Prayer Request from Houston Temple Presidency

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

I think it kind of goes without saying that we would also pray for those affected by the storm. In other words, it's a given. Praying about the temple might not be automatic for many people, though. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours 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.

AH! Trying to confuse us again with the facts huh?

You think that will help??  

[Darren10]

1 hour 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.

I am glad they are there and our mathematics does not always work in God's plans. But I appreciate your cheap shot. 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it kind of goes without saying that we would also pray for those affected by the storm. In other words, it's a given. Praying about the temple might not be automatic for many people, though. 

And I'm saying that I think that for a lot of non and ex members reading the temple presidency's request, that is definitely not a given.  A lot of people really don't know what mormons care about, and a lot of those that should still refuse to give us any benefit of the doubt.  

[Duncan]

and keep in mind this Temple is hardly the first one to be destroyed and for all we know won't be the last 

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.  

 

Ultimately it is not "just a building". We do not hesitate to pray for homes not to be flooded because they are "just buildings". We do not hesitate to pray churches don't get flooded because they are "just buildings". Same goes for schools or even roads. It is the purpose of all these edifices, not just the Temple, that we pray for they safe keeping. Of course helping others is first and foremost and that is indeed happening. It's no like in the midst of grossly neglecting people the Temple President says, "please pray for the Temple". He even mentioned prayer for those affected by the floods being done. I don't get the hesitation firm a believing Mormon. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And I'm saying that I think that for a lot of non and ex members reading the temple presidency's request, that is definitely not a given.  A lot of people really don't know what mormons care about, and a lot of those that should still refuse to give us any benefit of the doubt.  

Isn't the Temple one thing Mormons care about! 

[cdowis]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No problem, but if you look at what I actually said, it mirrors exactly what I said.  

 

OK, I get it now.

[strappinglad]

Maybe the lesson for the temple is " Use it or Lose it " . If it is not well attended , this might be an opportunity for leadership to focus on temple work.

Is there a large fraction of the Houston area that is irreligious or atheist? If so , do these folks just project their desires to the universe or does fatalistic feelings reign ?

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And I'm saying that I think that for a lot of non and ex members reading the temple presidency's request, that is definitely not a given.  A lot of people really don't know what mormons care about, and a lot of those that should still refuse to give us any benefit of the doubt.  

What was the distribution list for the temple presidency's request? When a request goes out to pray for rain during a drought, should we all have rabbit ears about how other people will perceive it if we aren't including drought-stricken Sudan in the request?

[Darren10]

4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Maybe the lesson for the temple is " Use it or Lose it " . If it is not well attended , this might be an opportunity for leadership to focus on temple work.

WINNER!

You win a years long free subscription to Mormon Dialogue. Ask administration for details. 

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Maybe the lesson for the temple is " Use it or Lose it " . If it is not well attended , this might be an opportunity for leadership to focus on temple work.

Is there a large fraction of the Houston area that is irreligious or atheist? If so , do these folks just project their desires to the universe or does fatalistic feelings reign ?

When we bear our testimonies of the spirit, the spirit grows stronger within us

When an atheist bears his testimony of no spirit, the spirit.......   Well you figure it out... !

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

What was the distribution list for the temple presidency's request? When a request goes out to pray for rain during a drought, should we all have rabbit ears about how other people will perceive it if we aren't including drought-stricken Sudan in the request?

I really don't know what the distribution for the list was.  I read about it in my news feed on Yahoo.  It was positioned next to the news about how people were upset at Joel Osteen for not openly doing things for the flood victims despite his wealth and having a large church in Houston and celebrities calls for action to help the flood victims.  Since it was next to different calls for help for the victims, the headline of a temple president calling for prayers for a building was a bit cringeworthy (or 'cringy' as my teenager would say).

[stemelbow]

17 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.

Ya can't blame the President for following Church edicts, though.  I recall some time ago when Elder Oaks basically gave this President the idea:

Quote

He does answer our prayers to turn them aside, as He did with the uniquely powerful cyclone that threatened to prevent the dedication of the temple in Fiji;⁶

Remember?  God did set aside the prayers to help the people, but did hear the prayers and respond favorably to save the temple from damage. 

[bluebell]

30 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Isn't the Temple one thing Mormons care about! 

It's one of many things that mormons care about.  But we care about it because of the ordinances that take place within it.  The four-fold mission of the church (the list of things that mormons are supposed to care most about) is focused on people, not on things.  

And let me clarify.  I've prayed for the safety of things many times in my life and I will continue to do so.  We use things to accomplish many good purposes and there is nothing wrong with wanting them to be protected so they can function as we need them too.   I don't think it's wrong to pray for the protection of temples.  

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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!

 

Thanks so very much for your reply. I don't wish to argue either. I wish to understand. Sometimes the best way to understand is to share one's beliefs as a way to see both differences and agreements; all this in an atmosphere and attitude that honors our heavenly father. Quite frankly, I am around Mormons every day - including a good part of most Sundays. I live in the midst (well, almost) of one of the most special Mormon places in the world (just ask them, hah!) the Mormon colonies of Mexico. I know bishops, stake presidents, LDS scholars, BYU profs., and yes two general authorities. 

What I am seeking to learn is this "No kidding, what do Mormons really believe?" or more specifically, "What do Mormons believe about non-Mormon believers in Christ?" Please believe me, I have learned this is almost a question without an answer. I have hundreds of Mormon books in my library (not one by an anti--Mormon, by the way). I have seen LDS doctrine morph and change from 1830 to 2017. I spend hours every day searching and reading.  Please don't tell me to talk to a Mormon missionary to get the straight scoop. They know their six lessons; that is about it. The last one who I tried to ask questions to here in my home was from Utah. He apologized but said he could only give the lessons in Spanish because that was all he was taught. Huh? They have little or no depth in Mormon history and doctrine. Please, I mean no offense in that. I know many of you served a mission and/or have kids or grandkids that are currently doing so. I served a mission myself at 20 years of age. That is simply my experience. When I ask them to explain no kidding, how the great apostasy worked, they blank out. That is important to me because it negates almost two thousand years of church history including my own. Then I ask three Mormons or three Mormon bishops (no offense) the same question and I get three different answers. Reading Millet is not the same as reading McConkie which is not the same as reading Woodruff, my personal favorite LDS president. I get told about persecution! Wow, don't forget I am Mennonite. I can tell stories of persecution that will make a Saint cry and for five hundred years longer! 

I came to this forum hoping that being somewhat anonymous and speaking to a somewhat more knowledgeable audience (you all) that I might be able to get some answers, realizing that even within this august body I won't get unanimity of opinion because each of you is on your own individual and idiosyncratic spiritual journey inside and perhaps outside of Mormonism. 

I guess I am trying to understand the LDS faith well enough to understand whether we can disagree on things, but still believe the other is a Christian brother or sister, without the other needing the services of the other?  Is there really no salvation outside of LDS priesthood authority? Really? What if I believe that Christ is the only high priest between us and God? Can we still be Christian brothers. I don't need to focus on the differences; I understand all about those. I need to understand the similarities on which fellowship and worship can be based. But, that is the challenge, maybe because it is not possible, and I need to stop trying. I am a non-Mormon who wants to accept Mormons as my Christian brothers. Understanding what I know, I believe I can be true to my faith and join in prayer for healing with a Mormon brother or sister for a sick child. What I can't get the answer to is are they joining in prayer with me for that child just to be nice, thinking all the time - he has no authority, he has no power . . . they know I have knowledge. Are they calling me brother because they believe everyone on earth is their brother because of that spark of the divine in all of us, and oh, by the way, they can always baptize or endow me after I am dead, so why make a big deal about it now? For years Mormons have focused almost obsessively on how they are treated and seen by non-Mormons. Now the worm is turning. More like me want to know what you all believe about me and my faith? I can testify and take up an entire sacrament meeting on my faith and the blessings I have had, and the joy and power of my faith, but I can't do so in Joseph Smith's name. Does that disqualify me from faith? The answer depends on who I ask.  Is there really not one single Mennonite elder or bishop in the world who has the power, authority, and knowledge of the Holy Spirit in his life in its fullness? Really? 

So many questions. So few answers. If I join this board you will have a loving, kind investigator in your midst who will want to know the truth. You won't be able to practice an LDS defensiveness by saying - he is the enemy, because let me assure you, I am not your enemy. I have already seen that word used in any number of posts that I have read - that disappoints me. Let me assure you, Mormons don't have nearly as many enemies as you think. That is a holdover from Hawn's Mill or Crooked River, or in my case the Mexican revolution with all its red-flaggers. Have I mentioned I think Jacob Hawn was a Mennonite, as were all the Whitmers? Sorry, I digress. What say you, should I stay or should I go? 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Navidad
add a thought

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Ya can't blame the President for following Church edicts, though.  I recall some time ago when Elder Oaks basically gave this President the idea:

Remember?  God did set aside the prayers to help the people, but did hear the prayers and respond favorably to save the temple from damage. 

At its core with this issue is whether people actually believe in answers to petitionary prayer. I think that people who criticize it don't really think that it actually ever changes anything (in stemelbow-speak, prayer would be "cute" or "adorbs"). Maybe it's a psychological Linus' blanket for people to pray and think they are affecting anything, but . . .

Then, there are those who believe that it can and does affect things. 

It's not really any different than the larger "problem of evil" question, and why God helps ___ in this case, but didn't help ___ in that case. To the "adorbs" crowd, the thought that God may have a larger purpose in sparing a temple but allowing a storm to make landfall (or, conversely, allow a storm to damage a temple, or not answer specific prayers in that instance) is immature and naive. 

bluebell:

I really don't know what the distribution for the list was.  I read about it in my news feed on Yahoo . . . Since it was next to different calls for help for the victims, the headline of a temple president calling for prayers for a building was a bit cringeworthy (or 'cringy' as my teenager would say).

On Yahoo news feed, huh? That's interesting. I think it's more a matter, then, of "optics" (how things look to outsiders). What I call "rabbit ears" (a sports term referring to umpires or referees worrying about comments about their officiating from the audience or players). Not that self-awareness, or awareness of how we come across, is a bad thing, but I think that sometimes we get too rabbit-eared about it.

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, rongo said:

What was the distribution list for the temple presidency's request? When a request goes out to pray for rain during a drought, should we all have rabbit ears about how other people will perceive it if we aren't including drought-stricken Sudan in the request?

It appears to be the unofficial FB page of the stake he belongs to...

https://www.facebook.com/friendsofhoustonsouth/

Numerous commenters are saying prayers to those in need.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Here's the portion of the call for prayer I did not cite:

Yes, prayers for others are already being done. Like attendance of the Houston Temple, perhaps prayers for it have been neglected. 

So why didn't you cite the whole prayer?

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

At its core with this issue is whether people actually believe in answers to petitionary prayer. I think that people who criticize it don't really think that it actually ever changes anything (in stemelbow-speak, prayer would be "cute" or "adorbs"). Maybe it's a psychological Linus' blanket for people to pray and think they are affecting anything, but . . .

Then, there are those who believe that it can and does affect things. 

It's not really any different than the larger "problem of evil" question, and why God helps ___ in this case, but didn't help ___ in that case. To the "adorbs" crowd, the thought that God may have a larger purpose in sparing a temple but allowing a storm to make landfall (or, conversely, allow a storm to damage a temple, or not answer specific prayers in that instance) is immature and naive. 

 

 

Immature and naïve?  well that's one way to put it, I suppose.  Then again to another it might seem immature and naïve for people to think God has a purpose to spare a temple dedication over lives of others, all because a few people said a prayer asking God to keep the storm from affecting the ceremony.  But then there's a third crew of people who thinks both of those saying the other is immature and naïve based on this nonsense are being immature and naïve to each other.  Maybe those two groups can get together and call the third group immature and naïve too.  Then we're all immature and naïve.  God is mature and knows stuff, the rest of us know less and act less mature than He. 

Good job, Rongo.  you just argued the very definition of nonsense. 

 

 

Edited August 29, 2017 by stemelbow

[Darren10]

On ‎8‎/‎29‎/‎2017 at 3:53 PM, bluebell said:

It's one of many things that mormons care about.  But we care about it because of the ordinances that take place within it.  The four-fold mission of the church (the list of things that mormons are supposed to care most about) is focused on people, not on things.  

And let me clarify.  I've prayed for the safety of things many times in my life and I will continue to do so.  We use things to accomplish many good purposes and there is nothing wrong with wanting them to be protected so they can function as we need them too.   I don't think it's wrong to pray for the protection of temples.  

There's no disagreement between you and I in the purpose of the Temple nor in the need to pray for the Temple so apparently our differences is our disagreement in the appropriateness of the Houston Temple President calling for the Temple not to be flooded. I find it fitting but you seem to think it doesn't emphasize people enough. 

I say let the service the LDS Church provides to others and the volunteer work the LDS people offer stand for itself. Of all the things I observe from critics and no critics alike, the volunteerism Mormons provide shines out on a foggy day. As for the Temple, I say, let people know we believe in it, remind them we believe in it, and keep reminding them that we believe in it. A public call to prayer that the Houston Temple would not be flooded is 100% fine with me and it is one reason Mormons go out and serve. The Temple ordinances is heavily based on serving others. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

So why didn't you cite the whole prayer?

Actually, the primary reason was that I worried about violating cosher rues and expectations in citing other websites. I always worry about violating rules on this website. Besides, I think the portion I cited was sufficient to get the main message across. I did worry others may think it was inadequate in light of the flooding but I thought they may read my linked site and read one paragraph extra than what I cited. 

[Navidad]

Well, one thing I can say for sure. There is a temple in Colonia Juarez and Mormons there are praying every day and probably three times a day for rain! Our area needs rain badly. Slow, steady, wonderful rain for all our pecans, peaches, and apples that you all like to eat. Oh, and I asked the folks if they would accept Mennonite prayers for rain as well. I got a unanimous "yes!" 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

The rains and flooding are going to happen no matter how hard we pray for them to stop. What we should pray for is the ability and strength to endure it and for a successful recovery from the effects of the flooding. 

The ability to endure it and a successfully recovering will happen no matter how,hard we pray for them. What we should pray for is delicious pastry products.

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Immature and naïve?  well that's one way to put it, I suppose.  Then again to another it might seem immature and naïve for people to think God has a purpose to spare a temple dedication over lives of others, all because a few people said a prayer asking God to keep the storm from affecting the ceremony.  But then there's a third crew of people who thinks both of those saying the other is immature and naïve based on this nonsense are being immature and naïve to each other.  Maybe those two groups can get together and call the third group immature and naïve too.  Then we're all immature and naïve.  God is mature and knows stuff, the rest of us know less and act less mature than He. 

Good job, Rongo.  you just argued the very definition of nonsense. 

Since God clearly (no matter where one is coming from) never saves or spares absolutely everyone from everything (i.e., he allows things to happen to people all the time), then harping on this only makes sense from the non-believer statndpoint (there is no God, and our prayers are meaningless). From the believer standpoint, it has to do with degrees and levels of God's intervention and interaction. 

It's hard to tell where you are coming from. You strike me as a functional non-believer. Sure, you believe in God as a vague concept, but you don't seem to me to believe that he actually intercedes. In fact, you seem to mock the belief that he actually does in specific instances ("oh, that's adorbs, or cute" that you think that").