And I apologize for the misunderstanding. It was my fault because of my poor wording.

No, I’m not. I just had a problem with communication

What I mean is that mocking and making fun of what others said is very common and it happened with McConkie. I was not accusing you.

My mistake was saying “to be blunt” which was a poor choice of words in this context. I just meant your making my very point — we have to dig out meaning because we really care what the person really meant. You did, so that’s why you were able to understand McConkie even though he didn’t word things the best. Others did not understand his words because they had no interest in what his real meaning is.

But then isn’t that a bit of a paradox? McConkie’s talk really isn’t that hard to understand — what he really meant was stated quite clearly — yet many people misunderstand it. How do you explain that? Your explanation is “he should have worded it better.” True enough.

But then when I worded it more to your liking, the same people that misunderstood McConkie still misunderstood. How do you explain *that*?

Apparently more careful wording plays little or no role in ability to comprehend after all. Thus this wasn’t really McConkie’s fault after all. Thus the paradox.

No, I regard McConkie as one of my religious heroes. I quote him all the time. I try to read everything he ever wrote, but I am still working on it. I do think his talk in question is a challenge to understand. I also think that you have written a very correct interpretation of Elder McConkie’s intention. I am merely stating in my response above that I wish he had been as clear as you.

You are correct that hindsight is 20-20. I don’t think Elder McConkie anticipated the subsequent reactions. No writer and thinker can be perfect at that.

I was actually going to address this in part 3, which I never got to.

I hate to be blunt about this, but your question underscores the real point I’m making — that communication is very very hard but we pretend it’s not when we mock and make fun of what others said.

McConkie went to great lengths to explain himself, a point proven by the fact that I had little to do but quote him. However, he was in the midst of his own offense over a word when he gave this talk and the tone was harsh and made several attacks on straw man positions of other religions. This really throws the reader off, I think, and reduces over all comprehensibility.

Furthermore, you and I have the ability to see what things people misunderstood from this talk after the fact. This gives us a chance to clarify misunderstandings McConkie couldn’t have forseen. So we need to undertand what a huge advantage that is for us compared to him.

But note that this made little or no difference at all to those posted hostile responses to what I said. Not one of them even bothered to review the quotes and state how they might interpret them different or how they disagreed with me. They simple launched into ad hominen attacks. Protecting their point of view was more important then understanding someone else’s.

As I said, communication is very very hard. In large measure it’s up to the listener to decide they want to understand before understanding is possible.

The essay I wrote on my website entitled “Do Mormons Worship Jesus?,” is one of my most heavily read. As much as I can tell (based upon Google search entries), many of the readers are non-LDS.

The answer to the question is, of course, YES, we LDS worship Jesus as part of the Godhead and as Savior. No, we do NOT pray to Jesus, but we pray to the Father in His (essential) Name.

The LDS faith doesn’t worship God. They worship religiosity.

When was the last time you saw someone raise their hands in the air with praise, or bow down on their knees in complete submission to God? When was the last time you heard someone scream “Praise God!”?

“I don’t disagree with your analysis of the Mormon’s being pushed out of Jackson County. In fact, I worded my previous comparison VERY carefully (with emphasis): “it has been NAMED as ONE reason for the outcome in Jackson County at that time”

Sorry for my wrong assumption, you did word your post that way and I should have picked up on that. It certainly is recorded in the D&C as pride being one of the reasons and therefore your statement is correct.

I haven’t weighed into the “Jesus as our personal Savior” debate in this thread much. I don’t consider myself enough of a theologian to make an intelligent argument one way or the other. Most of my experience is from my father, who loved the words of “Mormon Doctrine” and raised us kids on its teachings. He felt very strongly about us having a relationship with our Heavenly Father and understanding Christ’s role in our salvation. As my experience is within the walls of my home, I can’t speak for what anyone else thought or taught about Christ. So for me, the kinds of talks given in church today are different then what I heard as a youth from my parents. They certainly could have had it wrong and I fully except that my experience is just mine alone.

FWIW, I feel that the emphasis on Christ in the church today is the right thing to do. Whatever our doctrine was back in the 60’s, the recognition of the need for a personal relationship with Christ feels right to me. Having said that, I’ve also learned that “feelings” can’t be trusted as a good barometer of truth, therefore the fact that I’m comfortable with the current worship of Christ doesn’t make it true for anyone else. I could get into a whole new discussion about spiritual feelings giving me incorrect knowledge, but that’s a discussion for another day…

I can’t argue against it being a different church for you or blame you for longing for the church of your youth (you can see from my second post that I have that longing too). I easily accept that some things I was taught in seminary were not true and probably some things I heard in the Sunday School class I last attended. My experience with the church, however, does not agree with the “re-emphasis” of Jesus Christ of the 80’s as a change in our identity or a pandering motive. I don’t agree, for example, that Temple Square began showing “The Testaments of One Fold and One Shepherd” in place of “Legacy” as part of this plot. I don’t believe that a Mormon presidential candidate has to adopt “evangelical language” to state ‘I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior’.

As far as the issue of other teachings changing, I suspect you and I would probably see eye to eye on many things. I don’t disagree with your analysis of the Mormon’s being pushed out of Jackson County. In fact, I worded my previous comparison VERY carefully (with emphasis): “it has been NAMED as ONE reason for the outcome in Jackson County at that time.” I don’t believe pride was THE single reason, but, heck, that Salt Sermon of Sidney’s was not very neighborly…and it introduced the term “exterminate”, if I remember correctly.

Well Rigel, now were even as your comment here made me cringe. I’ve been told I’m too prideful in many ways, but this one was probably to most undeserved. My thoughts were more a reflection of my growing up in the 60’s and 70’s when I was fairly innocent and the church was unquestionably true to me. I read anti-Mormon stuff on my mission and found it weak and easily dismissed. I told people in teaching the BoM that it had already been proven true by archeology and the Smithsonian even used it as a map for finding lost cities in Central and South America. I told these untruths because that was the non-sense I had been fed in seminary. Back then, as has been already debated here and validated by many of these posts, the church’s teaching were certainly different than my children are being taught today.

You can get caught-up in the arguments that have been going back and forth here about whether teachings have actually changed or if the church is still the same. I don’t wish to re-live all of that, so I’ll simply state that for me, it’s a different church. As for being too prideful, that’s probably true for other reasons, but not for the comment above.

Using the “pride” card is the ultimate hammer used to persecute anyone who questions the church or in the case of early Mormons the reason certain revelations and prophecies can’t come to pass.

For me, I don’t believe the Mormons were pushed out of Jackson County because of pride. Using that logic, I suppose they were pushed out of Farr West and Nauvoo for the same reason. Do you really think it’s that simple or that the Saints were still prideful after all the horrible things they suffered in Missouri? I believe the answer to the question of why the early Saints had so many problems with their neighbors is exactly why cult organizations today can’t get along with any of their neighbors. Please don’t get offended by the word “cult”. While I agree that the church today could reasonably argue that is not a cult, the church of the 19th century fits Webster’s definition to a tee. Perhaps this would be a good topic for another thread and another reason the church has changed over the years…

The early disciples and apostles “talked with” Jesus; they “prayed to” the Father. One didn’t exclude the other. Things get tricky if “talking with” morphs into “praying to” – or if they are not seen as distinctly separate Beings, but it’s worth considering, imo.

(And in saying this, I in no way imply that all Mormons should say “Thank You Jesus” in such a manner. I am merely suggesting there is more than one proper way to show respect for Jesus and it shouldn’t be a “no-no”.)

Just coming off my enforced weekend hiatus. I’m glad you wrote this post. In fact, in one of my comments elsewhere on this site, I wrote, “I worship Jesus.”

I was too young to be much influenced by McConkie’s talk. I must have been five.

One of my hidden evangelical-leaning heresies is I will say “Thank you Jesus” every once in a while. Big Mormon no-no. But I am not pulling a George Pace here, right? At least, I’m not writing a book about it.

Rigel,

I’m sure you know that I’m not supposed to post during the week… but I just wanted to add to your thoughts here that I feel the same way you do.

I’m not saying “the Church hasn’t changed” as surely it has. But I see no “fundamental” change from between my birth and now. Any my studies into Mormon history have left me with the impression that I belong to a very doctrinally stable (in terms of the fundamentals) Church that has been very conservative on change and only made the most necessary ones.

And to me, this included and continues to include “worshipping Jesus via awe and respect and worshipful adoration.”

Thank you very much for your thoughts, Rigel.

DougG, I thank you very much for your thoughts to. I see in them a lot of nuance where you see the pros and cons of change and wish for another way while admitting there isn’t one. (Or that it would be undesireable if change didn’t happen.) As always, even though we don’t agree, you’ve given me food for thought.

I joined the church just a few years earlier than 1979 and see a remarkable similarity between the LDS church I attend now to the LDS church I saw then. If anything, back before the block program was instituted and we used to travel to church 2 or 3 times and take the sacrament twice on Sunday, the
worshipping of Jesus “via awe and respect and worshipful adoration” was more evident than it was even after the later change of the church logo, etc. Granted, this could be my own personal awareness at the time relating to the courses of study I was attending and the point of my progression in receiving ordinances. Nevertheless, THIS was the church of my youth.

The following comment made me cringe: “I long for the church of my youth. We were sure of our beliefs and didn’t care what the rest of the world thought about it.” I think, in reflection of this comment, about those early Mormon settlers in Jackson County who may not have been neighborly because they assumed a right to the land that their non-believing co-inhabitants didn’t have. This attitude is one of pride and it has been named as one reason for the outcome in Jackson County at that time.

The later 20th century pride that we “had all the answers”, “were proud of our better understanding of the gospel”, and had such strong feelings of rightness over our unique doctrines was a stumbling block to those who did not belong to the church. Alma 4:10 describes the wickedness of the church as a great stumbling block to those who did not belong to the church, and “thus the church began to fail in its progress”.

The change in title of the Book of Mormon, change in the logo of the church, re-ordering of the missionary discussions emphasized more basic beliefs. These beliefs matched the church of MY youth. They speak a language that is easier for investigators to find the common ground bridge to accepting the restored gospel. When I arrived in the mission field in Japan, I found that my mission had instituted a “bridging lesson” to be taught before the other lessons. This was discouraging to me as it meant memorizing a whole extra discussion in Japanese when I hadn’t yet memorized all the discussions received in the MTC. “If this was going to be the first discussion, why couldn’t they have told us to work on it while we were in the MTC,” I thought. The rationale was, it was perceived that the lack of an understanding of who God and Jesus Christ were, by investigators of a non-Christian background, was a stumbling block to feeling the witness of Joseph Smith’s grove experience. When the new discussions came out, the bridging lesson was no longer necessary.

Some critics might say that we “pushed aside” our unique doctrines, but I would say that we emphasized our basic and core doctrines. Didn’t Joseph teach that everthing else is an appendage? When the church is taken to task for pride and you see changes coming from the top, then you can witness that they take the admonishing seriously. Is this pandering or humble obedience?

Thanks Bruce for your analysis of the topic and replies to the responses that followed. As I came into this post later and was reading the responses one by one, I was waiting for a response that would involve a discussion of the type you invited. I’ve hit the end and am writing my own post and still waiting.

One more thing. I’m not sure I agree with this statement: “I believe that his talk of 1985 would have been denounced by him in 1968 as heresy.”

My evidence in my post might undercut that as a possibility. Consider this quote from McConkie in Mormon Doctrine in 1979: (I don’t have a 1966 version handy, so someone that does please verify how much, if at all, this quote has changed. Does this quote go back to the 1966 or 1958 version? How far back does it go?)

The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship. [Note the use of a single word here for both members of the Godhead]… No one can worship the Father without also worshiping the Son. … It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son. ‘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 Ne 25:16, 29) (Mormon Doctrine, p. 848-849)

Please note the 2 Ne 25:16, 29 reference, which is equally important:

16 …they shall be persuaded to believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind—and when that day shall come that they shall believe in Christ, and worship the Father in his name…
• • •
29 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.

Now Joe Geisner was just trying to argue that the Book of Mormon was actually teaching modalism (or, for the sake of not offending Joe, he was or is now arguing that modalism fits it the best, but imperfectly.) For a moment, let’s assume a worst case scenario and assume he’s correct. Wouldn’t it be incorrect to maintain your assertion that “In LDS theology, we thank Jesus and move on. That’s it. We don’t adore him.”? Your assertion seems built on the assumption that we are to ignore the Book of Mormon’s teachings on this subject.

If in fact there is no such thing as “Mormon theology” (Joe Geisner’s point, I think) and it’s really just a contraditory conglomeration of beliefs that developed and were abandoned over time, then Nick’s and your point that the LDS Church has moved away from their original theology can’t be right as there is no “original Mormon theology” to move away from. We just pick and choose the parts that we want to emphasize out of a contradictory bunch and reconcile the rest by whatever means we choose. The “change” now to (as you term it) “worshiping Jesus” is certainly not a move “away” from original theology, as the Book of Mormon is *as original theology* as it gets! This can only be said to be a shift back and forth between two competing theologies that both have claim upon the term “Mormon theology.” (And I’d add, the Book of Mormon might have stronger claim on the term because it came first.)

On the other hand if Nick’s point (and possibly your point), that there *is* an original doctrine of the Church, is true, then we would certainly have to assume that the Book of Mormon was part of that “original theology” and thus the above quote would disprove you.

So either way, I don’t believe you are appropriately representing the LDS Church’s teachings as a “change” of doctrine away from “LDS theology.”

I actually think your response to me is quite thoughtful, though I admit I don’t agree with it. But that’s okay. Nothing wrong with us disagreeing. And I’ve never claimed that the data can only be interpreted one way.

I can see where you are coming from in some of your examples, such as emphasizing “Jesus Christ” in the name of the Church. It seems you aren’t so much pointing to any one incident but rather to an overall trend that you interpret as constituting a doctrinal change, even though no one change alone could ever be mistaken as such. Am I understanding you correctly on that?

I think, for me at least, that means we might not be talking about the same thing. That the LDS Church has done things to emphasize Christ more is beyond doubt to me, so we can agree on that much. That these things amount to equivalent worship of Jesus as to the Father (“in the true and saving sense” if you will) is what I was discussing with this post, and I do not see you taking a stance on that issue one way or the other.

So I’ll be willing to meet you half way and admit that there is at trend towards emphasizing Jesus more and I hope you’d be willing to admit that we very much still treat Jesus and the Father differently, in so much as we do not pray to Jesus nor emphasize Jesus *more than* the Father. (Your own post seems to emphasize this point.)

Where I think we do disagree is on this: “In LDS theology, we thank Jesus and move on. That’s it. We don’t adore him. He is our brother and did his job as hopefully we did ours. He is not favored by God over any of us.”

(Please also note here that you attributed “worshipful adoration” to me, but actually it was McConkie that used the term. I was just quoting.)

Although I do not agree with your interpretation, it helped a lot for me to understand you point of view by your explaining that you see McConkie’s talk as a transition of sorts between and older and newer view of Jesus, which McConkie (in your view) as being contradictory in a single talk. (This is how I read: “I see his 1982 talk as attempting to split hairs–to let us worship Jesus in the traditional Christian manner, but to not do so at the same time.”)

I think it’s interesting that you are the first person that I’ve talked to that claims a doctrinal change that has at least admitted McConkie did in fact teach that we do worship Jesus and don’t worship Jesus in two different sense of the word “worship”. I commend you on being able to clearly explain yourself on this as I’m quite unclear on what others on this thread even mean or believe on this point.

I do have a question for you. You state unequivocally “[Jesus] is our brother and did his job as hopefully we did ours. He is not favored by God over any of us.” Further you are saying that the LDS Church has moved away from this original doctrine of the LDS Church.

However, how can you sustain such an argument with something as blatant as the Book of Mormon around? The Book of Mormon most certainly does not equate Jesus to simply being a brother that did his job as we hopefully did ours nor as not being “favored” (whatever that means) by God over any of us. The D&C departs from your view here as well.

[update: snipped here -- I explained more originally, but then realized later that my next post to you repeated it all, but more clearly.]