Prayer To Jesus In The Book Of Mormon

[Rob Bowman]

All,

What do you make of the following account of someone praying to Jesus?

"And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world. Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death. And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more" (Alms 36:17-19).

Sound like prayer to Jesus, and none of the usual exceptions I hear from Mormons seem to apply. For example, Alma was not having a vision of Jesus, and had never seen him.

Comments?

[altersteve]

How was Alma supposed to know that Jesus was later going to command His disciples to pray to the Father? And yes, it was a commandment. Everything that comes out of Jesus' mouth is a commandment. You don't disagree with that, do you?

Once again, it is not that we are "not allowed" to pray to Jesus, it is that Jesus specified in the New Testament and in 3 Nephi that after He ascended, we are to pray to the Father in His name, so that's what we do. Yes, I know Jesus did not say not to pray to Him, but He did say that we are to pray to the Father, so it's kind of implicit. You're free to go against what Christ commanded if you wish.

Edited August 10, 2011 by altersteve

[David T]

Comments?

A powerful expression of faith in a powerful conversion experience. I don't think there's anything needed to be 'explained away'.

Of course, I'm not one who finds a need to harmonize everything that happened in scripture past with 21st Century belief, practice, behavior, and explanations/justifications thereof.

Edited August 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Jesus said that the Scriptures testify of Him. At the time there was no New Testiment. So evidently the Lehites were believers without ever having "seen" Jesus.

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

CFR that "Jesus specified in the New Testament and in 3 Nephi that after He ascended, we are to pray to the Father in His name." That is, where did Jesus specify that this was a change to begin after his ascension?

Didn't Jesus give the "Lord's Prayer" before his ascension--in fact, before his death? Where in any of the passages where this prayer is given is there anything said about the instruction going into effect after Jesus' ascension?

You acknowledge that "Jesus did not say not to pray to Him" but claim that "it's kind of implicit" in what Jesus did say. I respectfully disagree. My authority for disagreeing is that Jesus' apostles clearly disagreed. So it's not only a big jump, it's a big jump in the wrong direction, from Jesus' example of how to pray to the claim that praying to Jesus means "to go against what Christ commanded." What Christ commanded was that we pray in the way his model prayer illustrated, not that his people stop praying to him!

How was Alma supposed to know that Jesus was later going to command His disciples to pray to the Father? And yes, it was a commandment. Everything that comes out of Jesus' mouth is a commandment. You don't disagree with that, do you?

Once again, it is not that we are "not allowed" to pray to Jesus, it is that Jesus specified in the New Testament and in 3 Nephi that after He ascended, we are to pray to the Father in His name, so that's what we do. Yes, I know Jesus did not say not to pray to Him, but He did say that we are to pray to the Father, so it's kind of implicit. You're free to go against what Christ commanded if you wish.

[Bernard Gui]

Sound like prayer to Jesus, and none of the usual exceptions I hear from Mormons seem to apply. For example, Alma was not having a vision of Jesus, and had never seen him.

Comments?

And a very effective prayer to boot!

The key is found in why he said he prayed.

Bernard

[bluebell]

There's actually more than one prayer to Jesus in the BOM.

LDS don't see such things as issues to be 'explained away' however because most members would understand this as an example of the difference between theological/doctrinal education and having a personal spiritual experience.

It's similar to how children approach experiences which they have yet to be instructed upon. Their natural inclinations might not be the best 'manners' but that doesn't mean a parent will reject them just because they didn't know the better way.

I think it was Maya Angelou(sp) who said that we do what we know, and when we know better, we do better. LDS don't believe that God refuses to have a relationship with us until we approach Him the 'correct' way. We do believe though that if we are taught the correct way by Him, then we have a responsibility to follow His counsel if we can.

Any book that is supposed to contain God's dealing with His children here on earth over a long period of time will contain examples of people coming to God and having a relationship with Him in different ways. People react differently to spiritual experiences, especially when they've never had them before. It's natural-and not something that needs to be explained away-for the BOM to contain various experiences.

Edited August 10, 2011 by bluebell

[altersteve]

CFR that "Jesus specified in the New Testament and in 3 Nephi that after He ascended, we are to pray to the Father in His name." That is, where did Jesus specify that this was a change to begin after his ascension?

Christ told the Apostles about His forthcoming crucifixion and about how they would not see Him any longer, since He would soon ascend to His Father. Then He said:

"And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it to you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full" (John 16:23–24).

Like I said, you may ignore the instructions that Christ gave, but Latter-day Saints choose not to do this. It doesn't matter to us that the Apostles prayed to Him. We do not place the words and teachings of the Apostles over the words and teachings of the Savior. You are free to do otherwise if you wish. Either way, though, this is a total non-issue. The fact that you criticize Latter-day Saints for praying to our Heavenly Father and not to Jesus Christ is ridiculous, especially since that is exactly what the Savior commanded.

Edited August 10, 2011 by altersteve

[Questing Beast]

Rob: It is a mistake to compare the mortal Jesus with the pre-mortal Jehovah, and the post resurrection, glorified Jesus the Christ, when comparing modes and objects of worship.

The BoM asserts that the actual name of the prophesied mortal messiah was known to the Lehites c. 600 years before his birth. They worshiped Jehovah as Israelites during those six centuries. Yet Alma the younger knew of the prophecies of Christ, the Son of God. Abinadi clearly rehearsed the doctrine on the Father becoming the Son. So just as clearly, Alma knew that by calling on "Jesus, thou Son of God", he was calling on the Father, or Jehovah, in his role as author of the atonement.

Later, LDS theology, teaches that Jehovah is the pre-mortal title of Jesus Christ; and that in the sense that he is the creator (as "the Word") of the world and the heavens (in fact the entire universe), he is also "the Father" of this creation (under the direction and authority of His Father, God the Father). This is not quite the same theological picture that we get from the BoM. But it is not incompatible with it, from a certain point of view.

There is no contradiction unless you insist on one. Multiple examples of non-contradictions (unless you insist) could be made from the New Testament alone, or comparisons between the NT and OT. And these apparent contradictions with modern doctrine and theology only illustrate that in earlier times and places, true believers understood the doctrine and theology of their eras incompletely, since Jesus Christ had yet to come, atone, and ascend back to heaven again, etc....

[altersteve]

Later, LDS theology, teaches that Jehovah is the pre-mortal title of Jesus Christ; and that in the sense that he is the creator (as "the Word") of the world and the heavens (in fact the entire universe), he is also "the Father" of this creation (under the direction and authority of His Father, God the Father). This is not quite the same theological picture that we get from the BoM. But it is not incompatible with it, from a certain point of view.

Unless I'm reading this wrong, you are incorrect. The Book of Mormon teaches that Christ is both the Father and the Son.

[subgenius]

All,

What do you make of the following account of someone praying to Jesus?

"And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world. Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death. And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more" (Alms 36:17-19).

Sound like prayer to Jesus, and none of the usual exceptions I hear from Mormons seem to apply. For example, Alma was not having a vision of Jesus, and had never seen him.

Comments?

personally, i am not sure one can convince me that this was indeed a "prayer" but rather the instant where he turns wholeheartedly to Christ, so allow me this distraction.

This all came about by him remembering the prophesy of his father. - his mind had caught a hold of a thought, but in his heart was a desire...a desire which is the genesis of faith.

Consider the phrase "And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more" (emphasis mine) - not only does this not seem like a prayer, but it seems to reinforce the notion that by remembering the prophesy of his father he was able to overcome by faith, not prayer, his pains.

[David T]

personally, i am not sure one can convince me that this was indeed a "prayer" but rather the instant where he turns wholeheartedly to Christ, so allow me this distraction.

This all came about by him remembering the prophesy of his father. - his mind had caught a hold of a thought, but in his heart was a desire...a desire which is the genesis of faith.

Consider the phrase "And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more" (emphasis mine) - not only does this not seem like a prayer, but it seems to reinforce the notion that by remembering the prophesy of his father he was able to overcome by faith, not prayer, his pains.

A prayer is an address/supplication. Jesus is directly addressed, and pleaded with. This is a prayer. Otherwise, I think you're creating a specialized definition of 'prayer' that doesn't mean what most people mean.

Edited August 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[jo1952]

All,

What do you make of the following account of someone praying to Jesus?

"And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world. Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death. And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more" (Alms 36:17-19).

Sound like prayer to Jesus, and none of the usual exceptions I hear from Mormons seem to apply. For example, Alma was not having a vision of Jesus, and had never seen him.

Comments?

Actually, this has been addressed just recently by me - if I remember correctly (though I could be wrong), my comment was made to you. At any rate. This prayer (and I WOULD consider it a prayer) was one said at the moment of Alma's conversion to Christ. It is totally appropriate and understandable that he would call out to Jesus as Jesus is the one whom Alma has turned to to save him.

I think you are just trying to find nit-picky things to argue about. So be it.

As our understanding grows and our relationship with the Father and with Christ move along from milk to meat and beyond, there is a natural evolution that goes right along with it. I have no doubt that both Father and Christ were thrilled with Alma's prayer.

Regards,

jo

Edited August 10, 2011 by jo1952

[wenglund]

Haven't we been down this dead end road with Rob at least once before?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[subgenius]

A prayer is an address/supplication. Jesus is directly addressed, and pleaded with. This is a prayer. Otherwise, I think you're creating a specialized definition of 'prayer' that doesn't mean what most people mean.

not to quibble about it, but i am not sure i am convinced that it was a "prayer" in the sense that the OP is using it.

1st indication -

The church teaches in Gospel Principles (chapter

Prayer is a sincere, heartfelt talk with our Heavenly Father. We should pray to God and to no one else. We do not pray to any other being or to anything made by man or God.

I think it is revealing that he "cries within in his heart" and does not "cry out" to Christ or Heavenly Father. Additionally he notes that his relief came only by having the "thought", he makes no mention of his relief being an answer.

That being said, look at the LDS Bible Dictionary and we can read:

There are many passages in the N.T. that teach the duty of prayer (e.g., Matt. 7:7; 26:41; Luke 18:1; 21:36; Eph. 6:18; Philip. 4:6; Col. 4:2; 1 Thes. 5:17, 25; 1 Tim. 2:1, 8). Christians are taught to pray in Christ’s name (John 14:13–14; 15:7, 16; 16:23–24). We pray in Christ’s name when our mind is the mind of Christ, and our wishes the wishes of Christ—when his words abide in us (John 15:7). We then ask for things it is possible for God to grant. Many prayers remain unanswered because they are not in Christ’s name at all; they in no way represent his mind, but spring out of the selfishness of man’s heart.

Book of Mormon references on prayer include 1 Ne. 18:3; Alma 34:17–28; Ether 2:14.

I am not sure what the OP was driving at - Is there some sort of conflict, which is not stated, that is the purpose of the discussion?

nevertheless, i am not convinced that Alma is indeed engaged in "prayer" as defined by the scriptures and by the church.

[Rob Bowman]

subgenius,

You wrote:

The church teaches in Gospel Principles (chapter 8 )

Prayer is a sincere, heartfelt talk with our Heavenly Father. We should pray to God and to no one else. We do not pray to any other being or to anything made by man or God.

First, I am glad you acknowledge that Gospel Principles represents the LDS Church's teaching.

Second, the statement you quote from GP is quite revealing. It suggests that in LDS doctrine, Christ really is not God.

You wrote:

I think it is revealing that he "cries within in his heart" and does not "cry out" to Christ or Heavenly Father.

So, prayers must be vocalized aloud or they're not prayer? See Genesis 24:45; 1 Samuel 1:12-13.

You wrote:

I am not sure what the OP was driving at - Is there some sort of conflict, which is not stated, that is the purpose of the discussion?

I am an evangelical Christian, and in another thread we were discussing whether it is appropriate for Christians to pray to Jesus Christ. The Mormons here have generally been saying that it is not appropriate. I cited Alma 36 as an example of prayer addressed to Jesus in the Book of Mormon.

[David T]

So, prayers must be vocalized aloud or they're not prayer? See Genesis 24:45; 1 Samuel 1:12-13.

And Alma 34:27

27 Yea, and when you do not cry unto the Lord, let your hearts be full, drawn out in prayer unto him continually for your welfare, and also for the welfare of those who are around you.

Edited August 10, 2011 by nackhadlow

[bluebell]

Second, the statement you quote from GP is quite revealing. It suggests that in LDS doctrine, Christ really is not God.

In LDS doctrine, Christ is not God the Father.

It is common for LDS to refer to God the Father as Heavenly Father, or simply 'God'. I don't know that it's sound to attempt to make that traditional way of referring to God the Father a doctrinal message about whether or not LDS believe Jesus can also rightfully wear the title.

Also, your statement about the doctrinal implications of that line in the GP manual seems to be the equivelant of taking a verse of scripture believed by Evangelicals to be the word of God, such as John 17:3 (“This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”), and declaring that it suggests that in Evangelical doctrine, Jesus Christ really isn't the true God.

[ldsfaqs]

Found this answer over at Yahoo answers from some non-LDS Christian. I liked it as a good LDS answer to add to the discussion.

Of course, substitute the "Jehovah" with Elohim, per LDS theology.

The "worship" given to Christ, is not the same kind of "worship" that is given to the Father.

As the below statement indicates, the context is important. Extreme "reverence" while a form of worship, is not worship.

Christ was given reverence, not worship. The word worship is simply used to describe a deep humility and reverence toward the Son of God.

In an even much lesser sense than Christ. Mormons don't "worship" Joseph Smith, we revere him. We certainly don't and generally didn't "bow" before him, but the reverence while seeming like worship, isn't actually worship. Of course, it's a much lesser degree than the worship given Christ, and likewise, I worship of Christ should be much less and completely different than the worship we give the Father. HE is to be the focus of our Worship. Christ secondary as the mediator between us and the Father, but our focus is to be on the Father, and by Christ.

----------

Did Jesus say to worship him? No. At John 4:23, 24, Jesus said that in order to worship with spirit and truth, the "true worshipers have to worship the FATHER, NOT the Son. Why? As Jesus said at verse 23, "the Father, [NOT the Son] is LOOKING for [the "true worshipers] to worship him."

Why should Jesus want people to worship him? He told Mary that that the two of them worshiped the SAME God. At John 20:17, Jesus said to her: "I am ascending to MY Father AND YOUR Father and to MY God AND YOUR God."

The Greek word here rendered “worship” at Matt. 28:9 is the word pros·ky·ne′o. Strange as it may seem, this word is drawn from the Greek word for “dog,” kýōn, and hence means, properly, “to crouch, crawl, fawn,” as a dog would at his master’s feet. Practically applied, therefore, the word basically means “to prostrate oneself, to bow down, to do obeisance.”

In the KJB, pros·ky·ne′o is, without exception, in its 60 occurences, rendered “worship.” However, in the NWT, pros·ky·ne′o is rendered “do obeisance” and “worship.” For example, the magi from the east and King Herod said they wanted to “do obeisance to” (pros·ky·ne′o) the babe that had been born king of the Jews. “Do obeisance” is preferable here because neither the magi nor King Herod meant to worship the babe as God. (Matt. 2:2, 8, 11) Pros·ky·ne′o is properly rendered “do obeisance” at times, because often in the Greek Septuagint Version of the Bible the action of this verb is directed to men; for example, where the patriarch Abraham bowed down (pros·ky·ne′o) to the pagan natives of Canaanland, the Hittites, the sons of Heth. (Gen. 23:7, 12) Or, as when the patriarch Jacob and his wives and his children all bowed down repeatedly (pros·ky·ne′o) to his twin-brother Esau, whom Jehovah God said He hated. (Gen. 33:3, 6, 7) Or, as when Emperor Nebuchadnezzar bowed down (pros·ky·ne′o) to the prophet Daniel. (Dan. 2:46) Other examples, such as Revelation 3:9, could be given where pros·ky·ne′o is not properly rendered “worship” but should be rendered “bow down” or “do obeisance.” Do you honestly feel that the king of Babyon would actually fall down and worship a lowly Jewish captive?

In the NWT of the Christian Greek Scriptures when this word pros·ky·ne′o is directed toward God, then it is properly rendered “worship,” as when Jesus answered the devil and said: “Go away, Satan! For it is written, ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship [pros·ky·ne′o], and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’” (Matt. 4:10) To the Samaritan woman Jesus said: “The genuine worshipers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for, indeed, the Father is looking for such kind to worship him. God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship [pros·ky·ne′o] with spirit and truth.” (John 4:23, 24) In each of these cases pros·ky·ne′o might have been rendered “bow down” or “do obeisance,” but certainly when we bow down or do obeisance to Jehovah God we do not do it in the same sense as when Abraham, Jacob and others bowed down or did obeisance to men.

The CONTEXT determines whether pros·ky·ne′o should be rendered "do obeisance" or "worship."

One thing you must note is that Jesus' disciples NEVER worshiped him as God. At Matt. 14:33, the KJB says: "Then they that went in the ship came and worshipped [pros·ky·ne′o] him, saying: "Of a truth thou art the SON of God," NOT God himself.

No matter how you look at it, Jehovah is the ONLY true God, the one who should rightfully receive worship. (John 17:3)

Jesus did not say outright: "Do not worship me." But as I said before, when his disciples fell down and worshipped him (according to the KJB), they did NOT worship him as God. They knew Jesus as God's Son, NOT God. (Matt. 14:33)

Edited August 11, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[altersteve]

Second, the statement you quote from GP is quite revealing. It suggests that in LDS doctrine, Christ really is not God.

This is ridiculous. Of course Christ is God in LDS doctrine. When Latter-day Saints say God, 90% of the time they are referring to our Heavenly Father. When God is mentioned, we usually assume that it is the Father who is being spoken of. But that doesn't mean that "Christ really is not God." The scriptures, all four of the standard works, affirm that He most certainly is.

I am an evangelical Christian, and in another thread we were discussing whether it is appropriate for Christians to pray to Jesus Christ. The Mormons here have generally been saying that it is not appropriate. I cited Alma 36 as an example of prayer addressed to Jesus in the Book of Mormon.

It is only "not appropriate" because Christ, as I have shown above, gave the instruction during His mortal ministry to pray through Him (in His name) to the Father (which is perfectly consistent: we can only receive the Father's grace through His Son, and we can only approach the Father in prayer though His Son), and I'm sure you agree that every word out of the mouth of Jesus Christ is a commandment. It is obviously "not appropriate" to ignore one of God's commandments. Alma, however, a man who lived in Old Testament times, never received such instruction.

You are looking for flaws in places that don't contain flaws at all, unless you presuppose they do.

Edited August 11, 2011 by altersteve

[Rob Bowman]

Altersteve,

Gospel Principles states:

Prayer is a sincere, heartfelt talk with our Heavenly Father. We should pray to God and to no one else. We do not pray to any other being or to anything made by man or God.

I had commented that this statement, taken in the context of believing that we should not pray to Jesus Christ, suggests that Jesus Christ is not God. You replied:

This is ridiculous. Of course Christ is God in LDS doctrine. When Latter-day Saints say God, 90% of the time they are referring to our Heavenly Father. When God is mentioned, we usually assume that it is the Father who is being spoken of. But that doesn't mean that "Christ really is not God." The scriptures, all four of the standard works, affirm that He most certainly is.

That's true for the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and early material in D&C. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that Christ is not called God in later material in D&C (after about 1833, I think) and is not called God in Pearl of Great Price except by implication when the Book of Abraham speaks of "the Gods" that organized the world.

The fact that something is stated in the standard works does not, ahem, guarantee that it represents current LDS doctrine, at least not without considerable and creative interpretation of the texts. The fact is that LDS doctrine now views Christ as one of God's billions of spirit children and teaches that he is not the proper recipient of prayer. He may theoretically be a God, but he apparently isn't your God. What sense does it make to say that someone is your God if you don't pray to him?

I understand that Mormons most often use the word God to denote the Father. Evangelicals do the same thing. My point has to do with Mormon religious practice, not semantics.

You wrote:

...I'm sure you agree that every word out of the mouth of Jesus Christ is a commandment. It is obviously "not appropriate" to ignore one of God's commandments.

If evangelicals neglected to pray to God the Father, you'd have a point. But they don't. Most evangelical prayers are addressed to the Father. Since evangelicals pray to the Father, they clearly are not ignoring Jesus' commandment to pray to the Father. At the same time, they also do not ignore Jesus' teaching that we may ask him in prayer (John 14:14) or the apostles' teaching and example that we may pray to Jesus (numerous references already listed).

[altersteve]

That's true for the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and early material in D&C. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe that Christ is not called God in later material in D&C (after about 1833, I think) and is not called God in Pearl of Great Price except by implication when the Book of Abraham speaks of "the Gods" that organized the world.

When the Book of Abraham and Doctrine and Covenants speak of "God," the speaker is referring to Jesus Christ. All of the Father's actions and words on earth are done and spoken by His Son, speaking as though He were the Father. In the Book of Moses, it was Christ who spoke to Moses. In the Book of Abraham, it was Christ (God, the Lord, etc.) who was speaking to Abraham and showing him the stars and planets. The only time that the Father appears or speaks personally is to introduce and bear witness of His Son. Everything else was done by Christ, with the Father speaking through Him. Again, this is perfectly consistent. God (the Father) created the universe through Jesus Christ, just as He does everything else through Jesus Christ. So when the scriptures speak of "God" or "the Lord," including the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, it is Jesus who is being spoken of, unless a distinction is made.

The fact that something is stated in the standard works does not, ahem, guarantee that it represents current LDS doctrine, at least not without considerable and creative interpretation of the texts.

CFR. Please give me an example of something in any of the standard works that is not "current LDS doctrine." And I'm not talking about practices, I'm not talking about doctrine.

The fact is that LDS doctrine now views Christ as one of God's billions of spirit children and teaches that he is not the proper recipient of prayer.

And that He is God, with His Father and with the accompanying influence of the Holy Ghost, and that He is the Savior, Redeemer, and King of all creation, the Messiah, and the Holy One to whom every knee and every tongue shall confess. He is not just "one of God's billions of spirit children." He was the greatest of these children, and was foreordained from the beginning to be the Savior and Redeemer of the Father's creations. You seem to be downsizing the importance of Christ in LDS doctrine.

He may theoretically be a God, but he apparently isn't your God. What sense does it make to say that someone is your God if you don't pray to him?

Don't tell me that. Jesus Christ is indeed my God. So is the Father. Worshiping Christ as God does not mean that you must pray to Him. It simply means to love, obey, honor, glorify, and praise Him more than any other. We are simply following Christ's clear, simple instructions in this matter.

Edited August 11, 2011 by altersteve

[subgenius]

subgenius,

You wrote:

First, I am glad you acknowledge that Gospel Principles represents the LDS Church's teaching.

Second, the statement you quote from GP is quite revealing. It suggests that in LDS doctrine, Christ really is not God.

You wrote:

So, prayers must be vocalized aloud or they're not prayer? See Genesis 24:45; 1 Samuel 1:12-13.

You wrote:

I am an evangelical Christian, and in another thread we were discussing whether it is appropriate for Christians to pray to Jesus Christ. The Mormons here have generally been saying that it is not appropriate. I cited Alma 36 as an example of prayer addressed to Jesus in the Book of Mormon.

thanks for the info on the background with the discussions on this forum.

And i did not mean to imply that prayer need always be vocal, but rather i would propose that it need to be "intended".

I am of the opinion, as is often the manner by which our church instructs, that prayer is as shown to us in Matthew 6:9-13 and/or Luke 11:2-4, etc.

Edited August 11, 2011 by subgenius

[Rob Bowman]

altersteve,

You wrote:

CFR. Please give me an example of something in any of the standard works that is not "current LDS doctrine." And I'm not talking about practices, I'm not talking about doctrine.

Easily done.

Example #1: The standard works teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God (2 Ne. 31:21; Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7; D&C 20:28; see also the Testimony of Three Witnesses). Current LDS doctrine is that they are three Gods in one Godhead, not that they are one God.

Example #2: The standard works teach that God has been unchangeable as God from all eternity (Mosiah 3:5; Alma 13:7; Moroni 7:22; 8:18; Moses 6:7; 7:29, 31; D&C 20:17; 39:1; 61:1; 76:4). Current LDS doctrine is that God was once a man like us but is now an exalted being--and that we can do the same (e.g., Gospel Principles, 275, 279).

You wrote:

He is not just "one of God's billions of spirit children." He was the greatest of these children, and was foreordained from the beginning to be the Savior and Redeemer of the Father's creations. You seem to be downsizing the importance of Christ in LDS doctrine.

No, I'm simply saying that in LDS doctrine all of us have the potential to become everything that Christ is. Do you disagree with that?

You wrote:

Don't tell me that. Jesus Christ is indeed my God. So is the Father. Worshiping Christ as God does not mean that you must pray to Him. It simply means to love, obey, honor, glorify, and praise Him more than any other.

Not more than the Father, right? So then, what does that mean?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Example #1: The standard works teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God (2 Ne. 31:21; Alma 11:44; Mormon 7:7; D&C 20:28; see also the Testimony of Three Witnesses). Current LDS doctrine is that they are three Gods in one Godhead, not that they are one God.

WE believe them to be one God. We just don't believe them to be one essence or one being like you do.

So that accusation that you present is utterly false.

Example #2: The standard works teach that God has been unchangeable as God from all eternity (Mosiah 3:5; Alma 13:7; Moroni 7:22; 8:18; Moses 6:7; 7:29, 31; D&C 20:17; 39:1; 61:1; 76:4). Current LDS doctrine is that God was once a man like us but is now an exalted being--and that we can do the same (e.g., Gospel Principles, 275, 279).

LDS theology teaches no such thing. I am aware of the LS couplet. It does not mean what you try to force it to mean. Jesus was once a man like us as well. IOW he came to this earth and was a man and experienced many things you and I experience and had a physical body. That is what LS' couplet meant. I issue you a challenge to find an official source that claims that God sinned and was not always God? This is what you are implying.

Oh well, I think I already regret getting involved.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram