Non-LDS: Why do you pray?


Jane_Doe
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guidance, is what I would call Wisdom, which is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Knowledge and Wisdom are not the same thing. Knowledge is what can be cognitively understood by obtaining information or experience. It has many properties, one of which is, subjectivity. The other is that knowledge is illusionary, by that I mean, believing one has obtained absolute knowledge of something, which is of course an illusion. Absolute knowledge is not possible.

 

Wisdom goes beyond simple knowledge and penetrates deeper into truth and the mysteries of God.

 

Ok, I can see where you're coming from. Thinking out loud here---

 

How would you then phrase something like "to know Jesus is the Christ"?  To say "to wisdom Jesus the Christ" doesn't make sense, because "wisdom" is not a verb.  What would you say then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd say, "to Love Jesus Christ", because that is the type of "knowing" that a disciple of Christ has.

 

To be clear, Catholics are all about a balance of Faith and Reason. Both are gifts from God, and so they work together towards bringing us to Him. Somewhere around here (this forum) I read that LDS find reason "suspicious". I say :huh: to that. Reason, being the knowledge part...a cognitive understanding of what it means to be a Christian. But mere intellectualism does not convert one to Christ. The other part is faith, with both faith and wisdom being gifts of the Holy Spirit. So you'll hear us Catholics say, it is the Spirit that converts people to Christ, not knowledge, ie. book-reading, classroom teaching, parents threatening  :P.  But, faith without reason leads to irrational zealotry. 

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a statement of evangelization, that is, the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ. It is not a statement about one's Salvation or how one could merit Salvation (there is no way for us to merit Salvation).

 

Not so. "Life eternal" does not refer to "evangelization"; I have never heard anyone who interprets it that way. It doesn't even make sense in context (or out of context). "Life eternal" is clearly a reference to salvation. This scripture teaches, in undeniable and crystal clear language, that life eternal consists in KNOWING God and his Christ.

 

Please avoid wresting scripture in an attempt to win a meaningless online debate. It will result only in harm for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so. "Life eternal" does not refer to "evangelization"; I have never heard anyone who interprets it that way. It doesn't even make sense in context (or out of context). "Life eternal" is clearly a reference to salvation. This scripture teaches, in undeniable and crystal clear language, that life eternal consists in KNOWING God and his Christ.

 

Please avoid wresting scripture in an attempt to win a meaningless online debate. It will result only in harm for you.

Perhaps you perceive a competition? I do not. Thought it was a discussion. But if you feel the need to "win", then perhaps it is you not I that is exacting self harm.

 

The entire sentence is a statement of evangelization. What is the Good News? That sentence sums it very nicely. What is the Great Commission? To teach what is in that sentence to all the Nations! Evangelization. 

 

I view scripture in context of the whole, not two words wrestled out of one sentence.  :) I hold no ill will towards you if you want to see it as you do. Discussion does not mean we need to agree. Not agreeing does not mean someone "lost" and someone "won".

 

Eternal Life, Salvation, is for ALL. This gift does not disappear just because you didn't hear about it!

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Perhaps you perceive a competition?

No. I perceive an agenda.

 

I do not. Thought it was a discussion.

Indeed it is. But when you make an assertion such as "None [no knowledge] that I know of [will save us]", and I respond by giving you a scriptural verse that definitively demonstrates that the knowledge of God and Chist actually DEFINES "eternal life", I would expect an answer other than, "Oh, well, that doesn't count, because it's actually talking about something completely different from what it says it's talking about."

 

Look, you are free to believe whatever you want. You can believe that Jesus was actually talking about harvesting lemons in August, if you want. But such scriptural glossing, wherein we force the scriptures to conform to our predetermined beliefs rather than investigate them to see what they say, can backfire.

 

The entire sentence is a statement of evangelization. What is the Good News? That sentence sums it very nicely. What is the Great Commission? To teach what is in that sentence to all the Nations! Evangelization.

Except that the statement doesn't say "And this is your missionary message." It says "this is life eternal". That's speaking of salvation, however you parse it. And it is knowledge.

 

I view scripture in context of the whole, not two words wrestled out of one sentence.   :)

Feel free to demonstrate how your gloss fits the context of the Savior's words, or how mine does them violence.

 

 

Eternal Life, Salvation, is for ALL. This gift does not disappear just because you didn't hear about it!

 

Granted. But even Catholics -- ESPECIALLY Catholics -- believe that a person must hear and accept the gospel message in order to be saved. Please note that that means both knowledge (hearing) and action (accepting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No. I perceive an agenda.

 

Indeed it is. But when you make an assertion such as "None [no knowledge] that I know of [will save us]", and I respond by giving you a scriptural verse that definitively demonstrates that the knowledge of God and Chist actually DEFINES "eternal life", I would expect an answer other than, "Oh, well, that doesn't count, because it's actually talking about something completely different from what it says it's talking about."

 

Look, you are free to believe whatever you want. You can believe that Jesus was actually talking about harvesting lemons in August, if you want. But such scriptural glossing, wherein we force the scriptures to conform to our predetermined beliefs rather than investigate them to see what they say, can backfire.

 

Except that the statement doesn't say "And this is your missionary message." It says "this is life eternal". That's speaking of salvation, however you parse it. And it is knowledge.

 

Feel free to demonstrate how your gloss fits the context of the Savior's words, or how mine does them violence.

 

 

 

Granted. But even Catholics -- ESPECIALLY Catholics -- believe that a person must hear and accept the gospel message in order to be saved. Please note that that means both knowledge (hearing) and action (accepting).

 

I answered a question posed to non-LDS. If that constitutes an agenda to you, so be it.

 

I already explained my POV, and I already understand that we disagree.

 

From the Catholic Catechism, paragraph 847:

 

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

 

 

There is scriptural basis for this. John 9:41 Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains.

 

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin.

 

 

 

In short, to circle around, Salvation is a gift that exists in Jesus Christ. Salvation is, like Christ is. It is not an ethereal something that waxes and wanes according to the knowledge of men.

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I value the importance of people defining their terms, I don't like debating "you should use this word" because it I find it degrades to tail chasing.  Therefore, I'm specifically not getting involved in any "great commission" "evangelizing" or whatever debate.

 

Instead, I'm just going ask questions to non-LDS folks, as was this thread's original purpose.  I'm a very happily LDS person, but I do enjoy interfaith dialogue and understanding those who see the world differently.

 

Would you pray for something like:

*  To ___(whatever verb you want to use)__ that Jesus is the Christ?

*  To ______ that the Bible is God's word?

*  To ______ God loves you?

*  To ______ a concept presented at church that you're struggling with?

*  To ______ whether or not you should take a job offer in another state?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you pray for something like:


 


*  To know that Jesus is the Christ?


No, I believe that Jesus is the Saviour because of scripture and faith.


 


*  To know that the Bible is God's word?


No, I have a very liberal view of the Bible as God's word. I don't need to pray about it to understand how I feel about it.


 


*  To know God loves you?


No, I believe God loves me.


 


*  To know a concept presented at church that you're struggling with?


No, for example, the concept of hell. I would not pray about understanding if this is real or not, I would study it out.


 


*  To know whether or not you should take a job offer in another state?


No, I would make that decision based on my own needs, the job, the pros and cons of moving, etc.


 


For me prayer is more of a comfort action. Talking with God about what's in my head at that moment.


 


M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay...

 

Explaining blueskye to the LDS folks:

 

You are looking at the word "knowledge" in the same context.

 

This is another one of those pitfalls of using LDS versus Catholic lingo.  To understand where the Catholic is coming from - one needs to understand the history of the schisms and the protestant movement.  Also keep in mind that the Catholic canon is closed.

 

A Catholic, by virtue of them already being Catholic... is supposed to be exercising faith in God/Christ.  So praying for knowledge (LDS context) that "this is life eternal..." is already past.  For knowledge (LDS context) of gospel truth - this is not the process by which Catholics gain truth (praying for it).  What they pray for is that God protects/preserves/enlightens the magisterium.  This is the bastion of truth and all truth is contained in it (closed canon).  Any personal knowledge derived outside the bounds of the magisterium is not truth... so that's why blueskye's first sentence is a reference to the danger of Gnosticism if one prays for knowledge.  This is also somewhat of a defense mechanism formed in response to the schisms and the rise of the protestant.  So, a Catholic prayer would be for better understanding and faith of the teachings of the magesterium and not for "knowledge".

 

But... Catholics do pray for knowledge (Catholic context would probably be more friendly to the word "understanding", "light", "Holy Spirit").

 

So, as a Catholic... what do they say to those who are non-Christians?  How can they "know Christ"?  They pray for faith in God and the teachings of the church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  All of which is the exact same thing an LDS prays for when they pray "to know".

 

Now to Blueskye:

You are incorrect to say that LDS is suspicious of reason.  This is untrue.  LDS is even more open to reason than the Catholic as a result of the LDS Article of Faith:

"... we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

"... If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things".

 

Reason, scientific discoveries, modern revelations are sought by every LDS member.  But, just as the Catholic is always wary of the pitfalls of incorrect interpretation, so is the LDS wary of reasoning that leads outside of the gospel.  Hence, the LDS is always urged to pray with a humble heart and pure intent for knowledge.

 

So, basically, how does an LDS "know" that what the church teaches is correct?  The church doesn't say "This is the truth because we told you so".  Rather, the church says - pray to God that He may reveal to you the truth in the same manner that God revealed to Simon that Jesus is the Christ.  The LDS refers to this truth as knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I value the importance of people defining their terms, I don't like debating "you should use this word" because it I find it degrades to tail chasing.  Therefore, I'm specifically not getting involved in any "great commission" "evangelizing" or whatever debate.

 

Instead, I'm just going ask questions to non-LDS folks, as was this thread's original purpose.  I'm a very happily LDS person, but I do enjoy interfaith dialogue and understanding those who see the world differently.

 

Would you pray for something like:

*  To ___(whatever verb you want to use)__ that Jesus is the Christ?

*  To ______ that the Bible is God's word?

*  To ______ God loves you?

*  To ______ a concept presented at church that you're struggling with?

*  To ______ whether or not you should take a job offer in another state?

 

Prayer, to me, not a relationship for discovering what I want, but what God desires.

 

I have never prayed those specific things above. I have prayed for God to lead me to Him, the answer being, a gift of Faith that Jesus is God. God who loves me so much He died for me. If I did not believe that God is Love, I think I would have had a pretty hard time as it is following that Love that led me from atheism to Christianity.

 

Catholicism is not a religion of a book, so praying about a book is not something I would do.  I'm also of the mindset that if were to pray about one book, why wouldn't I pray about every book that is sacred to every religion?  I find that impractical.

 

I haven't prayed about any religious concepts, again, just my usual lead me to you and keep me there. That I think is a personal thing, and everyone is different. If/when I don't understand something, I study about it, and observe whether or not I am led to God, or away from God. In short, a Christ-centered life is what I seek.

 

A job is a job, and I take the view that if God desired me to be a certain place, He'd clear the way to get me there. I'd view a job offer as a piece to consider in discerning God's Will for myself, family and community, but I wouldn't necessarily pray  "should I take the job". More like, "if that's where you want me to go then I'll go". Then discerning whether or not that is really where God wants me to go. But mainly, I hold the belief that God is with me no matter where I'm at, and I seek to cooperate with His will no matter where I am. So praying, should I go here or there, I may do in the context of "keep me with you", but no so much in terms of "should I stay or should I go".  

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay...

 

Explaining blueskye to the LDS folks:

 

You are looking at the word "knowledge" in the same context.

 

This is another one of those pitfalls of using LDS versus Catholic lingo.  To understand where the Catholic is coming from - one needs to understand the history of the schisms and the protestant movement.  Also keep in mind that the Catholic canon is closed.

 

A Catholic, by virtue of them already being Catholic... is supposed to be exercising faith in God/Christ.  So praying for knowledge (LDS context) that "this is life eternal..." is already past.  For knowledge (LDS context) of gospel truth - this is not the process by which Catholics gain truth (praying for it).  What they pray for is that God protects/preserves/enlightens the magisterium.  This is the bastion of truth and all truth is contained in it (closed canon).  Any personal knowledge derived outside the bounds of the magisterium is not truth... so that's why blueskye's first sentence is a reference to the danger of Gnosticism if one prays for knowledge.  This is also somewhat of a defense mechanism formed in response to the schisms and the rise of the protestant.  So, a Catholic prayer would be for better understanding and faith of the teachings of the magesterium and not for "knowledge".

 

But... Catholics do pray for knowledge (Catholic context would probably be more friendly to the word "understanding", "light", "Holy Spirit").

 

So, as a Catholic... what do they say to those who are non-Christians?  How can they "know Christ"?  They pray for faith in God and the teachings of the church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  All of which is the exact same thing an LDS prays for when they pray "to know".

 

Now to Blueskye:

You are incorrect to say that LDS is suspicious of reason.  This is untrue.  LDS is even more open to reason than the Catholic as a result of the LDS Article of Faith:

"... we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

"... If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things".

 

Reason, scientific discoveries, modern revelations are sought by every LDS member.  But, just as the Catholic is always wary of the pitfalls of incorrect interpretation, so is the LDS wary of reasoning that leads outside of the gospel.  Hence, the LDS is always urged to pray with a humble heart and pure intent for knowledge.

 

So, basically, how does an LDS "know" that what the church teaches is correct?  The church doesn't say "This is the truth because we told you so".  Rather, the church says - pray to God that He may reveal to you the truth in the same manner that God revealed to Simon that Jesus is the Christ.  The LDS refers to this truth as knowledge.

Thanks. But I've never prayed for better understanding of the Magisterium. lol. As I said, from atheism to where I am, I had one prayer, "lead me to you". I never planned on becoming Catholic. I'm the most surprised by anyone that I said "yes" to baptism. But I could not deny where God has led me.

 

My ascent to the Magisterium is not much different than the ascent of the LDS to your own leaders. Like you and your leaders, I believe our Bishops are led the Holy Spirit. I believe the authority to interpret scripture is held in the Catholic Church.

 

I am not a robotron, and am capable of thinking, thanks.  Reason and faith need to work together for me, otherwise, both reason and faith make no sense to me at all. I need both. :) I've never believed anything because the Magisterium said so.

 

The LDS aversion to philosophy is irrational, to my view, and is the context of the comment I read and thought huh? 

 

ETA; I believe Jesus is the Son of God, because of Faith itself. I had none. Zero. Zip. And now I do. That Faith is and was not self generated from myself but comes from outside myself. As I said, a gift of the Spirit. Which to me is the same as Simon Peter, who believed by the Spirit. I asked for God to lead me to Him, and He did indeed answer that prayer in ways I never anticipated. My experience is more analogous to, my head being a filing cabinet and when I wasn't looking, someone slipped a file in that wasn't there before. :D Sure, my study of Christianity helped me to grasp what was slipped in, but what wasn't there, is there, and I didn't put it there. (Thanks be to God!) That is my experience.

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS aversion to philosophy is irrational, to my view, and is the context of the comment I read and thought huh? 

Interesting. What, exactly, do you find "irrational" about refusing to accept unprovable neoplatonic ideas at face value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you like to rephrase that in a form other than a loaded question?

Not really. Your statement was, "The LDS aversion to philosophy is irrational, to my view". I want to understand what is irrational about it.

 

Since the very foundation of what we (and especially Catholicism) call "philosophy" is rooted in Plato and specifically in second- and third-century neoplatonism, I think my question is well-phrased as is. But if you can think of a more useful way of asking the question that still gets to the same central point, I'd be interested to know. In any case, I would like to hear your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. Your statement was, "The LDS aversion to philosophy is irrational, to my view". I want to understand what is irrational about it.

 

Since the very foundation of what we (and especially Catholicism) call "philosophy" is rooted in Plato and specifically in second- and third-century neoplatonism, I think my question is well-phrased as is. But if you can think of a more useful way of asking the question that still gets to the same central point, I'd be interested to know. In any case, I would like to hear your answer.

 

If you'd like to discuss what philosophy is and how it is used to explain religious ideas, I'm good with that. But I have nothing to say about "unprovable neoplatonic ideas".  :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd like to discuss what philosophy is and how it is used to explain religious ideas, I'm good with that. But I have nothing to say about "unprovable neoplatonic ideas".  :rolleyes:

blueskye, please stop dodging the question. Your statement was, "The LDS aversion to philosophy is irrational, to my view". Please explain what is irrational about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blueskye, please stop dodging the question. Your statement was, "The LDS aversion to philosophy is irrational, to my view". Please explain what is irrational about it.

Your question is a loaded question, ie, a logical fallacy, which means there is no logical answer. So there is no dodge, but I do not see the point of discussion that begins with a question that asserts something I never argued, or believe. So, the onus is put on you to either rephrase the question, or back up the assertion in the loaded question. Here, you've rephrased.

 

Philosophy is a discipline, and is used as a tool to explain what is believed. There is no rational reason to not use philosophy to explain theology. The two work together, theology is the study of what is believed and practiced. Doctrines, dogmas, liturgies, etc. Philosophy works with theology to describe what is believed and practiced in rational terms, using defined language of the philosophical discipline.

 

The general LDS assertion, that seem to be taught quite prevalently as near-doctrine, is that Catholic doctrines, dogmas, liturgies, etc. are rooted in philosophy, but that is precisely backwards. So what I see, is an irrational fear that philosophy defines belief, and so "oooh be afraid and avoid philosophy". It is a fear based on not understanding the role of philosophy in religion. Fear steeped in ignorance, is not a rational approach to anything.

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS aversion to philosophy is irrational, to my view, and is the context of the comment I read and thought huh? 

 

Is that why I've heard Leibniz,Dag Hammarskjöld, C.S. Lewis,Martin Buber amongst other thinkers quoted by our Apostles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I take back everything I said about Blueskye's assertions.

 

 

Blueskye is not talking as a Catholic but as blueskye...

 

I apologize if I have confused y'all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general LDS assertion, that seem to be taught quite prevalently as near-doctrine, is that Catholic doctrines, dogmas, liturgies, etc. are rooted in philosophy, but that is precisely backwards. So what I see, is an irrational fear that philosophy defines belief, and so "oooh be afraid and avoid philosophy". It is a fear based on not understanding the role of philosophy in religion. Fear steeped in ignorance, is not a rational approach to anything.

 

You are seeing incorrectly.  LDS do not fear nor avoid philosophy.  The LDS assertion is that Catholic doctrine are rooted in philosophy from learned men and NOT priesthood authority.  The LDS, therefore, do not fear philosophy (LDS article of faith again -  "If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things." ).  Rather we accept/reject philosophical reasoning according to the direction of Priesthood Authority in the order of the House of the Lord. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend that doesn't subscribe to any faith but prays in a sense. I did in fact ask him why he does this if he doesn't believe in god, and he basically told me, that it's just a way to take a moment and say out loud: "I'm grateful for the things I have." Even though he doesn't believe anyone actually listens, he feels good about doing this every morning when he gets up.

 

I think there's a sense of spiritual peace many feel when they can verbalise gratitude or thoughts, somewhat like a prayer, even if they are not religious at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LDS assertion is that Catholic doctrine are rooted in philosophy from learned men and NOT priesthood authority.   

Doctrines are rooted in the teachings of the Apostles. Philosophy is a tool that describes those teachings using disciplines of rational thought and methods. Philosophies are not doctrines, and are viewed by Catholics as humans describing what has been divinely revealed. Philosophies are not viewed as divine revelations. This does not mean we see the inspiration of the Holy Spirit absent from rational thought. We don't separate out God or view God as absent from any aspect of our lives or what we do.

Edited by blueskye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctrines are rooted in the teachings of the Apostles. Philosophy is a tool that describes those teachings using disciplines of rational thought and methods. Philosophies are not doctrines, and are viewed by Catholics as humans describing what has been divinely revealed. Philosophies are not viewed as divine revelations. This does not mean we see the inspiration of the Holy Spirit absent from rational thought. We don't separate out God or view God as absent from any aspect of our lives or what we do.

 

I'm a curious investigative person-- I want to understand people and what the believe.

 

Catholicism is a old and rich tradition, and I greatly enjoy chatting about their beliefs.  When chatting with various folks, several of them have used Plato-based analogies for explaining things.  Which strikes me as odd (to explain Christian beliefs by citing a pagan).  People then tell me how it's an explanatory tool, which is ok.  But then I ask if they can explain it without citing pagans and... I haven't yet gotten an answer.  Do you have one??

 

Philosophy is good, but theology and God should always be the center and foundation of everything.

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share