Temple Prayer (The Sequel)

[JLHPROF]

I asked that my other thread on temple prayer be closed since the OP topic was asking questions that would have implied violation of Church policy.

 

But after reading the below responses I think there might be more to be discussed on this topic:

 

 

Avatar4321 wrote:

I understand why you are asking for the thread to close but it's a shame we can't have more discussions on more important things like this.

 

 

Coreyb wrote:

I agree, we have lost something. Sometimes convenience, propriety, and efficiency trump spirituality. Some prayer circles did lead to problems however, so I can see the concerns they might have had, especially in a church that was rapidly growing and correlating.

 

So I thought I'd start with a couple of quotes from the early prophets and then perhaps we can discuss whether Pres. Kimball's restriction has caused the membership as a whole to lose any blessings or power.

Although I looked back at some earlier threads and found this so maybe my original questions on the other thread weren't so strange:

>

I've seen a few people express this over the years that the 1978 policy change removing Prayer Circle meetings at the Stake level did not change the policy towards having them in the home.  I'm curious how much it's practiced anymore.

 

 

“He (Joseph Smith) spoke of delivering the Keys of the Priesthood to the Church, and said that the faithful members of the Relief Society should receive them with their husbands, and the Saints whose integrity has been tried and proved faithful, might know how to ask and receive an answer.”

(Surely their prayers were already often answered - but this is different apparently)

 

Brigham Young clearly referred to this for personal use as well as group -

"There are four penal signs and four penal tokens and should I want to address the throne to enquire after Ancient things which transpired on planets that rolled away before this planet came into existence I should use my new name which is ancient and referred to ancient things. Should I wish to enquire for present things I should use my own name which refers to present things and should I want to enquire for future things I would use the third name which refers to the first token of the Melchizedek priesthood or is the third token that is given and refers to the Son."

 

George A. Smith and Wilford Woodruff used this as missionary companions:

"Our garments should be properly marked and we should understand those marks and we should wear those garments continually, by night and by day, in prison or free and if the devils in hell cut us up, let them cut the garments to pieces also, if we have the garments upon us at all times we can at any time offer up the signs. He then related an instance of some children being healed and cured of the whooping cough in one night, through the prayers of himself and Elder Woodruff, in Michigan, while they were there on a mission. Said that whenever
they could get an opportunity they retired to the wilderness or to an upper room, they did so and offered up the signs, and were always answered."

 

George Teasdale, Conference Report, October 1903. pg. 97:

"The family altar should be in every man’s house; he is the patriarch of the family, and everything should be done under his direction. He should offer prayer; his wife and children also should offer prayer in turn around the family altar. You cannot be a Saint without the fellowship of the Spirit of God;"

 

Amasa Lyman told a group of newly endowed Saints: “You have now learned how to pray. You have been taught how to approach God, and be recognized. This is the principle by which the Church has been kept together, and not the power of arms” (Heber C. Kimball Journal, 21 Dec. 1845).

 

And I'll conclude with one of my favorite Joseph Smith quotes - "I want every man that goes to be a king and a priest. When he gets on the mountain, he may want to talk with his God."

 

Ok, discuss (and PLEASE be careful about temple content)!

 

[ksfisher]

What direction are you wanting a discussion to head?

[Buckeye]

I'm not sure exactly what you're wanting to discuss. I can throw out this experience, though.

 

In my first zone conference my mission president went off on a tangent to correct something he'd heard some missionaries were doing. Apparently, some missionaries were holding hands in a circle when they prayed with investigator families. My mission president said this should not be done because it "mocks the true order of prayer." I never understood the mockery part - if the missionaries were trying to emulate the temple they were doing so out of admiration, not mocking. And the investigators logically couldn't mock what they didn't know. Regardless, this led to a few odd moments when my companion and I had to tell an investigator family "sorry, we can't hold hands for prayer, but we also can't tell you why not."

[pogi]

I personally believe that what we learn about prayer in the temple, it is completely symbolic and quite profound - go figure. 

 

To view it as an external mode of physical expressions is to overlook the underlying principle and teaching. 

[JLHPROF]

I personally believe that what we learn about prayer in the temple, it is completely symbolic and quite profound - go figure. 

 

To view it as an external mode of physical expressions is to overlook the underlying principle and teaching. 

 

That appears to conflict with the teachings of the early prophets and apostles.  Have the current leaders expressed sentiments similar to you or is temple prayer still considered a more "mighty" form of prayer by the GA's?

[JLHPROF]

 

In my first zone conference my mission president went off on a tangent to correct something he'd heard some missionaries were doing. Apparently, some missionaries were holding hands in a circle when they prayed with investigator families. My mission president said this should not be done because it "mocks the true order of prayer." I never understood the mockery part - if the missionaries were trying to emulate the temple they were doing so out of admiration, not mocking. And the investigators logically couldn't mock what they didn't know. Regardless, this led to a few odd moments when my companion and I had to tell an investigator family "sorry, we can't hold hands for prayer, but we also can't tell you why not."

That's amusing (and quite the overreaction).

[JLHPROF]

What direction are you wanting a discussion to head?

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're wanting to discuss.

 

Well, my original thread echoed Phaedrus' question - quoted in this OP:

 

"I've seen a few people express this over the years that the 1978 policy change removing Prayer Circle meetings at the Stake level did not change the policy towards having them in the home.  I'm curious how much it's practiced anymore."

 

I too am curious if it is practiced in members homes any more (or if it even should be?)

And the second discussion area relates to Coreyb's feelings (and my own) that something has been lost if we are taught a more effective way to pray and then forbidden to use it.  It takes the power out of the "endowment of power".

 

Some will argue it is just symbolic as opposed to a higher form of prayer.  Others might draw the analogy between a faith healing (regular prayer) and a priesthood healing (temple prayer).  One is done by authority, to be "recognized" by God as Amasa Lyman put it.  The other is a request in faith no different than any non-member might do.

 

I suppose those are the two topics I'd like to discuss:

- Is it ever/should it ever be practiced by members privately?

- Have we lost anything, any blessings, any power, by no longer being permitted to exercise what we learn in the temple?

[USU78]

That's amusing (and quite the overreaction).

 

Yup.

 

It ain't only the missionaries that people join the Church in spite of . . . it's also some of the dimmer bulbs amongst the mission prezes.

[mnn727]

So do you really think God regards prayers given in that manner more than other sincere prayers?

[ksfisher]

 

- Have we lost anything, any blessings, any power, by no longer being permitted to exercise what we learn in the temple?

 

If we are doing what the prophet has asked us to do, which in this case is reserve prayer circles for temple settings only, then how could we have lost anything.  If we truly believe that the prophet speaks for God and in the name of the Savior, then we also believe that we are blessed when we believe and act upon the counsel our leaders give us.

 

I also believe that President Kimball would not have made this change unless there were problems with the practice at the time.  I would imagine that much though, prayer, and discussion with his counselors and the apostles went into making the decision. 

 

Also, with so many temples so close to so many members, many can participate in several prayer circles a week.  Many members have greater access to a temple during the week than they do their own ward building.

Edited February 13, 2015 by ksfisher

[pogi]

That appears to conflict with the teachings of the early prophets and apostles.  Have the current leaders expressed sentiments similar to you or is temple prayer still considered a more "mighty" form of prayer by the GA's?

 

I haven't really studied teachings past and present on the subject.   I only have my personal experience after much time spent in the temple in contemplation and prayer on the subject.  What I have learned and what I practice is indeed a more "mighty" form of prayer in my experience, though it does not resemble the temple prayer outwardly.  However, I do not believe that I have reached or achieved the full purpose or true order yet, it is a process of realizing (or making real in our lives) the outward physical expressions that we make in preparation for communion.  It is as much a way of living as much as it is a way of prayer.  Our life becomes a prayer in oneness.  There is a lot more to be said on the subject that I can't say here.    

[JLHPROF]

So do you really think God regards prayers given in that manner more than other sincere prayers?

 

Do you believe priesthood blessings have more recognition and sway with Heavenly Father than faith healings?

Do you believe eternal marriages performed by priesthood authority have more recognition by Heavenly Father than a civil court marriage?

Do you believe a baptism performed by a worthy priesthood holder is recognized more by Heavenly Father than a sectarian baptism?

 

My answer to all these would be yes.  Recognition of legitimate calling matter.  The endowment gives us the power to approach God and be guaranteed an answer (assuming we ask not amiss).  At least, that's what the early prophets taught and claim to have experienced.  I believe it's what Enos referred to as "mighty prayer".  Honestly, I wouldn't doubt that even the Savior used the signs with his significant prayers.  I certainly believe it's what Adam used after being cast out into the world.  He didn't reserve them for the temple (Garden) but instead built a personal altar and prayed towards the temple/Garden.

[KevinG]

I have always felt we don't perform certain ordinances outside the temple precisely to preserve the sacredness of those symbols by separating them from the outside world. I don't have a doctrine for this... Just a personal opinion.

[JLHPROF]

Also, with so many temples so close to so many members, many can participate in several prayer circles a week.  Many members have greater access to a temple during the week than they do their own ward building.

 

Now this I absolutely agree with.  100% right.

 

I still wonder how we would get answers to our own personal prayers using this sacred teaching.  Perhaps God hears the prayers of the heart of those within the circle and accepts them as well as those uttered by the person who is mouth.

 

See, that's really what I'm getting at with this thread.  God has endowed us with a specific method of praying and being recognized before him.  HOW do we use this blessing and teaching to help us personally in our most trying moments (as in the George A. Smith example in the OP)?

Perhaps being part of a temple circle is sufficient to offer up a personal prayer of the heart using the sacred prayer....I like that.

ETA: I have to say though, there are certain situations in my life where if I needed help or an answer in the most desperate way, I would use the most powerful tool at my disposal to receive it, and policy wouldn't influence me.  If I had a very sick child, a life threatening situation, or just was at the absolute limit of my ability to stand, I would approach God in the most powerful form of prayer I know.

Edited February 13, 2015 by JLHPROF

[ksfisher]

Now this I absolutely agree with.  100% right.

 

I still wonder how we would get answers to our own personal prayers using this sacred teaching.  Perhaps God hears the prayers of the heart of those within the circle and accepts them as well as those uttered by the person who is mouth.

 

See, that's really what I'm getting at with this thread.  God has endowed us with a specific method of praying and being recognized before him.  HOW do we use this blessing and teaching to help us personally in our most trying moments (as in the George A. Smith example in the OP)?

Perhaps being part of a temple circle is sufficient to offer up a personal prayer of the heart using the sacred prayer....I like that.

ETA: I have to say though, there are certain situations in my life where if I needed help or an answer in the most desperate way, I would use the most powerful tool at my disposal to receive it, and policy wouldn't influence me.  If I had a very sick child, a life threatening situation, or just was at the absolute limit of my ability to stand, I would approach God in the most powerful form of prayer I know.

 

I don't think that the prayer circle is meant to be a form of personal prayer, or a means whereby we directly receive personal revelation.  The prayer circle is about communal prayer.  We act in unity and love with those with us in the circle.  It's part of becoming one with those around you, in thought and in action, so that the group may be prepared to enter into oneness with the Father and the Son in the Celestial Kingdom (hence it's placement before the veil). 

[Tacenda]

I'm listening to this Podcast http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/  and at the very beginning she talks about the Harmston group in Manti.  Apparently this group started praying this way and received revelations that probably weren't very good.  Maybe the church frowns on it because of groups like this.  

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_and_Living_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Saints_of_the_Last_Days

 

The church was organized on May 3, 1994, in response to what was felt to be a general apostasy of the LDS Church. This apostasy included Brigham Young (and subsequent presidents of the LDS Church) scattering the LDS Church membership rather than gathering it, the discontinuation of plural marriage; changes to ordinances and temple-related doctrine; and an increasing trend of "watering-down" general doctrine.

 

The TLC began as a study group and Priesthood Council in the early 1990s, where people from both the LDS Church and Mormon fundamentalist churches met together to discuss doctrine. During this period, the leader of the study group, James Dee Harmston (born November 6, 1940; graduated from Weber High School in 1959;^[3] died June 27, 2013), served a mission to Nauvoo. Prior to his retirement and founding of the TLC, James Harmston worked as a real estate developer and lobbyist for the Reagan Administration.^[4]

 

A manuscript called "Further Light & Knowledge" ^[5] dealing with research into the true order of prayer was published in 1990 by Ogden Kraut's publishing house, Pioneer Press.^[6] Gary Barns likely authored the manuscript, however authorship is not completely clear because an undated manuscript by the same title, believed to be written by Harmston, has been circulated in various Mormon fundamentalist discussion groups. In 1994, Harmston claimed the ancient Biblical Patriarchs Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Moses laid their hands on his head and conferred upon him the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood. He then organized the church and collected his revelations in the Manti Revelation Book. He formally organized a hierarchy consisting of a President of the High Priesthood (himself), a Presiding Patriarch, a First Presidency, and a Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

 

 

Bummer that they have to ruin it for everyone else, if that is indeed what happened.  Oops, this group wasn't the reason, if it was Pres. Kimball that discontinued it, but maybe there were others.  

Edited February 13, 2015 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

I don't think that the prayer circle is meant to be a form of personal prayer, or a means whereby we directly receive personal revelation.  The prayer circle is about communal prayer.  We act in unity and love with those with us in the circle.  It's part of becoming one with those around you, in thought and in action, so that the group may be prepared to enter into oneness with the Father and the Son in the Celestial Kingdom (hence it's placement before the veil). 

 

Based on Brigham's statement and Joseph's statement in the OP I think they allowed for it to be personal as well.  But I certainly agree with you about the importance of the circle and the communal prayer.  As for the veil, we enter individually, not communally.

 

I'm listening to this Podcast http://feministmormonhousewivespodcast.org/  and at the very beginning she talks about the Harmston group in Manti.  Apparently this group started praying this way and received revelations that probably weren't very good.  Maybe the church frowns on it because of groups like this.  

 

Bummer that they have to ruin it for everyone else, if that is indeed what happened.  Oops, this group wasn't the reason, if it was Pres. Kimball that discontinued it, but maybe there were others.  

 

I think that's it exactly.  (That Harmston group was weird - I think they've disbanded now).

Edited February 13, 2015 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

^{Fascinating thread. Perhaps I'm too young because I didn't even know the Prayer Circle outside the temple was ever a thing. I've often wondered though why it was taught and yet we never pray that way.}

 

^{We are promised in the scriptures that we will have the truth of all things made known unto us if we ask in faith but it never mentions praying in a specific way. I'd be surprised if the level of revelation/answers is significantly different for those who pray this way versus any other. If the Lord promised to answer all questions it seems like the prophet/apostles would have more answers to some of the challenging questions. Instead, we get a lot of "I don't know's".}

[Guest]

Temple prayer is no longer permitted...what did I miss?

[ksfisher]

As for the veil, we enter individually, not communally.

 

 

I wasn't meaning to imply that the veil was passed through communally.  But I do think that it is very significant that the prayer circle is taught before the temple company symbolically enters the celestial kingdom.

[rpn]

 

Such official, but locally organized, prayer circles persisted until 1978. That year, the First Presidency wrote: “Because of the increasing number of requests for such prayer circles, viewed in light of the rapid growth of the church, and because of the complications that holding prayer circles on Sunday have created . . .[we] have decided that such prayer circles . . . be discontinued immediately” (434). The letter suggests that a suitable replacement for the local prayer circle was for stake leaders to attend a regular endowment session and participate in the prayer circles being held there. The real difference, of course, is that the prayer circles held as part of the endowment ceremony would not allow local leaders to act as voice in the prayers and thus they would be unable to vocally ask for guidance on specific local matters.

On the surface, it appears that the case of the prayer circles demonstrates the process of what Max Weber called the routinization of charisma. Considered more carefully, however, it is clear that the documents pertaining to the prayer circles indicate several dynamic historical processes at work. First, it is clear that Church leaders were concerned with the centralization of authority and that they were aware, especially with regard to the private prayer circles, that divisions within the Quorum of the Twelve could be incubated into full-fledged schisms in the context of individual prayer circles. While it may be difficult for modern Mormons to comprehend, meetings of the Quorum of the Twelve in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were often contentious, frequently factious, and occasionally rancorous. The move to disband the private prayer circles of such leaders may have served to lessen the propensity for division within the quorum.

Second, the move to disband local prayer circles, most of which existed in Utah, was at least as much about the increasing availability of temples as it was about an attempt to rob local authorities of power. Also, as the twentieth century progressed, so did the view of the temple as a place of devotion and contemplation, a view that was replacing the older sense of the temple as a place for ritual work. Therefore, it is not surprising that Church authorities would seek to make the temples the exclusive home of the most spontaneous and contemplative element of the ritual.  http://signaturebooks.com/2011/03/review-the-development-of-lds-temple-worship-1846-2000/

 

The "such prayer circles" apparently referred to ones that were officially approved by the church for a time.    I don't know of anything that suggests a particular form of prayer is required to successfully conclude any God inspired errand, except those few that have been revealed as requiring a specific form.   

[mnn727]

Do you believe priesthood blessings have more recognition and sway with Heavenly Father than faith healings?

Do you believe eternal marriages performed by priesthood authority have more recognition by Heavenly Father than a civil court marriage?

Do you believe a baptism performed by a worthy priesthood holder is recognized more by Heavenly Father than a sectarian baptism?

 

 

1. Not from what I've seen watching some televangelists

2. More recognition? No. They just last longer and are a prerequisite for other opportunities.

3. Recognized more? No. It does however offer more opportunities.

Edited February 13, 2015 by mnn727

[JLHPROF]

1. Not from what I've seen watching some televangelists

2. More recognition? No. They just last longer and are a prerequisite for other opportunities.

3. Recognized more? No. It does however offer more opportunities.

Well then we completely disagree on the subject.  And I'm not sure your answers match the current Church teachings any more than mine do. 

[mnn727]

Well then we completely disagree on the subject.  And I'm not sure your answers match the current Church teachings any more than mine do. 

And no offence however I think many LDS think they have a lock on God, whereas I believe there are many good people in all religions (and in no religions at all)  doing the best they know how, whom H.F. loves just as much as LDS (and more than some LDS). Hence the Baptisms for the Dead for those who did not have an honest chance to learn of the Church in this life.

 

I also believe that HF knows some people just will not live up to the standards of the Church in this life and he leads them to where they will be able to.

[Avatar4321]

It's nice to have a thread with a decent topic.