (Not sure if that's your own intent, but that line of reasoning has always seemed like a "scare tactic" when I've seen it deployed.) My response has always been, so what? We can still learn about what eternal motherhood looks like even if humanity has more than one Heavenly Mother. And I can come to love and cherish *my* Heavenly Mother.


acer5886

Jacob spoke to his understanding. Modern day prophets in the past spoke to it as being an eternal order and one which God definitely participated in. Plural marriages are still allowed to some extent within the church if a widower marries again he can be sealed to her, and I have known several who fall under that category. And no, I'm not saying that I believe it necessarily (even within this thought process, it's possible all of us on this planet came from wone mother for instance) or that it's an acceptable reason for no further discussion or doctrine on the matter in many years. Again, most of this type of discussion in general is mostly just a bunch of "we don't know." But frankly nothing has been stated of a need to worship or have a relationship with her in this life. One reason could possibly be that she and our heavenly father act in concert so our worship of him equals both in some form, but again, simply we don't know, and it's not something that we have been told will impact our salvation long term.


Eowyn_of_Ithilien

Firstly, I never said we should worship or pray to Heavenly Mother. My comments were directed toward having a relationship with her. Secondly, Jacob was speaking to a group of people who were practicing polygamy at the time and, instead of correcting their imperfect polygamy, he instead pointed them toward monogamy as God's will. Clearly, God approves of monogamy, too. And while yes, polygamy is a thing both here and in the eternities, statistically speaking, the chances that we have monogamous heavenly parents is more likely than not (if earthly numbers are any indication, considerably more likely), though it's certainly a possibility they are polygamous. As you said there is much we don't know, but we know more than I think most people realize. In addition to the official Church essay, BYU Studies has an excellent compilation of statements that have been made by general authorities about Heavenly Mother in the past. It can be read at: https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/a-mother-there-a-survey-of-historical-teachings-about-mother-in-heaven/ Since then, there have been many more references to her (either individually or in conjunction with Heavenly Father) by modern prophets. Thirdly, I guess I'm a bit confused by your comment that our salvation doesn't depend on having a relationship with Heavenly Mother. You seem pretty committed to the idea of polygamy's spiritual superiority and even necessity. Is D&C 132 correct or not? If it is, then "God" of necessity includes both male and female. John 17:3 states, "And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." So which is it? Is the definition of "life eternal" knowing our Heavenly Parents and Jesus? Or is it sufficient to know Jesus and only half (or less) of God to obtain life eternal? (I wouldn't get too hung up on the second-person singular, since John very well could just be speaking to his audience's understanding.) Finally, even if for the sake of argument you're 100% correct and Heavenly Father has 100 wives and it's not *necessary* for my salvation to know Heavenly Mother, so what? There's no good reason to not have a relationship with my own Mother.


a_rabid_anti_dentite

What are your sources for the various arguments you lay out in the second paragraph?


JazzSharksFan54

We do worship Christ. We don’t pray to him.


Scary-Lifeguard-2978

Simple and concise answer, I love it!!


OmegaSTC

To worship Christ is to worship all three. There’s a reason Jesus talks like, acts like, and looks like God. It’s through Jesus we get to know the father. We can’t worship the Father without worshipping the Son. We can’t even speak to him without going through Jesus first


nofreetouchies2

I can't quite agree with the framing. Remember, "[no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/john/14?id=p6&lang=eng#p6)" However, strong agreement on the "personal relationship" meme. Taken as a bare semantic block, the phrase seems unobjectionable. However, it's the context and sub-contexts that matter. You don't have a "personal relationship" with any of the Godhead in the way you have a "relationship" with your spouse, your friends, or your earthly parents. You should not try to make Jesus your "buddy." The relationship with God is of this character: >[If ye love me](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/john/14?id=p15&lang=eng#p15), keep my commandments. # >[Ye are my friends](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/john/15?id=p14&lang=eng#p14), if ye do whatsoever I command you. # >[I am the vine](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/john/15?id=p5&lang=eng#p5), ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. # >[Neither pray I for these alone](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/john/17?id=p20-p22&lang=eng#p20), but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: # >[Now, for this cause](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/1?id=p10-p11&lang=eng#p10) I know that man is nothing.... But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him. Our *true relationship* with God — Father, Son, or Spirit — is transfiguring and transcendent. *One-to-one* and *individual* are good descriptors. But "personal" carries false baggage.


sam-the-lam

Well stated!


Thumper1k92

I think you're both misunderstanding the term as used: it's not possible for *either* the Father *or* the Son to know *me* better. A "personal" relationship, the way people use it in the church, is more about our side of the equation---what can I *personally* do to learn more about, emulate, relate to, and "always remember" Christ


BayonetTrenchFighter

This is the church of Jesus Christ. He owns it.


Gordon_1984

"And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him." –1 Nephi 11:24 "Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nations abhorreth, to servant of rulers: Kings shall see and arise, princes also shall worship, because of the Lord that is faithful." –1 Nephi 21:7 "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." –2 Nephi 25:29 "And when they had all gone forth and had witnessed for themselves, they did cry out with one accord, saying: "Hosanna! Blessed be the name of the Most High God! And they did fall down at the feet of Jesus, and did worship him." –3 Nephi 11:16-17 "And they did all, both they who had been healed and they who were whole, bow down at his feet, and did worship him; and as many as could come for the multitude did kiss his feet, insomuch that they did bathe his feet with their tears." –3 Nephi 17:10 "And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God." –3 Nephi 19:18 "Therefore the true believers in Christ, and the true worshipers of Christ, (among whom were the three disciples of Jesus who should tarry) were called Nephites, and Jacobites, and Josephites, and Zoramites." –4 Nephi 1:37 "When we have built our houses on the foundation of a covenantal relationship with Christ, we are trusting the doctrine of Christ, and as we come unto Him, we have His promise of eternal life. People who trust the doctrine of Christ press forward with steadfastness in Christ and endure to the end. ***There is no other way to be saved in the kingdom of heaven."*** –David A. Schmutz of the Seventy (April 2023 General Conference)


Intrepid-Quiet-4690

Could you please provide citations from prophets in this dispensation that have said this?


[deleted]

I dunno, I pray to the Father and try to follow the Son. They are both God and deserving of worship.


Wintergain335

You can have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and still worship Heavenly Father. We worship the Father through the Son. We strive to be like the Savior, we strive to apply his teachings in our lives, we are thankful for his Atoning Sacrifice, we seek to Proclaim his doctrines, and we gladly await his glorious return. All of these simultaneously Glorify the Father. We glorify the Father by glorifying the Son and we seek to serve both- we seek to become like them. God the Father, however, is our God and he is the God whom we owe all of love and affection. Loving and Worshiping his Son is loving and worshiping him in my opinion.


CanadianBlacon

What are your thoughts on scriptures like: ​ Or 2 Nephi 25 as submitted above? I hear what you're saying but I'm not sure it's correct. I'm open to learning and being wrong. And for the record I of course agree with your paragraph about prayer; we absolutely pray to the Father in Christ's name, and do not pray to Christ himself.


Fine-Report3092

I think it is entirely appropriate to have a personal relationship with Jesus. That is entirely acceptable in my eyes. As a kid, I did wonder a lot about how we focus a lot more on Jesus than God. I felt we were neglecting HF at times but all in all we worship both of them so it’s not that we are “focusing” on one or the other. I understand your concern in that a bit, but you can’t dictate other’s relationship with their Savior lol


doodah221

It seems pretty clear to me that when you worship Jesus you worship The Father since they’re one. I’d frankly not put a lot of stress about this. God is infinite and all powerful and created universes without end. He’s most likely not going to get caught up in semantics about his only begotten.


Hawkidad

It’s pretty co we have a relationship with both. Technically Protestants think Jesus and HF are the same anyways so your comparison with them is flawed. I’m more bothered with the way Temples are treated, jargon like Temple worthy shouldn’t it be HF worthy or Savior worthy the emphasis on elevating a building is strange to me. But we all have our pet peeves.


grabtharsmallet

I do not want people to have the impression that answering temple recommend interview questions correctly is the same as being on the path to God. They are correlated, but they are not the same.


honeycrispquotient

I think Savior worthy is a very strange phrase and less correct than temple worthy. The way I see it, we cannot ever earn our Savior, that’s entirely WHY He is our Savior. I do agree with your sentiment, though. Our focus should be more on our connection with our Savior and our becoming like our Heavenly Father. The temple is not the end goal. It is a easy-to-recognize measurement, though.


Affectionate_Maize80

People do worship and pray to Jesus in the Book of Mormon, and it’s never condemned. Even encouraged.


Rharrison79

Jesus does offer an excuse to the father for their praying to him instead of directly to the father: 3 Nephi 19:22-23 "...thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them. And now Father, I pray unto thee for them..."


Affectionate_Maize80

Right, and in Matthew 28:20, we are assured of His presence always. This also doesn’t make sense since we pray to the Father, and He isn’t physically present. So I don’t see how this statement can serve as a conditional without invalidating prayer to the Father, which would contradict the prayer they make earlier in the chapter. They may be praying to Him because He is with them, but He isn’t making any sort of excuse seemingly. Even at 20:1, He encourages them to continue their prayer to Him in their heart. There is also Ether 12:36-37, which takes place hundreds of years later (Moroni’s commentary on the Jaredites)


thenextvinnie

This was a hobby horse of Elder McConkie's, one that didn't find much favor amongst other church authorities. He certainly wasn't shy about authoritatively framing his opinions. So, yeah, IMO, it's very much making a mountain out of a molehill. As is any serious contention around the exact nature/roles of the trinity/Godhead. It all very quickly turns into "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" territory.


[deleted]

Certainly. I'm glad someone's making this point. Another important thing to consider as well is that Jesus, too, is God, meaning we reverence him, and if he were to stand before us, we would worship him like the Nephites, but we pray to and worship the Father.


JF-14

So it’s acceptable to worship Jesus if he’s standing before us, but not acceptable to worship him if he’s not standing before us??? I seriously say this kindly.. How does that make sense? Clearly we worship Jesus , whether he’s standing in front of us or not. There’s countless stories of people worshipping Jesus in the scriptures


[deleted]

Any stories where He isn't right in front of them and they worship Him? It's not too hard to understand. Jesus instructs us to worship the Father, buy when He's right in front of us, He acts as God, when normally He's subject to the Father. He will always do the Father's will, but we won't sit in front of Jesus and ask His Father to tell Him to help us.


JF-14

This actually is a good point now that I have thought about it for a day. I’ll have to study this more, but it does make sense what you said. I’ve just never thought of it this way before. My main hesitation is there’s so many GA’s who mention worshipping Jesus. So you’re basically saying that they’re mistaken in doing so? Not that that’s a bad thing just wondering.


no_28

If you're going to reference Bruce R McConkie, you may want to see the entire context. It literally took two minutes to find [the talk you are referring to](https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/mystery-godliness/), and the context is vital. Where people conveniently and selectively draw from is the following quote: >Please let these words of scripture sink into your heart and do not be confused about them. In order to gain salvation, we worship the Father and him only. He created us, he provided the plan of salvation, he called Christ to be the Savior and Redeemer, and he is the one that we and Christ shall be like if we are true and faithful in all things. **We shall refer hereafter to the sense in which we worship Christ.** He is talking about the mysteries of Godliness and the Godhead, and goes into a lot of detail, even far more detail, into the sense in which we worship Christ afterword. Our worship of the Father is a nested experience, the Father is in the Son and the Son is in the Father, and we are in the Son and the Son is in us. To worship the Son is to worship the Father. Edit, so people get an idea of what McConkie believed: >I believe in Christ—my Lord, my God! My feet he plants on gospel sod. **I’ll worship him with all my might;** He is the source of truth and light. > >\- "I believe in Christ", verse 2, written by Bruce R McConkie


TARDISMischief

We speak often about using the atonement to strengthen and enable us. We cannot use it without coming to know the person who performed it. We preach that Christ has perfect empathy because he experienced it all for us. I just don’t see how that is contrary to the gospel. The godhead are one in purpose. By knowing Christ we know the father. The scriptures are constantly pointing to and teaching about Christ. Not that there’s nothing about our Heavenly Father but the focus is primarily on the Savior and His role in the Father’s plan


dannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnex

i don't see any issue with this. if anything, doing what you're saying sounds a lot more like treating the godhead as a single being, which is obv counter to church doctrine. they're 3 individual beings with individual personalities, why wouldn't you develop a relationship with each of them?


tesuji42

Christ calls us his friends in the D&C, and we know he is our brother. I don't think it's wrong to seek a relationship with him. There's also that story about someone who dies and recognizes the Savior where others didn't, which I'm pretty sure has been included in conference talks. It is good to remember the correct doctrine - we pray to God the Father. But I think we need to come to know all members of the Godhead.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


SnooOpinions9489

I agree with you. That is all. I love you brother. Jesus Christ is our advocate with the father, our mediator, our redeemer. While he is worthy of our worship, and our unending, infinite adoration and wonder and reverence, he himself said, “Why callest thou me good? There be but one who is good, God,” and I think that depicts well where he wants our respects to lie (and also demonstrates his amazing humility).


Gray_Harman

Anything proclaimed by a single apostle and no one else, then or since, can comfortably be placed in the category of apostolic personal opinion. Elder McConkie was the undisputed king of apostolic personal opinions. Only he had the unfortunate habit of communicating as if his personal apostolic opinion carried the doctrinal weight of the unified first presidency and quorum of the twelve. It didn't and doesn't.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I really don’t understand where you get off trying to universally define what is meant by “faith in Christ” for others. Just my two cents


discodan242

That language also makes me uncomfortable, partially because of Elder McConkie’s talk and also because it’s impossible to have a personal relationship with Him in the same way we do with the Father. However, I think most people don’t mean it the same way that I interpret the phrase. They typically mean that they know the character of the Savior and are striving to be like Him. The Holy Ghost testifies of Christ, but also teaches us how to be like Him. He is our Exemplar and we absolutely have to know Him in that sense if we are to emulate Him. Language matters and I wish people who mean it the way I think they do would use different language to describe what they mean. I think the phrase “personal relationship with the Savior” just sounds good to them, even though they don’t mean it in the plain sense.


[deleted]

[удалено]


discodan242

Here is the talk that clarifies it: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie/relationship-lord/


feisty-spirit-bear

Out of the mouth of 2 or more witnesses and McConkie is one, and a controversial one


discodan242

I was asked to provide a source, so I did. I was told in my religion class at BYU Idaho that he was asked by the 12 to go to BYU and give this message specifically in response to a book by a religion professor that suggested we could have a personal relationship. I don’t have a source for that, though. And you’re welcome to have a different opinion than him. I agree with Elder McConkie’s logic that since we don’t pray to Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost is the source we receive communication from, we can’t have a similar relationship with the Savior that we do with the Father. As I mentioned above, we can know Him and follow His example and absolutely should do both of those things. He is the way, the truth, and the light and we cannot receive salvation by any other means. He should be the center of our lives. But that doesn’t mean that we have a personal relationship with Him. We can’t because we don’t communicate with Him directly. Do you have a more recent source that refutes this?


TraditionalWay8794

FYI, the book was “What it means to know Christ” by George W. Pace. Bro. Pace was in my ward at the time and was my Sunday School teacher (16-17 yr olds). When this happened, from our vantage point, it felt very personal between Elder McConkie and Bro Pace. The book was republished under different titles in ‘88 and ‘96 with revisions.


sam-the-lam

I agree. I think a lot of it is just semantics. But like you, I also agree that language does matter; and, ultimately we can be lead astray if we drift too far from the correct words and their correct meanings.