PDA

View Full Version : Pray to/worship the Lord Jesus or not?



foudroyant
04-05-2014, 08:48 PM
A. Worship: Worship includes prayer, fasting, church service, participating in gospel ordinances, and other practices that show devotion and love for God.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/worship?lang=eng

Since worship includes prayer I was wondering how the Mormons reconcile the following citations concerning prayer/worship of the Lord Jesus Christ.


B. Pray to/worship only the Father
1. We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the Scriptures say about worshiping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense - the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God first, the Creator (Bruce McConkie, speech at BYU, March 2, 1982).
2. "...some misguided members of the Church may 'begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed' with him. This is wrong, said Elder McConkie. We should pray directly to the Father..." (The Ensign, June 1998, page 59).
3. When we pray, we pray to God through Jesus Christ. (Thomas Monson, Current LDS President)
http://thomasmonson.com/716/how-to-pray


C. Pray to/worship the Lord Jesus
1. And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in no wise be cast out (2 Nephi 25:29).
Based on 2 Nephi 25:29 can one really worship the Lord Jesus with all their might, mind, and strength, and their whole soul without praying to Him since worship includes praying?
2. The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship." Later McConkie writes, "It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son" (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, Second Edition, c. 1979, page 848).
3. Tell students that today we will discuss more fully why we worship Jesus Christ.
Have a student read the following statement by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “Be strong in your testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is the chief cornerstone of this great work. Of His divinity and reality I bear solemn witness. He is the Lamb without blemish, who was offered for the sins of the world. Through His pain and because of His suffering I find reconciliation and eternal life. He is my Teacher, my Exemplar, my Friend, and my Savior whom I love and worship as the Redeemer of the world” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1992, 75; or Ensign, Nov. 1992, 52).
http://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-teacher-resource-manual/the-revelation-of-saint-john-the-divine/revelation-4-5?lang=eng


D. To Worship or Not to Worship?
There is some confusion in LDS sources about whether Christians should worship Jesus Christ. In a BYU speech dated November 14, 1967, Theodore M. Burton made these statements: “But we worship Jesus Christ as our God, the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh, our living Advocate with the Father…. there are no more ardent worshipers of Jesus Christ, the Lord, than the so-called Mormons” (“We Worship Jesus Christ,” in Outstanding Stories by General Authorities, ed. Leon R. Hartshorn, 3:50). According to Stephen Robinson, “Though all the world may say that Latter-day Saints do not know or love or worship Jesus Christ, I know that we do” (Are Mormons Christians? [Bookcraft, 1991], 114).
Despite these clear statements, other LDS sources deny that Mormons worship Jesus Christ. Charles W. Penrose, president of the LDS Church, made the following statement in General Conference in April 1915:
There need not be any confusion in our minds regarding these important things. It is important that we should know something about the Being whom we worship—the Father, for it is the Father whom we worship. We do not pray to the Son nor to the Holy Ghost; we pray to the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son, under the influence and guidance of the Holy Ghost.
Also reflecting this confusion are contradictory statements by Bruce McConkie. On the one hand, he stated:
Worship consists in paying divine honors to a deity. This religious reverence and homage falls into two categories—true worship and false worship, the one based on gospel truth and leading to salvation, the other consisting of an intermixture of truth and error and leading to damnation. The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship…. No one can worship the Father without also worshiping the Son” (Mormon Doctrine [2d ed., 1966], 848).
On the other hand, in a notorious speech in 1982 McConkie adamantly denied that Mormons worship Jesus.
“We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost…. Our prayers are addressed to the Father, and to him only. They do not go through Christ, or the Blessed Virgin, or St. Genevieve or along the beads of a rosary” (Bruce R. McConkie, “Our Relationship with the Lord” [BYU Devotional, March 2, 1982], 5, 20, emphasis in original).
McConkie argued that any “worship” of Jesus would be in a different, lesser sense: “I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense—the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator”.
http://mit.irr.org/prayer-trinity-and-nature-of-god

carbon dioxide
04-17-2014, 11:21 PM
In my perspective being LDS, the issue is situational. There may be times when it is perfectly fine to direct our worship to Jesus but I believe Jesus himself would prefer that we focus our worship to God the Father. Since the Father and Son are so united in everything anyway, if one worships the Father, they are also worshipping the Son. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost come as a package. One can't selectively worship one without the others. If you love one, you love them all. If you hate one, you hate them all.

foudroyant
04-18-2014, 12:23 AM
In my perspective being LDS, the issue is situational. There may be times when it is perfectly fine to direct our worship to Jesus but I believe Jesus himself would prefer that we focus our worship to God the Father. Since the Father and Son are so united in everything anyway, if one worships the Father, they are also worshipping the Son. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost come as a package. One can't selectively worship one without the others. If you love one, you love them all. If you hate one, you hate them all.


Do you think McConkie, Penrose, Monson and those responsible for the publication of Ensign would agree with you that prayer could be directed to the Lord Jesus?

seven7up
04-19-2014, 11:46 AM
Do you think McConkie, Penrose, Monson and those responsible for the publication of Ensign would agree with you that prayer could be directed to the Lord Jesus?

They would have to, because the Book of Mormon (and the Bible) have situations whereby people who are personally in Christ's presence bow down to worship Him. Granted, these responses were often reactionary, but I believe that they were warranted. I would react the same way, and Jesus did not stop or forbid those who react this way.

When it comes to our daily prayer life, McConkie, Penrose, Monson , etc. do not want to contradict what the Son of God taught. And what the Savior taught on repeated occasions is this: When we pray and worship, we are to pray to and worship the Father in the name of Jesus Christ.

The Bible gives us the pattern for our prayers in the Lord's Prayer found in Matthew 6:9-13 and Luke 11:2-4. In these accounts the Lord teaches us to address our prayers to "Our Father which art in heaven." The Lord also instructed us on several occasions to ask in his name:

"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." John 14:13-14.

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." John 15:16.

And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full. John 16:23-24

I think the issue comes down to this. While I believe that God still respects and responds to prayer directed to the Son, it would be preferrabe if we followed Christ's counsel.

Are we going to respect Christ's teachings on this matter? Or are we going to defy the Savior's will?

-7up

foudroyant
04-19-2014, 03:53 PM
[COLOR="#0000FF"]I think the issue comes down to this. While I believe that God still respects and responds to prayer directed to the Son, it would be preferrabe if we followed Christ's counsel.

Are we going to respect Christ's teachings on this matter? Or are we going to defy the Savior's will?

How can God "respect" prayer to the Son if we show disrespect and defy what the Son said on this matter?

seven7up
04-20-2014, 08:46 AM
How can God "respect" prayer to the Son if we show disrespect and defy what the Son said on this matter?

When people do it out of ignorance.

In those cases, it is not out of defiance. But it is done because people don't know any better. God knows the difference.

-7up

foudroyant
04-20-2014, 04:09 PM
Can you please explain how someone can pray to the Son out of ignorance?

seven7up
04-20-2014, 08:36 PM
Can you please explain how someone can pray to the Son out of ignorance?

They have not realized that there was a specific way that Jesus asked us to pray. Maybe they have not had the conversation that we are having now.

-7up

seven7up
04-20-2014, 08:59 PM
As an aside, should we really consider this topic a purely "Mormon" issue?

Surely, there are Christians outside the LDS church who understand the teaching that we should pray to the Father in the name of the Son. This is true from early Christianity:


"Only God the Father is worthy of receiving prayer and adoration; not even the Son, though we pray in the name of Christ." Origen [ca. A.D. 250 ]

“the Father alone is ho theos; the Son is simply theos…. Prayer can be offered only to the Father; prayer directed to the Son is not prayer in the fullest meaning of the word.” Origen [ca. A.D. 250 ]

“’Father’ was made known to us by our Lord…, who knew whose Son he is…. When he taught us to pray he did not say, ‘When you pray, say ‘O God Unoriginate….,’ but rather ‘Our Father….’ Athanasius (A.D. 300-373)

“In prayer one should not put the Father in the place of the Son, nor put the Son in the place of the Father; when standing at the altar one should always address the prayer to God the Father.” - The Council of Carthage in A.D. 397

“At the service of the altar, prayer shall always be addressed to the Father,” - LaCugna at Council of Hippo A.D. 393

“The classic liturgical prayers were exclusively addressed to the Father ‘through’ Christ living and reigning with the Father" — Jesuit Frans Jozef van Beeck at the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393,


-7up

foudroyant
04-20-2014, 09:29 PM
LDS affirm that worship includes prayer.

Worship: Worship includes prayer, fasting, church service, participating in gospel ordinances, and other practices that show devotion and love for God.
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/worship?lang=eng

Please see my questions below each citation.



And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in no wise be cast out (2 Nephi 25:29).
Question #1: Based on 2 Nephi 25:29 can one really worship the Lord Jesus with all their might, mind, and strength, and their whole soul without praying to Him since worship includes praying?

The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship." Later McConkie writes, "It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son" (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, Second Edition, c. 1979, page 848).
Question #2: Was McConkie wrong to affirm that it is "proper" to worship the Son?

Tell students that today we will discuss more fully why we worship Jesus Christ.
Have a student read the following statement by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “Be strong in your testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is the chief cornerstone of this great work. Of His divinity and reality I bear solemn witness. He is the Lamb without blemish, who was offered for the sins of the world. Through His pain and because of His suffering I find reconciliation and eternal life. He is my Teacher, my Exemplar, my Friend, and my Savior whom I love and worship as the Redeemer of the world” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1992, 75; or Ensign, Nov. 1992, 52).
http://www.lds.org/manual/new-testam...n-4-5?lang=eng
Question #3: Was Hinckley wrong to affirm that he worships the Son and that all other LDS should as well?

seven7up
04-21-2014, 08:23 PM
General Definition for worship: the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

The LDS teaching of the kinds of activities which are included in worship: Worship includes prayer, fasting, church service, participating in gospel ordinances, and other practices that show devotion and love for God.

Prayer is included when you look at all of the possible aspects of worship, but you are looking into a more specific aspect of worship, one that was defined more specifically by Jesus in the New Covenant. Indeed, Jesus Christ IS included in the prayers of every Latter-Day Saint. The teaching is: Pray to the Father, in the name of the Son, and by means of the Holy Spirit.


And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in no wise be cast out (2 Nephi 25:29).

Question #1: Based on 2 Nephi 25:29 can one really worship the Lord Jesus with all their might, mind, and strength, and their whole soul without praying to Him since worship includes praying?

For starters, Nephi is coming from a perspective (along with his audience) which had somewhat of an Old Testament understanding of Deity under the Law of Moses. Either way, it was understood, as is found in the general definition of worship, that Jesus is to be adored, revered, respected, and followed. "The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity" is absolutely included with this. The teachings that we live by are provided by Christ, the Holy One of Israel.

The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship." Later McConkie writes, "It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son" (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, Second Edition, c. 1979, page 848).

Question #2: Was McConkie wrong to affirm that it is "proper" to worship the Son?

Again, it is proper to worship the Son, but Jesus Christ is not the same person as God the Father; therefore, the way Christ taught us to worship shows a difference between the worship of God the Father and a worship of the Son of God.

Tell students that today we will discuss more fully why we worship Jesus Christ.
Have a student read the following statement by President Gordon B. Hinckley: “Be strong in your testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He is the chief cornerstone of this great work. Of His divinity and reality I bear solemn witness. He is the Lamb without blemish, who was offered for the sins of the world. Through His pain and because of His suffering I find reconciliation and eternal life. He is my Teacher, my Exemplar, my Friend, and my Savior whom I love and worship as the Redeemer of the world” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1992, 75; or Ensign, Nov. 1992, 52).
http://www.lds.org/manual/new-testam...n-4-5?lang=eng

Question #3: Was Hinckley wrong to affirm that he worships the Son and that all other LDS should as well?

So, it appears that you have a hard time understanding that LDS can worship Jesus Christ (have reverence, adoration, etc), but prayers are directed TO the Father IN THE NAME of the Son.

Is that what you are having difficulty comprehending?

-7up

foudroyant
04-21-2014, 09:05 PM
1. LDS believe that only the Father is to be prayed to.
2. LDS believe that there are other ways to worship the Son without praying directly to Him.

Are both of these correct?
-----------------------------------------
Why does the Book of Mormon have the Lord Jesus being prayed to?
And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God. (3 Nephi 19:18)

This also holds true when He is not in their physical presence:
And it came to pass that Jesus departed out of the midst of them, and went a little way off from them and bowed himself to the earth, and he said: Father, I thank thee that thou hast given the Holy Ghost unto these whom I have chosen; and it is because of their belief in me that I have chosen them out of the world. Father, I pray thee that thou wilt give the Holy Ghost unto all them that shall believe in their words. Father, thou hast given them the Holy Ghost because they believe in me; and thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them. And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one. And it came to pass that when Jesus had thus prayed unto the Father, he came unto his disciples, and behold, they did still continue, without ceasing, to pray unto him; and they did not multiply many words, for it was given unto them what they should pray, and they were filled with desire. (3 Nephi 19:19-24)

seven7up
04-22-2014, 01:09 AM
1. LDS believe that only the Father is to be prayed to.
2. LDS believe that there are other ways to worship the Son without praying directly to Him.

Are both of these correct?

Yes.

This is simple. In the LDS church, we pray in the way that Jesus Christ taught us to pray. We pray to God the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ.

-7up

seven7up
04-22-2014, 01:45 AM
Why does the Book of Mormon have the Lord Jesus being prayed to?
And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God. (3 Nephi 19:18)
This also holds true when He is not in their physical presence

Wow.

Let's go over this passage nice and slow. (By the way, they prayed in this way NOT because Jesus taught them to, it was just a natural reaction to being in His presence, something that we all find to be understandable.) Let's see here:

"And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God." (3 Nephi 19:18)

These people had surrounded Jesus in order to adore Him and be near him. Therefore, Jesus moves from the middle of the crowd, off to the side, in order to teach them about prayer and about the Holy Spirit. First he walks a short distance away:

"And it came to pass that Jesus departed out of the midst of them, and went a little way off from them and bowed himself to the earth, and he said: Father, I thank thee ..."

Jesus did not leave their presence completely, but only "went a little way off". Jesus had certain purposes here. One of them was to teach them HOW to pray, because they had not grasped the concept. He starts a prayer, and he starts it by addressing the Father. He is giving an example of how to pray.

Soon after, you see this little section:

"Father, ... thou seest that they believe in me because thou hearest them, and they pray unto me; and they pray unto me because I am with them. "

You see what he says here? He is essentially giving an excuse to the Father on their behalf (albeit an acceptable excuse), because they are praying to Jesus. And Jesus explains that they are doing it because the resurrected Christ is in their presence.

By even mentioning it this way, Jesus is implying that He expects them NOT to pray to Jesus when he is out of their presence. Instead He expects them to pray the way that He teaches them and in the way He provided example. It is clear in the Bible (I already cited the passages) and clear as well in the Book of Mormon, because Jesus taught the Nephites to pray to our Heavenly Father in his name:


"And they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name." (3 Nephi 20:30-31)

"And verily I say unto you, whatsoever things ye shall ask the Father in my name shall be given unto you." (3 Nephi 27:2, 3 Nephi 27:28-29)


How you, foudroyant, can possibly misunderstand this is quite beyond me. Jesus CLEARLY taught us how to pray when he revealed the New Covenant. We don't need to question it. We just do it.

Can an exception be made when in the actual presence of the Son of God? Yes. Even your friend Bruce R. McConkie described this:

"The only scriptural instances in which prayers were addressed directly to the Son were when—and because!—that Holy Being, as a resurrected personage, was standing before the petitioners."

As you can see, McConkie surely had this very same passage, and a couple others, in mind when he said this.



Tell me this foudroyant. Can you give the LDS a good reason why we should NOT pray in the way that Jesus taught us to pray?

Perhaps that will move this conversation along in a meaningful way.


-7up

foudroyant
04-22-2014, 04:32 AM
OK thank you. So I then understand that the LDS believe it was/is ok to pray to the Lord Jesus as long as he was/is not out of their physical presence.

Is this correct?
-----------------------------------
The Bible records prayers that are directly to the Lord Jesus. Matthew 6:9/Luke 11:2 does not at all teach that prayers can not be directed to the Lord Jesus.
Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name (Matthew 6:9, NASB)
a. Mark Bird: In light of the scriptural data that support all sorts of prayer to Jesus, what do we do with Jesus’ instructions to pray to the Father (Matthew 6:9)? Does the fact that the model prayer addresses the Father and not the Son mean that we are never to address the Son (or the Spirit) in prayer? No. By giving us the model prayer, Jesus was not limiting our prayers to a certain structure or verbiage. Otherwise, we would need to eliminate using the expression “in Jesus’ name” in prayer since that is not in the Lord’s Prayer. We would also need to eliminate thanksgiving from our prayers, since that does not show up in the Lord’s Prayer. But obviously, we should give thanks to God (I Thess. 5:19). Christ's words, "Our Father which art in Heaven" do not keep us from praying to Jesus any more than his words "Give us our daily bread" keep us from praying for something to drink. And the Lord’s Prayer does not keep us from petitioning the Son any more than Christ’s instructions to “enter into the closet and pray to your Father in secret” (Matt 6:6) keep us from praying in a public setting. We learn a great deal about prayer from the model prayer, but it does not teach us everything we should know about talking to God. It is appropriate to pray to the Father directly; the Lord’s Prayer clearly shows that. However, just because we are permitted to pray, and even commanded to pray to the Father, that doesn’t mean we are not permitted to pray to the Son.
http://www.wesleyantheology.com/shou...-to-jesus.html
b. We also see that the Lord's Prayer is recorded by Luke (11:2 f.) and we know that Luke records several prayers to the Lord Jesus so it does not mean that prayers are not to be rendered unto the Lord Jesus (Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60; 9:14, 21; 22:16).
c. Paul taught that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to (1 Corinthians 1:2; Romans 10:13; 2 Corinthians 12:8; 1 Thessalonians 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17; 2 Thessalonians 3:16; 2 Timothy 2:22; 2 Timothy 4:18).
d. Peter taught that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to (1 Peter 3:12; 2 Peter 3:18).
e. John taught that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to (John 5:23; Revelation 1:5-6).

seven7up
04-22-2014, 07:11 PM
OK thank you. So I then understand that the LDS believe it was/is ok to pray to the Lord Jesus as long as he was/is not out of their physical presence.

Is this correct?
-----------------------------------
It is an extraordinary circumstance, and outside what Jesus taught when it comes to prayer, however, yes, Jesus did not forbid them in those circumstances. So, it appears to be o.k. However, I don't think that it is wise to base your practice of worship on the exceptions to the rule. I will go over the scriptures you cited in the next post.

Now, you did not answer my question.

Can you give the LDS a good reason why we should NOT pray in the way that Jesus taught us to pray?

-7up

foudroyant
04-22-2014, 07:48 PM
1. To insist that all these prayers to the Lord Jesus are "exceptions" would make your rule "die the death of a thousand qualifications".
2. I already answered your question in my previous post:
a. Mark Byrd already pointed out that the Lord's Prayer does NOT cover everything concerning prayer.
We need to look at what ALL the passages of the Bible teach concerning prayer in order to formulate our doctrine.
b. Luke (and others) record prayers that were properly directed to the Lord Jesus elsewhere.
3. Returning to the command to worship the Lord Jesus with all of one's might, mind, strength and all of one's soul (cf. 2 Nephi 25:29) this is to be understood in the context of prayer:
Richard N. Longenecker: There is no commandment in the Jewish Scriptures that says simply "Thou shalt pray!" Rather, what one finds is a verse like Deut 11:13, which calls on Israel "to love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul." The rabbis of the Talmud asked about this verse: "What kind of service is it that takes place in the heart"? And they answered their own question: "It is prayer!" (b. Ta' anith 2a). (Studies in Paul, Exegetical and Theological, page 33).

seven7up
04-22-2014, 08:57 PM
Cited:
b. We also see that the Lord's Prayer is recorded by Luke (11:2 f.) and we know that Luke records several prayers to the Lord Jesus so it does not mean that prayers are not to be rendered unto the Lord Jesus (Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60; 9:14, 21; 22:16).
c. Paul taught that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to (1 Corinthians 1:2; Romans 10:13; 2 Corinthians 12:8; 1 Thessalonians 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17; 2 Thessalonians 3:16; 2 Timothy 2:22; 2 Timothy 4:18).
d. Peter taught that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to (1 Peter 3:12; 2 Peter 3:18).
e. John taught that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to (John 5:23; Revelation 1:5-6).

Let's start with these last two examples you gave:

John 5:23 (with some context) - "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. "

Revelation 1:5-6 (with some context) - 4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Based on these two scriptures, you posted the claim that, "John taught that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to". They don't even come close to supporting that claim.

But those are at the end of the list of Biblical citations you provided, and maybe the person who made the list just thought people would get tired of looking up scriptures by then. Let's do the next ones up.

"For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil." (1 Peter 3:12)

"But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen" (2 Peter 3:18)

The second citation doesn't really address the issue, so there isn't much to say about that, other than the fact that it does not support your argument. The first scripture discusses "the Lord" and how his ears are open to prayers. For starters, the title of "Lord" can refer either to God the Father or to Jesus Christ (or sometimes it just refers to Deity in general). However, let's be very charitable to your position and assume that in this case it must be referring specifically to Jesus, because many, many times the title "Lord" does refer to Jesus. So, I am willing to humor you a little here, because we can learn something about the relationship that we have with Deity.

When we pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus, Jesus Christ is known as the "mediator". He is involved with the divine response to prayer and acts within that role. When you ask whether or not LDS worship Jesus, the answer is yes. However, there is a difference between the relationship that we have with God the Father and the relationship we have with the Savior. This is described in 1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus." Also see Romans 8:34, which teaches that Jesus Christ "is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us”.

So, the idea that Jesus is attentive to our prayers does not necessarily indicate that we are being asked to pray directly to Jesus. Indeed, to "call on the Lord" means that we are praying to God (the Father) "in the name" of the Lord (Jesus), so that Jesus may "intercede" in our behalf. Indeed, the early Christians would say that they "call on the Lord", which is short for "call on the name of the Lord". All of these teachings are consistent with the way that we as Mormons pray, in the name of Jesus Christ.

Keeping that in mind, let's see a couple more of the scriptures cited:

"Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart." - 2 Timothy 2:22
"Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." - 1 Corinthians 1:2
"Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." - Romans 10:13

Now, you will find some examples like Paul asking to have his infirmity removed, and he says, "Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me." (2 Corinthians 12:8)

What is going on here? Again, if the Lord refers to Jesus specifically, Paul is asking Jesus to "intercede". So, even when addressing "the Lord", Paul would be asking Jesus to "mediate" to the Father for Paul (on Paul's behalf). The Father remains the focal point of prayer.

Many of the examples given on that list, like this one, are not word for word prayers, but instead a summary of what was prayed about and you have to make assumptions about the actual wording.

Again, I don't possibly see how you think that these examples are a contradiction or substitute for Christ's clear teachings concerning how we should pray, which is to the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ..

-7up

foudroyant
04-22-2014, 10:22 PM
A. John 5:23
1. One of the ways the Lord Jesus honored the Father (John 8:49) was by praying to Him (Matthew 11:25). Just as the Father is honored by our prayers to Him the Son is honored by our prayers to Him. Refusal to pray to the Son dishonors the Father.
2. Both Danker and Thayer cite John 1:23 and Acts 15:8 with John 5:23 demonstrating that the Greek word "kathws" (even as) means equally in John 5:23 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, kathws, page 493), (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, kathws, page 314).

B. Revelation 1:5-6 is a doxology and a doxology is a prayer of praise to God. The same holds true with 2 Peter 3:18 as well as 2 Timothy 4:18.

C. 1 Peter 3:12 - This is a citation from Psalm 34:15-16b. Just as it refers to praying to the Father in the OT it refers to praying to the Lord Jesus in the New Testament.
Are you saying it doesn't refer to praying to the Father in the Old Testament?

D. To call upon the name of the Lord always refers to praying to the Lord. In the New Testament calling on the name of the Lord is used in reference to the Lord Jesus and it means praying to Him.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?425-Call-upon-the-name-of-the-Lord-Prayers-to-the-Lord-Jesus

E. Your response concerning 2 Corinthians 12:8 won't work. By asking Jesus to intercede Paul is praying to Jesus. If as you say Paul isn't praying to Jesus then what do you call it?

F. I'd like to see the evidence that Acts 1:24-25 is a prayer to the Father.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?448-Acts-1-24-25-is-a-prayer-to-the-Lord-Jesus

seven7up
04-23-2014, 12:21 AM
John 5:23 (with some context) - "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. "


A. John 5:23
1. One of the ways the Lord Jesus honored the Father (John 8:49) was by praying to Him (Matthew 11:25). Just as the Father is honored by our prayers to Him the Son is honored by our prayers to Him. Refusal to pray to the Son dishonors the Father.

Don't you realize how much you have to stretch to get there? You have to quote an entirely unrelated scripture, and avoid that Christ's example of praying to the Father was also a teaching of how we are supposed to worship. How can following Christ's specific instructions and example when it comes to prayer be a form of dishonor? That is nonsense. I call following Christ's instructions "obedience", not dishonor.


2. Both Danker and Thayer cite John 1:23 and Acts 15:8 with John 5:23 demonstrating that the Greek word "kathws" (even as) means equally in John 5:23 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, kathws, page 493), (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, kathws, page 314).

Tongue in Cheek:
----- Great. Then you agree that the disciples are "one" with Jesus "even as" Jesus is "one" with the Father. Does that mean they are gods? (See John chapter 17.) Are you now going to agree with Catholics that you can pray to the saints? ----

John 5:23 is not teaching about prayer. This portion of the chapter is talking about the resurrection. So, many LDS will agree with the idea that the Father and the Son are equal in that sense.

Revelation 1:5-6 (with some context) - 4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.


B. Revelation 1:5-6 is a doxology and a doxology is a prayer of praise to God. The same holds true with 2 Peter 3:18 as well as 2 Timothy 4:18.

That doesn't help your argument in the slightest.

-7up

foudroyant
04-23-2014, 01:15 AM
1. John 5:23
Robertson: Jesus claims here the same right to worship from men that the Father has. Dishonoring Jesus is dishonoring the Father who sent him (8:49; 12:26; 15:23; 1 John 2:23). See also Luke 10:16. There is small comfort here for those who praise Jesus as teacher and yet deny his claims to worship.
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=5

The Father is to be prayed to in worship and the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to in worship.


2. 2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18 and Revelation 1:5-6 are doxologies to the Lord Jesus. Thus He is prayed to.

3. You ignored 1 Peter 3:12. You dodged my question. Here it is again:
This is a citation from Psalm 34:15-16b. Just as it refers to praying to the Father in the OT it refers to praying to the Lord Jesus in the New Testament.
Are you saying it doesn't refer to praying to the Father in the Old Testament?

4. You ignored 2 Corinthians 12:8. You dodged my question again. Here it is again:
By asking Jesus to intercede Paul is praying to Jesus. If as you say Paul isn't praying to Jesus then what do you call it?

5. You ignored Acts 1:24-25. This is what I wanted to know:
I'd like to see the evidence that Acts 1:24-25 is a prayer to the Father.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-Lord-Jesus

6. You ignored "calling on the name of the Lord".
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-Lord-Jesus

7. You ignored this as well from post #17:
Returning to the command to worship the Lord Jesus with all of one's might, mind, strength and all of one's soul (cf. 2 Nephi 25:29) this is to be understood in the context of prayer:
Richard N. Longenecker: There is no commandment in the Jewish Scriptures that says simply "Thou shalt pray!" Rather, what one finds is a verse like Deut 11:13, which calls on Israel "to love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul." The rabbis of the Talmud asked about this verse: "What kind of service is it that takes place in the heart"? And they answered their own question: "It is prayer!" (b. Ta' anith 2a). (Studies in Paul, Exegetical and Theological, page 33).
How then does this passage from the Book of Mormon not teach the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to? I supplied evidence that it does so please supply evidence that affirms your position.

seven7up
04-23-2014, 02:04 AM
"For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil." (1 Peter 3:12)


C. 1 Peter 3:12 - This is a citation from Psalm 34:15-16b. Just as it refers to praying to the Father in the OT it refers to praying to the Lord Jesus in the New Testament. Are you saying it doesn't refer to praying to the Father in the Old Testament?

Psalms doesn't specify whether it was referring to the Father or the Son. The Son "inherited" the Father's name, and is a perfect representative of the Father (see Heb 1). Our relationship with Deity did not come into clarity until the New Testament. I actually DO suspect that the Angel of the Lord's presence and Jehovah/Yahweh of the Old Testament ARE Jesus Christ pre-incarnate. So, when the Psalms say, "The eyes of the LORD are toward the righteous, And His ears are open to their cry," it is likely referring to Jesus before mortality. If you think about it, mankind was alienated from God the Father after the Fall of Adam. Who then were the people directly interacting with? Answer: Jehovah, who was the pre-mortal Jesus Christ. However, with the atonement of the Savior, we then had access to the Father , through Jesus Christ. Make sense?

Basing your teachings on the understanding of God and worship under the Mosaic law or Old Testament interactions with Yahweh/Jehovah does not help you very much in this discussion. Why deny the fact that Jesus taught us how to pray to the Father and in the name of Jesus Christ in the New Testament? With this teaching provided by the Savior, I think the LDS have a consistent way of communicating with God, and from a reliable source ... Jesus himself.


D. To call upon the name of the Lord always refers to praying to the Lord. In the New Testament calling on the name of the Lord is used in reference to the Lord Jesus and it means praying to Him.

So, let's say that we have person A and person B. You think that it makes sense to pray to person B in the name of that same person (i.e. person B). You say that we must pray to Jesus in the name of Jesus? Hmmm. That contradicts all the other passages where Jesus Christ explained how to pray.

So look, Praying to Jesus directly isn't how Jesus taught us to pray, but if that is how you want to do it, then go for it. I won't stop you.


E. Your response concerning 2 Corinthians 12:8 won't work. By asking Jesus to intercede Paul is praying to Jesus. If as you say Paul isn't praying to Jesus then what do you call it?

Intercede to whom? Jesus is going to respect the authority of whom? And fulfill the will of whom? Paul certainly understood that to address the Father through Christ’s name is essentially the same as calling upon Christ because it is Jesus who will enact the will of the Father. Paul clearly knew that Christ serves as the mediator between God and man (2 Tim 2:5). I don’t think Paul was describing any formula for prayer which was contradictory to what Jesus explained, and we don't even see what his actual words were in his actual prayer. To suggest that Paul was teaching a formula for prayer which was to supercede Christ's specific instructions on this matter seems to be stretching the text way too far.


F. I'd like to see the evidence that Acts 1:24-25 is a prayer to the Father.

I don't think it is a proper prayer at all. In fact, instead of seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit, they were about to revert back to an Old Testament type of practice and ended up asking Jehovah to resolve something by drawing "lots" to see who should be the replacement for Judas.

"And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles."

I don't believe this is a good example for your position, because it does not appear that they were following Christ's instructions. Drawing lots in this situation seems a little out of place, because at this point they should be beyond this method of communication and relation with Deity. And it is not clear whether or not they got their answer from God. Many argue that this was a "rogue" moment for the Apostles because God actually had Paul in mind for the position. This may or may not be the case, nevertheless, as with many things that Jesus taught, (sometimes over and over again), Jesus' words were often forgotten or ignored. It was not until later that they "remembered" His words and were able to make sense of them and then after the Pentecost became more effective instruments.

So, bottom line on Acts 1:24-25 is this:
Just because someone did something or said something in the text of scripture, it does not necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do or say. Unless of course, it was Jesus himself who is speaking.

That takes me back to this very simple question. If Jesus specifically taught that we should pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, can you give me a good reason why LDS should pray in some other way?

-7up

foudroyant
04-23-2014, 03:49 AM
A. So you believe that Psalm 34:15-16 refers to the Lord Jesus. Then this passage refers to the Lord Jesus being the recipient of prayer.
You wrote "I actually DO suspect that the Angel of the Lord's presence and Jehovah/Yahweh of the Old Testament ARE Jesus Christ pre-incarnate."
Then Genesis 48:16 would be another prayer to the Lord Jesus:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?424-The-Worship-of-the-Multi-Personal-God-(Genesis-48-15-16)

B. Calling on the name of the Lord
If you want to make up your own definitions to what this phrase means that is your choice but I refuse to play make believe.

C. 2 Corinthians 12:8
Paul appealed to the Lord Jesus and by doing so he was praying to Him.

D. Acts 1:24-25
1. David Peterson: It is important to observe that there are no further examples of such decision making in the NT. As those who were about to enjoy the benefits of the New Covenant, the apostles were using a practice that was sanctioned by God but belonged to the old era. It took place before Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out in a way that signified a new kind of relationship between God and his people. From Luke's emphasis on the Spirit's role in giving wisdom, guidance, and direction, it would appear that the apostolic example on this occasion is not to be followed by Christians today (106)
Footnote #106: There is no basis for the claim that the apostles were wrong to select Matthias and that they should have awaited God's choice of Paul to fill the vacancy. (Pillar New Testament Commentary, Acts, page 128-129).
Matthias as an apostle
1. God never condemned his apostleship.
2. Addressed by the Jews after Peter's proclamation of the gospel (Acts 2:37).
3. The Jews who got saved were "continually devoting themselves" to his teaching and fellowship (Acts 2:42).
4. He was able to perform signs and wonders (Acts 2:43).
5. He was put in jail by the High Priest and Sadducees (Acts 5:18).
6. He was flogged for his faith by these officials (Acts 5:40).
7. He summoned the disciples to resolve the complaint by the Hellenistic Jews (Acts 6:2).
8. He laid hands on the men that were put in charge of this task (Acts 6:6).
9. He sent Peter and John to Samaria (Acts 8:14).
10. He was there when Barnabas introduced Paul (Acts 9:27).
11. His decision was authoritative at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6, 22, 23).

In fact, the selection of Matthias is even mentioned favorably according to the LDS as found here:
The proceeding throughout is deeply significant and instructive. The Eleven fully realized that on them lay the responsibility, and in them was vested the authority, to organize and develop the Church of Christ; that the council or quorum of the apostles was limited to a membership of twelve; and that the new apostle, like themselves, must be competent to testify in special and personal witness concerning the earthly ministry, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. The selection of Matthias was accomplished in a general assembly of the Primitive Church; and while the nominations were made by the apostles, all present appear by implication to have had a voice in the matter of installation. The principle of authoritative administration through common consent of the membership, so impressively exemplified in the choosing of Matthias, was followed, a few weeks later, by the selection of “seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,” who having been sustained by the vote of the Church, were set apart to a special ministry by the laying-on of the apostles’ hands.
https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-38?lang=eng&query=Matthias

and here:
Note: If students ask if Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus, will be among the Twelve Apostles who judge the twelve tribes, point out that Matthias was chosen to take Judas Iscariot’s place among the Twelve (see Acts 1:21–26).
https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-teacher-resource-manual/the-gospel-according-to-saint-matthew/matthew-8-10?lang=eng&query=Matthias

as well as here:
The New Testament shows that this Church organization was intended to continue. For example, the death of Judas left only eleven Apostles. Soon after Jesus had ascended into heaven, the eleven Apostles met together to choose someone to take the place of Judas. Through revelation from the Holy Ghost, they chose Matthias. (See Acts 1:23–26.) Jesus had set a pattern for twelve Apostles to govern the Church. It seemed clear that the organization was to continue as He had established it.
https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-16-the-church-of-jesus-christ-in-former-times?lang=eng&query=Matthias

Acts 1:24-25 destroys the belief that the Lord Jesus is not to be prayed to.

E. I have already answered your question twice. This will be the third time. Please pay attention.
See Post #17
#2

F. You ignored this from my Post #21:
2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18 and Revelation 1:5-6 are doxologies to the Lord Jesus. Thus He is prayed to.

G. You also ignored this from my Post #21:
Returning to the command to worship the Lord Jesus with all of one's might, mind, strength and all of one's soul (cf. 2 Nephi 25:29) this is to be understood in the context of prayer:
Richard N. Longenecker: There is no commandment in the Jewish Scriptures that says simply "Thou shalt pray!" Rather, what one finds is a verse like Deut 11:13, which calls on Israel "to love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul." The rabbis of the Talmud asked about this verse: "What kind of service is it that takes place in the heart"? And they answered their own question: "It is prayer!" (b. Ta' anith 2a). (Studies in Paul, Exegetical and Theological, page 33).
How then does this passage from the Book of Mormon not teach the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to? I supplied evidence that it does so please supply evidence that affirms your position.

H. You also ignored this from my Post #21 as well:
John 5:23
Robertson: Jesus claims here the same right to worship from men that the Father has. Dishonoring Jesus is dishonoring the Father who sent him (8:49; 12:26; 15:23; 1 John 2:23). See also Luke 10:16. There is small comfort here for those who praise Jesus as teacher and yet deny his claims to worship.
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=5

The Father is to be prayed to in worship and the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to in worship.

I. Acts 7:59
1. Vincent: An unquestionable prayer to Christ.
http://www.godrules.net/library/vincent/vincentact7.htm
2. Danker: Just as Israel was to understand her role as one of obedience to the God who saved her, so the Christian is to see the moral and ethical implications of this recognition of Christ's claim to ownership expressed so often in such a phrase as "Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus." Out of such conviction the iron of steadfast confession was smelted. As the stones came flying at Stephen, he prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." (Acts 7:59) (Creeds in the Bible, page 45, c. 1966).
3. Mounce: Jesus is the addressee when epikalew is used in the sense of praying (Acts 7:59) (Mounce's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Call, page 93).
4. And this from the LDS:
The stones painfully cut and bruised Stephen’s body, and he knew he was going to die. But he was not afraid, for he knew he would be with Jesus again. Courageously Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 7:59.)
https://www.lds.org/liahona/1987/05/stephen-the-martyr?lang=eng

Was Stephen praying to the Lord Jesus?

carbon dioxide
04-23-2014, 10:33 PM
foudroyant--I think that it is clear that there are situations where calling upon Jesus (praying) however one wants to call it that are appropriate. The question I have is do you think Jesus really cares if people do not address their prayers to him but only to the Father? Do you think He gets offended? We know that Jesus always placed His Father ahead of himself. It would seem to me that he would desire us to do the same as well. Jesus always does the will of the Father so even if one prays to Jesus, if Jesus answers the prayer is is always in line with the will of the Father. Jesus never goes around the Father or does an under the table deal.

It is not that LDS believe that there are no situations ever where one should call upon Jesus in a prayer. But as a general rule, we should go to the Father in prayer. Appealing to exceptions in the scriptures does not make a rule or the norm. I think you are trying to manufacture a problem that really does not exist. Seems to me that addressing the Father in the name of Jesus Christ covers the bases. It is almost you think its ok to pray to Jesus and purposely wanting to leave the Father out of it. I am not aware of any instruction where we are to pray to Jesus in the name of the Father.

foudroyant
04-24-2014, 02:19 AM
If as you say "there are situations where calling upon Jesus (praying) however one wants to call it that are appropriate" then is 'The Ensign' in error when it reads, "...some misguided members of the Church may 'begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed' with him. This is wrong, said Elder McConkie. We should pray directly to the Father..." (The Ensign, June 1998, page 59)?

In answer to your question I will point out that the Mormon Church claims to be the only true church. If they are the only true church then why are they wrong in their view of not praying to the Lord Jesus?
Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 1:2 teaches that all who are Christians pray to (at least once) the Lord Jesus Christ.
Whedon: Call upon-So that there is a mutual call; Jesus Christ calls them, and they call upon Jesus Christ. By call upon, is meant, praying to. So Stephen, in Acts 7:59; and so Acts 9:14, and Romans 10:13. This last text, in particular, shows that the phrase means prayer in its highest sense as to God, and is a very conclusive proof that the very mark of a Christian, in Paul's view, was truly praying to Christ, as that of a Jew was blaspheming him, and that of a Gentile was worshipping idols.
http://www.studylight.org/com/whe/view.cgi?bk=45&ch=1
R.T. France: It is striking first to note the 'definition' of Christians in 1 Corinthians 1:2 as 'those who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ'. Not only does the phrase itself indicate that prayer to Jesus was a normal and distinguishing characteristic of Christians in the 50's, but 'to call on the name of the Lord' is a regular OT formula for worship and prayer offered to God (Gen. 4:26, 13:4; Ps. 105:1; Jer. 10:25; Joel 2:32, etc.) ("The Worship of Jesus - A Neglected Factor In Christological Debate?", R.T. France, Vox Evangelica 12, c.1981, pages 19-33 -> The quote here appears on page 28 under 3. "The Letters of Paul").

I have cited plenty of passages that demonstrate that the Bible does not teach prayer to the Lord Jesus was an "exception".

I also pray to the Father (Acts 4:24-40; Galatians 1:5; James 3:9; etc.).

seven7up
04-25-2014, 12:41 AM
A. So you believe that Psalm 34:15-16 refers to the Lord Jesus. Then this passage refers to the Lord Jesus being the recipient of prayer.
You wrote "I actually DO suspect that the Angel of the Lord's presence and Jehovah/Yahweh of the Old Testament ARE Jesus Christ pre-incarnate."
Then Genesis 48:16 would be another prayer to the Lord Jesus:

I think that the Old Testament is FULL of prayer to Jehovah/Yahweh, who is Jesus pre-incarnate. The atonement had not been performed yet, and people did not have access to the Father. Nor was it even very clear to most, in that time period, that there was a distinction between what we now know are members of the Godhead.


B. Calling on the name of the Lord
If you want to make up your own definitions to what this phrase means that is your choice but I refuse to play make believe.

It is not a stretch to say that praying to the Father "in the name of Jesus Christ", who is usually the one referred to as "Lord", is the same as "calling on the name of the Lord". Again, I find it strange that you think we should be praying to the Lord Jesus, on the name of the Lord Jesus. Isn't that redundant? The simple formula that Christ gave is to pray to the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ.

I don't see why that is so difficult for you.



C. 2 Corinthians 12:8
Paul appealed to the Lord Jesus and by doing so he was praying to Him.

The theology is more complicated than that. Again, when we pray, we appeal to the intercession through Jesus Christ to God the Father. So, in that sense, we do appeal to Jesus Christ, however, the appeal is for Christ to mediate to the Father on our behalf.


D. Acts 1:24-25
1. David Peterson: It is important to observe that there are no further examples of such decision making in the NT. As those who were about to enjoy the benefits of the New Covenant, the apostles were using a practice that was sanctioned by God but belonged to the old era. It took place before Pentecost, when the Spirit was poured out in a way that signified a new kind of relationship between God and his people. From Luke's emphasis on the Spirit's role in giving wisdom, guidance, and direction, it would appear that the apostolic example on this occasion is not to be followed by Christians today (106)
Footnote #106: There is no basis for the claim that the apostles were wrong to select Matthias and that they should have awaited God's choice of Paul to fill the vacancy. (Pillar New Testament Commentary, Acts, page 128-129).

...the selection of Matthias is even mentioned favorably according to the LDS as found here:...

I am not saying that the vacancy in the apostleship shouldn't have been filled. I am saying that we shouldn't use THE METHOD that they used as a guideline for how we worship, pray, or practice. Specifically, I don't see that we should be casting lots like Old Testament times in order to make decisions, and I don't see that their Old Testament style prayer method should supercede the very clear instructions given by Jesus Christ on how to pray.


H. You also ignored this from my Post #21 as well:
John 5:23
Robertson: Jesus claims here the same right to worship from men that the Father has. Dishonoring Jesus is dishonoring the Father who sent him (8:49; 12:26; 15:23; 1 John 2:23). See also Luke 10:16. There is small comfort here for those who praise Jesus as teacher and yet deny his claims to worship.


I didn't ignore it. It is just so absolutely and utterly ridiculous to think that following Christ's simple instructions is equal to dishonoring him. In fact, it is pretty logical to argue that dishonoring Him consists of not doing things the way that Christ asked us to do them.

I also didn't ignore your citation of Revelation 1:5-6. I did all I needed to do, which was to quote the verses. That is all that any reasonable person needs in order to see that your appeal to that scripture does not help your argument. I will post the other two scriptures you mention as well, which are instructions to believers to follow the Savior and by doing so, glorify the Father and the Son.


2 Peter 3:18 "But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

2 Timothy 1 - I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; ...
I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. 17 Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. 18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen

Revelation 1:1 ;4-6 - The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him ... 4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom of priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.


-7up

seven7up
04-25-2014, 01:39 AM
In answer to your question I will point out that the Mormon Church claims to be the only true church. If they are the only true church then why are they wrong in their view of not praying to the Lord Jesus?

Only in Crazyland is it "wrong" to do what Jesus asked us to do, and then do it in the way that Jesus asked us to do it.


Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 1:2 teaches that all who are Christians pray to (at least once) the Lord Jesus Christ.

Wow again. Let's look at the verse:

1Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours: 3Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now you seem to be arguing that this verse is teaching that one cannot be a Christian, unless you pray directly to Jesus. Is that the foolishness that I am getting from you now?

This is simply another example where the ultimate object of worship is implied and understood because it had been taught to these Christians and it is taught to us in the New Testament, including being taught by Jesus Himself. We are calling to God the Father, and everything we do is done in Christ's name. You cannot convince anybody that calling "on the name of the Lord" is contradictory to praying to God the Father "in the name of Jesus Christ". It is the same mode of worship and prayer, because the theological doctrine of Christ's mediation/intercession on our behalf is clearly understood.

Carbone Dioxide put this in layman's terms quite well, "Jesus always does the will of the Father so even if one prays to Jesus, if Jesus answers the prayer is is always in line with the will of the Father. Jesus never goes around the Father or does an under the table deal."

Thank you CarbDio. This was precisely my point when I said, "Intercede to whom? Jesus is going to respect the authority of whom? And fulfill the will of whom? Paul certainly understood that to address the Father through Christ’s name is essentially the same as calling upon Christ because it is Jesus who will enact the will of the Father. Paul clearly knew that Christ serves as the mediator between God and man (2 Tim 2:5). I don’t think Paul was describing (or prescribing) any formula for prayer which was contradictory to what Jesus explained,..."

LDS aren't even particularly legalistic when it comes to the wording of personal prayers. You will hear Mormons start with, "Father in Heaven .... " "Heavenly Father ..." "Eternal Father ..." etc. Then it can end with something like, "in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen." Or "on the name of thy Beloved Son..." Or, "this we ask, in Christ's name, Amen.." etc.

It is true that the general formula of directing the prayer to the Father is taught in the LDS church, but there is a good reason for this. Namely, when Christ was teaching how to pray, he instructed us to direct the prayer to the Father, and to do it in the name of Jesus Christ. The fact that people attempt to have take exception to this says much more about them than it says about Mormons.

Again, CarbonDioxide describes part of the problem here, "Appealing to exceptions in the scriptures does not make a rule or the norm. I think you are trying to manufacture a problem that really does not exist."

Those who want to exclude God the Father from the equation like to provide examples which include Thomas, who was in the middle of the shock and awe of being presented with the resurrected body of Christ and exclaimed, "My Lord and my God!" Or Stephen, who was in the middle of being stoned to death! Then they try to deny that these are exceptional circumstances. Incredible.

Off the top of my head, I can think of 4 pretty good citations which justify how LDS are taught to pray:

Mat 6:9 Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven…”

John 15:16 “…whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”

John 16:23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

Luke 11:12 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven,

There you have it. Christ gives clear, unambiguous instructions about the formula for prayer. Need He say more?

-7up

foudroyant
04-25-2014, 05:10 AM
1. So Psalm 34:15-16 is a prayer to the Lord Jesus but when it is cited in 1 Peter 3:12 it is not a prayer to the Lord Jesus? Strange.
2. 2 Corinthians 12:8 - Paul wasn't appealing through the Lord Jesus but to the Lord Jesus.
3. Act 1:24-25 - This prayer to the Lord Jesus took place before they cast lots. Once the Holy Spirit indwelt the Church casting lots was no longer necessary. Your point would be valid if there were no more prayers to the Lord Jesus after this event but that is not the case at all.
4. 2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18 and Revelation 1:5-6 are doxologies.
Vincent: Trench remarks upon the prominence of the doxological element in the highest worship of the Church as contrasted with the very subordinate place which it often occupies in ours. “We can perhaps make our requests known unto God, and this is well, for it is prayer; but to give glory to God, quite apart from anything to be directly gotten by ourselves in return, this is better, for it is adoration.”
http://www.studylight.org/com/vnt/view.cgi?bk=65&ch=1
There is NO worship that the Father receives that Christ should not receive. This accords well with John 5:23.
5. When Stephen was being stoned to death he prayed to the Lord Jesus is not an exceptional case. It proves that the early believers were in the habit of doing this.

6. You need more help with 1 Corinthians 1:2:
1. Danker: Citing Acts 2:21; 7:59; 9:14, 21; Romans 10:13; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 2 Timothy 2:22: to call upon deity for any purpose to call upon, call out (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, epikalew, page 373).
2. NIDNTT: categorizes 1 Corinthians 1:2 epikaluew (call upon) under (#10) "General prayer" (NIDNTT 2:874, Prayer, H. Schonweiss, C. Brown).
3. TDNT: What is said of the kurios in the OT is said of the Kurios Iesous Christos in the NT. In some verses the object of epikaleisthai is God the Father (Ac. 2:21; 1 Pt. 1:17; and 2 C. 1:23 is almost a prayer); but in other verses it is God the Son (Ac. 7:59; 9:14, 21; 22:16; R. 10:12-14; 1 C. 1:2; 2 Tm. 2:22) (3:500, epikalew, K.L. Schmidt).
4. Robertson and Plummer: This goes back to Joel 2.32, and involves the thought of faith, the common bond of all. See Rom. 10.12, 13. Here, as there, St. Paul significantly brings in the worship of Christ under the O.T. formula for worship addressed to the LORD God of Israel. To be a believer is to worship Christ (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, page 3).
5. Thayer: Citing 1 Corinthians 1:2: epikaloumai to onoma tou kuriou,
I call upon (on my behalf) the name of the Lord, i.e. to invoke, adore, worship, the Lord, i.e. Christ (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, epikalew, page 239).
6. Vincent: Call upon the name (epikaloumenoiv to onoma). Compare Romans x. 12; Acts ii. 21. The formula is from the Septuagint. See Zech. xiii. 9; Gen. xii. 8; xiii. 4; Psalm cxv. 17. It is used of worship, and here implies prayer to Christ. The first christian prayer recorded as heard by Saul of Tarsus, was Stephen's prayer to Christ, Acts vii. 59. The name of Christ occurs nine times in the first nine verses of this epistle.
http://www.godrules.net/library/vinc...ncent1cor1.htm
7. R.T. France: It is striking first to note the 'definition' of Christians in 1 Corinthians 1:2 as 'those who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ'. Not only does the phrase itself indicate that prayer to Jesus was a normal and distinguishing characteristic of Christians in the 50's, but 'to call on the name of the Lord' is a regular OT formula for worship and prayer offered to God (Gen. 4:26, 13:4; Ps. 105:1; Jer. 10:25; Joel 2:32, etc.) ("The Worship of Jesus - A Neglected Factor In Christological Debate?", Vox Evangelica 12, c.1981, pages 19-33 -> The quote here appears on page 28 under 3. "The Letters of Paul").
8. Spicq: "Let every tongue proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord," that is, God. Such is the object of faith profession and worship: "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." Henceforth, Christians are those who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is, who worship his divine majesty and implore his sovereign protection (Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Lord, 2:350).
9. Alford: The phrase "to call upon the name of the Lord," was one adopted from the Joel 2.32; the adjunct our Lord Jesus Christ, defines that Lord (Jehovah) on whom the Christians called, to be Jesus Christ, - and is a direct testimony to the divine worship of Jesus Christ, as universal in the Church (The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, page 136).
10. Easton Illustrated Bible Dictionary: To cry for help, hence to pray (Genesis 4:26 ). Thus men are said to "call upon the name of the Lord" (Acts 2:21 ; 7:59 ; 9:14 ; Romans 10:12 ; 1 Corinthians 1:2 ).
http://www.studylight.org/dic/ebd/view.cgi?n=694
11. For a detailed read see Alexander MacLaren
http://www.preceptaustin.org/1_corin...n_1.htm#cotn52
12. Stephen J. Wellum: John Stott nicely summarizes this evidence when he writes: "Nobody can call himself a Christian who does not worship Jesus. To worship him, if he is not God, is idolatry; to withhold worship from him, if he is, is apostasy." In addition to the worship and devotion Jesus receives, he is also the addressee in prayer (Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60; 9:10, 13; 22:17-19; 1 Cor. 1:2; 16:22; 2 Cor. 12:8; Rev. 22:20) and the object of saving faith (The Deity of Christ, page 142).

Yeah they are all wrong but somehow your Greek expertise supersedes all of them....not.

Christ not only gave clear instructions concerning prayer but He FURTHER said that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles in all truth.....and this truth includes praying to the Ascended Lord.

===================>Oh and by the way....you also ignored this from Post #17, Post #21 and Post #23. I hope you are able to "see" it this time here in Post #28.
Returning to the command to worship the Lord Jesus with all of one's might, mind, strength and all of one's soul (cf. 2 Nephi 25:29) this is to be understood in the context of prayer:
Richard N. Longenecker: There is no commandment in the Jewish Scriptures that says simply "Thou shalt pray!" Rather, what one finds is a verse like Deut 11:13, which calls on Israel "to love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul." The rabbis of the Talmud asked about this verse: "What kind of service is it that takes place in the heart"? And they answered their own question: "It is prayer!" (b. Ta' anith 2a). (Studies in Paul, Exegetical and Theological, page 33).
How then does this passage from the Book of Mormon not teach the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to? I supplied evidence that it does so please supply evidence that affirms your position.

foudroyant
04-25-2014, 08:47 AM
Don't forget these prayers to the Lord Jesus as well:

1 Thessalonians 3:11
Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all people, just as we also do for you; so that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints. (1 Thessalonians 3:11-13. NASB).
1. Hogg and Vine: This verse is of much importance because of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ therein implied. The Epistle, it will be remembered, is one of the earliest Christian documents, and as such supplies most valuable testimony to primitive Apostolic teaching. From this verse then it is evident that the Thessalonians had been taught to think of the Lord Jesus as One with God, for: -
a, Prayer is addressed to the Lord Jesus cojointly with the Father. It is equally important to notice that the Lord Jesus is united with the Father in respect of His Godhead, He is distinguished from the Father in respect of His personality:
b, The Lord Jesus is associated with God the Father as controller of the ways of men:
c, the Greek verb translated "direct" is in the singular number notwithstanding that two names form its subject. Thus the simple grammatical law, that a verb must agree with its subject in number, is set aside in order that the unique relationship existing between the Persons may be indicated:
d, the sentence may be translated thus: But God Himself, even our Father and our Lord Jesus, direct our way unto you.
(Galatians and Thessalonians, page 103).
2. Robertson: Our God and Father himself (αυτος ο τεος και πατηρ ημων — autos ho theos kai patēr hēmōn). Note one article with both substantives for one person.
And our Lord Jesus (και ο Κυριος ημων Ιησους — kai ho Kurios hēmōn Iēsous). Separate article here with Ιησους — Iēsous In Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1 only one article (not two) treating “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” as one just like “our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” in 2 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:18.
Direct our way (κατευτυναι την οδον ημων — kateuthunai tēn hodon hēmōn). First aorist optative (acute accent on penult, not circumflex first aorist active infinitive) of κατευτυνω — kateuthunō old verb to make straight path. Singular verb also, though both God and Christ mentioned as subject (unity in the Godhead). Apart from μη γενοιτο — mē genoito (may it not come to pass) the optative in a wish of the third person is found in N.T. only in 1 Thessalonians 3:11, 1 Thessalonians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:5, 2 Thessalonians 3:16; Romans 15:5, Romans 15:13.
On verse 12: The Lord (ο Κυριος — ho Kurios). The Lord Jesus. Paul prays to Christ.
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=51&ch=3
3. Gordon Fee: The present prayer is certain evidence that what Paul says in this next letter is already well in place by the time he writes these earlier letters to the Thessalonian believers. That he does this in such a matter-of-fact way, and without explanation or argumentation, is at the same time sure evidence that he must have previously instructed them not only on the saving work of Christ, but also on who the divine Saviour actually was. So while the opening prayer (v.11) is directed primarily to God the Father, as the emphatic "himself" makes clear, the remarkable inclusion of the Son as the compound subject of the singular verb seems to exist in anticipation of the rest of the prayer, which is directed solely to Christ.
Two further matters need to be noted, both christological. First, one should observe (a) that Paul can pray to both God the Father and the Lord Jesus together as one (v.11), (b) that he can pray to both together but single out one as the object (grammatical subject) of the concerns of prayer at a given time (vv. 12-13), and (c) that in these earliest two letters he can pray to either separately (for the Father see 1 Thess 1:2-3; 5:23; for Christ see 2 Thess 3:5 and 16).
Second, even though the first emphasis in this case is on God the Father, the final focus of the prayer is altogether on the Lord Jesus, which makes the singular verb and compound subject in verse 11 seem to be more than Paul's simply taking over "conventional liturgical language to which [he] and his readers were accustomed." (15) Indeed, this same phenomenon happens in reverse in 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17, where Christ is mentioned first (including with the quotes [himself"]) while the pickup, exactly as in the present case, is with prayer addressed to the second divine person mentioned at the outset, namely God the Father. So one simply cannot be dismissive about the role of Christ in the present prayer. Here is a strict monotheist praying with ease to both the Father and the Son, focusing first on the one and then the other, and without a sense that his monotheism is being stretched or is in some kind of danger (The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, page 130-131).
4. George Findlay: The association of “our Lord Jesus” with “God the Father” in acts of prayer and thanksgiving is a very noticeable feature of these two Letters; it affords impressive evidence, coming from the oldest N.T. writings, of the deity of Jesus Christ as this was conceived by the first Christians; the two are so identified that they count as one (cf. the words of Jesus in John 10:30, ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν), blending in the singular optative predicate, κατευθύναι: see also 2 Thessalonians 2:16 f., and note. The petition of 1 Thessalonians 3:12 is addressed to “the Lord” solely. (Cambridge Greek Testament for School's and Colleges)
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cgt/view.cgi?bk=51&ch=3

2 Thessalonians 2:16-17
Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word (2 Thessalonians 2:16-17, NASB).
1. Hogg and Vine: For the inference as to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ see note on "direct" at 3:11 (Galatians and Thessalonians, page 279).
2. Barnes: Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself - This expression is equivalent to this: “I pray our Lord Jesus, and our Father, to comfort you.” It is really a prayer offered to the Saviour - a recognition of Christ as the source of consolation as well as the Father, and a union of his name with that of the Father in invoking important blessings. It is such language as could be used only by one who regarded the Lord Jesus as divine.
And God even our Father - Greek: “And God, and ( και kai) our Father;” though not incorrectly rendered “even our Father.” If it should be contended that the use of the word “and” - “our Lord Jesus Christ, and God,” proves that the Lord Jesus is a different being from God - the use of the same word “and” would prove that the “Father” is a different being from God. But the truth is, the apostle meant to speak of the Father and the Son as the common Source of the blessing for which he prayed.
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnb/view.cgi?bk=52&ch=2

2 Thessalonians 3:16
Now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every circumstance. The Lord be with you all! (2 Thessalonians 3:16, NASB)
1. NIDNTT: Concerning Jesus: He is the kyrios of peace and gives peace (2 Thess. 3:16), mercy (2 Tim. 1:16), and insight (2 Tim. 2:7) (2:517, Lord, H. Bietenhard).
2. NIDNTT: 1 Thess. 3:10-13; 2 Thess 2:16 and 2 Thess. 3:16 are listed under "Intercessory prayer for others, including blessings and cursings" (2:874, Prayer, H. Schonweiss, C, Brown).
3. Hogg and Vine: as the title "God of peace" refers to the Father, so "Lord of peace" is best understood of the Son. (Galatians and Thessalonians, page 292)
4. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown: Lord of peace — Jesus Christ. The same title is given to Him as to the Father, “the God of peace” (Romans 15:33; Romans 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:11). An appropriate title in the prayer here, where the harmony of the Christian community was liable to interruption from the “disorderly.” The Greek article requires the translation, “Give you the peace” which it is “His to give.” “Peace” outward and inward, here and hereafter (Romans 14:17). always — unbroken, not changing with outward circumstances.
by all means — Greek, “in every way.” Most of the oldest manuscripts read, “in every place”; thus he prays for their peace in all times (“always”) and places.
Lord be with you all — May He bless you not only with peace, but also with His presence (Matthew 28:20). Even the disorderly brethren (compare 2 Thessalonians 3:15, “a brother”) are included in this prayer.
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?bk=52&ch=3
5. George Findlay: “The Lord of peace” is surely Christ, as in the whole context (see note on κύριος, 2 Thessalonians 3:1 above), and regularly with St Paul. The previous context—2 Thessalonians 3:14 especially—suggests this prayer; the “peace” desired has reference to the Church troubles of the hour. (Cambridge Greek Testament for School's and Colleges)
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cgt/view.cgi?bk=52&ch=3

seven7up
04-25-2014, 11:39 PM
1. So Psalm 34:15-16 is a prayer to the Lord Jesus but when it is cited in 1 Peter 3:12 it is not a prayer to the Lord Jesus? Strange.

No. Neither example is a prayer. While the Psalm praises the Lord, it is addressed to a broader audience. The psalmist is not praying directly to God; the psalmist is teaching and preaching:

11 Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord.
12 What man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see good?
13 Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.
14 Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it.
15 The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry.

Then Peter cited the psalm in order to teach and preach the same thing; namely that the Lord will protect the righteous, therefore believers should not "fear those who do evil".


2. 2 Corinthians 12:8 - Paul wasn't appealing through the Lord Jesus but to the Lord Jesus.

Paul was explaining to the Corinthians that he "besought the Lord thrice" , but you don't know the exact wording of the prayer. He doesn't say how the prayer was directed. For all you know, the prayer was worded, "Father in Heaven, I ask thee to send the Savior to come to me and heal me of my infirmities, for I know that the Son of God has power to heal. I ask this in His name, Jesus Christ, Amen." I don't know the exact words he used either, but my point is that you are making assumptions. Another point I gave is this: while "Lord" often refers specifically to Jesus, we also find in scripture that it can refer to the Father, or even just "God" in a general sense.

So, we conclude again that you are making too many assumptions and leaping to baseless conclusions, foudroyant, and based on those assumptions you are teaching to do things in a way contrary to the specific way in which Jesus Christ taught. I don't think that it is wise of you.


3. Act 1:24-25 - This prayer to the Lord Jesus took place before they cast lots.

This was an Old Testament type prayer associated with an Old Testament type practice. As I already explained, "the Lord" in the Old Testament was referring to "God", and they may not have had the clarity or had not yet developed the habit concerning addressing the distinct members of the Godhead that was provided to believers in the New Testament church. Based on the Old Testament style non-distinct wording, they asked "the Lord" to direct the results of the lots that they were about to cast. Again, this is hardly an example of how we, as believers, should worship or practice.


4. 2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18 and Revelation 1:5-6 are doxologies.
Vincent: Trench remarks upon the prominence of the doxological element in the highest worship of the Church ...

I don't have to do anything more in order to make my point on these verses. All I have to do is post the verses, and it becomes apparent that this is not the same as "prayer" in the way that Jesus described it. You are describing a different aspect of worship. Here it is again, and I rest my case.

2 Peter 3:18 "But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

2 Timothy 1 - I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; ...
I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. 17 Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. 18 And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen

Revelation 1:1 ;4-6 - The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him ... 4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom of priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.


There is NO worship that the Father receives that Christ should not receive. This accords well with John 5:23.

So, should I worship God the Father because He Himself suffered for my sins on the cross in order to be my Savior? Are you a modalist? John 5:23 does not say that we should erase the distinctions between members of the Godhead.

If God the Father teaches me to do something, then I will honor Him by doing it in the way that He taught. Likewise, if Jesus teaches me to pray in a certain way, then I will honor Jesus by following those instructions.


5. When Stephen was being stoned to death he prayed to the Lord Jesus is not an exceptional case.

I think it is just as exceptional as the Nephites who were standing in the presence of the resurrected Christ. Stephen had a vision of the Son of Man, and was looking at Jesus in vision as he died.


It proves that the early believers were in the habit of doing this.

No, it does not prove that it was a habit at all. And even if it were a habit, it is a baseless assumption to think that it is the correct way of doing things.


6. You need more help with 1 Corinthians 1:2:

I will post it here:

1 Corinthians 1:2-4 - To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ--their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I always thank my God for you because of his grace given you in Christ Jesus.

When we "call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" , we are are accepting the atoning work of Jesus Christ for our sins in that act of grace, and we are recognizing Christ as our LORD, which means that we will follow His teachings. When we gather "in the name of Jesus Christ", it means that we are going to learn about His character, His Being, and His life, death, resurrection and exaltation; we are going to emulate Him and follow Him. It means that we give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name: 1 Chr. 16:29 . ( Ps. 29:2 ; Ps. 96:8.) If you are going to assert that the LDS Church is not a Christ centered religious institution, then you know nothing about us. Article of Faith "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." Nevertheless, all of this kind of worship of Jesus, reverence towards Him, praising of Him, teaching about His life, are certain aspects of worship. Prayer is also an aspect of worship, and Jesus taught us to pray to the Father. Yet even when we pray to the Father in worship, we are worshiping Jesus as well, because we are doing it "on the the name of Jesus", which includes all of the concepts above.


12. Stephen J. Wellum: John Stott nicely summarizes this evidence when he writes: "Nobody can call himself a Christian who does not worship Jesus. To worship him, if he is not God, is idolatry; to withhold worship from him, if he is, is apostasy."

As I said, LDS worship Jesus Christ. However, we caution against any attempt to circumvent or alter our relationship with Deity by the exclusion of or down playing the other members of the Godhead.


Christ not only gave clear instructions concerning prayer but He FURTHER said that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles in all truth.....and this truth includes praying to the Ascended Lord.

As I said, none of the examples you have provided give very good grounds for what you are trying to preach here. Certainly none of the scriptures you cite are enough to supersede Christ's very, very , very clear instructions concerning prayer.


..you also ignored this from Post #17, Post #21 and Post #23. I hope you are able to "see" it this time here in Post #28.
Returning to the command to worship the Lord Jesus with all of one's might, mind, strength and all of one's soul (cf. 2 Nephi 25:29) this is to be understood in the context of prayer

There is not enough time in the day to refute every single fallacy that you promote. But since you insist, I will address it quickly. And to make it interesting, I will quote again, of all people, Bruce R. McConkie: "The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship. … No one can worship the Father without also worshiping the Son. … It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son. ‘Believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.’ (2 Ne 25:16, 29)"

The idea of directing our prayers to Heavenly Father does not mean that aren't worshiping Jesus Christ. Even McConkie taught that there are a variety of ways in which we must approach Jesus. And by definition, many fall under the concept of worship. Simply included in the discourse of his that you quoted previously he brings up, in reference to Jesus, worship in the following ways:

Awe
Reverence
Gratitude
Love
Service
Fellowship
Revealer and manifester of God the Father
The way to the Father
Praise his holy name
Ascribe unto Him honor, power, glory, might, and dominion
Treat Him as Lord, God, and King
Worshipful adoration

McConkie even said specifically of Jesus in that talk, "We do not have a fraction of the power we need to properly praise his holy name and ascribe unto him the honor and power and might and glory and dominion that is his. He is our Lord, our God, and our King."


-7up

P.S. Would you consider that last quote by McConkie a "doxology"?

Doxology (noun) : a usually liturgical expression of praise to God

foudroyant
04-26-2014, 03:47 AM
1. 1 Pete 3:12
a. The Greek word used for "prayers" is deesis and it is defined by Thayer as "in the N.T. requests addressed by men to God". Next to 1 Peter 3:12 he cites James 5:16. This passage also refers to praying to God.
b. The LDS teaches 1 Peter 3:12 is a prayer:
We pray! It is everyone’s sure way to know; it is everyone’s lifeline to heaven. Said the Apostle Peter, “The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers.”18
Footnote #18: 1 Peter 3:12
https://www.lds.org/liahona/2010/05/our-path-of-duty?lang=eng&query=1+Peter+3%3a12#footnote1-09285_000_007

Do you still maintain that 1 Peter 3:12 is not a prayer?


2.2 Corinthians 12:8
Here's my evidence that this prayer was directed to the Lord Jesus:
a. NIDNTT: In this way the early church bears witness to the fact that it regards Jesus Christ as its Lord and living head, who, having conquered death, is alive for evermore. Consequently one can enter into living, personal contact with him, talking with him just as one did when he was on earth (cf. Acts 9:10-16; 2 Cor. 12:8f) (2:867, Prayer, H. Schonweiss).
c. NIDNTT: Paul also mentions the word that the exalted Lord spoke to him: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness" (v. 9) (3:315, Revelation, W. Mundle).
b. TDNT: Paul tells us that three times he called on the risen Lord in vain for deliverance from the angel of Satan (5:794, parakalew, Schmitz).
c. Danker: 8- In view of the context, v. 9, it is probable that Paul addressed these three petitions to Christ. If such is the case, it is a unique departure from Paul's custom, which is to address God as the one who is ultimately responsible for everything (cf. 5:18; Rom. 11:33-36). Paul's Jewish liturgical tradition is still firmly entrenched, but Christ is the natural object of his petition here, for it is in the proclamation of his service for all humanity that Paul is engaged. An answer coming from Christ will indeed be especially meaningful (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament: 2 Corinthians, page 194).
d. Vine: Prayer is properly addressed to God the Father, Matt. 6:6; John 16:23; Eph. 1:17; 3:14, and the Son, Acts 7:59; 2 Cor. 12:8 (Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Prayer, page 872).
e. Murray Harris: It is scarcely open to question that the person addressed in Paul's plea for relief from the battering of the messenger of Satan was the Lord Jesus (The New International Greek Testament Commentary, 2 Corinthians, Murray J. Harris, page 860).
f. R.T. France: In 2 Corinthians 12:8, for instance, who was the 'Lord" to whom Paul prayed? Normally his prayers are addressed to God, but "my power" in the answer to Paul's prayer appears to be identified with 'the power of Christ' (verse 9). It seems then that for Paul, Jesus was already so much identified with God that the same language was naturally applicable to each ("The Worship of Jesus - A Neglected Factor In Christological Debate?", R.T. France, Vox Evangelica, 12, c. 1981, 19-33 -> This quote here appears on page 29).

Not only do they affirm this prayer is to the Lord Jesus but they also point out the context teaches the same thing.
Let's see your evidence that this prayer was not directed to the Lord Jesus.


3. Acts 1:24
This is part of what I previously wrote concerning this passage
"Your point would be valid if there were no more prayers to the Lord Jesus after this event but that is not the case at all."
The rest of the N.T. is against your position.


4. Doxologies
Is it ok to sing TO Jesus?


5. John 5:23 - The level of their worship ought to be in equality. Terrible ploy by you attempting to sidetrack this.


6. Acts 7:59
The vision is said to have taken place inside the city while his martyrdom occurred outside of it.

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
(Acts 7:55-58, KJV)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+7&version=KJV

Prove your assertion that Stephen "was looking at Jesus in vision as he died."


7. 1 Corinthians 1:2
Thanks for your opinion about what to call upon the name of the Lord means. I'll stick with how the words of the Bible are properly defined.


8. Not enough time to address 2 Nephi 25:29? It took me 4 times posting it but somehow you had time to address other things I had written about.
The Old Testament understanding of what is written is said to refer to prayer. That's how the Jews understood it as well as the Lord Jesus.


9. No it is not a doxology to the Lord Jesus by McConkie because Mormons have a false Christ. One of the reasons why is that they do not pray to Him. This is their official yet contradictory teaching. (See Post #23 I #4)
It also runs against how the words of the Bible are properly defined (See #1 and #7 above).


10. Don't forget about the prayers to the Lord Jesus that I cited in Post #29.

seven7up
04-26-2014, 01:39 PM
Don't forget these prayers to the Lord Jesus as well:

1 Thessalonians 3:11...


All you are doing is quoting people who broaden the definition of "prayer" to include other kinds of praise and worship; like "doxologies" and so forth. In fact, if you are going to include these kinds of worship as "prayer", then Mormons do that all of the time. And then by using that kind of definition I would say that LDS do "pray" to Jesus.

However, Jesus was speaking of a more specific type of communication between God and man when He taught:

Mat 6:9 Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven…”

John 15:16 “…whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”

John 16:23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

Luke 11:12 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven,

LDS can tell the difference. It is too bad that you cannot. And again carbon dioxide was correct when he said you are merely manufacturing a debate by ignoring what LDS actually mean when we speak of prayer, which was the same that Jesus meant in the 4 scriptures cited above.


-7up

seven7up
04-26-2014, 02:06 PM
1. 1 Pete 3:12
a. The Greek word used for "prayers" is deesis and it is defined by Thayer as "in the N.T. requests addressed by men to God". Next to 1 Peter 3:12 he cites James 5:16. This passage also refers to praying to God.
b. The LDS teaches 1 Peter 3:12 is a prayer:
We pray! It is everyone’s sure way to know; it is everyone’s lifeline to heaven. Said the Apostle Peter, “The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers.”18
Footnote #18: 1 Peter 3:12
https://www.lds.org/liahona/2010/05/our-path-of-duty?lang=eng&query=1+Peter+3%3a12#footnote1-09285_000_007

Do you still maintain that 1 Peter 3:12 is not a prayer?

That is correct. It is a teaching ABOUT prayer. These words themselves are not a prayer. Nice try though. This is just another example of you loosening the definition of prayer in attempt to make an argument. Now, suddenly, any mention of prayer is pretended by you to be part of an actual prayer.



2.2 Corinthians 12:8
Here's my evidence that this prayer was directed to the Lord Jesus:

c. Danker: 8- In view of the context, v. 9, it is probable that Paul addressed these three petitions to Christ. If such is the case, it is a unique departure from Paul's custom, which is to address God as the one who is ultimately responsible for everything (cf. 5:18; Rom. 11:33-36).
f. R.T. France: In 2 Corinthians 12:8, for instance, who was the 'Lord" to whom Paul prayed? Normally his prayers are addressed to God, but "my power" in the answer to Paul's prayer appears to be identified with 'the power of Christ' (verse 9).

Not only do they affirm this prayer is to the Lord Jesus but they also point out the context teaches the same thing.
Let's see your evidence that this prayer was not directed to the Lord Jesus.


I placed in bold the portions which support the LDS position on the matter. 1) you have to make assumptions 2) directing prayer to Jesus is not considered the norm


4. Doxologies
Is it ok to sing TO Jesus?

I can't think of any reason why I would sing ONLY to Jesus, and purposely leave out or exclude God the Father.



5. John 5:23 - The level of their worship ought to be in equality. Terrible ploy by you attempting to sidetrack this.

It isn't a side track. It is very important to the LDS position that we have one kind of relationship with God that Father and another kind of relationship with Jesus Christ, because they are not the same person.



6. Acts 7:59
The vision is said to have taken place inside the city while his martyrdom occurred outside of it.


That is probably true, but it is STILL an extraordinary circumstance, having just seen the Savior in vision. The prayer is outside of the norm. He was being stoned to death, and I think we can forgive improper etiquette in such a circumstance.



8. Not enough time to address 2 Nephi 25:29?

I did address it. In fact, I addressed it BEYOND what was necessary. Along with all of your other silly arguments and word games.



9. No it is not a doxology to the Lord Jesus by McConkie

Yes it is. Based on broadening the definition of prayer to ANY kind of praise of Jesus, it would be considered a doxology and according to you, a "prayer."


... because Mormons have a false Christ. One of the reasons why is that they do not pray to Him. This is their official yet contradictory teaching.

Funny how LDS follow Christ's teachings in the Bible better than you do, despite supposedly having a false Christ. How's that for contradiction?

-7up

Cow Poke
04-26-2014, 02:20 PM
It is very important to the LDS position that we have one kind of relationship with God that Father and another kind of relationship with Jesus Christ, because they are not the same person.

Hey, 7! How ya doin?

Does it bother you at all that, in the beginning, Smith pretty much taught the Trinity, and only subsequently came up with a more Modalistic version, then the "many gods" version?

seven7up
04-26-2014, 02:57 PM
Hey, 7! How ya doin?

Great! How are you?

I will respond on a different thread, as this appears to be an unrelated topic that you bring up.

Likewise, if foudroyant would like to accuse LDS of having a "false Christ", I think he should start another thread, pick what he feels is the MOST powerful argument for such a position, and state his case.

-7up

Cow Poke
04-26-2014, 03:00 PM
Great! How are you?

I will respond on a different thread, as this appears to be an unrelated topic that you bring up.

Likewise, if foudroyant would like to accuse LDS of having a "false Christ", I think he should start another thread, pick what he feels is the MOST powerful argument for such a position, and state his case.

-7up

Fair enough!

(And we're doing GREAT -- wife has just become a breast cancer survivor, and is doing super)

foudroyant
04-26-2014, 05:41 PM
1. So Psalm 34:15-16 and 1 Peter 3:12 is teaching about prayer but since it isn't a prayer being said we shouldn't cite it about directing the prayer to its proper recipient?

2. 2 Corintians 12:8 - We have a probable from Danker and a yes from the others I cited but still the LDS insists that this passage does not teach prayer to the Lord Jesus. Incredible.

3. You didn't answer my question concerning singing to Jesus. Let me rephrase it to help you.
Is it ok to ever sing directly to Jesus?

4. John 5:23
You dodged this part: The level of their worship ought to be in equality.

5. Acts 7:59
So if people were aware they were just about to die is it ok for them to pray directly to the Lord Jesus?

6. To "love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul" does include praying to Him. This is not a word game but simply a dodge by you (See Post #17).

7. If LDS follow Christ's teachings in the Bible they would not forbid praying to the Him because Paul prayed to the Lord Jesus did in these passages (which of course you continually dodge).
1 Thessalonians 3:11-13
Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all people, just as we also do for you; so that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints. (1 Thessalonians 3:11-13. NASB).
1. Hogg and Vine: This verse is of much importance because of the doctrine of the Deity of Christ therein implied. The Epistle, it will be remembered, is one of the earliest Christian documents, and as such supplies most valuable testimony to primitive Apostolic teaching. From this verse then it is evident that the Thessalonians had been taught to think of the Lord Jesus as One with God, for: -
a, Prayer is addressed to the Lord Jesus cojointly with the Father. It is equally important to notice that the Lord Jesus is united with the Father in respect of His Godhead, He is distinguished from the Father in respect of His personality:
b, The Lord Jesus is associated with God the Father as controller of the ways of men:
c, the Greek verb translated "direct" is in the singular number notwithstanding that two names form its subject. Thus the simple grammatical law, that a verb must agree with its subject in number, is set aside in order that the unique relationship existing between the Persons may be indicated:
d, the sentence may be translated thus: But God Himself, even our Father and our Lord Jesus, direct our way unto you.
(Galatians and Thessalonians, page 103).
2. Robertson: Our God and Father himself (αυτος ο τεος και πατηρ ημων — autos ho theos kai patēr hēmōn). Note one article with both substantives for one person.
And our Lord Jesus (και ο Κυριος ημων Ιησους — kai ho Kurios hēmōn Iēsous). Separate article here with Ιησους — Iēsous In Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1 only one article (not two) treating “our God and Saviour Jesus Christ” as one just like “our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” in 2 Peter 1:11; 2 Peter 2:20; 2 Peter 3:18.
Direct our way (κατευτυναι την οδον ημων — kateuthunai tēn hodon hēmōn). First aorist optative (acute accent on penult, not circumflex first aorist active infinitive) of κατευτυνω — kateuthunō old verb to make straight path. Singular verb also, though both God and Christ mentioned as subject (unity in the Godhead). Apart from μη γενοιτο — mē genoito (may it not come to pass) the optative in a wish of the third person is found in N.T. only in 1 Thessalonians 3:11, 1 Thessalonians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:17; 2 Thessalonians 3:5, 2 Thessalonians 3:16; Romans 15:5, Romans 15:13.
On verse 12: The Lord (ο Κυριος — ho Kurios). The Lord Jesus. Paul prays to Christ.
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=51&ch=3
3. Gordon Fee: The present prayer is certain evidence that what Paul says in this next letter is already well in place by the time he writes these earlier letters to the Thessalonian believers. That he does this in such a matter-of-fact way, and without explanation or argumentation, is at the same time sure evidence that he must have previously instructed them not only on the saving work of Christ, but also on who the divine Saviour actually was. So while the opening prayer (v.11) is directed primarily to God the Father, as the emphatic "himself" makes clear, the remarkable inclusion of the Son as the compound subject of the singular verb seems to exist in anticipation of the rest of the prayer, which is directed solely to Christ.
Two further matters need to be noted, both christological. First, one should observe (a) that Paul can pray to both God the Father and the Lord Jesus together as one (v.11), (b) that he can pray to both together but single out one as the object (grammatical subject) of the concerns of prayer at a given time (vv. 12-13), and (c) that in these earliest two letters he can pray to either separately (for the Father see 1 Thess 1:2-3; 5:23; for Christ see 2 Thess 3:5 and 16).
Second, even though the first emphasis in this case is on God the Father, the final focus of the prayer is altogether on the Lord Jesus, which makes the singular verb and compound subject in verse 11 seem to be more than Paul's simply taking over "conventional liturgical language to which [he] and his readers were accustomed." (15) Indeed, this same phenomenon happens in reverse in 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17, where Christ is mentioned first (including with the quotes [himself"]) while the pickup, exactly as in the present case, is with prayer addressed to the second divine person mentioned at the outset, namely God the Father. So one simply cannot be dismissive about the role of Christ in the present prayer. Here is a strict monotheist praying with ease to both the Father and the Son, focusing first on the one and then the other, and without a sense that his monotheism is being stretched or is in some kind of danger (The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, page 130-131).
4. George Findlay: The association of “our Lord Jesus” with “God the Father” in acts of prayer and thanksgiving is a very noticeable feature of these two Letters; it affords impressive evidence, coming from the oldest N.T. writings, of the deity of Jesus Christ as this was conceived by the first Christians; the two are so identified that they count as one (cf. the words of Jesus in John 10:30, ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν), blending in the singular optative predicate, κατευθύναι: see also 2 Thessalonians 2:16 f., and note. The petition of 1 Thessalonians 3:12 is addressed to “the Lord” solely. (Cambridge Greek Testament for School's and Colleges)
http://www.studylight.org/commentari...cgi?bk=51&ch=3

2 Thessalonians 2:16-17
Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word (2 Thessalonians 2:16-17, NASB).
1. Hogg and Vine: For the inference as to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ see note on "direct" at 3:11 (Galatians and Thessalonians, page 279).
2. Barnes: Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself - This expression is equivalent to this: “I pray our Lord Jesus, and our Father, to comfort you.” It is really a prayer offered to the Saviour - a recognition of Christ as the source of consolation as well as the Father, and a union of his name with that of the Father in invoking important blessings. It is such language as could be used only by one who regarded the Lord Jesus as divine.
And God even our Father - Greek: “And God, and ( και kai) our Father;” though not incorrectly rendered “even our Father.” If it should be contended that the use of the word “and” - “our Lord Jesus Christ, and God,” proves that the Lord Jesus is a different being from God - the use of the same word “and” would prove that the “Father” is a different being from God. But the truth is, the apostle meant to speak of the Father and the Son as the common Source of the blessing for which he prayed.
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnb/view.cgi?bk=52&ch=2

2 Thessalonians 3:16
Now may the Lord of peace Himself continually grant you peace in every circumstance. The Lord be with you all! (2 Thessalonians 3:16, NASB)
1. NIDNTT: Concerning Jesus: He is the kyrios of peace and gives peace (2 Thess. 3:16), mercy (2 Tim. 1:16), and insight (2 Tim. 2:7) (2:517, Lord, H. Bietenhard).
2. NIDNTT: 1 Thess. 3:10-13; 2 Thess 2:16 and 2 Thess. 3:16 are listed under "Intercessory prayer for others, including blessings and cursings" (2:874, Prayer, H. Schonweiss, C, Brown).
3. Hogg and Vine: as the title "God of peace" refers to the Father, so "Lord of peace" is best understood of the Son. (Galatians and Thessalonians, page 292)
4. Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown: Lord of peace — Jesus Christ. The same title is given to Him as to the Father, “the God of peace” (Romans 15:33; Romans 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:11). An appropriate title in the prayer here, where the harmony of the Christian community was liable to interruption from the “disorderly.” The Greek article requires the translation, “Give you the peace” which it is “His to give.” “Peace” outward and inward, here and hereafter (Romans 14:17). always — unbroken, not changing with outward circumstances.
by all means — Greek, “in every way.” Most of the oldest manuscripts read, “in every place”; thus he prays for their peace in all times (“always”) and places.
Lord be with you all — May He bless you not only with peace, but also with His presence (Matthew 28:20). Even the disorderly brethren (compare 2 Thessalonians 3:15, “a brother”) are included in this prayer.
http://www.studylight.org/com/jfb/view.cgi?bk=52&ch=3
5. George Findlay: “The Lord of peace” is surely Christ, as in the whole context (see note on κύριος, 2 Thessalonians 3:1 above), and regularly with St Paul. The previous context—2 Thessalonians 3:14 especially—suggests this prayer; the “peace” desired has reference to the Church troubles of the hour. (Cambridge Greek Testament for School's and Colleges)
http://www.studylight.org/commentari...cgi?bk=52&ch=3


8. Not only did you dodge the above passages you change what to "call upon the name of the Lord" means. The reason for this is because it proves that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer (Post #28).

seven7up
04-27-2014, 12:29 AM
1. So Psalm 34:15-16 and 1 Peter 3:12 is teaching about prayer but since it isn't a prayer being said we shouldn't cite it about directing the prayer to its proper recipient?

You can cite it all you want. Just don't pretend that it is, itself, a prayer. Nor is the verse intended to teach a formula for prayer that would supersede what Christ personally taught. The Lord DOES hear and respond to our prayers, according to the will of God the Father.


2. 2 Corintians 12:8 - We have a probable from Danker and a yes from the others I cited but still the LDS insists that this passage does not teach prayer to the Lord Jesus. Incredible.

c. Danker: it is probable that Paul addressed these three petitions to Christ. If such is the case, it is a unique departure from Paul's custom, which is to address God as the one who is ultimately responsible for everything (cf. 5:18; Rom. 11:33-36).
f. R.T. France: In 2 Corinthians 12:8, for instance, who was the 'Lord" to whom Paul prayed? Normally his prayers are addressed to God, but "my power" in the answer to Paul's prayer appears to be identified with 'the power of Christ' (verse 9).

I'll tell you what is "incredible"; that you think that a "probable departure" from the custom of prayer should constitute as a reason to disregard Christ's teachings on how we should pray. It is incredible that even though Paul's prayers are "normally" addressed to God, you think that we should do it some other way. And the argument that 'the power of Christ' is involved does not indicate that the exact wording of the prayer (which we are not given) was specifically directed to the Son while excluding the Father.


3. You didn't answer my question concerning singing to Jesus. Let me rephrase it to help you.
Is it ok to ever sing directly to Jesus?

Sure. There are probably times/situations where it is o.k. I just can't think of any example off the top of my head where the God the Father would be excluded.


4. John 5:23
You dodged this part: The level of their worship ought to be in equality.

It is annoying when I address scriptural verses that you post over and over and then you claim that I "dodged" it. First, I quoted the verse in context:

John 5:23 (with some context) - "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. "

Then I explained how this verse says that we should "honor" the Father AND the Son, which is true. However, it does not even approach the issue of prayer in the way that you imply it does. Not even close. Then you tried to bring in Mathew 11:25, as if it supported your baseless assertion/implication for John 5:23, to which I responded:

"Don't you realize how much you have to stretch to get there? You have to quote an entirely unrelated scripture, and avoid that Christ's example of praying to the Father was also a teaching of how we are supposed to worship. How can following Christ's specific instructions and example when it comes to prayer be a form of dishonor? That is nonsense. I call following Christ's instructions "obedience", not dishonor."

Then you quoted, "Both Danker and Thayer cite John 1:23 and Acts 15:8 with John 5:23 demonstrating that the Greek word "kathws" (even as) means equally in John 5:23 (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, kathws, page 493), (Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, kathws, page 314)."

To which I gave the "tongue in cheek" response - Great. Then you agree that the disciples are "one" with Jesus "even as" Jesus is "one" with the Father. Does that mean they are gods? (See John chapter 17.) Are you now going to agree with Catholics that you can pray to the saints? ----

And I went on to explain more of the context of John 5:23: "{This verse} is not teaching about prayer. This portion of the chapter is talking about the resurrection. So, many LDS will agree with the idea that the Father and the Son are equal in that sense."

I answered again and again that Christ IS to be worshiped. However, when LDS approach God in prayer, we do so according to the way that Jesus taught. He did not teach "pray directly to me." No. He said, "When you pray, do it in this way, ... pray to the Father, in my name."

You are kicking against the pricks foudroyant, and I have not "dodged" anything.


5. Acts 7:59
So if people were aware they were just about to die is it ok for them to pray directly to the Lord Jesus?

For starters, we don't know everything that Stephen said in that event. However, even if we assume that these were the only words that Stephen said, when a person is being stoned to death, it is understandable if he/she forgets or is unable to perform some of the formal aspects of prayer and worship. Again, this is not an example which should negate what Jesus Christ taught about how we should approach God in prayer. None of your citations are good examples.


6. To "love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul" does include praying to Him. This is not a word game but simply a dodge by you (See Post #17).

You are kidding right? It is a game with you. You are implying that Mormons cannot love and serve Jesus because when we pray, we pray to the Father in the name of Jesus. What an utterly foolish argument you make. Furthermore, I did not "dodge" the question, I answered this very same issue in post 11 in reference to 2 Nephi 25:29. I said:

For starters, Nephi is coming from a perspective (along with his audience) which had somewhat of an Old Testament understanding of Deity under the Law of Moses.

Remember that McConkie said, "be it remembered that most scriptures that speak of God or of the Lord do not even bother to distinguish the Father from the Son..." This is especially true before the New Testament church. Then I continued:

Either way, it was understood, as is found in the general definition of worship, that Jesus is to be adored, revered, respected, and followed. "The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity" is absolutely included with this. The teachings that we live by are provided by Christ, the Holy One of Israel.

Then I quoted McConkie again:

"The Father and the Son are the objects of all true worship." Later McConkie writes, "It is proper to worship the Father, in the name of the Son, and also to worship the Son"

So, let's get this clear in your head, foudroyant. Simply because we follow Christ's instructions to pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ, does not mean that we do not worship Jesus. it does not mean that we do not adore Jesus. It does not mean that we do not love or serve Jesus. We certainly do all of those things. In fact, we do it to such an extent, that we follow his instructions when he taught, repeatedly, concerning how we should pray.


7. If LDS follow Christ's teachings in the Bible they would not forbid praying to the Him because Paul prayed to the Lord Jesus did in these passages (which of course you continually dodge). ... 1 Thessalonians 3:11-13

Concerning those scriptures which are not directed to any individual person, and which are not actual prayers according to the meaning that we are discussing. I wrote:

All you are doing is quoting people who broaden the definition of "prayer" to include other kinds of praise and worship; like "doxologies" and so forth. In fact, if you are going to include these kinds of worship as "prayer", then Mormons do that all of the time. And then by using that kind of definition, I would say that LDS do "pray" to Jesus.

However, Jesus was speaking of a more specific type of communication between God and man when He taught:

Mat 6:9 Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven…”

John 15:16 “…whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”

John 16:23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

Luke 11:12 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven,

"...you are merely manufacturing a debate by ignoring what LDS actually mean when we speak of prayer, which was the same that Jesus meant in the 4 scriptures cited above."

In summary, the citations you are referring to do not fall into the category of worship that Jesus and LDS are referring to in the context of this conversation. I did not ignore them. My response was direct and clear. IF you are going to consider a "doxology" as a prayer, then sure, it is O.K. to "pray" about Jesus and LDS do that kind of "prayer" very often.


8. Not only did you dodge the above passages you change what to "call upon the name of the Lord" means. The reason for this is because it proves that the Lord Jesus is the proper recipient of prayer (Post #28).

It "proves" no such thing. Again, I repeat:

- Remember "that most scriptures that speak of God or of the Lord do not even bother to distinguish the Father from the Son..." Therefore, you have to make "an assumption" that a general term such as "God" or "Lord" is referring to Jesus and Jesus alone.

- Even when LDS are specifically praying with the formula of directing prayer to God the Father and "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ", this IS "calling upon the name of the Lord". LDS are doing everything, including ordinances, service, prayers, hymns, home teaching, etc. "in the name of Jesus Christ". So, "calling upon the Lord" more than just a formula for prayer, it is a way of living and acting. How can you possibly complain that doing everything in the name of Jesus Christ the Lord, including prayer, is not considered "calling on the name of the Lord"? Because we don't purposefully exclude God the Father? Is that really a reasonable argument from your perspective?

This invented issue that anti-Mormons have come up with (against the LDS praying in the way that Jesus taught) is a waste of time. And if you accuse me again of supposedly "dodging" your poorly constructed, repeat arguments, the conversation is over.

-7up

foudroyant
04-27-2014, 12:38 AM
What a disastrous mess.

There is no way I am going to go through all of your confusion and correct it.

Numerous lexicons and dictionaries affirm that 1 Corinthians 1:2 teaches prayer to the Lord Jesus but the Mormons teach this is a no-no.

I noticed you didn't cite just one authority for your assertion which makes your opinion stink something awful.

seven7up
04-27-2014, 12:54 AM
I noticed you didn't cite just one authority for your assertion which makes your opinion stink something awful.

Not true,

I cited the authority that matters the most:

Mat 6:9 Pray, then, in this way: Our Father who is in heaven…”

John 15:16 “…whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”

John 16:23 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

Luke 11:12 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven,



With those scriptures in mind, I have a question for you to ask in your prayers tonight. Feel free to ask Jesus directly if you want. Ask him this:

Should Christian believers be taught, as a general practice, to exclude God the Father when praying?




Good luck with that. Just a heads up.


-7up

foudroyant
04-27-2014, 01:02 AM
Anyone can cite passages. The question is do they teach what you are claiming and the answer is no.
1 Corinthians 1:2 disproves your claim. Plenty of lexicons concerning this passage overthrow what the Mormons teach but hey they want to play fairy tale word games instead.

Your question presents a false dichotomy because I also pray to the Father.
From my Post #25:
I also pray to the Father (Acts 4:24-40; Galatians 1:5; James 3:9; etc.).

seven7up
04-29-2014, 08:01 PM
Plenty of lexicons concerning this passage overthrow what the Mormons teach ....

Mormons simply teach what Christ taught: to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. Why would you want to overthrow the teachings of Jesus?


-7up

foudroyant
04-30-2014, 03:46 AM
1 Corinthians 1:2 belongs in the Bible as well does it not?

Sparko
05-02-2014, 11:27 AM
Um, if Jesus is YHWH in the OT like the Mormons claim, then...

1. He not only accepted prayer, he commanded it!
2. When Jesus was on earth, the Jews still worshiped and prayed to YHWH. So when Jesus told them to pray to God, he was telling them to pray to himself. And he was calling himself the Father! (foot, shot again)

seven7up
05-07-2014, 10:37 PM
Um, if Jesus is YHWH in the OT like the Mormons claim, then...

...
2. When Jesus was on earth, the Jews still worshiped and prayed to YHWH. So when Jesus told them to pray to God, he was telling them to pray to himself. And he was calling himself the Father! (foot, shot again)



You are a modalist then?

Yeah, you are shooting yourself in the foot there.

--7up

Christianbookworm
05-07-2014, 10:38 PM
You are a modalist then?

Yeah, you are shooting yourself in the foot there.

--7up

He was calling YOU a modalist. IF

Christianbookworm
05-07-2014, 10:39 PM
1 Corinthians 1:2 belongs in the Bible as well does it not?

Jew and Gentiles! Duh.

seven7up
05-07-2014, 10:45 PM
He was calling YOU a modalist. IF


It goes both ways. But these snide comments by Sparko are far too shallow to make any real points.

In reality, the title of "YHWH" can be applied to both the Father and the Son. The title "God" can be applied to both the Father and the Son. This is true of many titles of Deity, because both the Father and the Son are Divine.

In the Old Testament, the "Angle of the Lord's presence" was the mouthpiece of God, a perfect representative who spoke the will of the Father. That does not mean that they are the same person or the same being.

-7up

seven7up
05-07-2014, 10:48 PM
7UP: Mormons simply teach what Christ taught: to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. Why would you want to overthrow the teachings of Jesus?


1 Corinthians 1:2 belongs in the Bible as well does it not?


Sure it is. However, it is quite a stretch to claim that your presumptuous interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:2 should overthrow Christ's quite specific and repeated teachings on how we are to pray.

Get over it.

-7up

Sparko
05-08-2014, 06:53 AM
You are a modalist then?

Yeah, you are shooting yourself in the foot there.

--7up

:doh:

I was talking about LDS theology. If Jesus was YHWH as you claim, then when he was telling the Jews to pray to God (YHWH) he was telling them to pray to himself.

Sparko
05-08-2014, 06:55 AM
It goes both ways. But these snide comments by Sparko are far too shallow to make any real points.

In reality, the title of "YHWH" can be applied to both the Father and the Son. Not from what I have read on LDS sites. According to the LDS, YHWH was the son, not the father. Can you show me otherwise?

foudroyant
05-08-2014, 02:06 PM
7UP: Mormons simply teach what Christ taught: to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. Why would you want to overthrow the teachings of Jesus?




Sure it is. However, it is quite a stretch to claim that your presumptuous interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:2 should overthrow Christ's quite specific and repeated teachings on how we are to pray.

Get over it.

-7up

It's not "my presumptuous interpretation". Plenty of experts in Greek teach that it refers to praying to the Lord Jesus. Where are your citations of Greek experts that teach it doesn't refer to praying to the Lord Jesus? So far you have provided nothing.
So your claim that what they are saying would "overthrow Christ's quite specific and repeating teachings on how we are to pray" is ridiculous.

seven7up
05-09-2014, 05:50 PM
So your claim that what they are saying would "overthrow Christ's quite specific and repeating teachings on how we are to pray" is ridiculous.


So, you agree that 1 Corinthians 1:2 should not be taken as an example contrary to what Christ taught and what LDS teach about prayer.

-7up

foudroyant
05-09-2014, 05:59 PM
1 Corinthians 1:2 does not contradict what Christ taught about prayer.
It does contradict what the LDS teach about prayer because 1 Corinthians 1:2 teaches that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to.

seven7up
05-09-2014, 06:13 PM
Not from what I have read on LDS sites. According to the LDS, YHWH was the son, not the father. Can you show me otherwise?


If you know about LDS doctrine, you know that Jesus Christ is following in the footsteps of the Father, and inherits everything that the Father has ... including the Father's name/titles.

You are correct that LDS understand that it was Jesus Christ, known as Jehovah/YHWH, that was directly interacting with man kind in the Bible on behalf of the Father. He , as a mediator, is acting in his Father's name.

-7up

Bill the Cat
05-09-2014, 06:13 PM
Not from what I have read on LDS sites. According to the LDS, YHWH was the son, not the father. Can you show me otherwise?

You mean like:



https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/jehovah

Jehovah
Jehovah is the premortal Jesus Christ and came to earth being born of Mary (see Mosiah 3:8; 15:1; 3 Ne. 15:1–5; D&C 110:1–10). Although Ex. 6:3 states that the God of Israel was not known by the name Jehovah before Moses’ time, latter-day revelation tells us otherwise; see JST Ex. 6:3 (Ex. 6:3 note c); Abr. 1:16; 2:8; see also Gen. 22:14.


or



https://www.lds.org/topics/jesus-christ?lang=eng&query=jehovah

Jesus Christ
“He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New. Under the direction of His Father, He was the creator of the earth. ‘All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made’ ( John 1:3).

or



https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1977/04/come-know-the-lord-jesus?lang=eng&query=jehovah

Come, Know the Lord Jesus
Bruce R. McConkie

The Father’s name is Elohim;
Jehovah is his Son.
Above all Gods they stand supreme,
And rule the universe.

Jehovah is the Holy One,
By whom redemption comes;
His gospel is the word of life;
He is our living Lord.

The Holy Spirit witness bears;
Our soul the message hears—
That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
Are man’s Eternal Gods.


or



https://www.lds.org/manual/jesus-the-christ/chapter-4?lang=eng&query=jehovah

We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One.

Even the "God the Father" entry is about Jesus



https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-the-father-jehovah?lang=eng

God the Father, Jehovah
his name shall be called … The mighty God, The everlasting Father: Isa. 9:6 . ( 2 Ne. 19:6 . )
thou, O Lord, art our father: Isa. 63:16 .
My father, thou art the guide of my youth: Jer. 3:4 .
I am a father to Israel: Jer. 31:9 .
in Christ Jesus I have begotten you: 1 Cor. 4:15 .

Bill the Cat
05-09-2014, 06:19 PM
If you know about LDS doctrine, you know that Jesus Christ is following in the footsteps of the Father, and inherits everything that the Father has ... including the Father's name/titles.

You are correct that LDS understand that it was Jesus Christ, known as Jehovah/YHWH, that was directly interacting with man kind in the Bible on behalf of the Father. He , as a mediator, is acting in his Father's name.

-7up

McConkie says the Father's name is Elohim. Nowhere on LDS.org is the Father called Jehovah.

seven7up
05-09-2014, 06:20 PM
1 Corinthians 1:2 does not contradict what Christ taught about prayer.
It does contradict what the LDS teach about prayer because 1 Corinthians 1:2 teaches that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to.

LDS simply teach what Jesus did: namely that when we pray we should pray to God the Father , in the name of Jesus Christ.

Now read the scripture that you are referring to.

"to the assembly of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all those calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place -- both theirs and ours": (1 Corinthians 1:2)


The teachings of Jesus Christ, of the LDS church, and 1 Corinthians 1:2 all agree.

Your assertion that scriptures teach that we should leave God the Father out of prayer is ridiculous. So ridiculous, that you have made a fool out of yourself on this thread.

1 Corinthians 1:2 does not say that we should exclude the Father. Sorry.

-7up

foudroyant
05-09-2014, 06:24 PM
I already pointed out other passages where the Bible teaches the Father is to be prayed to.
Post #25 - Last sentence
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?1572-Pray-to-worship-the-Lord-Jesus-or-not/page3

1 Corinthians 1:2 teaches the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to.

Mormons deny the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to. Thus the Mormons contradict what 1 Corinthians 1:2 teaches.

Bill the Cat
05-09-2014, 06:33 PM
LDS simply teach what Jesus did: namely that when we pray we should pray to God the Father , in the name of Jesus Christ.



He says quite plainly:

New American Standard Bible
Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"

This is a reference to Deuteronomy 10:20 which teaches:

Deuteronomy 10:20
Fear the LORD your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name.

Which, according to your church, the LORD is Jesus, so Jesus is telling them to worship Him alone, and not the Father.

seven7up
05-09-2014, 06:45 PM
7UP: If you know about LDS doctrine, you know that Jesus Christ is following in the footsteps of the Father, and inherits everything that the Father has ... including the Father's name/titles. You are correct that LDS understand that it was Jesus Christ, known as Jehovah/YHWH, that was directly interacting with man kind in the Bible on behalf of the Father. He , as a mediator, is acting in his Father's name.


McConkie says the Father's name is Elohim. Nowhere on LDS.org is the Father called Jehovah.

The LDS use the name titles Elohim and Jehovah to designate God Our Heavenly Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ respectively. It is a convenience. That is to help us to keep the members of the Godhead straight and to recognize the distinction between the relationship. Just because we do that as a general way of distinguishing between them, is not meant to insist that those titles of Deity are absolutely exclusive. As you pointed out on the other thread, Jesus is called, in Isaiah, "The Everlasting Father."

Latter-day Saints have recognized from the beginning that the Hebrew word Elohim was used anciently as a generic word for "god." You can find references to this concept in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Jesus Christ inherited divine powers from the Father(see John 10:17–18). (see also Ensign, December 2010, "Jesus Christ Is the Only Begotten Son of God", and Gospel Principles (2009).

As we have discussed on the other thread, Jesus Christ inherited "a more excellent name". You claim that the name Jesus "inherited" was "King of the Jews". That is nonsense. He inherited the Father's name. Psalm 110:1 reads: "The LORD [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adonai], Sit thou at my right-hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Hebrews 1:1–3 indicates that God the Father said this to Jesus Christ; see also Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42.)

Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Jesus said: "I have come in my Father's name" (John 5:43).

-7up

Bill the Cat
05-09-2014, 06:54 PM
7UP: If you know about LDS doctrine, you know that Jesus Christ is following in the footsteps of the Father, and inherits everything that the Father has ... including the Father's name/titles. You are correct that LDS understand that it was Jesus Christ, known as Jehovah/YHWH, that was directly interacting with man kind in the Bible on behalf of the Father. He , as a mediator, is acting in his Father's name.



The LDS use the name titles Elohim and Jehovah to designate God Our Heavenly Father and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ respectively. It is a convenience. That is to help us to keep the members of the Godhead straight and to recognize the distinction between the relationship. Just because we do that as a general way of distinguishing between them, is not meant to insist that those titles of Deity are absolutely exclusive. As you pointed out on the other thread, Jesus is called, in Isaiah, "The Everlasting Father."

Latter-day Saints have recognized from the beginning that the Hebrew word Elohim was used anciently as a generic word for "god." You can find references to this concept in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Jesus Christ inherited divine powers from the Father(see John 10:17–18). (see also Ensign, December 2010, "Jesus Christ Is the Only Begotten Son of God", and Gospel Principles (2009).

As we have discussed on the other thread, Jesus Christ inherited "a more excellent name". You claim that the name Jesus "inherited" was "King of the Jews". That is nonsense. He inherited the Father's name. Psalm 110:1 reads: "The LORD [Jehovah] said unto my Lord [Adonai], Sit thou at my right-hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." (Hebrews 1:1–3 indicates that God the Father said this to Jesus Christ; see also Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42.)

Heb 1:3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Jesus said: "I have come in my Father's name" (John 5:43).

-7up

Please cite on LDS.org where the Father is ever called Jehovah.

Sparko
05-10-2014, 07:37 AM
If you know about LDS doctrine, you know that Jesus Christ is following in the footsteps of the Father, and inherits everything that the Father has ... including the Father's name/titles.

You are correct that LDS understand that it was Jesus Christ, known as Jehovah/YHWH, that was directly interacting with man kind in the Bible on behalf of the Father. He , as a mediator, is acting in his Father's name.

-7up

and yet YHWH never directed prayer to anyone but himself. And he told the whole world he was the ONLY God, and there were no other Gods before or after him. If the LDS doctrine that Jesus was YHWH is true, then you believe that Jesus was a liar, and executed a plan to steal the world away from the Father for himself. Exactly what Satan wanted. You basically are teaching that Jesus was evil.

seven7up
05-12-2014, 08:18 AM
Please cite on LDS.org where the Father is ever called Jehovah.

I did better. I quoted scripture (Psalm 110:1).

Again, the titles that LDS use for the members of the Godhead are generally distinguished as "Elohim" for the Father and "Jehovah" for Jesus Christ. However, as I also pointed out, these titles are not exclusive, because the Son inherited the name/title of the Father.

Jesus said: "I have come in my Father's name" (John 5:43).

Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

"... since he [Jesus] is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father...the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father."

Examples are given from the Old Testament (Genesis 17:1; 35:11; Exodus 6:3). Christ was also referred to as "the Almighty" in the New Testament (Revelation 1:8, 18; 4:8; 11:17).

-7up

seven7up
05-12-2014, 08:34 AM
and yet YHWH never directed prayer to anyone but himself. And he told the whole world he was the ONLY God, and there were no other Gods before or after him.

I explained this, but I will go over it again for you. Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how God feels about his superiority above all other gods, and then Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how the Babylonians felt they were superior to the other nations. The phrase means the same thing in each case.

It is the same meaning in one instance, when it is a true statement (God’s), and in the second instance when it is not a true statement (Babylon). Neither one is actually meant to deny the literal existence of other "gods" or other "cities". In fact, the Bible refers to "gods" in several ways A) the True God (Godhead or members within) B) angels (ie "hosts of heaven") C) men who have been given authority by god D) false idols . The only option here that doesn't actually exist is option D.

Paul covers this topic as follows in 1 Corinthians and I will insert the letter designated above to indicate which kind of "god" he is referring to:

"we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords , yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

Context matters. The "Most High God" is the "God of gods" and the "Lord of lords". There are "gods" which actually exist; that is who Paul refers to when he says "indeed, there are gods many and lords many".

Also please note, that most of the New Testament writers, when referring to the "one true God" are referring to the Father ONLY, just as Paul did here. He says, " there is but one God , the Father ... AND one Lord , Jesus Christ. Numerically they are two - God the Father is the "one God" and Jesus Christ is not the same Being, but instead the second, who has inherited the title "Lord" from the Father.

In another context, the critics of Jesus accused him of claiming to be equal to God. In response, Jesus referenced the scripture in the Old Testament which says "ye are gods". Were those men just accusing Jesus of claiming to be a "judge"? No, they were trying to argue against the Deity of Jesus. The response of Jesus is to say that anybody who is given divine authority is a god according to the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament). Divine authority is one of the keys of godliness, even if those men were still mortal, and very flawed individuals. So, the argument from Jesus is that if God made them gods, then how much more Jesus deserves the title of God , because his authority is only second to the authority of the Father.

And nobody answered my previous question: When the "Most High God" is called the "God of gods", do you really think that it is meant to refer to the Almighty as the "God of (false idols)"?

So, in conclusion, Jesus Christ (who was Yahweh/Jehovah) in these passages was being compared to the false gods/idols of other nations. He, obeying his Father's will, is the one who would pay the penalty for sin, and is the true Savior. The other "gods" of the other nations were figments of their imagination and did not exist, until they "created" and "formed" them from wood, stone, metal, etc. That is the CONTEXT.

So, in a different context, Jesus would not say "there is no god beside me" or "there is no other god" while standing at the right hand of the Father. In that context, it would be blasphemy.

In fact, we know this because Jesus DID say different kinds of statements in different contexts, such as:

'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
and
"If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."



If the LDS doctrine that Jesus was YHWH is true, then you believe that Jesus was a liar, and executed a plan to steal the world away from the Father for himself. Exactly what Satan wanted. You basically are teaching that Jesus was evil.

Quite wrong. Lucifer decided that his way was superior than God's way. Therefore, he felt that he should be exalted above the Father.

Certainly you are smart enough to know that there is a difference between that and the idea that God the Father GIVES his name and authority to the Son.

In one instance, there is rebellion and an attempt usurp the Father's throne against his will, and in the other instance Jesus is fulfilling the Father's will.

-7up

Bill the Cat
05-12-2014, 08:49 AM
I did better. I quoted scripture (Psalm 110:1).

Sorry, but no. Again, LDS.org says:



https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/06/lord-jehovah?lang=eng

Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ, appears from beginning to end of this great book as the God of the Old Testament

We can find Jesus Christ in the Old Testament by substituting Jehovah for LORD whenever it appears

It is a blunder. Plain and simple. Trinitarianism can answer this. You can't while remaining consistent. You have to make excuses.


Again, the titles that LDS use for the members of the Godhead are generally distinguished as "Elohim" for the Father and "Jehovah" for Jesus Christ. However, as I also pointed out, these titles are not exclusive, because the Son inherited the name/title of the Father.

Again, you fail to prove from LDS.org any source that can back that up. And you don't speak for the LDS church, they do.


Jesus said: "I have come in my Father's name" (John 5:43).

That was a client/patron/broker phrase meaning that the Father was the patron who the clients would seek for protection and benefit, and that the Son would broker the transaction. It did not mean that the name of the patron was possessed by the broker.


Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

"... since he [Jesus] is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father...the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father."

McConkie misses the fact that the one speaking would ALWAYS announce whom he was speaking for before speaking the words to be conveyed. Nowhere in the OT do we see that happening when Jehovah is the subject.


Examples are given from the Old Testament (Genesis 17:1; 35:11; Exodus 6:3).

Christ was also referred to as "the Almighty" in the New Testament (Revelation 1:8, 18; 4:8; 11:17).

-7up

Again, these do not support your failure to provide a single source from LDS.org that the Father was ever called Jehovah, and that Jehovah was the name "given" to Christ.

Sparko
05-12-2014, 09:09 AM
I explained this, but I will go over it again for you. Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how God feels about his superiority above all other gods, and then Isaiah writes “there is none beside me” in regard to how the Babylonians felt they were superior to the other nations. The phrase means the same thing in each case.
No. it means there are no other true Gods but YHWH. Just him. He alone is God. It says it over and over in the bible.


It is the same meaning in one instance, when it is a true statement (God’s), and in the second instance when it is not a true statement (Babylon). Neither one is actually meant to deny the literal existence of other "gods" or other "cities". In fact, the Bible refers to "gods" in several ways A) the True God (Godhead or members within) B) angels (ie "hosts of heaven") C) men who have been given authority by god D) false idols . The only option here that doesn't actually exist is option D.

Paul covers this topic as follows in 1 Corinthians and I will insert the letter designated above to indicate which kind of "god" he is referring to:

"we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords , yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."

Context matters. The "Most High God" is the "God of gods" and the "Lord of lords". There are "gods" which actually exist; that is who Paul refers to when he says "indeed, there are gods many and lords many".

Yeah context matters, yet you totally ignore the part about "so-called gods. " - These are false gods. There is only one true God.

7up, try reading the bible without already assuming your conclusion. Your bias is blinding you.



Also please note, that most of the New Testament writers, when referring to the "one true God" are referring to the Father ONLY, just as Paul did here. He says, " there is but one God , the Father ... AND one Lord , Jesus Christ. Numerically they are two - God the Father is the "one God" and Jesus Christ is not the same Being, but instead the second, who has inherited the title "Lord" from the Father.

They are the SAME God, 7up. Jesus also was a man. He had two natures: God and Man. :doh:



In another context, the critics of Jesus accused him of claiming to be equal to God. In response, Jesus referenced the scripture in the Old Testament which says "ye are gods". Were those men just accusing Jesus of claiming to be a "judge"? No, they were trying to argue against the Deity of Jesus. The response of Jesus is to say that anybody who is given divine authority is a god according to the Law and the Prophets (Old Testament). Divine authority is one of the keys of godliness, even if those men were still mortal, and very flawed individuals. So, the argument from Jesus is that if God made them gods, then how much more Jesus deserves the title of God , because his authority is only second to the authority of the Father.


If you go back and read that passage Jesus was referring to, it is CONDEMNING those that were claiming to be Gods. God was mocking them.

Psalm 82:“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.



And nobody answered my previous question: When the "Most High God" is called the "God of gods", do you really think that it is meant to refer to the Almighty as the "God of (false idols)"?

derp. It is an honorific. Saying God is the greatest being ever. He is Most High. It doesn't say he was "Higher than other true Gods"



So, in conclusion, Jesus Christ (who was Yahweh/Jehovah) in these passages was being compared to the false gods/idols of other nations. He, obeying his Father's will, is the one who would pay the penalty for sin, and is the true Savior. The other "gods" of the other nations were figments of their imagination and did not exist, until they "created" and "formed" them from wood, stone, metal, etc. That is the CONTEXT.

No it isn't. again, all over the bible it clearly says that YHWH is the only real God. That there are no other real Gods. that anything and anyone else who claims to be a god is a FALSE God. So if Jesus and the Father are two different beings, which one is the false God?

If YHWH is Jesus and the Father is NOT YHWH, I guess the LDS believe the Father is a false God.



So, in a different context, Jesus would not say "there is no god beside me" or "there is no other god" while standing at the right hand of the Father. In that context, it would be blasphemy.
Only if they are two different Gods, dimwit.



In fact, we know this because Jesus DID say different kinds of statements in different contexts, such as:

'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
and
"If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."
Jesus was a man as well as God. As a man he submitted himself to the Father as we do so in his humanity the Father was his God.

Again, if the Jews believed that YHWH was God, and Jesus was YHWH, then he just told them that YHWH was a liar since YHWH just told them that the Father was THEIR God.





Quite wrong. Lucifer decided that his way was superior than God's way. Therefore, he felt that he should be exalted above the Father.


Apparently so did YHWH according to the LDS view. He never said "Howdy! I am YHWH, the son of the true God, Elohim. He told me to take care of you people and to pray and worship only him"

Nope. YHWH said he was the "most high" and the only God and that all prayer and worship should go to him alone and no one else.


:ahem:

seven7up
05-14-2014, 01:16 AM
Sorry, but no. Again, LDS.org says:


It is a blunder. Plain and simple. Trinitarianism can answer this. You can't while remaining consistent. You have to make excuses.

Trinitarianism doesn't explain it. Are you now going to contradict yourself again and claim that there is no "subject / object distinctions" between members of the Trinity? Now they are all the same person?

My explanation is quite simple:

Jesus said: "I have come in my Father's name" (John 5:43).

Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

"... since he [Jesus] is one with the Father in all of the attributes of perfection, and since he exercises the power and authority of the Father...the Father puts his own name on the Son and authorizes him to speak in the first person as though he were the Father." Examples are given from the Old Testament (Genesis 17:1; 35:11; Exodus 6:3).


That was a client/patron/broker phrase meaning that the Father was the patron who the clients would seek for protection and benefit, and that the Son would broker the transaction. It did not mean that the name of the patron was possessed by the broker.

It means that the broker was speaking on behalf of the patron, speaking in his name. The difference here is that this is not just a Patron and a Broker, but also a Father and a Son. As we both know, the Son "inherits" the name of the Father (ie they have the same name). Furthermore, the Son is a PERFECT representative of the Father, being the "exact image copy of the Father's person." This gives Jesus even more right to represent the Father.

When Jesus says, "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father" , that is not meant to imply that Jesus and the Father are the same person. It isn't teaching modalism. Instead he is saying that He is a perfect representative of the Father.


Again, you fail to prove from LDS.org any source that can back that up. And you don't speak for the LDS church, they do.

LDS.org pages you refer to only gives a basic understanding. That is it's purpose and for the most part that is correct. What it is saying is that the direct contact between Deity and man in the Old Testament is Jesus Christ, who was the mediator and messenger on the Father's behalf. The Angel who is speaking is by rights Deity, and He is Jesus Christ. But we know from the New Testament revelation that this was Jesus was speaking at the will of the Father who sent him.

The BYU page addresses the issue on the Harold B. Lee Library page and gives a more extensive treatment of name-titles and includes LDS scriptural cannon texts as examples , for example:

'JEHOVAH, LORD, LORD GOD. The term "Lord," printed with capital letters in many English versions of the Old Testament, is a substitute for the name Jehovah (yhwh in the Hebrew Bible). Even though Latter-day Saints identify Jesus Christ as Jehovah (3 Ne. 15:3-5; cf. D&C 110:1-4; see Jehovah, Jesus Christ), they utilize the title "Lord" for both the Father and the Son, as is common throughout scripture. The title "Lord God" in the Hebrew Bible is a compound of elohim preceded by either yhwh (Jehovah) or adonai (lord or master). This combined name-title refers mainly to Jehovah in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, and in other latter-day scriptures, "Lord God" can mean either the Father (e.g., Moses 4:1-4) or the Son (Mosiah 3:21). http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/God_the_Father#God_the_Father:_Names_and_Titles


McConkie misses the fact that the one speaking would ALWAYS announce whom he was speaking for before speaking the words to be conveyed. Nowhere in the OT do we see that happening when Jehovah is the subject.

Let's look at some examples concerning the "Angel of the Lord's presence":

(Gen 16:10-13) Then the Angel of the Lord said to her, “I will multiply your descendants exceedingly, so that they shall not be counted for multitude.” 11 And the Angel of the Lord said to her: “Behold, you are with child, And you shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, Because ... Then she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees; for she said, “Have I also here seen Him who sees me?”

Note carefully Gen 16:13, that in the context, it was the "Angel of the Lord" however...
a. It was "...the LORD who spoke to her"
b. She called His name "You-Are-the-God-Who-Sees"
c. She said "Have I also here seen Him who sees me?"..."

Likewise with Abraham...
1. When he was about to sacrifice Isaac - Gen 22:9-19
2. The Angel speaks in the first person as though he were God
a. "you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
- Gen 22:12b
b. "By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD...blessing I will
bless you..." - Gen 22:15-18

TO MOSES...
1. At Mount Sinai, in the burning bush - Exo 3:1-6
2. The Angel identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob - Exo 3:6

Many have suggested that the direct messenger was Jesus Christ, who is "the Angel of the Lord's presence", who was using the name title "Jehovah" on behalf of the Father, but almost indistinguishably, and using the same title for himself... as you can see.

-7up

seven7up
05-14-2014, 01:59 AM
No. it means there are no other true Gods but YHWH. Just him. He alone is God. It says it over and over in the bible.

You are taking it out of context and therefore forcing a Biblical contradiction. Can you think of a verse where it says that God was not "alone" , but instead "with" someone? In the beginning was the "Word", who is Jesus Christ. He was "WITH" God, so God was not alone.




Yeah context matters, yet you totally ignore the part about "so-called gods. " - These are false gods. There is only one true God.

The text from Paul refers to all of the kinds of gods from the Bible. It refers to 1) idols - which do not exist 2) beings that are called "gods" - which he says "indeed there are many" (keep in mind that these beings that are called gods can be in heaven or on Earth. Or do you think that there are false idols in heaven Sparko?) 3) God the Father AND 4) Jesus Christ

"we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords , yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; AND one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him."



If you go back and read that passage Jesus was referring to, it is CONDEMNING those that were claiming to be Gods. God was mocking them.

Psalm 82:“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
you are all sons of the Most High.’
7 But you will die like mere mortals;
you will fall like every other ruler.

Technically, Jesus refers all the way back to "the Law" , and Psalms is just another reiteration of the concept because Psalms is referring those who had been given authority. The Hebrew word Elohim is used for those holding divine authority (see Exodus 21:6 and 22:8, 9, and 28.) That is the original "LAW" reference that Jesus cited. The Psalms refers to those with divine authority who misused it, and were being reprimanded for their errors, because as "children of the Most High" they should know better. Again, why would Jesus use as a reference to his own divine authority, a passage that does not actually refer to divine authority? Do you think that Jesus misused scripture?

Another example is when God sent Moses to Pharaoh, He said, “See, I have made you as a God to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1).

So, I already explained this. Let's go over it again: There are 4 references to "gods" (elohim) in the Bible

-True God (or members of the Godhead)
-hosts of heaven (with divine authority)
-men (with divine authority)
-False idols

The only kind that doesn't actually exist is in the last category. Again, Paul's short quote above refers to all of these categories.


It is an honorific. Saying God is the greatest being ever.

What is great about being the God of false idols? ... Which don't even exist?


No it isn't. again, all over the bible it clearly says that YHWH is the only real God. That there are no other real Gods. that anything and anyone else who claims to be a god is a FALSE God. So if Jesus and the Father are two different beings, which one is the false God?

There are so many problems with your argument here it is difficult to know where to begin.

For starters, you are ignoring that even within the Trinity dogma, there is a subject / object distinction between the Father and the Son. So, if the Son says, there are no other Gods besides me, then the Son would be saying that the Father is not God?

The other way to look at it is that the Father and the Son are "one God". God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct personages, though they think, speak, and act as one God. Just as Bill says there is "one government" with 3 different branches.

Third, which I already explained, is that the verses you are attempting to use here are clearly contrasting the God of Israel, to the false gods/idols of the other nations, which do not actually exist, and are nothing more than a figment of their imaginations. That context is not designed to be used as an exposition of the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In fact, it is meant just to contrast against false idols, a superiority of the living God compared to false gods.


7UP: LDS believe that they are the same God. Just not the same Being.



Only if they are two different Gods, dimwit.

Really? Name calling?

Surely you can understand the difference here:

A) Referring to God the Father, who is fully God AND God the Son, who is fully God. In that sense, they are two.

(I refuse to play the game of the Creeds and pretend that I don't know how to count. Feel free to wallow in that form of intellectual dishonesty, but I will not participate. You can try to back out, as Bill has recently done, and say that the Father is 1/3 God, the Son is 1/3 God, and the Holy Spirit is 1/3 God. I don't recommend that you do so though. It is heresy.)

B) In the sense that Jesus describes in John chapter 17, they are "One".

So, there you go. Just use "one" in the same sense that Jesus did, and problem solved.

7UP: Jesus DID say different kinds of statements in different contexts, such as:

'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”
and
"If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I."


Jesus was a man as well as God. As a man he submitted himself to the Father as we do so in his humanity the Father was his God.

The Father was superior to the Son even prior to the incarnation. That is why the Father, as the person in charge, did the sending. The Son, as the loyal child, obeyed and was sent.

This is why Bill has to go into this idea that the Father and Son are "functionally different" from all eternity. The Son is always considered to be subject to the Father's will, not the other way around, therefore the Father and Son are eternally different, (yet supposedly they are the same single essence). This Trinitarian concept also runs contrary to Hebrews 1, which says that the Son is an exact copy/imprint of the Father's person. If that were the case, Jesus would not be eternally subservient to the Father, because it would also imply that the Father is subservient to a Father, just as Jesus is.


-7up

foudroyant
05-20-2014, 03:19 AM
Why do Mormons contradict that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to (1 Corinthians 1:2)?

Cow Poke
05-20-2014, 07:12 AM
Why do Mormons contradict that the Lord Jesus is to be prayed to (1 Corinthians 1:2)?

Because their whole religion was made up as it went along - some from the Masons, some from other denominations... mostly from Smith's head. :shrug:

DigitalInkling
06-29-2014, 10:23 AM
As an aside, should we really consider this topic a purely "Mormon" issue?

Surely, there are Christians outside the LDS church who understand the teaching that we should pray to the Father in the name of the Son. This is true from early Christianity:


"Only God the Father is worthy of receiving prayer and adoration; not even the Son, though we pray in the name of Christ." Origen [ca. A.D. 250 ]

“the Father alone is ho theos; the Son is simply theos…. Prayer can be offered only to the Father; prayer directed to the Son is not prayer in the fullest meaning of the word.” Origen [ca. A.D. 250 ]

“’Father’ was made known to us by our Lord…, who knew whose Son he is…. When he taught us to pray he did not say, ‘When you pray, say ‘O God Unoriginate….,’ but rather ‘Our Father….’ Athanasius (A.D. 300-373)

“In prayer one should not put the Father in the place of the Son, nor put the Son in the place of the Father; when standing at the altar one should always address the prayer to God the Father.” - The Council of Carthage in A.D. 397

“At the service of the altar, prayer shall always be addressed to the Father,” - LaCugna at Council of Hippo A.D. 393

“The classic liturgical prayers were exclusively addressed to the Father ‘through’ Christ living and reigning with the Father" — Jesuit Frans Jozef van Beeck at the Council of Hippo in A.D. 393,


-7up

This is a good point 7up. I haven't thought of this. I found it interesting what the early church says about this.

foudroyant
06-29-2014, 03:56 PM
Those that belonged to the earliest church (Luke, Peter, Paul, John) taught that prayer is to be directed to the Lord Jesus.

DigitalInkling
06-29-2014, 05:09 PM
Those that belonged to the earliest church (Luke, Peter, Paul, John) taught that prayer is to be directed to the Lord Jesus.

Hmmm i kinda like those folks he quoted foudroyant. I am not willing to discount their views.

foudroyant
06-29-2014, 09:07 PM
1. I much more like what those under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote.
They trump all.

2. Here is another citation:
Papylus upon being martyred said, "Blessing to you Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God: you have thought me fit to share this fate with you, sinner though I am."

3. More can be found in "Early Christian Prayers"
http://www.amazon.it/Early-Christian-Prayers-A-Hamman/dp/1466462671


It's best to stick with point #1.

Bill the Cat
06-30-2014, 06:33 AM
Hmmm i kinda like those folks he quoted foudroyant. I am not willing to discount their views.

Origen was denounced as a heretic.


If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their heretical books, and also all other heretics who have already been condemned and anathematized by the holy, catholic and apostolic church and by the four holy synods which have already been mentioned, and also all those who have thought or now think in the same way as the aforesaid heretics and who persist in their error even to death: let him be anathema

The Athanasius quote was not talking about prayer to the Father or the Son, it was a refutation of Arius' doctrine of God being "the unoriginate", meaning that the Son had a beggining, or "origin". Athanasius never condemns or refutes prayer to Jesus.

I do not have access to the text of the Councils, so I will not be able to analyze them.


But, this brings up a rather interesting conundrum for the Mormon... Since they claim Jesus IS YHWH, and YHWH required prayer to Him alone, the insistence that Jesus should not be prayed to becomes problematic.

Exodus 34:14

14. For you shall worship no other god; for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Cow Poke
06-30-2014, 08:23 AM
But, this brings up a rather interesting conundrum for the Mormon... Since they claim Jesus IS YHWH, and YHWH required prayer to Him alone, the insistence that Jesus should not be prayed to becomes problematic.

Exodus 34:14

14. For you shall worship no other god; for YHWH, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

More evidence that Mormonism was "thought up as it went along" -- Smith set that pattern, and others played along.