Rob Bowman's IRR Discussion on Prayer

[LeSellers]

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.

Which ignores the hypothetical situation you objected to.

All copies of the scriptures are gone, and all memory of them is lost. You, by your lights are then lost entirely because you have nothing to work from.

We Saints do not have your limitation because, in His grace and omniscience, He has called new prophets who would restore all the missing knowledge requisite for our salvation.

How would you overcome the situation I hypothesized?

Lehi

[Heartleap]

Why would you need to pray to Jesus if he is standing in front of you? just talk to him.

Heartleap...

[LeSellers]

Why would you need to pray to Jesus if he is standing in front of you? just talk to him.

"Talking to Him" = "Praying to Him", at least among us Saints.

You need to read the Book of Mormon account of Christ among the Nephites. He was there, with them, but there were thousands of them. They needed to pray to Him because they couldn't all hear Him at once in a physical sense.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

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.

I'm sorry, I don't remember you asking that question. If I read it and failed to answer, though, it was probably because I didn't consider it a serious question. I still don't. My belief that the Bible is Scripture is not based on some random or arbitrary choice to pick this scripture over the other "scriptures" of the various world religions. I haven't said anything that would legitimately prompt the question of why I'm not a Zoroastrian. As I have explained in more detail elsewhere on this forum, I believe the Bible to be inspired Scripture because I am convinced by the evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the grave, that he really is the eternal Son of God incarnate, and that he taught us to view the Jewish Bible and the teachings of the apostles as the word of God. I lack any similar basis for confidence in the scriptures of other religions.

Say, have you read the Avesta and prayed in sincere faith to know if it is the word of God?

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

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.

I don't arrive at my confidence in the Bible as inspired Scripture in this way, but even if I did, it would not follow that I should believe the Book of Mormon or D&C is also inspired scripture. After all, there are many other alleged scriptures out there that LDS do not accept, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Barnabas, Science and Health, and A Course in Miracles. I doubt you have prayerfully read through these books and asked God to make known to you if they are true.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Have you read my online article that is being discussed here? I think this answers your question.

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-

[LeSellers]

Say, have you read the Avesta and prayed in sincere faith to know if it is the word of God?

Does it suggest you do so?

The Bible and (more explicitly) the Book of Mormon do.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Does it suggest you do so?

The Bible and (more explicitly) the Book of Mormon do.

Lehi

Why pray about something if it never tells you to pray about it. As I recall not even the Qur'an asks people to pray about it.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

You wrote:

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?

I could really do without any more unnecessary and offensive barbs like "as usual," which do not foster constructive discussion.

I think the discussion has gotten off track. Let's review. You had opined (post #28 above) that I have "a static faith" and "a closed canon" and that I assumed wrongly that Mormons must as well. You argued in that post that Mormons have no "concrete canon" and are therefore free to change their doctrines and practices whenever their Prophet and President announces such changes. Thus, to use your example, if President Monson were to instruct you next conference to pray to Jesus, you would dutifully go along with what he said, because you follow the living Prophet rather than the writings of dead men in Scripture. This also explains why you have no problem accepting as scripture books that teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God (Book of Mormon) and the later teaching of Joseph Smith that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Gods, not one God. You have no doctrinal standard or even any expectation of theological consistency, except that a faithful member is expected to believe and act consistently with whatever the current living Prophet happens to be saying today. Naturally, in your theological context, the Bible and even the rest of the LDS scriptures could disappear tomorrow and you could lose all memory that they ever existed and your "faith would not be affected in the least" (post #39 above). As long as you remember that President Monson speaks for God, nothing else matters. It was in that context of your utter disdain for consistency with the teachings of Scripture that I quoted (post #40) the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matt. 22:29). I was responding not merely to your hypothetical scenario of a world in which the Scriptures and all memory of them were instantly erased but to the broader context of that scenario, which was your belief that consistency with the Scriptures that we do have is irrelevant.

Now, in response to your hypothetical scenario, if the Bible and all memory of it was instantly erased from the world, as far as I can tell that would also mean the erasure of any real knowledge of Jesus Christ. After all, Jesus Christ quoted Scripture repeatedly in the Gospels, alluded to the Scriptures constantly, claimed to be the fulfillment of promises recorded in the Scriptures, and so forth. It would truly be a mystery if we were able to remember the gospel message about Jesus but had no memory of the sources that told us about him in the first place. But laying those problems aside and entertaining your hypothetical for the sake of discussion, if we could remember the gospel message while not remembering the Bible, we would have enough information to go on trusting in Jesus Christ as our Savior and continue spreading the word of God's reconciling love in Christ. We would be considerably impoverished by the lack of Scriptures, but the church would continue to move forward. If we did not retain any memory of the gospel message, of course Christianity would come to a grinding halt. This would be just as true of the LDS Church if all Mormons lost all memory of Jesus and of Joseph Smith; that would be the end of Mormonism, even if you still somehow (why?) retained your knowledge that President Monson speaks for God.

I think what you want to argue is that if all memory of the gospel were lost, your Prophet could restore that knowledge, or as much knowledge as God wanted to restore through him. Fine. I also have a God who is able to raise up new prophets any time he chooses. No doubt if all memory of the Bible, Jesus, and the gospel disappeared from the earth, we would need a living prophet to start the message moving again. Did you think I would deny such a possibility even in such an extreme and absurd hypothetical scenario as yours? If so, you were mistaken. I have no a priori objection or animus against the idea of a living prophet. God is free to reveal himself or new information through new prophets whenever he chooses. I happen to think the Bible makes it clear that isn't in the program prior to the second coming of Christ, but if it turned out I was wrong about that I would not refuse to accept the message of someone I was convinced really was a prophet of God. More to the point, I have abundant reasons to think that neither President Monson nor any of his predecessors were genuinely prophets of God. One of those reasons, to get back to my original point, is that their teachings do not cohere with the teachings of Scripture (see Acts 17:11).

Now let me turn your question around. For seventeen centuries (ca. 100-1830) there was, according to LDS doctrine, no properly organized and authorized church on the earth, no living prophets to lead the church, and no priesthood authority. What were God-loving, Christ-honoring people supposed to do during those seventeen centuries? They had no prophet, but they did have the Scriptures. What were they supposed to do?

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi and Mola,

Lehi wrote:

The Bible and (more explicitly) the Book of Mormon do [instruct readers to pray to know if they are true].

Mola wrote:

Why pray about something if it never tells you to pray about it. As I recall not even the Qur'an asks people to pray about it.

No text in the Bible instructs readers to pray to know if that text or any other scripture is true. Therefore, by your reasoning, we should not pray to know if the Bible is true. Agreed?

[Ahab]

Rob,

The Bible is a collection of writings written by men who (purportedly) wrote what they wrote as God inspired them to write.

Do you recommend that others simply believe what those men said, simply because they claimed to be speaking for God?

Why not just ask God if he inspired those men to write those things, whether or not any of those men told you to ask God?

Even if you believe they were honestly telling the truth, with God to help them know what the truth was, you could still ask God to help you understand what those men meant when they said what they said, just to make sure you correctly understand what God had in mind when he inspired those men to write what they wrote.

I mean, just to be safe, instead of just assuming that your thoughts, or their thoughts, are exactly the same as God's thoughts.

[wenglund]

Wade,

Have you read my online article that is being discussed here? I think this answers your question.

Hi Rob, I just read it, and I didn't see any direct answer to my question. Perhaps you can clarify.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[David T]

I think the discussion has gotten off track. Let's review. You had opined (post #28 above) that I have "a static faith" and "a closed canon" and that I assumed wrongly that Mormons must as well. You argued in that post that Mormons have no "concrete canon" and are therefore free to change their doctrines and practices whenever their Prophet and President announces such changes. Thus, to use your example, if President Monson were to instruct you next conference to pray to Jesus, you would dutifully go along with what he said, because you follow the living Prophet rather than the writings of dead men in Scripture.

Seeing ,as you have pointed out, there is no scriptural prohibition to praying to Jesus in scripture, only our understanding and interpretation would have changed. We'd be certainly okay with that.

This also explains why you have no problem accepting as scripture books that teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God (Book of Mormon) and the later teaching of Joseph Smith that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Gods, not one God.

As I read it, The Book of Mormon, in its context and stated purpose, teaches of the triune (you might say trinitarian) nature of the personage of the Lord Jesus Christ: Jehovah the Eternal God of Heaven and Earth (Father), Jesus Christ incarnate in the Flesh (Son), and the all-piercing Light of Christ (Spirit of the Lord). (see Mosiah 15). In other words, the Trinitarian God was presented as embodying the One Personage of Jesus Christ. My understanding has come to be that the later revelations of Joseph Smith built on that foundation and revealed the triune nature inherent in all humankind (Eternal Spirit, Flesh which needs to learn to submit to the Sprit, Priesthood), and then, with this being taught, and with the Trinitarian God revealed as Jesus Christ alone, the revelations and teachings went on to even further to make plain the existence of two distinct personages in addition to the Trinitarian God - The Eternal Father of Spirits (Most High God), and the Personage of the Holy Ghost.

You have no doctrinal standard or even any expectation of theological consistency, except that a faithful member is expected to believe and act consistently with whatever the current living Prophet happens to be saying today.

I very much disagree.

I have abundant reasons to think that neither President Monson nor any of his predecessors were genuinely prophets of God. One of those reasons, to get back to my original point, is that their teachings do not cohere with the teachings of Scripture (see Acts 17:11).

I consider myself well studied and versed in the Bible. I believe the doctrines and history of the Restoration cohere beautifully with the progression and foundation that I have found in the Bible.

Now let me turn your question around. For seventeen centuries (ca. 100-1830) there was, according to LDS doctrine, no properly organized and authorized church on the earth, no living prophets to lead the church, and no priesthood authority. What were God-loving, Christ-honoring people supposed to do during those seventeen centuries? They had no prophet, but they did have the Scriptures. What were they supposed to do?

Live according to the light they had. And many lived exemplary lives in accordance with what they did have, that I'm positive were approved of by God.

[LeSellers]

Sorry for the screwed up quoting, the program is mucking things up again.

You have no doctrinal standard or even any expectation of theological consistency, except that a faithful member is expected to believe and act consistently with whatever the current living Prophet happens to be saying today.

Here you miss the point entirely.

Saying that some things can change does not say that everything can change. There is consistency, it just does not have to extend to the practices that doctrine may lead to.

For instance, we Saints still believe in the doctrine of plural marriage, it's in the scriptures, but, just as the practice changed c. 540 bc with Jacob and the Nephites, it changed again c. 1831 through 1852 and yet again in 1890 through 1910. Similarly, the doctrine of the Priesthood was received in 1829 but the practice of the Priesthood was altered c. 1870 and again c. 1985. Nothing we believed about the Priesthood changed, how we used it did; noting we believed about plural marriage changed but we did not practice it any more.

The question at hand, whether we should or should not pray to Jesus is a practice that can and obviously does vary depending on our circumstances. But the doctrine of prayer is eternal. Even Jesus prays to Father and we will pray to God as well in the Celestial Kingdom.

Naturally, in your theological context, the Bible and even the rest of the LDS scriptures could disappear tomorrow and you could lose all memory that they ever existed and your "faith would not be affected in the least" (post #39 above). As long as you remember that President Monson speaks for God, nothing else matters.

[Vance]

One of those reasons, to get back to my original point, is that their teachings do not cohere with the my ERRONEOUS teachings, mingled with Scripture (see Acts 17:11).

There, Rob, I fixed it for you.

The Bible scriptures, when properly understood, are consistent with LDS doctrine.

[urroner]

There, Rob, I fixed it for you.

The Bible scriptures, when properly understood, are consistent with LDS doctrine.

Thanks Vance, what you said makes what Rob said a lot clearer.

[Vance]

Thanks Vance, what you said makes what Rob said a lot clearer.

Glad to be of service.

Rob is usually quite close to the truth in his statements, with only minor modifications needed to bring them into compliance.

[urroner]

Glad to be of service.

Rob is usually quite close to the truth in his statements, with only minor modifications needed to bring them into compliance.

Actually, I have heard that he always tells the truth, but he just forgets how to spell correctly. I have some friends who have similar problems. When they go to write "Mormons are true Christians," for some reason they misspell "true" and they write "not." I am more than willing to help correct their spelling.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Lehi and Mola,

Lehi wrote:

Mola wrote:

No text in the Bible instructs readers to pray to know if that text or any other scripture is true. Therefore, by your reasoning, we should not pray to know if the Bible is true. Agreed?

Not necessarily, it is true that there is nothing in the bible that explicitly tells us to pray specifically about the bible. However there are refernces that one should pray if they need something or if they lack wisdom or knowledge. I am not sure that the Qur'an has anything like that in it.

The Qur'an tells us that the Qur'an is from God and the fact that it exsists is evidence that it is divine.

The BoM specifically tells us to pray to God about it.

[LeSellers]

No text in the Bible instructs readers to pray to know if that text or any other scripture is true.

It doesn't if you don't want it to. As I read it, it most certainly does.

Therefore, by your reasoning,we should not pray to know if the Bible is true. Agreed?

James explicitly tells us to "ask of God" when we "[lack] wisdom". I suspect that there is wisdom in knowing that the Bible is true. Agreed?

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

I believe the Bible to be inspired Scripture because I am convinced by the evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the grave, that he really is the eternal Son of God incarnate, and that he taught us to view the Jewish Bible and the teachings of the apostles as the word of God. I lack any similar basis for confidence in the scriptures of other religions.

If you have shared this before, I have missed it. I would love to see your evidence for the resurrection and that Christ is the Son of God, who can actually be proven to exist. I have never heard that such a thing can be proven by evidence, scientific or otherwise. If that is true, why aren't more people Christian?

Would you please either re-state your alleged "evidence" or refer me to the posts where I can find it? That's a nice way of saying "CFR"!

I believe the only possible evidence for these things is a personal revelation from God confirming it. And yes, I have read the Avesta and felt no confirming spirit, as I have with the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

[urroner]

As I have explained in more detail elsewhere on this forum, I believe the Bible to be inspired Scripture because I am convinced by the evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the grave, that he really is the eternal Son of God incarnate, and that he taught us to view the Jewish Bible and the teachings of the apostles as the word of God. I lack any similar basis for confidence in the scriptures of other religions.

And what is the basis of your belief about the Bible?

[Rob Bowman]

Ah yes, I believe this is the same approach that Joseph Smith took to the Bible. You are indeed following the Prophet's example.

Glad to be of service.

Rob is usually quite close to the truth in his statements, with only minor modifications needed to bring them into compliance.

[Vance]

Ah yes, I believe this is the same approach that Joseph Smith took to the Bible. You are indeed following the Prophet's example.

Thanks for the compliment.

[Heartleap]

"Talking to Him" = "Praying to Him", at least among us Saints.

You need to read the Book of Mormon account of Christ among the Nephites. He was there, with them, but there were thousands of them. They needed to pray to Him because they couldn't all hear Him at once in a physical sense.

Lehi

Praying to Jesus is talking to him for non LDS too, but if Jesus was present physically in front of me I would not pray to him, I would worship, adore and shout if needed and I would get a close as I could to talk to him. I have read the Book of Mormon account. I think your answer seems made up. Jesus talked to 5000 people, plus spouses and Children without needing to be prayed too.

Heartleap...