I’ve seen “Heavenly Father” used in other Christian prayer, even at Mass.
Of cause it is…
Generally we do use the term Heavenly Father. However, I have heard LDS people use Our Father who art in Heaven. In fact I see little difference between the two terms they are essentially synonymous. I think the usage of the term “Heavenly Father” has to do more with culture.
You are correct about the “Our Father” prayer. In our prayers we do not repeat word for word a previously spoken prayer. We feel that a rote prayer has a high likelihood of being impersonal. It also tends to not give God thanks for our personal blessings or ask him for what we need at the moment.
This is an oxymoron.
As others have pointed out, this is a contradiction. Omnipresent means he IS in “billions of places simultaneously”
And I can understand that logic. It just seems strange that you take it to the extreme of not even using a prayer Jesus taught us.
No this is just simple truth. Spirit permeates the universe, but God is not this Spirit. A very crude comparison might be electro-magnetic waves which cannot be seen but are none the less present. By transmitting and receiving these waves one can communicate and be in contact with others. The Spirit acts in some similar fashion. God our Father uses the Spirit to be in contact with all his creations.
Please. LDS prayers may not be written down, but they can be highly repetitious, using the same words and phrases in almost every prayer. They may as well be written down and read. LDS prayer can be just as impersonal and vain as any prayer that is read. What matters is in the heart. I love the prayers that have been written down. They are very beautiful and poetic. Frankly the authors of those prayers have a better way of saying things that are in my heart than I do sometimes. So why not use those prayers if they really do come from my heart?
Certainly, individual members may give prayers that are repetitive and impersonal. My point is simply that prayers written by others have a high potential to be less personal. Perhaps you disagree with this statement. But in my opinion this is why the LDS church and it’s members avoid them.
But the sacrament prayer is completely repetitive and if not done exactly right must be repeated until it is absolutely perfectly done before sacrament can proceed.
I think that both ways have a high potential to be less personal. With prayers that have already been written, one should think about the words, why they are saying them, what they mean, and their personal connection to them as a reason for why they are saying that prayer. This is no different than reciting the Sacrament blessing prayer, or the words of various other ordinances (i.e. parts of the Endowment and the Initiatory). Catholics are okay with saying “set” prayers, as well as spontaneous ones. The issue is simply to not make it “vain repetitions”.
All my family are LDS. I am respectful during their prayers, but cannot in good conscience say “amen”, and never do.
Then logically, you must feel the whole Bible has a high likelihood of being impersonal.
Then what about the prayers at the one-and-only sacrament Mormons have? It is always identical, exactly.
Exactly and another example of Mormon scripted prayers. Every word said in the temple is by rote. When you go for your endowment they follow a script exactly.
Not sure what you mean by this. A book is someone else’s experience. A prayer is my personal experience with God. Yes, by it’s very nature a book is less personal.
All written prayers in the LDS church of which I am aware, are ordinances not personal communication with God. Through ordinances our Father in Heaven communicates promises to his children. I see a need for these promises to be crystal clear. It is for this reason that they are said verbatim.