30 years after his speech and 27 years after his death, Elder McConkie


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

That clearly isn't what Elder McConkie is saying. He states substantially the same thing in various talks and one would imagine that if he is was off his rocker, he would have been instructed by the brethren to either clarify or change his message. He notes that he is expressing the views of the brethren as well, I would think that if President Kimball disagreed he would have corrected him since Elder McConkie implies that he is expressing President Kimball's views as well.

Outside of the LDS world, people pray directly to Christ and not the Father, They pray to the Holy Ghost and in their prayers they seek to have a special, intimate relationship through this prayer and worship with Christ that reflects a great lack of understanding of the Gospel. Context means a lot and clearly, you and others are taking him out of context. If a new member or child were to begin a prayer with Dear Jesus and then spoke of his adoration for Jesus and detailed how he personally longed to return to his presence and then perhaps uttered the words, "thank you Holy Spirit"....some one would gently correct this person. If this type of theological waywardness was being taught, then Elder McConkie's words were directed to those teaching, practicing and purveying this incorrect understanding.

This is from a talk called Patterns of Prayer by Elder McConkie: Sounds pretty worshipful to me.

Well I must be one of the spiritually impaired he is talking about because it isn't at all clear what he means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"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."

This is the crux of the entire speech the Elder McConkie gave, that we should not "single out one member of the Godhead". I have a hard time believing that this is not clear! And if anyone believes that it is wrong that Elder McConkie went to BYU to suppress sectarian notions that had begun to creep into the church, especially around BYU, does not understand one of the roles of an apostle of the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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."

This is the crux of the entire speech the Elder McConkie gave, that we should not "single out one member of the Godhead". I have a hard time believing that this is not clear! And if anyone believes that it is wrong that Elder McConkie went to BYU to suppress sectarian notions that had begun to creep into the church, especially around BYU, does not understand one of the roles of an apostle of the Lord.

Well he kind of contradicts himself. He says we don't worship the Son and then he says we do. I'm looking at this from a hypothetical outsider's view. I know many who bow down to Jesus Christ, who adore and love and praise him, who believe they will live with him and be "married" to him in the hereafter. OK That's a different level of "worship" that is beyond what I feel or believe. But they are sincere and humble and believe it with all their hearts. They cry out to Jesus with complete humility. For them to hear the blunt statement "We do not worship the Son" could be taken as an offense and make outsiders think we're not Christian at the least and at the worst, see us as haughty and misguided. I have a very hard time believing that God the Father would punish them for their deep feelings of devotion towards Jesus Christ. And even if members of the church feel something at that level, (minus the being "married" to him part), I just don't see how that is inappropriate or improper as Elder McConkie says it is.

I get the overall gyst of what he's saying, but he hides the meaning in such lofty and confusing terms that it's hard for anyone but a scriptorian to understand what he's getting at. I view the gospel as much simpler than he's making it.

Here's what it is for me: Jesus taught us much of value while on the earth and he sacrificed and subjected the mortal portion of himself to extreme agony and pain, and eventually died for us. I love him as a brother who has given All for me. I'm indebted to him forever and that creates a feeling inside me that I can't deny or squelch. I worship and pray to God as my eternal Heavenly Father. The feeling is different. It's one of deep respect and gratitude for all He's given me. But I don't have any information about God the Father subjecting a physical body to pain and suffering for me (something that I relate to in this moment in eternity in my mortal state ), or His emotions to the agony of taking on the sins of all the world. There is perhaps a greater distance between me and God the Father. I do believe He loves me but I don't "relate" to Him quite as well as I do to a man who lived on the same earth that I do. I don't think ultimately that God will fault us for whatever way we view our relationships with Him and His son as long as it's a feeling of reverence and respect.

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon carlimac. I hope you are having a good weekend! :)

I respectfully disagree with Finrock in that simply because they are set apart as apostles doesn't mean they are infallible.

I have no qualms about you disagreeing with me. I'm testifying more than I am debating. You will either agree or disagree and in that respect it matters not to me. But your disagreement must not be because I have stated that apostles are infallible, or that I even implied it. I do not or have I ever advocated that apostles are infallible.

Regards,

Finrock

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus taught us much of value while on the earth and he sacrificed and subjected the mortal portion of himself to extreme agony and pain, and eventually died for us. I love him as a brother who has given All for me. I'm indebted to him forever and that creates a feeling inside me that I can't deny or squelch. I worship and pray to God as my eternal Heavenly Father. The feeling is different. It's one of deep respect and gratitude for all He's given me. But I don't have any information about God the Father subjecting a physical body to pain and suffering for me (something that I relate to in this moment in eternity in my mortal state ), or His emotions to the agony of taking on the sins of all the world. There is perhaps a greater distance between me and God the Father. I do believe He loves me but I don't "relate" to Him quite as well as I do to a man who lived on the same earth that I do.

This one statement is, in my opinion, exactly what Elder McConkie was saying as a proper relationship. You mention both of the "physical" members of the Godhead and have, if I may infer, used the Spirit to come to the conclusions, you have not singled out one above the other.

Just because we can relate to Christ better than we can the Father does not mean we worship him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one statement is, in my opinion, exactly what Elder McConkie was saying as a proper relationship. You mention both of the "physical" members of the Godhead and have, if I may infer, used the Spirit to come to the conclusions, you have not singled out one above the other.

Just because we can relate to Christ better than we can the Father does not mean we worship him.

But the "feelings" I have about Jesus Christ equate to worship in my mind. Yes it is all about semantics (whether Elder McConkie wanted it to be or not) and I just don't see how even an apostle can dictate how we feel about Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good afternoon carlimac. I hope you are having a good weekend! :)

I have no qualms about you disagreeing with me. I'm testifying more than I am debating. You will either agree or disagree and in that respect it matters not to me. But your disagreement must not be because I have stated that apostles are infallible, or that I even implied it. I do not or have I ever advocated that apostles are infallible.

Regards,

Finrock

Well you basically said that because he was set apart as an apostle of the Lord, that he's right and rameumptom was wrong. "I recognize and sustain Bruce R. McConkie as one who has been set apart by the laying on of hands by those having authority to be an apostle and one who has priesthood keys to teach, clarify, and expound the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not recognize or sustain you as one who has authority or priesthood keys to supersede the words of the Lord's anointed. Therefore, I must reject your words in this post and I would encourage anyone else to do the same."

I don't believe that. I believe apostles can be wrong at times. I have respect for his authority and I believe he knew more than I did. But I think he came across that his word is where the buck stops. He didn't seem to see any other perspective. "Dogmatic" was a good word that seemed to describe his position. "Punitive" is another word. I don't have the feeling that Christ was that way.

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the "feelings" I have about Jesus Christ equate to worship in my mind. Yes it is all about semantics (whether Elder McConkie wanted it to be or not) and I just don't see how even an apostle can dictate how we feel about Jesus Christ.

Just for a point of clarification, I "feel" that Joseph Smith has done more, save Jesus Christ only, for the salvation of mankind than any other person that has lived. I opened the last dispensation, restored the fullness of the Gospel, etc. In all seriousness, one could say we are indebted to him for our salvation (using semantic). What if I took these "feelings" and began to "worship" him? I have no doubt that even you would say that this is improper and should be quelled!

You are absolutely correct that an apostle cannot dictate how we feel about Jesus Christ, or any other person for that matter, but it is one of their roles to warn of how those feelings may or may not manifest themselves in actions and the consequences of those actions; i.e. praying to the Son instead of the Father, worship of the Virgin Mary, transubstantiation, etc. It only takes one "feeling" to manifest itself in improper actions to lead to apostasy and damnation.

I personally feel that in our effort to grow closer to mainstream Christianity and be accepted by them we have sold a little bit of our "peculiarity." If saying we worship the Father as much as we do the Son makes me wrong, than I don't want to be right! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the "feelings" I have about Jesus Christ equate to worship in my mind. Yes it is all about semantics (whether Elder McConkie wanted it to be or not) and I just don't see how even an apostle can dictate how we feel about Jesus Christ.

Seems like this statement by Elder McConkie approximates how you feel and probably all other Saints as well......no?

O how we love the Lord Jesus, who is called Christ and who is the Holy Messiah; who also is our Lord, our God, and our King, whom we worship in the full majesty of his godhood; and in whose blood we shall yet wash our garments, so as to stand spotless before him and thee in that great day!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, that speech! People still talking about it. I agree with Ram in some of his points, at the same time I'm glad Mc Conkie was able to publicly state that he spoke with limited understanding (in the Priesthood ban issue).

In this particular talk, he says:

Now I know that some may be offended at the counsel that they should not strive for a special and personal relationship with Christ. It will seem to them as though I am speaking out against mother love, or Americanism, or the little red schoolhouse. But I am not. There is a fine line here over which true worshipers will not step.

He is not here to tell us exactly what he meant by a "special and personal relationship with Christ" however, I fully understand how those words if taken literally, can cause a lot of controversy and disagreements. The timing of this talk (after a BYU professor published a book where pretty much encouraged others to build a special relationship with Christ) is also interesting.

Mc Conkie was an Apostle yes but he was also a man and we should keep that in mind IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad Mc Conkie was able to publicly state that he spoke with limited understanding (in the Priesthood ban issue).

Actually he said, WE, spoke with limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world and made reference to Brigham Young and George Q Cannon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually he said, WE, spoke with limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world and made reference to Brigham Young and George Q Cannon.

Yes, thank you. WE, because unfortunately he wasn't the only one who spoke with limited understanding about the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thank you. WE, because unfortunately he wasn't the only one who spoke with limited understanding about the issue.

Everybody who spoke about the issue -- everybody -- did so with limited understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. I'm of the opinion, like others, that Bruce R gave us some wonderful stuff to chew on. He made us think! I honor him for his contributions and for the depth of his faith. He was bold. He took risks. And sometimes....he shot beyond the mark. And I honor his humility because when he became aware, he stepped back.

I don't, however, feel a need to exalt him or marry myself to what he said. I've got my favorite prophets too. Frankly, there are times when I hear people sing Bruce R's praises and it sounds a little too close to worship. Kinda like my kid worships his favorite golfer. And when folks dis his golfing idol, you'll hear some defense. Much the way people defend cute Bruce. I understand it and respect that people feel the way they do. But it feels too out of balance for me.

When I read that quote about Jesus Christ, I can see why people are upset about it. But I don't worry about any of it much. It just invites me to go work on my relationship with God and see for myself. With God correcting my path, I don't need Bruce R telling me if I'm right or not. The spirit is doing pretty good on his own.

I've only been on the planet 40 yrs. And I'm still figuring it all out. What Bruce R taught me was a beautiful example of how he tried to figure it all out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I Stand


Here is where I stand. You might agree with me, you might not agree with me, or you might be uncertain. I'm primarily addressing those who agree with me and those who might be uncertain. Those who disagree with me on this point already know where they stand and they have made their choice and I don't presume to be able to change their minds.

My personal history has shown me that the more I write, the more I confuse others. I try to write less. To keep it simple, straightforward, and to the point. This post will be an exception and it will likely cause more questions and more confusion than it will provide any clarification. However, there is always the hope that it will strike a chord with the right someone, somewhere. If nothing else it will be a testimony as to where I stand.

When it comes to the gospel of Jesus Christ, whether I am online or speaking to someone face to face, I am not debating or conversing with others to stroke my ego, or to practice my linguistic skills, or to demonstrate my knowledge of the gospel, or to score rhetorical points, or anything like that. I'm not here to be popular. I have no hidden agenda and I have no desire to hurt or harm anyone in any way. To be clear, I am making no implications about others. I'm simply clarifying where I stand.

To understand where I stand it is important to understand that the issue here for me is not so much whether Elder McConkie's words are true or not. I know that they are true. I do not intend to get in to a debate about whether Elder McConkie spoke the truth in his speech. That issue is settled for me. As far as I'm concerned, there is no controversy. I am under no obligation, and I feel no obligation, to prove Elder McConkie's words. This isn't about Elder McConkie the person, but Elder McConkie an apostle. I am not defending my favorite apostle. I really have no favorite apostle. In fine, this is more about the office of an apostle and what it means to the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I believe that we are here on this earth solely because Heavenly Father designed a plan for us. We have no other real purpose. Heavenly Father's plan encompasses all truth and everything that is of significance, that is important, and that is good. Anything that is contrary to God's plan must be rejected because it is nonsensical. God has given us everything and without him we truly are "less than the dust of the earth". Amongst other things, God appointed leaders who have been given priesthood authority and priesthood keys to direct the affairs of God on this earth. These we sometimes call the Lord's anointed. The members of the First Presidency and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve are all apostles and they are all the Lord's anointed. They have been given the keys of the ministry and the keys to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is their duty to teach, to expound, to correct, and to clarify the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When anyone, but particularly when members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, takes upon themselves the mantle to publicly correct the apostles, they are usurping authority that they do not have and they are placing themselves in jeopardy. But, not only that, they may also become a stumbling block to others in the gospel or those who are investigating it. It is not our place to say that an apostle taught incorrect doctrine or that they "crossed the line" particularly when there is nothing to suggest that the apostles words have been superseded by those who have the authority to do so. To me it is presumptuous, it is disrespectful, and it is tinged with pride. I offer my view as a counter to what can only be described as blasphemy. An apostle can and has been superseded, but only by those who have the keys and authority to do so. No one on this internet forum has those keys and I testify against anyone who would either implicitly or explicitly presume to take upon themselves that office.

It just seems that sometimes people are too quick to reject the words of an apostle if it doesn't fit their personal understanding of the gospel or the doctrine, and they do so as if it is of no consequence. It sometimes seems that people believe that we can pick and choose which apostle we'll believe and when. I testify that it is no light thing to say that an apostle is leading the church astray. We ought to exercise great caution and extreme care in these matters. These are grave and serious issues. Who and what we choose to believe has eternal consequences. I testify that we ought to defer to the words of the apostles rather than to our own private interpretations, especially when our private interpretations are contrary to the words of an apostle. But, even if we feel we have some special knowledge, it is wholly inappropriate for a member of God's church to publicly teach and encourage their personal views. It is even more inappropriate to do so by encouraging other members to reject the words of God's apostle. It creates a clear line: Accept my personal interpretation or accept the words of God's apostle. In this thread, the choice for me is clear. I choose to reject the words of rameumptom over rejecting the words of God's apostle and I encourage everyone, everywhere, to heed the words of God's apostles and seek to understand them rather than to heed the words of those who would presume to know a better gospel or a better doctrine or who might be encouraging us to not believe the words of an apostle.

The warning that God has given us on this matter is clear:

"14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people;

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall (D&C 1:14-16)"


This is my last post on this thread simply because I do not have anything more that I can add. If you agree with me, if you disagree with me, or if you still don't know for sure where you stand, I will always respect your agency.

Regards,
Finrock Edited by Finrock
I didn't write enough. Wanted to add more words.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. I'm of the opinion, like others, that Bruce R gave us some wonderful stuff to chew on. He made us think! I honor him for his contributions and for the depth of his faith. He was bold. He took risks. And sometimes....he shot beyond the mark. And I honor his humility because when he became aware, he stepped back.

I don't, however, feel a need to exalt him or marry myself to what he said. I've got my favorite prophets too. Frankly, there are times when I hear people sing Bruce R's praises and it sounds a little too close to worship. Kinda like my kid worships his favorite golfer. And when folks dis his golfing idol, you'll hear some defense. Much the way people defend cute Bruce. I understand it and respect that people feel the way they do. But it feels too out of balance for me.

When I read that quote about Jesus Christ, I can see why people are upset about it. But I don't worry about any of it much. It just invites me to go work on my relationship with God and see for myself. With God correcting my path, I don't need Bruce R telling me if I'm right or not. The spirit is doing pretty good on his own.

I've only been on the planet 40 yrs. And I'm still figuring it all out. What Bruce R taught me was a beautiful example of how he tried to figure it all out.

Nicely said. I have learned much from Elder McConkie, probably more from him than many other Apostles and Prophets of this dispensation. Perhaps, it is because he is so oft quoted in manuals and his quotes and comments are still referenced in General Conference addresses by current GA's....perhaps it was his final conference address that endeared him to me. I don't see the controversy....maybe it's just me.

What I find troubling is the attempt by some to besmirch this great man and also it seems like the same treatment is often given to President Kimball as well. If only....i were a small fraction of the servant of the Lord that they were....or any of the men we now sustain.

I too have my favorites....I must say, Elder Eyring ranks right up there.......

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that this talk is kind of a mirror which reflects back on the reader. People find what they expect to find in it. McConkie-philes will read the whole thing in context and find they still like the guy. McConkie critics will cherry-pick sound-bytes, accept them as confirmation of what a jerk the guy was, and consider the case closed.

The fact is that few of us know who George Pace was; fewer of us ever heard the guy lecture, and absolutely NONE of us know how McConkie became aware of Pace's ideas or how they were affecting the students who came within Pace's sphere of influence. McConkie gives some hints of the positively soul-destroying collateral effects that Pace's ideas seemed to have been having, at least on some students. (this is not intended as criticism of Pace himself, who by all accounts seems to conducted himself honorably then and thereafter. It's just an observation that the acceptance of some ideas can have devastating unintended consequences.)

As someone who served his mission in the path of destruction left by Grant von Harrison's abominable Drawing on the Powers of Heaven, I am grateful for the instances where the GAs catch and publicly repudiate seemingly-innocuous and well-intentioned false doctrines--even if they are occasionally less than diplomatic in the way that they do it. Based on andcdota evidence alone, I am quite convinced that if Von Harrison (or at least, his most hard-core discuples) had gotten the same kind of smack down that Pace got, we'd see half the members of record but three times the activity rates that we currently see in Latin America.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like this statement by Elder McConkie approximates how you feel and probably all other Saints as well......no?

; and in whose blood we shall yet wash our garments, so as to stand spotless before him and thee in that great day!

So how do you reconcile this statement -

" We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son",

with this statement?

"O, how we love the Lord Jesus, who is called Christ and who is the Holy Messiah; who also is our Lord, our God, and our King, whom we worship in the full majesty of his godhood..."

So do we worship Jesus or not? What am I missing?

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that this talk is kind of a mirror which reflects back on the reader. People find what they expect to find in it. McConkie-philes will read the whole thing in context and find they still like the guy. McConkie critics will cherry-pick sound-bytes, accept them as confirmation of what a jerk the guy was, and consider the case closed.

The fact is that few of us know who George Pace was; fewer of us ever heard the guy lecture, and absolutely NONE of us know how McConkie became aware of Pace's ideas or how they were affecting the students who came within Pace's sphere of influence. McConkie gives some hints of the positively soul-destroying collateral effects that Pace's ideas seemed to have been having, at least on some students. (this is not intended as criticism of Pace himself, who by all accounts seems to conducted himself honorably then and thereafter. It's just an observation that the acceptance of some ideas can have devastating unintended consequences.)

As someone who served his mission in the path of destruction left by Grant von Harrison's abominable Drawing on the Powers of Heaven, I am grateful for the instances where the GAs catch and publicly repudiate seemingly-innocuous and well-intentioned false doctrines--even if they are occasionally less than diplomatic in the way that they do it. Based on andcdota evidence alone, I am quite convinced that if Von Harrison (or at least, his most hard-core discuples) had gotten the same kind of smack down that Pace got, we'd see half the members of record but three times the activity rates that we currently see in Latin America.

What path of destruction are you talking about? What was so bad about it? I never read it but one of my companions did and she was an amazing and powerful missionary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for a point of clarification, I "feel" that Joseph Smith has done more, save Jesus Christ only, for the salvation of mankind than any other person that has lived. I opened the last dispensation, restored the fullness of the Gospel, etc. In all seriousness, one could say we are indebted to him for our salvation (using semantic). What if I took these "feelings" and began to "worship" him? I have no doubt that even you would say that this is improper and should be quelled!

You are absolutely correct that an apostle cannot dictate how we feel about Jesus Christ, or any other person for that matter, but it is one of their roles to warn of how those feelings may or may not manifest themselves in actions and the consequences of those actions; i.e. praying to the Son instead of the Father, worship of the Virgin Mary, transubstantiation, etc. It only takes one "feeling" to manifest itself in improper actions to lead to apostasy and damnation.

I personally feel that in our effort to grow closer to mainstream Christianity and be accepted by them we have sold a little bit of our "peculiarity." If saying we worship the Father as much as we do the Son makes me wrong, than I don't want to be right! ;)

The feelings I have about Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith are quite different. I don't feel anywhere near "worshipful" about Joseph Smith. Appreciative yes.

I'm wondering...has there ever been any leader in the church (or any BYU professor) who has suggested we pray to Jesus or the Virgin Mary? I'm only vaguely aware of a time when the "special relationship with Christ" thing was suggested. I don't remember the specifics of it but I just thought the idea behind this was to try to come to understand the atonement better and apply it personally in our lives. I never heard anyone suggest we pray or talk to Jesus. But even it they did, would that be such a bad thing? Would God the Father be so terribly offended?

I do remember a time when the thought struck me that I don't know the Savior well enough because I don't pray to him. And I felt a little left out in the cold. I'm NOT suggesting we do start praying to him. But I don't think it hurts to ponder his his sacrifice deeply and utter a little "Thank you" in our minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering...has there ever been any leader in the church (or any BYU professor) who has suggested we pray to Jesus or the Virgin Mary?

Yes, there have been, and in my last ward some individuals would use the visitation of Jesus Christ to the American continent as an excuse to pray to Jesus.

My question would be, "Has there ever been a time when an apostle or prophet has addressed something that wasn't a concern, or a hot topic, during their time?" I am in understanding when the prophets or apostles speak about something it is because they have reason to believe it is important.

This is not to hijack a thread, but only for an example, I have heard members complain about the prophets and apostles speaking about pornography so much. I would ask, "Would they speak about it if it wasn't a problem?"

But I don't think it hurts to ponder his his sacrifice deeply and utter a little "Thank you" in our minds.

I don't see the correlation between pondering the atonement, and saying "Thank you" in our hearts in connection with a prayer.

We are supposed to ponder the atonement and I am sure the Savior accepts every sincere "thank you". I definitely say "Thank you" in my heart while pondering the atonement, however it isn't even close to a prayer, but then again you may have meant this, and I misunderstood your words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do you reconcile this statement -

" We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son",

with this statement?

"O, how we love the Lord Jesus, who is called Christ and who is the Holy Messiah; who also is our Lord, our God, and our King, whom we worship in the full majesty of his godhood..."

So do we worship Jesus or not? What am I missing?

Of course we do. Elder McConkie's talk was addressing something completely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The feelings I have about Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith are quite different. I don't feel anywhere near "worshipful" about Joseph Smith. Appreciative yes.

I'm wondering...has there ever been any leader in the church (or any BYU professor) who has suggested we pray to Jesus or the Virgin Mary? I'm only vaguely aware of a time when the "special relationship with Christ" thing was suggested. I don't remember the specifics of it but I just thought the idea behind this was to try to come to understand the atonement better and apply it personally in our lives. I never heard anyone suggest we pray or talk to Jesus. But even it they did, would that be such a bad thing? Would God the Father be so terribly offended?

I do remember a time when the thought struck me that I don't know the Savior well enough because I don't pray to him. And I felt a little left out in the cold. I'm NOT suggesting we do start praying to him. But I don't think it hurts to ponder his his sacrifice deeply and utter a little "Thank you" in our minds.

I was using hyperbole to point out that one seemingly innocent idea or feeling can quickly turn into heresy and apostasy. I have never heard of a GA discussing these points, however it seems like Anddenex has heard of it and I can only defer to his knowledge.

I have no problem being Thankful to our Lord and Savior to the tremendous sacrifice he made in our behalf. I hope that I will one day kneel at his feet and offer up my sincerest gratitude for his sacrifice and to the Father for the Salvation that He authored. However, I still don't pray to Christ.

In another post you quoted a prayer from Elder McConkie and used the following phrase to seemingly point out his hypocrisy on this topic:

"O, how we love the Lord Jesus, who is called Christ and who is the Holy Messiah; who also is our Lord, our God, and our King, whom we worship in the full majesty of his godhood..."

I believe that Bytor2112 answered your concern, but I would like to throw in my two cents. In this prayer, McConkie used a qualifying statement to our worship, which I bolded above. We worship Christ in his godhood, as a member of the Godhead since he is not our God except when he acts as such through and in the Godhead, not as a man who gave himself up as a sacrifice that we all might be saved, but as a God, (whether his sacrifice made him a God or not is a debate for another thread). When we worship Him in this context we subsequently have to worship Him with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Which is keeping entirely with his message in the OP'd speech:

"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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do you reconcile this statement -

" We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son",

with this statement?

"O, how we love the Lord Jesus, who is called Christ and who is the Holy Messiah; who also is our Lord, our God, and our King, whom we worship in the full majesty of his godhood..." (John 14:6)

So do we worship Jesus or not? What am I missing?

We worship God the Father through Jesus Christ. He is our mediator. Christ himself said"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Add in all the scriptures declaring "And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth" (Mosiah 15:4) and it can get kinda confusing. By worshiping one, we worship the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The more I try to think about this the more confused I get. I'm just hung up on that word "worship". I think it would have been better for Elder McConkie to eliminate that part of his talk so as not to mislead us spiritual midgets. I was reading through hymns today about Jesus. And every single one sounds like worship to me. Even Elder McConkie's song "I Believe in Christ" says "I'll worship him with all my might." Huh?? He just should have chosen a different word or phrase...like "We don't pay more homage to Jesus Christ than we do God the Father" or something like that.

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share