Ezra Pax

Hmm it seems that the dogmatic answer is always easier, but I believe the truth is more nuanced. I guess it also depends on how one views scripture. For me, the text presented in this thread does not allow a simple dismissal of the reality that Jesus hears and answers prayers, whether it fits the cotemporary cultural mold or not. Jesus uses the word “always” frequently in his visit in 3 Nephi and each time it means “perpetually; continually.” As also attested by the 1828 Webster's dictionary definition: “1. Perpetually; throughout all time; as, God is always the same. 2. Continually; without variation.” For example, Jesus commands us to “always remember” him. If we “always” remember Jesus does that mean we can’t worship and remember the Father? The use of always does not make it exclusive. Again I see an eisegetical reading of scripture because yeah, “always” has a slightly different definition today in our dictionary, which it did not when Joseph published the Book of Mormon, namely, “every time, or all occasions.” Reading Jesus’s words in 3 Nephi shows that Jesus commands us to perpetually pray to the Father and in the same chapter blesses those who pray without ceasing to him both vocally and in their hearts. Still, I understand your position and rationale. Totally valid to follow modern leadership and their declarations. Personally I can only put faith in Jesus’s words or those revealed by the Holy Spirit. It is hard though to see what is revelation and what is a leader’s declaration… Jesus tells us that we “cannot always tell the wicked from the righteous” and we know that apostles and prophets are fallible so it is sometimes easier to just have Jesus as the foundation and trust his words more than declarations that aren’t explicit revelation. But yes I can understand your concern.

Thank you for this reply it was very good and I think the Moses 5 precedent is a great way to explain it. Just one point to clarify, what revealed word indicates that the Eternal God Jesus is not the author of salvation and the plan of salvation? "The great Creator [who] suffereth himself to... die for all men... to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator" (2 Nephi 9:5-6, 13). Or at least a joint plan?: "their plan was good" (Abr 4)... "plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world, through Christ, for all who would believe on his name" (Alma 22:13). Also, great question, which I appreciated as I reflected on it. Jesus hears and answers prayers in his divine relationship with his believers. There are 3 significant reasons to pray to Jesus Christ on occasion (while routinely praying to the Father Ahman as taught by Jesus): 1. To worship & praise him as God 2. To ask for mercy & confess sins 3. To plead for him to return 1. There are many examples in scripture of praising Jesus directly. He tells us: “Behold, it is my will, that all they who call on my name, and worship me according to mine everlasting gospel, should gather together, and stand in holy places; (D&C 101:22; emphasis added). Again, every saint who sings praises at Church in fact is offering “a prayer unto me [Jesus Christ]” (25:12). 2. In the New Testament we see Peter cry out “Lord, save me! And Stephen cry out in a similar way in his final moment. I think those are examples, and the Book of Mormon is most informative to me. Namely, that crying out to Jesus Christ for mercy brings forgiveness and spiritual rebirth: “O blessed Jesus, who has saved me from an awful hell! O blessed God, have mercy on this people!” Alma cried out in prayer, “O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness,” and Alma never received a remission of his sins, “until [he] did cry out unto the Lord Jesus Christ for mercy” (Alma 19:29; 36:18; 38:8). Jesus is God and like the Pharisees saw, he has authority to forgive sins. Jesus repeatedly tells us in D&C that he hears our prayers and answers them: “whose offering I have accepted, and whose prayers I have heard, unto whom I give a promise of eternal life inasmuch as he keepeth my commandments from henceforth” (D&C 96:6). “But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord” (D&C 59:12). The DC 45 scripture is true and valid, and now Jesus has claim on his own and can apply mercy because he has appeased justice. For me personally this is the most significant and has the potential to bring people to Christ and bring about spiritual rebirth. 3. John ended his prophecy in Revelation with the prayer, “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” Today, as saints in the latter-days we hope to be found among those true servants of God who Jesus Christ describes as saints who call on him begging him to descend and bring about his Second Coming: And the servants of God shall go forth… Calling upon the name of the Lord day and night, saying: O that thou wouldst rend the heavens, that thou wouldst come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence. And it shall be answered upon their heads; for the presence of the Lord shall be as the melting fire that burneth, and as the fire which causeth the waters to boil. O Lord, thou shalt come down to make thy name known to thine adversaries, and all nations shall tremble at thy presence… Yea, when thou comest down, and the mountains flow down at thy presence… (D&C 133:38–45; emphasis added).

The reason that Jesus is worthy of praise and prayer is because he is equal to God the Father (Ahman) in divinity. That is right that as a mortal Jesus "made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness" at which time the Father was clearly greater (Phil 2:7). That said, Jesus is equal to the Father in eternality, immutability, omniscience, in possessing all power, and in infinite nature (D&C20:28). Both the Father and the Son together “constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things… The Son… possessing all the fulness of the Father, or the same fulness with the Father” (Joseph Smith, Lectures on Faith, Zion's Camp Books, 1988, 5:2) Still, I see your point that "we are Christ's and Christ is God's". Nonetheless Jesus the Eternal God is worthy of worship and totally divine, is the point that I was emphasizing.

Very cool. Yes I would not advocate any kind of Marcionism or setting Jesus at odds with the Father. In scripture it is hard to miss the fact that the Father (Ahman) is in the background. Maybe disputable but in my Hebrew course we learned that in the Old Testament every reference to Elohim and Jehovah is referring to the same deity, Jesus. In the Book of Mormon Jesus Christ is the Eternal God and very much takes center-stage as the salient hero and God of the Book. I think the same of the D&C, Jesus is the one receiving petitions, answering questions, forgiving sins, granting blessings, and judging eternal destinies. The Father is there but in all of scripture I see that Jesus has the Preeminence in all things. I am just working through my thoughts on this.

What do you make of the frequent invitation in scripture (and repeated in our day in the Doctrine and Covenants) to call upon the Lord Jesus to be saved.? Jesus speaks to the elect who “humble themselves before me, and call upon me in mighty prayer” (D&C 29:1–2) “the voice of …the Great I Am, even Jesus Christ… Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on my name" "And inasmuch as ye are humble and faithful and call upon my name, behold, I will give you the victory" (D&C 104:82). "Ye call upon my name for revelations, and I give them unto you.” (D&C 82:4). Some interpret this through a heavy eisegetical lens and suppose it means to cry to the Father (Ahman) in the name of the son; I think that is adding a lot to the text. If it means what it says and says what it means then it is an invitation to call on Jesus to save and forgive. Just like Old Testament prophets, Brother of Jared, Nephi, Alma, Paul, Ananias, etc. That said, how do LDS read this invitation to call on the name of Jesus?

Great observation. Prayer to Jesus is approved in every canonical book including in our dispensation. One nuance is the fact that Jesus taught us to pray to the Father but at no time forbid us to pray to him. @Anddenex Jesus in fact does approve of their prayers to him and tells them to continue to pray to him: “Jesus blessed them as they did pray unto him; and his countenance did smile upon them… And Jesus said unto them: Pray on” (3 Nephi 19:25–26). @carlimac Jesus Christ hears and answers prayers: “And again, I say unto you that ye shall not go until ye have preached my gospel in those parts, and have strengthened up the church whithersoever it is found, and more especially in Colesville; for, behold, they pray unto me in much faith” (D&C 37:2;). Again, “And for your salvation I [Jesus] give unto you a commandment, for I have heard your prayers, and the poor have complained before me, and the rich have I made, and all flesh is mine, and I am no respecter of persons” (D&C 38: 16). Jesus speaks directly to an individual and says: “I say unto you, my servant Sidney Gilbert, that I have heard your prayers; and you have called upon me that it should be made known unto you, of the Lord your God, concerning your calling and election in the church, which I, the Lord, have raised up in these last days. Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world (53: 1–2). Jesus’s openness to his servants’ prayers is not just for recent converts but also Church leaders: “Behold and hearken, O ye elders of my church, who have assembled yourselves together, whose prayers I have heard, and whose hearts I know, and whose desires have come up before me” (D&C 67: 1). @ Vort The McConkie teaching that we should not pursue a relationship with Christ has since been discarded. ("A Personal Relationship with the Savior" James E. Faust) When I first read Bruce R McConekie’s speech I was struck with the irony of this coming from an apostle whose calling it is to be a “special witness of Christ” who has intimate interactions in a personal way with him. And yet this apostle who is meant to have a special personal relationship with Christ mocks the Saints who desire the same. He seemed to contradict himself by declaring that we need an equal relationship with the three (which itself is an impossible exact outcome) and at the same time he says that if we did, have a “special relationship” it should be with the father and our “special attention” should be with the Holy Ghost. and when he says we need to maintain a “reverential barrier between us” and God that is no invitation to come to God and draw near him. Joseph Smith (a true prophet) told the 12: 'It is necessary that you receive the same testimony as the ancients that you see the face of God/Jesus that he lays his hands on you. It’s your duty and privilege to bear such a testimony for yourselves.' He invited all saints to have the same experiences and to seek the face of Jesus where they too could handle and see (Church History Vol 2:193-199). Jesus Christ is unique. the incarnation is what makes him accessible as an embodied (lived on our planet) God. Jesus invites us to "handle me and see," the HG and Father do not give us that invitation. Just my thoughts

Sorry to post on an old topic but I have had the same question and just want to leave this here for those who come across it like I just did years later. I have also heard in Sunday School etc. that it was only OK because Jesus was "physically present" and able to hear them right there. Yet look what happens next: At the end of this miraculous scene of mediation and prayer Jesus commands “the multitude that they should cease to pray… And he commanded them that they should not cease to pray in their hearts” (20:1). Jesus here tells his believers that they should continue to pray to him in their hearts which is efficacious despite not being physically in the presence of Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus consistently promises that he “will be with [us]” and that he will never leave us, which would seem to meet the criteria of being “with them,” which explains why Ananias, Stephen, John, Alma, Nephi, and Joseph Smith all prayed to Jesus. Scripture sanctions and invites us to call upon, ask, and praise Jesus Christ through song and prayer directed to him. Furthermore, saints are never forbidden to do so. Should saints pray to the Father in the name of Christ as Jesus taught? Of course! Can saints call upon, ask, and praise Jesus Christ through prayer? Of course.

I would like to resurrect this topic or at least leave my thoughts posted to the interwebs. I am wondering where the current LDS tradition of not praying to Jesus comes from?? (probably the infamous McConky) All saints from the Old Testament to the New Testament, to the Book of Mormon, and D&C all pray to Jesus at times, and especially for forgiveness. Throughout the Doctrine and Covenants Joseph Smith and the saints pray to Jesus Christ repeatedly as he hears and answers their prayers. The heading to each section frequently mentions Joseph petitioning “the Lord” (Jesus) and receiving his responses. A common invitation in scripture and repeated in the Doctrine and Covenants is to call upon the Lord Jesus to be saved. Jesus speaks to the elect who “humble themselves before me, and call upon me in mighty prayer” (D&C 29:1–2;). Jesus Christ hears and answers prayers: “And again, I say unto you that ye shall not go until ye have preached my gospel in those parts, and have strengthened up the church whithersoever it is found, and more especially in Colesville; for, behold, they pray unto me in much faith” (D&C 37:2). Jesus speaks directly to an individual and says: “I say unto you, my servant Sidney Gilbert, that I have heard your prayers; and you have called upon me that it should be made known unto you, of the Lord your God, concerning your calling and election in the church, which I, the Lord, have raised up in these last days. Behold, I, the Lord, who was crucified for the sins of the world, give unto you a commandment that you shall forsake the world (53: 1–2). Jesus’s openness to his servants’ prayers is not just for recent converts but also Church leaders: “Behold and hearken, O ye elders of my church, who have assembled yourselves together, whose prayers I have heard, and whose hearts I know, and whose desires have come up before me” (D&C 67: 1). Saints pray to the Father daily and do also call upon Jesus occasionally. So to me it is ironic that LDSaints are averse to praying to Jesus when according to Doctrine and Covenants 25, every saint who sings praises at Church in fact is offering “a prayer unto me [Jesus Christ]” (25:12).

Hello hello. What thoughts do y'all have on this verse that seems to require restitution (as part of repentance) for your "fathers" (parents/grandparents) sins? Jesus is talking about the saints' enemies that 'come against them.' One qualifier is that this verse only applies to a very narrow group of people who happen to be posterity of grievous repeat repeat offenders who are convicted in a way via testimony before Jesus by the offended saints (presumable through prayer). The LDS footnote goes straight to the Article of Faith about humans being "punished for their own sins". Thinking about restitution and the context of being driven out of the saint's land brings up the idea of posterity having to restore that land to the saints as part of their forgiveness. That could have contemporary parallels if it is correct? D&C 98: 46 And upon his children, and upon his children’s children of all them that hate me, unto the third and fourth generation. 47 But if the children shall repent, or the children’s children, and turn to the Lord their God, with all their hearts and with all their might, mind, and strength, and restore four-fold for all their trespasses wherewith they have trespassed, or wherewith their fathers have trespassed, or their fathers’ fathers, then thine indignation shall be turned away; My current answer is that the posterity's repentance is independent of the restitution but that the restitution is tied to the saint's indignation being turned away (not Jesus').

Got it. But don't you believe in Resurrection jajaja. My friend was looking for the article, now it is all in one place and google searchable. This forum is a great resource! @Vort That is the point I was trying to make. The adjective "eternal" does mean without end.

Available here: https://rsc-legacy.byu.edu/sites/default/files/newsletters/May%2C 1994.pdf

The article is available here: https://rsc-legacy.byu.edu/sites/default/files/newsletters/May%2C%201994.pdf Stephen E. Robinson "eternities that come and go" religious studies center newsletter vol 8 no 3 may 1994 That said, Joseph Smith also clearly taught that there was NO BEGINNING to that which is Eternal. It is not so simple as to discard the contemporary definition of "eternal." “I believe that God is eternal. That He had no beginning, and can have no end . Eternity means that which is without beginning or end. I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning; it can have no end…But the idea seemed to be that the soul of man , the spirit , had existed from eternity in the bosom of Divinity.” (5 February 1840 (Wednesday Evening) . Washington , D.C. History of the Church, 4:78-80) One will say that we affirm he has a body, and thus his body had a beginning, in that it was formed out of element. "We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple and first principles of the gospel, to know for a certainty the character of God." (published in Times and Seasons, 5 (August 15, 1844)) “The Spirit of Man is not a created being; it existed from Eternity & will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be Eternal. & earth, water &c—all these had their existence in an elementary State from Eternity.” Before 8 August 1839 Abraham 3:18 spirits had no beginning. The spirit matter, its substance. - But God the Father, having always been God, is God without his body, and today his body is the reciprocal of his substance/intelligence/mind which itself is God. “The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God” (Doctrine Covenants 93:35). So, his body consisting of elements, though eternal, are not God. Rather what is inside the elements is God. That’s why John 4:24 says, “God is Spirit.” And why DC 93:33 Jesus says, “Man is spirit.” We have bodies, but who and what we really are is the eternal Spirit. Thus, God is entirely Eternal, and the beginning of his body does not take away from his Eternal existence. One might say well that constitutes a significant change and God cannot “change.” Jesus Christ also it is written is “the same yesterday, today, and forever.” However, it is obvious that he first as a spiritual being entered into flesh, which to us appears to be a “change,” but in reality it is not because Jesus retained his Eternal substance/intelligence/mind and godhood within himself unchanged. Jehovah was spirit, then embodied in mortal flesh, then spirit once again, and finally immortal spirit and body. He underwent all these changes, and yet the various prophetic witnesses of Him assure us of His unchanging nature.

@NeuroTypical Got it, Thanks for the heads up.

@rameumptom Children "already exalted" in premortality. wow, that is entirely absurd: Some have reasoned that these little children must have been the best in premortality and agreed to be foreordained to automatic exaltation. Yet, the most “noble and great ones” in premortality and the “choice spirits” were those foreordained to obtain the Priesthood and chosen “to be rulers in the Church of God.” The best spirits in premortality were chosen to be adults and perform a work and were not chosen to die as children (Abraham 3:22–23; Doctrine and Covenants 138:53–55; Alma 13:3). Brigham Young did not believe any child was ordained to die in infancy, but rather that God willed all to grow to adulthood, if they could. Similar to the differing theories that Wilford Woodruff observed regarding the growth of children, we see muddled opinions on the subject of exaltation. Rather than ascribe to the shaky foundation of theory, one could choose to believe the Prophet Joseph’s own declaration on the topic. On 18 May 1843 He said, “Children who die in infancy...will have as much intelligence as we shall but shall always remain separate and single. They will have no increase.” That same week Joseph taught that “those who keep no eternal law in this life...are single and alone in the eternal world.” Borrowing the language of Doctrine and Covenant 132:17, little children who die “cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity.” The Prophet Joseph’s assertion that little children would be single and without increase (progeny) concurs with his visionary teaching that children would not grow and thus not be able to procreate. Whether we perceive it as just or not, these children will receive celestial glory and joy. Their size will not hinder their ability to enjoy, interact, and live in the eternal worlds. Please Read: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L4HTNE3hDiKLWuBxWe5T4n-nIiyd1eLy/view?usp=sharing

It is an important topic. The Prophet Joseph Smith, who was intimately interested in the topic, taught consistently from 1842 until very shortly before his death in 1844 that children would not grow after the resurrection. Eternity is full of a beautiful group differing in size and physical attributes. The Prophet Joseph’s teachings, based on his revelations and visions, were recorded contemporaneously, by multiple witnesses, and in both public and private settings with stunning harmony. It was not until decades after his death that his consistency on the topic was questioned. Additionally, the lack of exaltation was attested and aligns with Joseph’s teaching that they would not grow and thus, by default, could not procreate or have offspring. Such a doctrine, while difficult to swallow, concurs with the plan of salvation which requires individuals to be tempted, exercise agency in the midst of opposition, taste the bitter, and suffer, which these children can never do. After his death, the Apostles, many of whom had not attended his discourses due to having been away on missions, developed differing opinions and theories about the destiny of little children. The next four Church Presidents who succeeded the Prophet Joseph, and knew him personally, never ventured to correct his recorded teachings on the matter. Eventually, it was Joseph F. Smith who made a push to establish a doctrine on the subject with an appeal to late recollections of familial and private statements made in 1843; which even if correct would be superseded by the Prophet’s later declarations. This article goes through it in detail: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L4HTNE3hDiKLWuBxWe5T4n-nIiyd1eLy/view?usp=sharing