hope this is the right place for this

[_Dwight Frye]

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

Dwight,

Faust was just a lowly Seventy in 1976 (not getting the nod to be an Apostle until 10/1/1978). So obviously BRM, an apostle in 1982, trumped Faust.

Yeah, but wouldn't something printed in the Ensign trump a BYU speech?

[_Dwight Frye]

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

True, but "the Savior" and "Deity" aren't synonymous, and given the shift in emphasis between the two talks, the change carries a wee bit of significance. Also, I think it serves to show that Faust was, at least in this case, willing to alter the details of an anecdote (one apparently being offered as an actual event) to better serve the point he is trying to make. I don't think it's too surprising that some might take exception to that.

I'd also like to point out that “Is not the greatest need in all of the world for every person to have a personal, ongoing, daily, continuing relationship with Deity?” is damn near the phoniest-sounding bit of dialogue I've ever seen. And I've watched Juno.

[_sock puppet]

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

Dwight,

Faust was just a lowly Seventy in 1976 (not getting the nod to be an Apostle until 10/1/1978). So obviously BRM, an apostle in 1982, trumped Faust.

Yeah, but wouldn't something printed in the Ensign trump a BYU speech?

Channeling bcspace, are you?

[_Inconceivable]

by the way, this is a perfect place to ask your questions unless you are only looking for the canned answer you already expect.

As a missionary in 1982, "Bruce R's" talk confused me. He was a God to us missionaries at the time. To put this in perspective, the first discussion was changed from The First Vision to Our Relationship to Christ. Kindof ironic.

For those who think changing a story is no big deal, what could we have concluded if the story were reformed in the opposite direction? That the church was becoming more Christian than before?

Also, what does it mean to have a "relationship" anyways?

I know Willie Mays. At one time we were on a first name basis. Did it signify I had/have a meaningful relationship with him or am I just name dropping? I mean, did he donate his kidney to me or simply hand me an autographed baseball in a crowd of zealous worshippers?

[_Themis]

Really? Seems answers were provided here.

Cynical ones.

I do agree with Celestial Kingdom, but clearly you are wrong. Good answers have been given even by some you hate.

[_Dwight Frye]

Yeah, but wouldn't something printed in the Ensign trump a BYU speech?

Channeling bcspace, are you?

LOL... Hey, I'm just trying to play by the rules. :)

[_consiglieri]

Cynical ones.

I'm not sure why you consider my answer cynical.

But regardless.


The floor is yours to provide a less cynical explanation, Simon.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_sock puppet]

Cynical ones.

I'm not sure why you consider my answer cynical.

But regardless.


The floor is yours to provide a less cynical explanation, Simon.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Now that ought to be fun to watch!

[_Called2Serve]

Writing a talk from a 35 year old Ensign article. If I said something like this I would have been called a sock puppet or a fraud.

[_Dwight Frye]

Writing a talk from a 35 year old Ensign article. If I said something like this I would have been called a sock puppet or a fraud.

If one is using LDS.org to search for this or that, I don't find it too odd that an article that old would pop up as a result. It's happened to me.

What do you find so suspicious about it? Have you used the search feature at LDS.org? Did you only get recent Ensign articles as search results? Genuinely curious.