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.]

Hey, thanks for stopping by, Joe. As you noted, I have edit rights on my comments and I republish my comments until I get them right. This is done in a sincere attempt to get my words right because some people get so hung up on the words used.

And you seem to be right that I can’t read because I can’t understand the rest of your statement about “What part of my comments in #38 does not comment on #37 and some of the previous comments such as #20, #21, and #24?” Huh?

It’s obvious now we’re just going in circles, as IQ92 stated, and there is nothing that will be added in the conversation. So thank you very much for your time and comments, Joe Geisner.

I also appreciate that you read the article I posted and that you went on to admit that the Book of Mormon does not necessarily construct a modalist theology. That was very gracious of you, in all honesty. You came across very differently in the way I read your previous posts, but maybe this was what you actually meant.

I’m not clear if you intended that as an olive branch or not, but I’ll accept it as such.

Again, thank you for your comments, I really do appreciate them.

Mr. Ford argues in his 19th century debates about Deity that in large measure from an apparent lack of Sabellian-leaning groups or prominent individuals in Joseph Smith’s time or region (Ford, 21-23), and concludes that “. . . the evidence is not convincing that ancient Sabellianism was an active doctrine of any early nineteenth-century group, including the early Mormons.” (Ford, 24). I will give Mr. Ford some slack on this since he did not have access to Mormon Parallels. But if he had, he would realize that the 19th century is full of modalist ideas.

I will now quote from Melody Moench Charles so you can see what a real scholar reads like: Although modalism is the best description for Book of Mormon theology generally, it is not apt in every instance. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Book of Mormon authors were intentionally constructing a theology that would fit any previous or future model or label. Nor did they seem concerned about making sure that the theology of any one part of the book was always consistent with the theology of other parts. [Charles, 100]

You are being more than a bit condescending. Nonetheless, nobody can deny that there has been an undeniable shift in how the LDS church approaches Jesus. This was first evidenced in the changes to the missionary program in 1982 and then the change of the church logo in 1995. In this same time frame, there was an emphasis from the pulpit on creating a personal relationship with Jesus, another small shift. I also think it undeniable that since 1995, there has been a great public effort to emphasize that the LDS church is Christian.

The question is whether all these changes constitute a change in theology or merely one in PR. I believe the former and believe that McConkie is ONE of the evidences of this. I believe that his talk of 1985 would have been denounced by him in 1968 as heresy. 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.

While I do identify Bruce R. McConkie as the preacher of some of this change, there’s no doubt that the actual source of many of these changes was Gordon B. Hinckley. While not prophet in 1982, the rest of the first presidency was senile and he was effectively running the church. The logo change was his idea as has been the PR tour where he glossed over the more controversial aspects of the LDS church.

You used the phrase “worshipful adoration”. I’m sorry, but in actual practice, there is no effective difference between that and worship. 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. This view is seen as absolute heresy by most Christians and, unfortunately, increasingly by many Mormons.

One final point; Joseph McConkie is a terrible source for anything. By first hand knowledge, I’ve learned not to trust a word he says. His apologia for his father is just that and nothing more. I think Bruce R said what he meant and meant what he said.

You really need to develop some reading skills. I know you read comment #37 before my comment #38 because you then comment on #37 in #41 and #42. What part of my comments in #38 does not comment on #37 and some of the previous comments such as #20, #21, and #24?

As for Mr. Ford’s paper and your comments. Again when you talk about these issues you don’t use words like “far more even handed” when Mr. Ford’s thesis is “I shall argue that a case can reasonably be made for multiple BofM interpretations, none of which can conclusively be shown by scholarly means to be the author(s)’ original intention” if you want to be serious in a discussion. I have not read Mr. Ford’s paper but I will. Clearly you have not READ Mr. Vogel’s by the comments you have made.

I think this is relevant to Joe Geisner’s dismissal of any view that didn’t accept Dan Voel’s theory that the Book of Mormon teaches modalism. Joe was so convinced of this that he called my and any counter view not serious and not rational and felt no need to consider any counter evidence.

Ford’s research is far more even handed than Vogel’s and points out that actually there are several different points of view about what the Book of Mormon teaches about the Trinity and that modalism is merely one of the possibilities, but that even that theory is not without it’s problems:

The most eloquent exponent of the Sabellian [modalist] interpretation of the Jesus as Father passages is Dan Vogel. In his writings Vogel has concluded that (1) the doctrine of Sabellianism was endorsed by some in the early nineteenth-century, (2) Sabellianism was the theology of very early Mormonism, and (3) the primary intention of the BofM author(s) was a Sabellian conception of the Trinity. While Vogel has made many important contributions to the study of early Mormonism, I believe that his conclusions in the area under consideration are questionable.

Ford’s thoughtful conclusion was:

Regarding the first, the BofM text itself seems to contain inadequate information to either eliminate or to unequivocally select any of the suggested interpretations of the BofM doctrine of the Trinity as the original intention of the author(s). As we have seen, the BofM reproduces many of the Biblical passages of adoption, identity, distinction, and derivation/subordination, yielding multiple possible interpretations. Also complicating the problem is that the BofM does not present a systematic theology, contains many ambiguous passages, and makes no statements at all on a number of key issues. Thus, in order to justify a particular interpretation of the Trinity, a scholar must invariably argue for (1) a given interpretation of ambiguous passages, (2) inclusion of important doctrines not actually present in the BofM, and/or (3) the priority of favorable proof texts.

I am carefully making my case via a conservative interpretation of McConkie and I’m hoping others that disagree with me (and I do not know if you do or don’t disagree with me) will actually engage me and explain their counter interpretations.

Based on your posts, I honestly see no difference in the way we interpret McConkie, so far.

If anything, it seems what we disagree over might be how to interpret later LDS apostles and McConkie’s own previous and later statements.

I interept later apostle’s statements about “worshipping” Jesus in the same light I interpret McConkie’s statements about how he worshipped Jesus via awe and respect and worshipful adoration, but not in the true and saving sense.

By comparison, you seem to me to be forcing a false dichotomy: McConkie says Mormons don’t worship Jesus, so both earlier and later teachings that Mormons do worship Jesus (including McConkie’s own) must be understood as contradictory. I see no other way to interpret your view at this point in time. But if this is the case, this is obviously simple equivocation and nothing more.

Good grief. If all else fails, cry persecution and claim martyrhood.

I want to know if you are someone interested in entering into dialog (like DougG) or not (like Nick and Joe Geisner). Of course no one will ever force you to enter into dialog and I bear no ill will to either Nick or Joe Geisner for their choice to not engage me in dialog.

It’s pathetic to watch someone cry alot about how they’re supposedly being subjected to ad hominem attacks. It’s amusing when you realize that their complaint consists chiefly of making ad hominem attacks against their supposed persecutors.

I used to joke that when women tell their husbands, “you don’t listen to me,” it really means “you don’t obey me.” It seems you’ve presented an analogous worldview, where if we don’t agree with you, we’re not “entering into dialogue” with you.

Joe Geisner, how far are you going to take this before you realize that no one is disagreeing with you?

Can you point to anyone here — at all — that has claimed that McConkie or the brethern “recanted” McConkie’s 1982 talk? Can you point to anyone here at all that is claiming they personally disagree with McConkie’s 1982 talk? Can you even point to anyone here that is claiming that it’s okay or proper to “worship Jesus” in the “true and saving sense”?

You are arguing with yourself, my friend.

I am going to start off the dialog. I’m going to do this by pointing out what I see as an inconsistency with your post at #37.

You make the following points (and if I am misunderstanding you on one of these points, please feel free to explain yourself further. I’ve personally found the Internet a difficult communication medium, so I doubt I’ll get all your points perfectly on my first try.)

1.“There has been another fundamental shift in the LDS church on the theology of Jesus.” You see this shift as once the LDS Church did not worship Jesus, as McConkie clearly explains in the talk this post is about, but now the LDS Church does worship Jesus – contrary to McConkie’s talk as you interpret it.
2.While McConkie, in 1982, clearly was against “worshiping” Jesus. You think he clearly did “worship” Jesus in 1985 because of his worshipful adulation/adoration of Jesus that was in that talk. And for the record, I think you are refering to referring to this talk.
3.McConkie, while not wanting to directly disavow his former statements, had in fact made a massive change of doctrine when he began to worship Jesus like this.
4.McConkie’s change is emblematic of an equivalent massive change in the LDS Church as a whole because we began to “worship” Jesus in this way to — “this way” meaning worshipful adoration like McConkie demonstrates in 1985.
5.And in fact, the LDS Church has started to “worship” Joseph Smith in much the same way because of the adulation/adoration that is shown for Joseph, particularly at the bicentennial celebration of his birth.
6.In fact, you see adoration/adulation like that as being synonymous with “worship.” It is, as you say, “a distinction without a difference.”

Now Joe, I have no way of knowing if you actually read my original post or not. And I have no way of verifying if you will. So if you tell me you read the actual post, that’s great, I will trust you.

However, it would seem that my post should have displayed a logical contradiction to your 6 points above.

First of all, I am suggesting in the post that there is more than one sense of the word “worship” and that a failure to recognize this fact (and the fact that McConkie does recognize this fact) will cause you to equivocate, which is what I believe you are doing.

So here is my proof, this quote from McConkie: “Would it be amiss if I reminded you that Jesus maintained a reserve between him and his disciples and that he did not allow them the same intimacy with him that they had with each other? This was particularly true after his resurrection. … It is a fine and sacred line, but clearly there is a difference between a personal and intimate relationship with the Lord, which is improper, and one of worshipful adoration, which yet maintains the required reserve between us and him who has bought us with his blood.”

Here we have McConkie, in the very talk 1982 talk you are holding up as the baseline for LDS beliefs, unequivocally stating that Mormons do indeed hold Jesus in “worshipful adoration.”

Now consider also this clear quote from McConkie where he admits we do worship Jesus in one sense of the word, but not in the ultimate sense of the word: “We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense [of the word “worship”]–the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.”

So it seems to me that this undermines one of your original points, take your pick. You can’t both insist that McConkie changed his mind about “worshiping Jesus” merely because he shows worshipful adoration for him in 1985 while also claiming that the 1982 talk is your baseline for LDS belief where he clearly allows for “worshipful adoration” of Jesus as something distinct from “worship” in the “true and saving sense.”

And you can’t both claim the the LDS Church now worships Joseph Smith (by giving him adulation) while holding up McConkie’s 1982 talk as your baseline for LDS beliefs which clearly defines “worship in the true and saving sense” as something separate and different from “adulation.”

So it appears to me that you have ended up with a logical inconsistency in your position.

Hi Joe, I am not quite sure how to approach this. I’d like to engage you in some dialog as you are someone that clearly has a different point of view about the Church then I do and that is what dialog is: two people with different points of view discussing issues with each other without bitterness, without getting angry, without ad hominem attacks, and with respect for the existence of differing points of view.

And I really don’t mind the fact that you see the Church as “changing.” I have never claimed it hasn’t gone through changes, even massive changes. I’ve never seen any believer on Mormon Matters, such as myself, make a claim counter to that fact. (Please note, for example, that Ray admits this in this very thread and so do I. It’s just that we think the changes are good.) So I’d like to engage you in dialog and try to understand where you are coming from better.

Now part of dialog would be that I’d have to point out that I see your post in #37 as inconsistent and maybe even contradictory (even as Joe Geisner is pointing out in post #38, btw). But I’m really not sure how to approach such a statement because I fear I’m going to offend you by disagreeing with you.

You see I came to Mormon Matters with intent to try to have dialog with DAMU and NOM Mormons because I feel like an exchange of ideas would be healthy for myself and for them as well. But my experience here, so far at least, has been that the full or partially disaffected elements really do not like dialog and prefer to simply not read what I say and counter with ad hominem attacks on me the moment they realize I’m a believer. Now there are some very notable exceptions to this rule (and DougG, I want you to know you are definitely one of those notable exceptions) but for the most part my experience with disaffected Mormons has been very negative and hurtful no matter how much I try to just engage them in dialog.

I admit I’ve been less then perfect myself, so I’m not casting stones here. But I am trying to repent of any past offenses I’ve made and I’m trying to really engage people in respectful dialog.

And here I am, still here trying my best to talk to people and enter into dialog and very willing to admit what my position is and admit that any set of data has more than one possible interpretation and that I can see where the disaffected Mormons are coming from, even if I no longer agree with them. In fact, I used to be disaffected myself, so I have first hand experience with both sides.

Now we have some really good examples of how I typically get treated by disaffected Mormons right here on this thread. Joe Geisner went to a lot of length to ask me a lot of questions, which I dutifully and without prejudice answered for him in good faith. I then asked him a lot of questions in return. As you can see at #23 he took my answers, ignored my return questions, and then ended the conversation abruptly by claiming I was too irrational, not serious, and childish to bother with. I think Geisner’s ad hominem attack against me is pretty typical of how my conversations end: with no dialog at all and with the partially or fully disaffected Mormon using insults to try to cut me off so that they don’t have to engage me in dialog.

I think Nick’s example on this thread is similar. I have to admit I was actually naive enough to believe that Nick would read my post and this time see that we were basically in agreement on how we read and understand McConkie’s talk. But instead Nick has chosen to strongly disagree with me – that much is clear from his ad hominem attacks – but I really haven’t the foggiest idea why or what he is disagreeing over.

He didn’t interact with a single quote from my post. He didn’t even bother to explain what his position is and how he might interpret McConkie differently then me, assuming he even DOES interpret McConkie differently then me, which is not at all clear at this point. In fact, I have been left with the distinct impression that Nick merely read the title of the post, my name, and then launched into an ad hominem attack on me based on assumptions of what he thinks I might say on this subject, not even realizing that there is nothing for him to disagree with me over.

So Joe Woodbury, I want to know if you are someone interested in entering into dialog (like DougG) or not (like Nick and Joe Geisner). Of course no one will ever force you to enter into dialog and I bear no ill will to either Nick or Joe Geisner for their choice to not engage me in dialog. I will respect this choice. And they will have to live with the obvious fact that they broke off dialog with ad hominem attacks. That strikes me as a sort of justice in and of itself, so that doesn’t really bother me either.

But, Joe, it can be fun (if a bit frustrating at times) and productive to have dialog. I really feel like a better person for my dialog’s with DougG. The fact that we rarely agree isn’t the point. The point is for me to get into DougG’s head (and he into mine) and to understand better a point of view with which we we disagree. It turns out that there is often more than one rational explanation for a set of inconclusive facts — who’d have tought?

I’m going to, for the moment, have a bit of faith that you want dialog or you wouldn’t have posted here.

(Since this is such a long post, I’m going to split it.)

It was also included in the 1985 hymnal.

~

As I haven’t actually completely felt, it would be wrong to suppose others couldn’t leave and come back. Thanks for clarifying my misunderstanding of Thomas’s point.

I also read chapter 20 in Joseph Fielding McConkie’s book “The Bruce R. McConkie Story” and he claims his father was assigned by the twelve to give this talk in 1982. Joseph never explicitly or implicitly writes that his father backed down from this teaching, if anything he affirms this was his fathers belief until he passed away. I have never heard or read a comment by a then current member of the 1st Presidency or twelve denounce or disavow McConkie’s comments at General Conference or BYU. If someone can point this out to me please do so. If you are going to sight the Mormon Alliance article, don’t bother. I was the source for the member of the 70s comments that said McConkie’s talk was “unfortunate and unchristian”. I know that McConkie’s poem has “I worship him with all my might”, but this was written and read in General Conference in 1972, not after his 1982 talk as some have supposed.

The problem with simply focusing on Bruce R. McConkie’s 1982 talk is that it ignores several other talks he gave, including, perhaps especially, his final conference address in 1985. I heard the talk live and was touched by it, but at the same time was a little uncomfortable at the level of his fawning. That discomfort only increased in time. Regardless of whether McConkie was worshiping Jesus in 1982, by 1985 he undeniably was.

Interestingly, in 1982 the missionary program was changed. The discussions were shuffled and we were mandated to use the the Jesus Christ discussion first. (I felt, and still feel despite my apostasy, that the Plan of Salvation was the central doctrine of Mormonism and that Jesus could only be understood properly within that context. I worried that putting Jesus first would serve to diminish the difference between the Mormon theology of Jesus and the general Protestant theology of Jesus.)

Looking back now, it’s clear to me that McConkie was only a transition point. What he implied with words, he could not state as doctrine since that would have been heresy to his own earlier stated beliefs. Regardless, by the early 1990s, having a personal relationship with Jesus was being preached from the conference pulpit and being advocated in books. The church logo was changed. It’s gotten to the point where outsiders can be excused if they don’t know that Mormons still ostensibly believe in a Godhead of three distinct persons.

(Ironically, McConkie himself denounced the modern Mormon Jesus theology in the 1960s and early 1970s as a great heresy.

Incidentally, Mormons also don’t “worship” Joseph Smith, but that line sure got blurry a few years ago during the bicentennial celebration of his birth. Then again, I say worship, you say adulation, I say a distinction without a difference.)

Doug, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.

In any case, I think many older Mormon doctrines will come back into vogue. I don’t know why this would have to seen as a linear process.

~

Thomas, if that is not a correct reading of your comment, I apologize.

“Mormons don’t worship Jesus” is way too simplistic, since it carries all kinds of connotations that simply aren’t true in Mormonism. As I said in one of my comments, if you were to say that McConkie taught that we we don’t worship Jesus in the SAME WAY or to the SAME EXTENT as we worship the Father, then you have a solid argument - one which I would help you make.

“It’s unfortunate, but you can never go back.”

“That�