Mormons: Why don't you pray to Jesus?

[RebeccaJ]

Here’s my take on why we don’t pray to Jesus.

We are told to pray “to” the Father, “in the name of” Jesus Christ, and “through” the Holy Spirit. For us, prayer is supposed to be a Trinitarian experience. If a prayer only involves one member of the Godhead, or some Saint who isn’t even a member of the Godhead, then it is missing something, from our perspective. (Although I’m sure that God accepts Catholic prayers in the spirit they are intended. I don’t mean to put you down by saying this.)

There is one God. When we pray to Jesus we are praying to God. When we pray to the Father, we are praying to God. When we pray to the Holy Spirit, we are praying to God.

Mormons make a distinction that is at its best modalistic, a its worse it is polytheistic.

When we pray to a Saint, we are praying WITH the Saint, to God.

 

[BDawg]

There is one God. When we pray to Jesus we are praying to God. When we pray to the Father, we are praying to God. When we pray to the Holy Spirit, we are praying to God.

Mormons make a distinction that is at its best modalistic, a its worse it is polytheistic.

When we pray to a Saint, we are praying WITH the Saint, to God.

Thanks, Rebecca. As I said, I was not trying to put down Catholic prayers. I was just trying to explain why, from an LDS perspective, it makes sense to pray the way we do. From a Catholic perspective, it makes sense to pray the way you do.

 

[BDawg]

Mormons make a distinction that is at its best modalistic, a its worse it is polytheistic.

I understand why you falsely accuse of us of polytheism. From your perspective, one divine being = “monotheism,” although historians now admit that the ancient Israelites didn’t necessarily follow this definition.

On the other hand, I don’t understand why you falsely accuse us of Modalism. In what way is Mormon doctrine modalist?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi Prodigal,

In the first case, the comment about Quakers living on the moon was recorded by Philo Dibble, who was 10 years old at the time. What if it were a joke? What if he remembered the comments incorrectly?

In the second case, Brigham Young asked his audience, “Do you think the Sun is inhabited? I rather think so.” Maybe he looked at Revelation 19:17, where John said he saw an “angel standing in the Sun.” I kind of like the idea of angels living on the Sun–if you feel the need to disprove something that Brigham Young specifically said was his opinion, maybe you could go to the Sun and come back to tell us what you saw.

Please. I could come up with way more embarrassing stuff that Mormon General Authorities have said. You make it too easy for us when you come up with that kind of cream-puff stuff.

Do you and mfbukowski have this good cop, bad cop thing going?

What you call cream puff seems to be a distraction from not explaining the symbolism mfbukowski referred too?

In an 1892 LDS publication under the heading “THE INHABITANTS OF THE MOON,” this interesting information is given by Oliver B. Huntington:

"Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a Prophet.

"As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do – that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years.

"He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style.

“In my Patriarchal blessing, given by the father of Joseph the Prophet, in Kirtland, 1837, I was told that I should preach the gospel before I was 21 years of age; that I should preach the gospel to the inhabitants upon the islands of the sea, and to the inhabitants of the moon, even the planet you can now behold with your eyes.” (The Young Woman’s Journal, published by the Young Ladies’ Mutual Improvement Associations of Zion, 1892, vol. 3, pp. 263-64)

 

[RebeccaJ]

I understand why you falsely accuse of us of polytheism. From your perspective, one divine being = “monotheism,” although historians now admit that the ancient Israelites didn’t necessarily follow this definition.

The ancient Hebrews struggled with polytheism. This is the historical fact. Mormons view this polytheism as God’s truth, when what you are doing, is following their error.

On the other hand, I don’t understand why you falsely accuse us of Modalism. In what way is Mormon doctrine modalist?

When you speak of Trinity, you speak in a way that is either polytheistic or modalistic. It is not Trinitarian.

 

[BDawg]

Do you and mfbukowski have this good cop, bad cop thing going?

What you call cream puff seems to be a distraction from not explaining the symbolism mfbukowski referred too?

Hi Prodigal,

I’ve never actually seen Bukowski get ticked off here, before, but his reaction seems pretty mild, compared to what gets thrown at him.

In any case, I’m not sure what the question is. Bukowski said something about the symbolism of transubstantiation and the sun, moon, and stars, but I’m not sure what that has to do with people on the moon and the stars. Maybe you can explain.

Anyway, sorry about my mistake–you’re right that it was Oliver Huntington, rather than Philo Dibble. As far as I know, he is the only source for the Quaker business, and I believe he was 10 years old in 1837.

Many people during that time did believe the Moon was inhabited, though, so it would be no surprise if JS and his father did. It seems odd that JS would say all that stuff about Quakers on the Moon, though, and nobody but a 10 year old rememberd it.

 

[BDawg]

Actually, there is an upper quorum of 60 and a lower quorum of 60. These sit below the 12 apostles who are just below the 1st presidency. Please hold your nasty little insults until you check the facts.

Actually, there **several **quorums of 70 (not just two, and not 60) that sit below the 12 apostles. You can look it up on Wikipedia.

So, even if you are telling the truth about some Mormon General Authority explaining the KFD to you, I think Bukowski at least has good reason to suspect that you didn’t get the story straight.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi Prodigal,

I’ve never actually seen Bukowski get ticked off here, before, but his reaction seems pretty mild, compared to what gets thrown at him.

Hey BDawg,

It seems he’d prefer to continue throwing himself that find a way to discuss things charitably. Most of what gets thrown at him is something he threw first. You know the ole saying, you reap what you sow…

I’m sure if he tried to maintain some charitability, it would likewise be returned. I’ve tried this with him several times, yet he keeping proving me wrong so far.

Just food for thought for him.

Peace,

 

[BartBurk]

I’ve never understood why they would need to.

The instructions Jesus gave us seem to be to pray to the Father in the name of the Son. That’s what Mormons do. That doesn’t mean I think it is wrong to pray directly to the Son, but I don’t see any necessity to do so.

 

[why_me]

Catholics also pray to heavenly father. In last sunday’s People’s Mass (December 14th) brochure the personal prayer in the back began with a prayer addressed to heavenly father and mentions Jesus Christ in the prayer. It contained two distinct individuals, heavenly father and jesus christ. I have also heard priests begin prayers addressed heavenly father.

I see no difference. However, it seems that some catholics can get confused and assiociate Christ with the father as one person. And so, when they pray to christ as lord, they seem to exclude the Father or think of them as one and the same.

 

[why_me]

I’ve never understood why they would need to.

The instructions Jesus gave us seem to be to pray to the Father in the name of the Son. That’s what Mormons do. That doesn’t mean I think it is wrong to pray directly to the Son, but I don’t see any necessity to do so.

The Lord’s Prayer does address the Father and so, when catholics recite the lord’s prayer, they are actually addressing Heavenly father. That being said, many catholics know this prayer by rote since it is said in every mass. And as such, it can lose its understanding.

And of course, it is called the lord’s prayer because christ himself instructed his followers to pray this way-- whether as an example or by rote should be the debating point between mormons and catholics and instead of as to whether a prayer should be addressed to christ as lord or to heavenly father.

 

[mfbukowski]

It appears to me, that Catholics are proud of their doctrines and traditions that are tracable back to the teachings of Christ, the Apostles and the early Church fathers.

It also appears there are many things spoken about, by who the Mormons believe to be a prophet, that they try to distance themselves from.

I’d be interested in trying to understand the symbolism, as Mormons understand it, if you’d care to take the time to explain it.

Ah yes, and appearances can be deceiving. You should know that with your eucharist. Nah, figure it out for yourself

 

[mfbukowski]

Actually, there is an upper quorum of 60 and a lower quorum of 60. These sit below the 12 apostles who are just below the 1st presidency. Please hold your nasty little insults until you check the facts.

Rebecca, see what I mean? This guy knows nothing.

 

[mfbukowski]

You post lacks anything approaching Charity. Please try to control your tone and words.

you first.

 

[mfbukowski]

Hi Prodigal,

I’ve never actually seen Bukowski get ticked off here, before, but his reaction seems pretty mild, compared to what gets thrown at him.

In any case, I’m not sure what the question is. Bukowski said something about the symbolism of transubstantiation and the sun, moon, and stars, but I’m not sure what that has to do with people on the moon and the stars. Maybe you can explain.

Anyway, sorry about my mistake–you’re right that it was Oliver Huntington, rather than Philo Dibble. As far as I know, he is the only source for the Quaker business, and I believe he was 10 years old in 1837.

Many people during that time did believe the Moon was inhabited, though, so it would be no surprise if JS and his father did. It seems odd that JS would say all that stuff about Quakers on the Moon, though, and nobody but a 10 year old rememberd it.

Doesn’t mean anything. You are right- I just got ticked off. I apologize if I offended anyone. The comments here sometimes are so ridiculous I am tempted to give a ridiculous reply. There are so many fables one could spend a lifetime trying to set people straight. I guess those who are earnest will figure it out for themselves and those who are not won’t.

 

[BartBurk]

The Lord’s Prayer does address the Father and so, when catholics recite the lord’s prayer, they are actually addressing Heavenly father. That being said, many catholics know this prayer by rote since it is said in every mass. And as such, it can lose its understanding.

And of course, it is called the lord’s prayer because christ himself instructed his followers to pray this way-- whether as an example or by rote should be the debating point between mormons and catholics and instead of as to whether a prayer should be addressed to christ as lord or to heavenly father.

Of course Catholics pray to the Father in the name of Jesus. That’s not unusual. We also pray to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit as separate persons who are also God. We also ask for the intercession of the Saints. I guess I like the idea that God allows us to pray to all three persons in the Godhead as well as the intercession of His friends in heaven.

 

[mfbukowski]

There is truth in the reality of Christ’s Sacrifice that you refuse to acknowledge. REALITY not mere symbolism.

If you did, you would fall on your knees and worship the One who died for you and pray to Him for His mercy.

As it is, you refuse to even speak to Him.

You know nothing about my relationship with Jesus Christ. How dare you? Rebecca, I thought we were getting along at least “ok” with our differences, but this is over the top.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You know nothing about my relationship with Jesus Christ. How dare you? Rebecca, I thought we were getting along at least “ok” with our differences, but this is over the top.

Your disrespectful comments regarding the Eucharist say otherwise.

 

[mfbukowski]

I am seeing a common theme here Rebecca. It would appear that if the Mormons can’t understand something, the immediate conclusion is that it cannot be true. More than once I have seen Mormon posters say something or another doesn’t “make sense”. I suspect that Jesus and “Heavenly Father” both having a body “makes sense” but transubstantiation does not. After all, it’s hard to understand how something that looks like a wafer could be the body of Christ. And figuring out how transubstantiation actually WORKS is beyond all of us.

Under their theology, Jesus is an intercessor, which pretty much makes Him a subordinate God in the Mormon pantheon. This “makes sense” to Mormons, so praying to Jesus doesn’t “make sense”, because, after all He isn’t God to them.

But what this does is place limitations on the divine. It’s another way of saying that God is not omnipotent. If the power of God is limited to what we can understand, He can’t do nearly as much as some of us believe He has.

You are wrong here, and I can’t let it stand. Jesus is God, and God is omnipotent. The only things God “can’t” do are things which we can say that “don’t make sense”. For example, can God make a boulder so big he can’t lift it? If he can, he’s not omnipotent because he can’t lift it. If he can’t, he’s not omnipotent because he can’t make it big enough. The question itself involves a logical fallacy which “does not make sense”. This is what I mean when I say that.

I don’t understand things like transubstantiation. I have no idea how it works. But I know that Jesus told us what the Eucharist is and I believe Him. Those that attempt to convert the Eucharist into something that is merely a symbolic remembrance are often unfamiliar with the context of the Last Supper, Passover, and what a scandal it was for some Jews that Jesus would introduce this change into the Passover. But more importantly, they are denying the truth of plain words of Jesus Christ.

His words were not that plain. He said “This is my Body” but he also said “I am the door”. Which should we take literally?

But something I definitely understand is that something like transubstantiation would be pretty easy for the God that created the universe and all that is in it. We have evidence of that all around us.

So, as I have said before, what color is virtue? Could God change the color of bravery from orange to blue? Well these are logical impossibilities because virtue and bravery do not have colors. The idea itself “makes no sense”. Why would God want to change bread into flesh when there is no need for it, when the symbol works just as well? I personally believe that Jesus is “really present” in the sacrament (eucharist) in the same sense that he is present “when two or more are gathered in my name”. He is not standing there bodily appearing to us, but he is present. His body blood soul and divinity are somehow present to us, just not physically in our sight. In other words, symbolically.

Bottom line ~ it seems pretty clear that the Mormon theology is based on things that are easier for the human mind to relate to/understand.

Yes, because Mormon theology is based on what is logical and what “makes sense” because it is true. It is not based on mystery and magic and what does not make sense.

When you consider that “Heavenly Father” is one of many “Gods”, clearly He did not create the universe because He started out somewhere as a man but has now achieved exaltation. Maybe some of these other things truly are not possible for such a being. But then He would also not be omnipotent. So He must not be God

Ah but this is what you truly do not understand. Jesus now has a body, and has this limited his ability to be God? For one or two seconds, just allow yourself to think that there is nothing about having a body that limits one’s ability to be God. Just imagine it for a moment. It doesn’t limit Jesus, why would it limit his father?

And you speak of the universe. What if there are many universes that we cannot even comprehend? Recent science suggests that this may be true. In principle we cannot know for sure what goes on in other universes. Wouldn’t a being who can cause a universe to be, be truly omnipotent? That is what my God and your God can do.

 

[mfbukowski]

Of course Catholics pray to the Father in the name of Jesus. That’s not unusual. We also pray to Jesus and to the Holy Spirit as separate persons who are also God. We also ask for the intercession of the Saints. I guess I like the idea that God allows us to pray to all three persons in the Godhead as well as the intercession of His friends in heaven.

And yet you accuse us of polytheism. If you pray to someone, they are your god. Almost sounds like Zeus and his buddies. Oh but we WORSHIP Zeus, we just pray to his buddies. Change the names and you have the same thing. Maybe that will help you see it. How is it different?