Rob Bowman's IRR Discussion on Prayer

[USU78]

I have no idea what you think I have missed. Unfortunately, I'm going to be tied up for a while now, probably the rest of the day. Perhaps we can pick this up later. Meanwhile, feel free to explain why 3 Nephi 19:18 is a problem for what I wrote.

First off, you need to understand what I believe you already do know, but the lurkers who are surely watching this thread don't necessarily know, and that is the context of the McConkie quotation you made so much hay out of. McConkie's works are his own, as any then Seventy in the Church in 1966 would be.

He was not called as an apostle until 1972. Anything, thus, that he published prior to that time would not receive the scrutiny prior to publication that would be seen today. He was, moreover, more than once called on the carpet for things he published as though they represented LDS doctrine.

His statements, moreover, to students and such during this time period must be seen in their historical context, which anyone of a certain age would recognize and appreciate. I don't know your age, so don't know if you remember or know about the "Jesus freak" phenomenon that was getting significant play on college campuses. The phenomenon shares much in common with the fairly recent evangelical, "baptism doesn't matter," "easy grace," "once saved always saved" subdivision that you have elsewhere regretted [if I understand you correctly]. The phenomenon pushed the following program: Praise Jesus, turn your life over to Him, and you'll be saved.

His statements in the late '60s/early '70s should be read from this perspective. Without that background, the use of the quotes in support of a jeremiad against LDS prayer practices is both misleading and unfair.

There is, moreover, this continuing issue: when we have hundreds of thousands joining the Church every year, many of them from Protestant and not a few from Evangelical background, they bring with them many cultural practices that are out of place in the quasi-puritanical Mormon milieu. They must, to a certain extent at least, be made comfortable in the Church's embrace. As the only ones who would be shouting "Praise Jesus!" in a meeting, or praying to Jesus in a public meeting, they would surely feel uncomfortable. This is at very least part of the thinking in teaching the young and converts to pray as we do.

Now, here is the crux of the matter, and it has nothing to do with the historical context of McConkie's statements or the acculturalization process. It is this: The Master taught us to pray to the Father, and to ask Him things in the Master's name. While it is occasionally appropriate to pray directly to Jesus, as the Stephen and Bountiful Temple incidents show, it is the exception rather than the rule.

Appropriateness is the issue.

Your attempt to paint us into a corner is unfair and misleading. You spend no time trying to understand either historical context of statements, analyzing whether something is doctrine or counsel, and what the scriptures, including our unique scriptures, tell us.

Yet you continue to try to speak authoritatively on these subjects. You fail utterly, and look foolish to the insider.

Thus your article becomes nothing more than an ignorant attack. If you were interested in learning, we are happy to teach and help you understand before you dare speak as though on our behalf. Right now, however, you ignorance is profound and deep and pervasive.

[Vance]

Your attempt to paint us into a corner is unfair and misleading. You spend no time trying to understand either historical context of statements, analyzing whether something is doctrine or counsel, and what the scriptures, including our unique scriptures, tell us.

Yet you continue to try to speak authoritatively on these subjects. You fail utterly, and look foolish to the insider.

Thus your article becomes nothing more than an ignorant attack. If you were interested in learning, we are happy to teach and help you understand before you dare speak as though on our behalf. Right now, however, you ignorance is profound and deep and pervasive.

AMEN, brother!

[LeSellers]

Yet you continue to try to speak authoritatively on these subjects. You fail utterly, and look foolish to the insider.

I believe that Rob and those of his stripe are trying to force us into a hypothetical "Mormonized" Evangelical box: They assume that, because they have a static faith, a closed canon, etc., that we must have something similar

[mfbukowski]

handys,

You wrote:

No, I do not equate Christ and Heavenly Father as one and the same person. They are one God, but not one person.

Good.

Then we agree. You sound just like the Book of Mormon.

[Rob Bowman]

Well.

I really do want to learn, and I am open to correction. However, I

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

No, as a matter of fact, I am not trying to force you into an evangelical box. I am simply pointing out how radically different LDS religion and doctrine is from biblical doctrine and practice. If your answer is "we don't believe the same things or do the same things because our faith is fluid, dynamic, ever-changing, not static like yours," well then, aren't you agreeing with me?

I am fascinated by your statement that if President Monson were to instruct you at the next general conference to pray to Jesus, you would "simply shrug" and comply. Apparently, he would not need to persuade you to do so based on Scripture or reason; you would do so just because he says so. Is that a fair conclusion?

I believe that Rob and those of his stripe are trying to force us into a hypothetical "Mormonized" Evangelical box: They assume that, because they have a static faith, a closed canon, etc., that we must have something similar

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

Good. Then we agree. You sound just like the Book of Mormon.

But not at all like Joseph Smith, post-1838.

[USU78]

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

We have actual bound copies of all three volumes of McConkie's Doctrinal New Testament Commentary right here in the office. Volume 2 bears a copyright date of 1971 (McConkie's preface is dated December 1970).

Again, the issue is not that some elements of the first edition of McConkie's Mormon Doctrine came under criticism. Unless you can show that he was called on the carpet specifically for his statement that I quoted (from the second edition of that book, reprinted for four decades later) or for other statements making the same assertion, your point is not relevant.

You still have a lot of explaining to do.

[Vance]

I am simply pointing out how radically different LDS religion and doctrine is from biblical doctrine and practice.

?????

You mean praying to our Heavenly Father, in the name of Christ is "radically different" from what Jesus taught?

Really?

[USU78]

your point is not relevant

Let's try again.

McConkie's books have no particular weight of authority. He got called on the carpet for calling his one-volume "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" Mormon Doctrine. He was specifically advised to make specific changes. His freedom to publish and speak as he wished, however, was not infringed in any particular. McConkie was not an apostle when he wrote the NT commentary covering the gospels or his McConkie Doctrine. This reduces their weight. His books contain counsel and not doctrine, regardless what title they bear. This being the case, building an antiMormon screed on the issue of prayers to the Master, which was the major point of both the OP and the article it discusses, using McConkie's works, doesn't work.

My prior post on the subject of what such things means you have ignored, seeking rather to quibble over specifics, making you into a caricature of the antiMormon, making Mormon writers "offenders for a word."

Your worldview simply doesn't presently permit you to understand Mormons. Folks here have tried desperately, with varying degrees of patience, to help you "get it," but you ratchet yourself back a step every time it looks like you're making a half-step towards understanding.

Do you want to know why and how Mormons pray and teach others to pray? Read my prior post. You want to continue telling us we're wrong in that? Go ahead. I'm not playing anymore. You want to ask questions about why we teach and pray as we do beyond what I've posted? I'm happy to answer questions. I'm not, however, going to play anymore.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let's try again.

McConkie's books have no particular weight of authority. He got called on the carpet for calling his one-volume "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" Mormon Doctrine. He was specifically advised to make specific changes. His freedom to publish and speak as he wished, however, was not infringed in any particular. McConkie was not an apostle when he wrote the NT commentary covering the gospels or his McConkie Doctrine. This reduces their weight. His books contain counsel and not doctrine, regardless what title they bear. This being the case, building an antiMormon screed on the issue of prayers to the Master, which was the major point of both the OP and the article it discusses, using McConkie's works, doesn't work.

My prior post on the subject of what such things means you have ignored, seeking rather to quibble over specifics, making you into a caricature of the antiMormon, making Mormon writers "offenders for a word."

Your worldview simply doesn't presently permit you to understand Mormons. Folks here have tried desperately, with varying degrees of patience, to help you "get it," but you ratchet yourself back a step every time it looks like you're making a half-step towards understanding.

Do you want to know why and how Mormons pray and teach others to pray? Read my prior post. You want to continue telling us we're wrong in that? Go ahead. I'm not playing anymore. You want to ask questions about why we teach and pray as we do beyond what I've posted? I'm happy to answer questions. I'm not, however, going to play anymore.

So what is it exactly that you are trying to say?

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

Explaining why I couldn't make heads or tails out of your criticism and inviting you to clarify is not "quibbling over specifics." Your difficulty is that you can't clarify mud.

Here is my challenge to you--which I already suggested in my previous post. Read my article again and simply skip all references to McConkie, including the quotations that provoked your ire. There will still be a substantive article there for you to engage, and my main points will be completely unaffected.

Let's try again.

McConkie's books have no particular weight of authority. He got called on the carpet for calling his one-volume "Encyclopedia of Mormonism" Mormon Doctrine. He was specifically advised to make specific changes. His freedom to publish and speak as he wished, however, was not infringed in any particular. McConkie was not an apostle when he wrote the NT commentary covering the gospels or his McConkie Doctrine. This reduces their weight. His books contain counsel and not doctrine, regardless what title they bear. This being the case, building an antiMormon screed on the issue of prayers to the Master, which was the major point of both the OP and the article it discusses, using McConkie's works, doesn't work.

My prior post on the subject of what such things means you have ignored, seeking rather to quibble over specifics, making you into a caricature of the antiMormon, making Mormon writers "offenders for a word."

Your worldview simply doesn't presently permit you to understand Mormons. Folks here have tried desperately, with varying degrees of patience, to help you "get it," but you ratchet yourself back a step every time it looks like you're making a half-step towards understanding.

Do you want to know why and how Mormons pray and teach others to pray? Read my prior post. You want to continue telling us we're wrong in that? Go ahead. I'm not playing anymore. You want to ask questions about why we teach and pray as we do beyond what I've posted? I'm happy to answer questions. I'm not, however, going to play anymore.

[LeSellers]

I am not trying to force you into an evangelical box. I am simply pointing out how radically different LDS religion and doctrine is from biblical doctrine and practice. If your answer is "we don't believe the same things or do the same things because our faith is fluid, dynamic, ever-changing, not static like yours," well then, aren't you agreeing with me?

If all you meant was that we are different, then, of course we agree. What is the point of our existence if you were right?

It was not your point. You were saying that we are wrong, not only wrong but evil in our supposed error.

However, the thing I was trying to get across is that you cannot understand our point of view: that the practice of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not static, and the fact of scripture does not limit it. In fact, our faith would not be affected in the least if every copy of the scriptures on the face of the earth were suddenly to disappear along with all memory of them. You cannot say the same, and for that, I pity you.

I am fascinated by your statement that if President Monson were to instruct you at the next general conference to pray to Jesus, you would "simply shrug" and comply. Apparently, he would not need to persuade you to do so based on Scripture or reason; you would do so just because he says so. Is that a fair conclusion?

Based on what I said, yes, but not on what I meant, or, rather, forgot to mention.

We are instructed, not only to follow His prophet, but to verify that counsel through prayer, and receive validation through the Holy Ghost.

That, however it is a commandment, is not to undermine the authority of His chosen servant(s), it is to eliminate the possibility of our not understanding the counsel as much as to confirm it.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

I follow Jesus Christ, who said: "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matt. 22:29). I'm sorry, but I must be blunt: A religion that could get along fine without the scriptures simply is not faithful to Jesus Christ.

If all you meant was that we are different, then, of course we agree. What is the point of our existence if you were right?

It was not your point. You were saying that we are wrong, not only wrong but evil in our supposed error.

However, the thing I was trying to get across is that you cannot understand our point of view: that the practice of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not static, and the fact of scripture does not limit it. In fact, our faith would not be affected in the least if every copy of the scriptures on the face of the earth were suddenly to disappear along with all memory of them. You cannot say the same, and for that, I pity you.

Based on what I said, yes, but not on what I meant, or, rather, forgot to mention.

We are instructed, not only to follow His prophet, but to verify that counsel through prayer, and receive validation through the Holy Ghost.

That, however it is a commandment, is not to undermine the authority of His chosen servant(s), it is to eliminate the possibility of our not understanding the counsel as much as to confirm it.

Lehi

[David T]

Lehi,

I follow Jesus Christ, who said: "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matt. 22:29). I'm sorry, but I must be blunt: A religion that could get along fine without the scriptures simply is not faithful to Jesus Christ.

I think the point being made was if every copy of the scriptures were destroyed, that Christ has the power to and would restore those essential doctrines for us to know in new scripture through his prophets. The emphasis was on the living Christ's power to reveal, and not on a lack of dependency on the sacred writings of prophets and apostles.

We are not a religion that could get along fine without the revealed word of God, and we are extraordinarily grateful for the preservation of the Bible, as well as other scriptures. See "The Blessings of Scripture", as given by Elder Christofferson in the last General Conference.

[Vance]

In fact, our faith would not be affected in the least if every copy of the scriptures on the face of the earth were suddenly to disappear along with all memory of them. You cannot say the same, and for that, I pity you.

With modern authorized servants of God (living Apostles and prophets) it wouldn't take long for the fundamental principles of the Gospel to be (re-)recorded and disseminated to the saints.

Thank God for His authorized servants. (Something missing from "orthodox" Christianity.)

[mfbukowski]

Lehi,

I follow Jesus Christ, who said: "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matt. 22:29). I'm sorry, but I must be blunt: A religion that could get along fine without the scriptures simply is not faithful to Jesus Christ.

A religion which thinks it can get along without revelation is dead. How could anyone know if it was true or not? Because it is old? Without revelation, we might as well study the Avesta and worship Ahura Mazda. No difference whatsoever.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

We evangelical Christians do not think we can get along without revelation. We simply believe that God's revelation of the truth that we need to know is authoritatively conveyed in and through Scripture.

A religion which thinks it can get along without revelation is dead. How could anyone know if it was true or not? Because it is old? Without revelation, we might as well study the Avesta and worship Ahura Mazda. No difference whatsoever.

[David T]

mfbukowski,

We evangelical Christians do not think we can get along without revelation. We simply believe that God's revelation of the truth that we need to know is authoritatively conveyed in and through Scripture.

So do we. However, as you certainly understand, the difference is that we have an expanded definition of scripture than that which you hold to.

[wenglund]

Hi Rob,

Not that it should really matter, but is there a particular reason you have in mind for praying to the "person" of the Son as opposed to praying to the "person" of the Father?

I ask because in at least the case of 3 Nephi 13, as I understand it, the reason the saints were praying to the Son and not Heavenly Father was because the resurrected Son was physically in their presense. It made sense to pray directly to him because he, and not the Father, was right there.

Otherwise, given that even for the Son the will of the Father takes primacy, then when neither the Father or Son are physically in our presense, it makes sense to me that our prayers, as a general practice (not to be confused with doctrine), would be directed to the Father?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

I don't find prayers to Jesus offensive, or less efficacious. I don't believe He does, either. You are correct, in that it was normative in the Old Testament, and even in much of the Book of Mormon. I also will state clearly that If I was in His presence, I, too, would fall down on my knees, worship him, and address (pray to) Him.

However, I do think the manner Christ instructed us to pray does teach us something extraordinary about His role as our Savior and mediator. Also of interest is that he directed us to pray to the Father as he revealed Him and His relationship to us and Him, something I do not believe was revealed with clarity in the Old Testament and majority of the Book of Mormon.

In other words, it may have even be seen as an extreme act of humility and deference, much like John the Baptist when he said, concerning Christ's prominence, "He must increase, but I must decrease." - Jesus, who had been known as (and was) the God of Israel, was deferring to who He proclaimed as "my Father, and your Father; ...my God, and your God.", who, as Jesus said, is "greater than I." - He was showing the true source of all blessings, and was making clear that through Him, access is now given to the Throne of the Most High God. Vested in the Name of Christ, even the most sinful of mankind can approach the Father of all to petition, and he desired all to do so. It was an acknowledgement of the source of Christ's authority and power.

I am reminded of a man I taught on my mission, concerning prayer, instructing him that we do not pray to Mary, or anyone other than God. The man refused to have it. At one point, I asked him, "What if Mary didn't want you to pray to her?" His reply, "Then that would be a sign of her humility, and I would want to pray to her even more." I replied, "What if God himself told you it was not His will, or necessary, that you pray to Mary, but that you can and should come directly to Him?" His reply was immediate: "I'd tell God that this was a very selfish thing for him to say and do, and keep on praying to Mary."

An excellent point!

Unfortunately, though, the Moderators seem to have limited me to giving it only one rep point.

I especially liked this part of what you said, and the way it hit me:

Jesus, who had been known as (and was) the God of Israel, was deferring to who He proclaimed as "my Father, and your Father; ...my God, and your God.", who, as Jesus said, is "greater than I." - He was showing the true source of all blessings, and was making clear that through Him, access is now given to the Throne of the Most High God. Vested in the Name of Christ, even the most sinful of mankind can approach the Father of all to petition, and he desired all to do so. It was an acknowledgement of the source of Christ's authority and power.

Well said!

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski,

We evangelical Christians do not think we can get along without revelation. We simply believe that God's revelation of the truth that we need to know is authoritatively conveyed in and through Scripture.

How do you know that's true? That's the question? Why aren't you Zorastrian? After all the cult or Mitras almost triumphed over Christianity early on.

How do you know the Avesta is not scripture? Of course I have asked you that before and you have ignored it before also. I wonder why.

[Ahab]

How do you know that's true? That's the question? Why aren't you Zorastrian? After all the cult or Mitras almost triumphed over Christianity early on.

How do you know the Avesta is not scripture? Of course I have asked you that before and you have ignored it before also. I wonder why.

The short answer is that they have received faith from God to assure them the Holy Bible is scripture.

Why they choose to cut it off at that point, though, I simply fail to understand, because the way I figure it, the fact that God has given me faith to know the Holy Bible is scripture leads me to believe God at least CAN give me faith to know that something else is scripture, too, and he has, which is how I know the Book of Mormon and Book of Doctrine & Covenants and... well, many other writings... are scripture, too.

[LeSellers]

I follow Jesus Christ, who said: "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matt. 22:29). I'm sorry, but I must be blunt: A religion that could get along fine without the scriptures simply is not faithful to Jesus Christ.

You miss the point, as usual, because you cannot comprehend the value of having a living prophet.

If the entirety of scripture were lost, as I hypothesized, we would not be lost, as you would inevitably be, because His prophet would restore all the knowledge we would need to do His will. After all, that is how the scriptures came to be in the first place: God revealed His will to His servants, the prophets.

How would you get through such a hypothetical situation?

Lehi