Prayer Request from Houston Temple Presidency

[jkwilliams]

Just now, bluebell said:

I'm glad your family is safe jk.  I can't imagine what all of those people must be going through.  And what they must be face in the next year trying to get past it.

As Mark said, it's terribly stressful just sitting here knowing I can't do anything to help. I'm sure my wife would have been happy to avoid the storm, but I'm kind of glad she is there. I can't imagine trying to take care of a baby when you can't walk and you've been flooded out of your home. I'll just be glad when they get here. Thanks for the kind words. 

[Darren10]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't think that cinepro or bluebell question the sacredness of the temple (correct me if I'm wrong), I think what they question is whether some flood waters will destroy the sacredness of the temple.  Prayers were certainly offered on behalf of the temple, and were apparently not answered.  Does that mean that God does not respect the sacredness of the temple?  Or is it a sign that maybe we should be more concerned about our brothers and sisters in harms way. 

I don't feel that the sacredness of the temple has been defiled.  Even if it fell to the ground in an earth quake, or burned to the ground in a fire (yep, its happened), it would be rebuilt.  It is not the structure as much as it is the covenants made within the temple that are the most sacred.  The temples are like our physical bodies, they are to be respected, but they are not intended to last forever.   It would be great if it was miraculously preserved (and thus save the church some money), and I don't see any real problem with praying for that, but I think their point is that our brothers and sisters should probably take priority in our prayers.  Temples are built for people after all, and not the other way around.   

All I wonder is that if it is sacred, why hesistate to pray for it? 

Getting into the why factor with God is tricky. I don't see how you can fully answer that without judging others. For me allowing it to be flooded is a wakeup tool from God for me that I am not worhty of it. And let's just say I think others in the Houston area shoud feel the same. God has remove His temple from the earth in previous times due to unworthiness. I think if one prays for the temple, and that prayer influences people to better prepare themselves to get there and to frequent it, then that is a very good outcome. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Darren10

[Navidad]

Well, I am not a part of the temple family, but I hope you will accept the prayers of a Mennonite brother in Christ. 

[Darren10]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I was hesitant about the appropriateness of publicly putting out a call to pray for the temple, considering the other things (lives, livelihoods, and homes) that are at stake and already being lost.

And that's what confused me. Why hesitate at all to pray for the temple? 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

And that's what confused me. Why hesitate at all to pray for the temple? 

Reread what I said.  I didn't say that i was hesitant to pray for the temple, or that anyone else should be either.

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

God is our Father. Do we only ask Dad for what is logical, or for what we need? If we ask for bread will he give us a stone? 

Prayer us for our deepest needs, even finding keys

By it's very nature prayer has nothing to do with logic. It's hope for things unseen.

Is this really a Mormon board?

Your last question is very significant for me. "Is this really a Mormon board? I hope not, because then I don't belong. I thought it was a board to discuss and have dialogue about Mormon doctrine, history, and snickerdoodles. In that sense it is the board of anyone who honors and enjoys those things. So to paraphrase your question, "Is this really a Mormon board?"

[Darren10]

14 hours ago, cinepro said:

I guess I don't understand the logic in asking God to stay the storm that He has full control over.

And with tens of thousands of people in danger of losing everything they own, including their lives and the lives of their families, I would feel odd making a special petition to God to save a single vacant structure that doesn't actually house anyone and can no doubt be rebuilt.

The only way I could see such a prayer making sense is if the Temple doors had been thrown open and the surrounding citizens had been invited in to seek refuge from the storm, and the poorest and most helpless in Houston were sheltered there as a last resort.  But I'll go out on a limb and guess that that didn't happen.

 

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I admit this was my reaction too.   I don't think I'd feel comfortable praying for the temple to be protected when people are losing their homes. Though I understand that I could certainly pray for both, and it's not like God would have to choose which prayer to answer. I would still feel weird about it though. 

I bolded what you said.

[RevTestament]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Well, I am not a part of the temple family, but I hope you will accept the prayers of a Mennonite brother in Christ. 

Certainly. I met a fellow online living in Sweden. He was looking to start theological studies. He took an online test, and it placed his proclivities highly with LDS Christianity, and also with Mennonite Christianity. He was totally unfamiliar with the LDS Church and asked about our liturgy.... Trying to explain we have none and that our brand of dispensationalism is not anything like Protestant dispensationalism was interesting.... He eventually decided to join with the Mennonites last I spoke with him. I am somewhat familiar with the Mennonites, but I wondered why that test apparently placed Mennonites so closely with LDS Christianity. 

[Darren10]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Reread what I said.  I didn't say that i was hesitant to pray for the temple, or that anyone else should be either.

 

Quote

      14 hours ago, cinepro said:

I guess I don't understand the logic in asking God to stay the storm that He has full control over.

And with tens of thousands of people in danger of losing everything they own, including their lives and the lives of their families, I would feel odd making a special petition to God to save a single vacant structure that doesn't actually house anyone and can no doubt be rebuilt.

The only way I could see such a prayer making sense is if the Temple doors had been thrown open and the surrounding citizens had been invited in to seek refuge from the storm, and the poorest and most helpless in Houston were sheltered there as a last resort.  But I'll go out on a limb and guess that that didn't happen.

 

Quote

      13 hours ago, bluebell said:

I admit this was my reaction too.   I don't think I'd feel comfortable praying for the temple to be protected when people are losing their homes. Though I understand that I could certainly pray for both, and it's not like God would have to choose which prayer to answer. I would still feel weird about it though. 

I placed in bold what you said. Sorry for the double post.

[bluebell]

Just now, Darren10 said:

 

I bolded what you said.

Yes, but you apparently didn't understand it.  I'm sorry if i was unclear.

When I said that 'this was my reaction too' it was in response to Cinepro's statement of "I would feel odd making a special petition to God to save a single vacant structure that doesn't actually house anyone and can no doubt be rebuilt."

I clarified my position further in my post to you, where I said "I was hesitant about the appropriateness of publicly putting out a call to pray for the temple, considering the other things (lives, livelihoods, and homes) that are at stake and already being lost."

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Wow! I knew cinepro and BlueBell had misgivings regarding the LDS Church, but not about the sacredness of the LDS Temple. If it's sacred to you, why in the heavens are you hesitant to pray for its safety? It's somehow "immature" to pray for or since others are affected, you cannot make room, even a nano milimeter of room, in your heart to pray for it. 

 

I was only looking at this from a theological standpoint.

Since those first few posts, it now appears that the Temple is being flooded.  

That being the case, how do we understand what has happened?  Certainly, LDS doctrine would indicate that God has had full power over the hurricane since its inception last week.  The velocity and direction were all set in motion at the outset, and the path at any point could have been altered by God.  

At the late hour, when the water levels were rising, the Temple President put out a notice that the Temple was in a danger and asked people to petition God to help divert the waters.  As you point out, this petition was made under the assumption that a) The Temple is sacred and special to God, and b) God has power to intervene in the storm and its effects.

So now that the Temple is flooding, which of those two premises were incorrect?  Does God not mind his Temples being flooded (and if not, could he not communicate this to the Temple President)?  Were not enough prayers offered?  Does God not have power to intervene? 

I don't know what it means.  Those just seem like obvious questions, although I can fully understand why people wouldn't want to think about them.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I was only looking at this from a theological standpoint.

Since those first few posts, it now appears that the Temple is being flooded.  

That being the case, how do we understand what has happened?  Certainly, LDS doctrine would indicate that God has had full power over the hurricane since its inception last week.  The velocity and direction were all set in motion at the outset, and the path at any point could have been altered by God.  

At the late hour, when the water levels were rising, the Temple President put out a notice that the Temple was in a danger and asked people to petition God to help divert the waters.  As you point out, this petition was made under the assumption that a) The Temple is sacred and special to God, and b) God has power to intervene in the storm and its effects.

So now that the Temple is flooding, which of those two premises were incorrect?  Does God not mind his Temples being flooded (and if not, could he not communicate this to the Temple President)?  Were not enough prayers offered?  Does God not have power to intervene? 

I don't know what it means.  Those just seem like obvious questions, although I can fully understand why people wouldn't want to think about them.

From my perspective, neither answer is incorrect, they just fail to include option C)  The temple is sacred, God has power to intervene and keep it from flooding, but it was not His will to do so.

[Darren10]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, but you apparently didn't understand it.  I'm sorry if i was unclear.

When I said that 'this was my reaction too' it was in response to Cinepro's statement of "I would feel odd making a special petition to God to save a single vacant structure that doesn't actually house anyone and can no doubt be rebuilt."

I clarified my position further in my post to you, where I said "I was hesitant about the appropriateness of publicly putting out a call to pray for the temple, considering the other things (lives, livelihoods, and homes) that are at stake and already being lost."

 

You did clarify and I even calculated that in one of my replies to you. It still baffles me why any believing Mormon would hesitate to pray for the temple. ?If anything, it should be paramount in a believing Mormon's life. When that happens, all the world is blessed. By no means was any solicitation for prayer to justify not helping one another. If the Temple President said "don't worry about the temple, it can be rebuilt. Just pray for others and help other and help them," would be inspiring in and of itself but what would that imply to the temple being a holy place? Should not God's people sacrifice to build and maintain it? Haven't they already sacrificed greatly, even in moments of personal tragedy and despair? Are we not blessed today because of their sacrifice? If it's something that can "just be rebuilt" then isn't it "just a building"?

[Darren10]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I was only looking at this from a theological standpoint.

Since those first few posts, it now appears that the Temple is being flooded.  

That being the case, how do we understand what has happened?  Certainly, LDS doctrine would indicate that God has had full power over the hurricane since its inception last week.  The velocity and direction were all set in motion at the outset, and the path at any point could have been altered by God.  

At the late hour, when the water levels were rising, the Temple President put out a notice that the Temple was in a danger and asked people to petition God to help divert the waters.  As you point out, this petition was made under the assumption that a) The Temple is sacred and special to God, and b) God has power to intervene in the storm and its effects.

So now that the Temple is flooding, which of those two premises were incorrect?  Does God not mind his Temples being flooded (and if not, could he not communicate this to the Temple President)?  Were not enough prayers offered?  Does God not have power to intervene? 

I don't know what it means.  Those just seem like obvious questions, although I can fully understand why people wouldn't want to think about them.

No, you were expressing open reluctance to pray for the temple when so many people need to be helped. That the only way to you to justify praying for the temple would be if it was used to house displaced folks. You may have wanted to seek theology behind the prayer request but your post only showed malcontent, a bit in the disdain level.

I've tackled the theological issue a bit in previous posts. I pretty much see God allowing the temple to be flooded as a tool for me personally that I am unworthy of it being close to my home. That I've grossly neglected my attending it. I also think that many in the Houston area should view it in the same lens. The Houston Temple is grossly under-attended and has been for years.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I was only looking at this from a theological standpoint.

Since those first few posts, it now appears that the Temple is being flooded.  

That being the case, how do we understand what has happened?  Certainly, LDS doctrine would indicate that God has had full power over the hurricane since its inception last week.  The velocity and direction were all set in motion at the outset, and the path at any point could have been altered by God.  

At the late hour, when the water levels were rising, the Temple President put out a notice that the Temple was in a danger and asked people to petition God to help divert the waters.  As you point out, this petition was made under the assumption that a) The Temple is sacred and special to God, and b) God has power to intervene in the storm and its effects.

So now that the Temple is flooding, which of those two premises were incorrect?  Does God not mind his Temples being flooded (and if not, could he not communicate this to the Temple President)?  Were not enough prayers offered?  Does God not have power to intervene? 

I don't know what it means.  Those just seem like obvious questions, although I can fully understand why people wouldn't want to think about them.

"So now that the Temple is flooding, which of those two premises were incorrect?"

"although I can fully understand why people wouldn't want to think about them"

Your cynicism shows little boundaries.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Darren10

[cinepro]

 

28 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I pretty much see God allowing the temple to be flooded as a tool for me personally that I am unworthy of it being close to my home. That I've grossly neglected my attending it. I also think that many in the Houston area should view it in the same lens. The Houston Temple is grossly under-attended and has been for years.

That would seem to make sense, since apparently Joel Osteen's church in Houston didn't get flooded and tons of people go there.  So you may be on to something.

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

If it's something that can "just be rebuilt" then isn't it "just a building"?

Ultimately, it is just a building that can be rebuilt.  We don't worship temples.  They are buildings.  Sacred, dedicated buildings, but buildings still. It is what happens inside of them that is of spiritual worth to us.  

 

[rongo]

This gets into petitionary prayer. If God is going to do what he's going to do whether we pray or not, why bother doing it?

Mormons come down on this differently. I personally believe that it does make a difference, and that God sometimes (at his will and discretion) conditions things on our asking and our sincerity. 

I don't think it's a bad thing at all to pray to protect the temple, even though flooding and tragedy is going on around it. It's not like the implied thought is "protect the temple, and everyone else fend for themselves." 

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That would seem to make sense, since apparently Joel Osteen's church in Houston didn't get flooded and tons of people go there.  So you may be on to something.

On a personal note, my wife and I used to drive 70 miles from College Station to the temple every Tuesday night. I think we did that for about 2 years. We enjoyed the temple, but I think both of us enjoyed the time alone in the car more. We started doing that right after the temple opened, and at first it was fairly busy. After about 6 months, it was pretty empty. We almost always were the witness couple, and they would have to bring in temple workers to have enough people. We got to know the temple workers by name, which was really nice. I have a lot of good memories of that temple, both from volunteering at the open house and then doing our weekly session. It makes me sad to think it's suffered the same fate as so many other buildings and neighborhoods there. But, as I said to my daughter, it's just stuff, and stuff can be replaced.

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

God doesn't need our prayers, we need our prayers. He knows what we need. We need to vocalize our deepest wishes and concerns so we know what they are. 

Even if there were no God, they are good therapy

Thanks for sharing your opinions,  but I think I will let the scriptures speak for God.

Just an insight from personal experience.  God needs us to ask before He will grant a blessing or give us an answer.
And, yes, sometimes He or His servants advise us on what we need to ask.

Edited August 29, 2017 by cdowis

[Navidad]

Well, I have only just now reached my 25^th post. It seems to me that the debate going on now in this thread is an intra-family thing; perhaps not something for an outsider to enter in. I am not sure what to do. I guess I will go on and leave the choice whether to read this up to you.

I believe the only place that is sacred is where the physical, visible presence of God dwells. While He, through His Holy Spirit can dwell wherever he chooses, it is my belief that currently He has chosen to dwell in his children and as a result they are the physical and visible presence of God on earth.

In the Old Testament, the physical visible presence of God on earth was in the pillar of fire and the cloud of smoke. In the very rare occasions where a direct theophany occurred it was in a burning bush or a still small voice. Then the sacred place became between the ark of the covenant where the spirit of God dwelt in the tabernacle and later in the temple. God, as revealed in the book of Ezekiel 10 and 11 withdrew His Spirit from earth because His children had willfully rejected Him – a complete apostasy.

The next appearance of the physical visible presence of God on earth came in the manger in Bethlehem. For thirty-some years the physical visible presence of God on earth was in the person of His son, Jesus Christ. He was killed, rose again and ascended back to His father. And for a brief period there was again, no physical visible presence of God on earth. His presence was not in a mountain, in a tree, a rock, or a building. Then a miracle occurred and at Pentecost God gave us what Jesus promised, a comforter – the physical visible presence of God on earth in the person of the Holy Spirit who was sent to indwell those who became the children of God, the collective church of God. From then on, Christians – the redeemed by the shed blood of the Lamb through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit have been the physical visible presence of God on earth – his children. It is our joy, privilege, and responsibility to be the physical visible presence of God on earth to a world that desperately needs Him. Our bodies are the temple in which the Holy Spirit dwells in this dispensation, not a building of brick and stone. The only sacred spaces are those within the child of God. The only sacred history is that of the story of God’s redemption through his son.

Are Mormon temples sacred? Absolutely when they are filled with God’s children. They are dedicated by an authority, but they are blessed by the physical visible presence of God in the person of his Mormon children. They represent the “church collectively” as described in D&C 1:30 – read to the end; just as do his other children who have accepted the gift of salvation through his son, Jesus Christ.

This is what Mennonites believe and for the most part, what I believe Mormons believe, especially as Church doctrine has become increasingly Christ’s atonement-centric. How does it relate to the prayer discussion? I believe no building is sacred in and of itself. It is a metaphor – it is not the literal place where the Spirit of God dwells, because today the Spirit of God dwells in people. That is why they can do miraculous things. That is the one great differentiator between us and all other living things. God has chosen us, made us in his image to be his physical visible presence on earth. Some day Christ will return and we will enter a new dispensation. But as for now, as some of you have said the Houston temple can be rebuilt. God’s physical visible presence in Houston will not be lost so long as his children, Mormon and otherwise demonstrate the power, authority, knowledge and yes, love that comes from being the physical visible presence of God in the midst of the flood.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Thanks for sharing your opinions,  but I think I will let the scriptures speak for God.

Just an insight from personal experience.  God needs us to ask before He will grant a blessing or give us an answer.
And, yes, sometimes He or His servants advise us on what we need to ask.

No problem, but if you look at what I actually said, it mirrors exactly what I said.  I suggest we all learn to read carefully before we answer, and I am often the most guilty in not doing this.

Note that I said that prayer is for US so that we learn our needs.

We need to know our needs before we ask God

You said we need to ask God- for OUR own good.  And yes of course we can get advice from leaders.  I really don't see the difference here between what you said and what I said except I was using a secular vocabulary and you were not.

When you visit a therapist, the therapist teaches you how to find out what your needs are.  It's all the same.   We learn our needs, we ask God, and He blesses us.

The difference is semantics.  If we are going to reach a secular audience we need to speak their language and that is what I do continuously on this board to get folks used to seeing it two ways.

 

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't think it's a bad thing at all to pray to protect the temple, even though flooding and tragedy is going on around it. It's not like the implied thought is "protect the temple, and everyone else fend for themselves." 

I agree.

One of the things that I thought was weird about it is that, because the Temple president did not put out a special request for prayers for people affected, but did put out a special request for prayers for the temple, it comes across like the president places the temple staying dry in front of people's home's staying dry, in order of importance.

I don't think that the president actually feels that way, only that it would be very easy for people, especially non and ex members, to interpret his words in that way.  That's why the request seemed weird to me.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Well, I have only just now reached my 25^th post. It seems to me that the debate going on now in this thread is an intra-family thing; perhaps not something for an outsider to enter in. I am not sure what to do. I guess I will go on and leave the choice whether to read this up to you.

I believe the only place that is sacred is where the physical, visible presence of God dwells. While He, through His Holy Spirit can dwell wherever he chooses, it is my belief that currently He has chosen to dwell in his children and as a result they are the physical and visible presence of God on earth.

In the Old Testament, the physical visible presence of God on earth was in the pillar of fire and the cloud of smoke. In the very rare occasions where a direct theophany occurred it was in a burning bush or a still small voice. Then the sacred place became between the ark of the covenant where the spirit of God dwelt in the tabernacle and later in the temple. God, as revealed in the book of Ezekiel 10 and 11 withdrew His Spirit from earth because His children had willfully rejected Him – a complete apostasy.

The next appearance of the physical visible presence of God on earth came in the manger in Bethlehem. For thirty-some years the physical visible presence of God on earth was in the person of His son, Jesus Christ. He was killed, rose again and ascended back to His father. And for a brief period there was again, no physical visible presence of God on earth. His presence was not in a mountain, in a tree, a rock, or a building. Then a miracle occurred and at Pentecost God gave us what Jesus promised, a comforter – the physical visible presence of God on earth in the person of the Holy Spirit who was sent to indwell those who became the children of God, the collective church of God. From then on, Christians – the redeemed by the shed blood of the Lamb through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit have been the physical visible presence of God on earth – his children. It is our joy, privilege, and responsibility to be the physical visible presence of God on earth to a world that desperately needs Him. Our bodies are the temple in which the Holy Spirit dwells in this dispensation, not a building of brick and stone. The only sacred spaces are those within the child of God. The only sacred history is that of the story of God’s redemption through his son.

Are Mormon temples sacred? Absolutely when they are filled with God’s children. They are dedicated by an authority, but they are blessed by the physical visible presence of God in the person of his Mormon children. They represent the “church collectively” as described in D&C 1:30 – read to the end; just as do his other children who have accepted the gift of salvation through his son, Jesus Christ.

This is what Mennonites believe and for the most part, what I believe Mormons believe, especially as Church doctrine has become increasingly Christ’s atonement-centric. How does it relate to the prayer discussion? I believe no building is sacred in and of itself. It is a metaphor – it is not the literal place where the Spirit of God dwells, because today the Spirit of God dwells in people. That is why they can do miraculous things. That is the one great differentiator between us and all other living things. God has chosen us, made us in his image to be his physical visible presence on earth. Some day Christ will return and we will enter a new dispensation. But as for now, as some of you have said the Houston temple can be rebuilt. God’s physical visible presence in Houston will not be lost so long as his children, Mormon and otherwise demonstrate the power, authority, knowledge and yes, love that comes from being the physical visible presence of God in the midst of the flood.

Thanks for your posts- I have found them inspirational.

The reason you get few responses, is that we disagree on theology but your posts are so dang beautiful and charitable we don't want to argue theology with you

At least that's my reason for not responding earlier.

We believe that God is a physical Being- a glorified Human with a body of flesh and bones and that he can, should he desire to, actually be in a given location in space and time

This is how he appeared to Joseph Smith.   Yes his influence is everywhere and he knows every creature in his universe, but a physical analogy is probably like TV or radio or the internet.   Except he has perfect spiritual communication to where ever or whomever of course- but he actually HAS a given location in or out of the universe.

So for us the temple is literally "The House of the Lord" should he want to honor it as such.  We believe there have been apparitions of the savior etc in these sacred buildings.

We as God's CHILDREN participate in his nature.  He does not have two natures as the pagan neoplatonists who inspired the substance metaphysics of the Nicene Creed suggest.   There is no such thing as "consubstaniality" because there is no such thing as "substance"

We human have within us a tiny spark of God- we are as human zygotes who can become humans- as we can become Children of God, so too we can become like God Himself after eons and eons of growth spiritually.  It is said that God once was as we are now, and we can become like Him

That is a far cry from the implications of your post, beautiful as it is!!

So that is the 800 pound gorilla in your posts that no one wants to bring up.   I have great respect for the Amish and Mennonites and find you to be wonderful people!   But we disagree in theology quite a bit!  You are wonderful people who dwell in the peace of God and so no one wants to bring up theology lest it lead to arguments

At least that is my take on it.  Thanks for your posts!

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Your last question is very significant for me. "Is this really a Mormon board? I hope not, because then I don't belong. I thought it was a board to discuss and have dialogue about Mormon doctrine, history, and snickerdoodles. In that sense it is the board of anyone who honors and enjoys those things. So to paraphrase your question, "Is this really a Mormon board?"

YES in that sense!!   You are very welcome- it is just that the difference between us would require pages and pages of explanation- which I for one am willing to take on if no one else brings it up!  So keep the comments and questions coming and everyone will get on the bandwagon eventually!

It takes a while to understand how we think- it will be quite foreign to you at first but honestly- it makes sense and we believe also in the Bible- but our interpretations will differ vastly!

It is a different way to see Christianity

Edited August 29, 2017 by mfbukowski