hope this is the right place for this

[_Brooklyn]

Hi folks. A member of a Mormon-related group on Facebook recommended this board to me, so I hope my post is appropriate for this forum. Basically, I'm trying to help one of my friends who is struggling with her faith right now. She knows about FAIR and Jeff Lindsay's website and other things like that, but she's really hung up on one issue more than any others right now, and I'm not sure how to help her. I can provide more details later if I need to, but the basics are that she was writing a talk and was using LDS.org for some quotes, and she came across two different versions of a talk, which for some reason is really bothering her.

The first version is here: http://lds.org/ensign/1976/11/a-personal-relationship-with-the-savior?lang=eng

The second version is here: http://lds.org/ensign/1999/01/that-we-might-know-thee?lang=eng

I'm not sure if those are going to link or not, so just copy and paste if they don't work. I'm going to quote a couple of the actual changes that she has pointed out as being troublesome to her so you can get an idea of what we are talking about.

Version 1: Recently in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked, “What is the greatest need in the world?” One wisely responded: “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with the Savior?”

Version 2: Some time ago in South America, a seasoned group of outstanding missionaries was asked, “What is the greatest need in the world?” One wisely responded, “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with Deity?”

Her concern: Either the missionary said "the Savior" or he said "Deity." The two terms are not synonymous. Why the change? How can you just change the words you are putting in someone else's mouth? It seems to me he changed what the missionary said because he changed the emphasis of his talk years later. I'm sorry, but that is dishonest. There's no other way around it. If you're going to attempt to quote someone verbatim, you had better be right in what you are attributing to them. (These are her words, not mine, and this is the change that bothers her the most.)



Version 1: May I suggest five beginning, essential measures which will greatly clear the channel for a daily flow of “living water” from the very source of the spring, even the Redeemer Himself.

Version 2: May I suggest five beginning, essential measures that will greatly clear the channel for a daily flow of “living water” from the very source of the spring (see John 4:7–15).

Her concern: (Again, her words.) The first version is clearly referring to Jesus Christ, while the second, as indicated by the scriptural reference, is clearly referring to Heavenly Father. They are not the same person. Which is it? Why the change? (I've pointed out to her that since the Savior and Heavenly Father are united in power, will and purpose, they can both rightfully be considered the source of living water. She understands that but is still bothered by the change.)



She also keeps saying that the first version speaks almost exclusively of Christ while the second lessens this emphasis by making sure Heavenly Father is mentioned as much or even more. I don't personally see that, but she said the word "He" in the first version refers to Christ while "He" in the second refers to Heavenly Father or is left ambiguous. I've read the two versions but I don't know that I really agree with her on that point, but I think she is right that sometimes "Lord" and "Master" are used sorta ambiguously. For me it doesn't matter that much, but she says it "muddies" the issue or something. Not really sure what she means.

The main thrust of her concern seems (to me) that speaking of a personal relationship with the Savior was okay at one point in the church but that it's not anymore. I don't know enough about this to help her and I haven't found anything at FAIR or the other sites about this. If anyone has some advice for me or for her I would be most grateful. Thank you all for reading.

P.S. I know there are some exMormons here, but I don't really want to debate about these things. I'm really just looking for help. Thanks again.

[_zeezrom]

I wouldn't consider that a big deal. I mean Jesus is considered deity after all.

Just don't show her changes made in the Book of Mormon, D&C, First Vision story, Book of Mormon translation story, and she should be just fine.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

The stories are passed off as anecdotal. The problem lies in that the listener or reader assumes the stories themselves aren't false when in reality they are false, hence the ability to change them to suit whatever prevailing doctrine is popular. Your friend is best served to focus on her inward spiritual health, and to determine if the LDS culture and mythology is best suited for it. Getting caught up in the details will only serve to distance her from a faith that she might otherwise find fulfilling.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_consiglieri]

Hi, Brooklyn,

And welcome.

If this speck on a mote is what has your friend in a tizzy, I suggest she investigate no further. Thar be whales here!

If you really want to know the answer to this relatively insignificant aspect of Mormon revisionism, Brother Faust (a truly kind and gentle man) gave the first talk in 1976 and the second talk in 1999.

It is what happened in between that made all the difference.

It is called Elder Bruce R. McConkie's talk, Our Relationship with the Lord, given in 1982, in which we find the following:

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.

* * *

And you have never heard one of the First Presidency or the Twelve, who hold the keys of the kingdom, and who are appointed to see that we are not "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14)--you have never heard one of them advocate this excessive zeal that calls for gaining a so-called special and personal relationship with Christ.

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6843

In order to avoid having President Faust deemed something other than a "true worshiper," his 1999 talk was accordingly emended.

I hope the truth is of value to your friend, who from what you wrote sounds like she has already tripped to this.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. My surprise lies only in the fact the original 1976 talk is still available.

[_Fence Sitter]

And here all these years I thought that I was supposed to develop a relationship with Christ and I never heard about Grace. I must have had the wrong address for the chapel.

[_quaker]

Well characteristic of this board you are immediately offered the exact opposite of the help you requested.

My first question after reading the two talks, especially around the quotations you posted, is if your friend is bothered because some online Christian (or plain old anti Mormon, see above posts) missionary pointed this out to her and automatically framed it with an insidious undertone? I've tried to imagine myself encountering this on my own and I can't imagine taking it to heart unless someone had influenced me.

Second of all the scriptural reference to John 4:7-15 is clearly to the Saviour and His words.

Thirdly I find it a bit much that someone holds a second hand related story to the standard of being quoted exactly verbatim to the point of considering it dishonest if an interchangeable word is used in place of Saviour. If he ascribed the quote to a specific person and changed its meaning in a significant way then I can see it as an issue worth a second thought.

Basically from what you said I see you friend picking apart of nitty gritty issues to justify her idea that speaking of a personal relationship with the Saviour is taboo. That's not my experience in the Church at all. Perhaps her experience is different. Can you tell what area you are from?

Also, do you see that speaking of a personal relationship with Christ is not okay in the church?

The hunch I get is that she's being persuaded by someone that Mormons don't focus on Christ. Why? Because I've heard the same thing pounded to me by the 'Christian missionary' crowd over and over, and the personal relationship with Christ line is their vernacular. My experience is that, in their opinion, if you don't use the Lord's name an ungodly and tacky amount in your speech then you are obviously not worshiping him.

Do you think those ideas are relevant?

[_quaker]

Consig obviously predates me in age and exceeds me in wisdom and knowledge to be able to identify the reason for the clarification :)

But is that why your friend is bothered? That's what I would like to know. I've personally never known anyone who has had the same issue except individuals who are new to the church and who are highly influenced by other Christians who are trying to convince them the LDS church is some sort of anti Christ.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I'm certain you have found your way to the wrong forum. Try mormondialogue.org instead.

[_Dwight Frye]

If you really want to know the answer to this relatively insignificant aspect of Mormon revisionism, Brother Faust (a truly kind and gentle man) gave the first talk in 1976 and the second talk in 1999.

It is what happened in between that made all the difference.

It is called Elder Bruce R. McConkie's talk, Our Relationship with the Lord, given in 1982, in which we find the following:

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.

* * *

And you have never heard one of the First Presidency or the Twelve, who hold the keys of the kingdom, and who are appointed to see that we are not "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14)--you have never heard one of them advocate this excessive zeal that calls for gaining a so-called special and personal relationship with Christ.

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6843

In order to avoid having President Faust deemed something other than a "true worshiper," his 1999 talk was accordingly emended.

I hope the truth is of value to your friend, who from what you wrote sounds like she has already tripped to this.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. My surprise lies only in the fact the original 1976 talk is still available.

Wait a tic. Wouldn't Faust's 1976 talk be official doctrine while McConkie's BYU speech isn't? o_O

[_Dwight Frye]

I'm certain you have found your way to the wrong forum. Try mormondialogue.org instead.

Boo! Hiss!