3 Nephi 19:18

[Larry Cotrell]

Why do the disciples pray directly to Jesus in 3 Nephi 19:18? (18 And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.)

[zil]

46 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Why do the disciples pray directly to Jesus in 3 Nephi 19:18? (18 And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.)

See v. 22.  If more than that has been said to explain this, I can't find it.

[Larry Cotrell]

So, should we pray to Jesus as well?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

So, should we pray to Jesus as well?

"I am with them", in this sense, does not refer to the generic/metaphorical sense of Jesus "being with us" in our daily Christian walk.  The typical interpretation of v. 22 is that while God the Father has generally instructed us to pray to Him in the name of Jesus, it is appropriate to pray directly to Jesus when in His direct physical proximity.  

Edited August 29, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[NeedleinA]

3 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Why do the disciples pray directly to Jesus in 3 Nephi 19:18? (18 And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.)

3 Nephi 19:18, 22. “They did pray unto Jesus” lds.org Seminary Manual

From the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets, we know that we are to worship God the Father and pray to Him only. We should not pray to Jesus Christ. For example, the Savior taught the Nephites, “Ye must always pray unto the Father in my name” (3 Nephi 18:19). However, shortly after the Savior taught this, His Nephite disciples prayed directly to Him (see 3 Nephi 19:18). They did so, He said, because He was with them (see 3 Nephi 19:22). Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained that this was an exception—a unique situation:

“There was a special reason why this was done in this instance and on a onetime basis. Jesus had already taught them to pray in his name to the Father, which they first did. … Jesus was present before them as the symbol of the Father. Seeing him, it was as though they saw the Father; praying to him, it was as though they prayed to the Father. It was a special and unique situation” (The Promised Messiah [1978], 560, 561).

[Larry Cotrell]

Thank you for your comments,

Another example of this is in Acts 7:59, " And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." In this passage as well, Stephen prays to Jesus. Was this the wrong thing to do?

 

[Just_A_Guy]

It isn't in harmony with the example Jesus Himself set; but I'm not going to begrudge a dying man in the throes of torture for a relatively minor theological/procedural slip-up.  Assuming, of course, that he was actually wrong--we know that he saw Jesus either during, or immediately before, his prayer.

[Larry Cotrell]

Stephen is believed to have been martyred within five years of Jesus' death and resurrection. His cry for help seems to reflect the fact that praying to Jesus was standard in the early church. His final cry before death would not have been to someone who he's never prayed to before. Also, I would add that praying to someone that you shouldn't be praying to is not a "minor theological/procedural slip-up," it's a big deal. Finally, to address the Lords prayer, just because Jesus prayed to his father doesn't mean we have to every time. We can (and should) pray to Jesus because He is the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5) and prays to the father on our behalf (John 17:20-23).

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Stephen is believed to have been martyred within five years of Jesus' death and resurrection. His cry for help seems to reflect the fact that praying to Jesus was standard in the early church. His final cry before death would not have been to someone who he's never prayed to before. Also, I would add that praying to someone that you shouldn't be praying to is not a "minor theological/procedural slip-up," it's a big deal. Finally, to address the Lords prayer, just because Jesus prayed to his father doesn't mean we have to every time. We can (and should) pray to Jesus because He is the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5) and prays to the father on our behalf (John 17:20-23).

Thank you for sharing your faith's interpretation of the events and doctrines.

I'd point out that you were asking about a Book of Mormon verse.  I'd also point out that you posted it as a topic of discussion in the "LDS Gospel Discussion" forum, which would imply that you were interested in how we as Latter-day Saints interpret the doctrine.  We've done so.  

While we may disagree theologically and obviously in the interpretation of scripture and the application of the principles provided therein, we answered the question that was asked.  We're not trying to convert you or convince you.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Guest

[Traveler]

10 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Thank you for your comments,

Another example of this is in Acts 7:59, " And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." In this passage as well, Stephen prays to Jesus. Was this the wrong thing to do?

 

 

Is it praying to a waiter at a restraint when we say, ”Waiter, bring the check please”?  Is it praying to the bank when we say, “Please receive this money and deposit it into my account”?

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Is it praying to a waiter at a restraint when we say, ”Waiter, bring the check please”?  Is it praying to the bank when we say, “Please receive this money and deposit it into my account”?

 

The Traveler

Heh.  In civil litigation, when you file the initial "complaint" that starts the lawsuit, the last paragraph tells the court exactly what you want them to do; and that portion is traditionally called a "prayer for relief". 

I've had several divorce clients come in and ask what the heck praying has to do with their court case . . .

Edited August 29, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Stephen is believed to have been martyred within five years of Jesus' death and resurrection. His cry for help seems to reflect the fact that praying to Jesus was standard in the early church. His final cry before death would not have been to someone who he's never prayed to before.  Finally, to address the Lords prayer, just because Jesus prayed to his father doesn't mean we have to every time. We can (and should) pray to Jesus because He is the mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5) and prays to the father on our behalf (John 17:20-23).

I think any argument about historical practices of early Christianity--on either side of this particular issue--comes pretty solidly into the realm of speculation; nor are the theological arguments really conclusive.  Stephen does one thing; our Lord does another; and neither of the scriptures you cite give us a direct injunction on the issue--they merely serve as bases from which we attempt to draw inferences which may or may not be accurate. 

We could go tit for tat all day on this, of course; but that's not really the purpose of this particular forum--and judging by your early posts, which presented you as sincerely asking questions rather than just baiting us in anticipation of a theological "gotcha"; I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's not really why you're here, either.   

Quote

Also, I would add that praying to someone that you shouldn't be praying to is not a "minor theological/procedural slip-up," it's a big deal.

Not especially so, in Mormonism, if the person you're "praying to" is Jesus rather than the Father.  Yeah, Mormonism can put a lot of effort into getting our procedures and ceremonies right--that's why we do temple ceremonies on behalf of deceased individuals; and it's why--if you go into a Mormon church on Sunday, and see the priest flub up while offering the sacramental prayer--the priest will probably repeat the prayer, multiple times if necessary, until he gets it right.  And, as Needle points out, our own leadership has asked us to be careful to address our prayers to the Father.  But Mormonism is also very big on the idea of a God who is mindful of our intent and judges mercifully; and we don't rove over the earth gleefully pronouncing eternal damnation on sincerely faithful people who happen to have said the wrong thing.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[NeedleinA]

Curious "Larry", since you are interested in asking us questions, I figured you wouldn't mind answering one of mine. Who is this guy in relation to you?

[Anddenex]

12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It isn't in harmony with the example Jesus Himself set; but I'm not going to begrudge a dying man in the throes of torture for a relatively minor theological/procedural slip-up.  Assuming, of course, that he was actually wrong--we know that he saw Jesus either during, or immediately before, his prayer.

Also, to note, I have never interpreted this statement from Stephen as a prayer. This appears to be a statement of fact knowing he was about to die, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."

[Larry Cotrell]

Okay, NeedleinA, I will admit that is not a picture of me. But in all fairness, I don't think you are a bale of hay, which is your profile picture. In any case, we are getting off topic. I appreciate everyone's comments 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Okay, NeedleinA, I will admit that is not a picture of me. But in all fairness, I don't think you are a bale of hay, which is your profile picture. In any case, we are getting off topic. I appreciate everyone's comments 

Different things altogether. I'm curious about the significance of your profile pic, too. 

[Larry Cotrell]

My profile picture has no significance. Some people say I am "just baiting [you] in anticipation of a theological "gotcha" (Just_a_guy) but I can assure you that I am just a guy who wants to follow the example set by the Bereans in Acts 17 ( These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. KJV) I think searching the scriptures to find truth is something we could all agree on

[zil]

21 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Some people say I am "just baiting [you] in anticipation of a theological "gotcha" (Just_a_guy) but I can assure you that I am just a guy who wants to follow the example set by the Bereans in Acts 17 ...

Actually, he said that some people do that and he's assuming you're not.

[Larry Cotrell]

My apologies for misunderstanding

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

My profile picture has no significance. Some people say I am "just baiting [you] in anticipation of a theological "gotcha" (Just_a_guy) but I can assure you that I am just a guy who wants to follow the example set by the Bereans in Acts 17 ( These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. KJV) I think searching the scriptures to find truth is something we could all agree on

 

The Pharisees also studied the scriptures daily and without their contribution much of what we currently think of as scripture would not exist and they were so sure of their understanding of Biblical scripture (more pure and exact than our Biblical scripture) that they sought the death of Jesus with a preponderance of their numbers.   If Biblical Scripture was all that was needed to find truth - there would have been no wars between Christians for the last 2,000 years.

 

The Traveler

[Larry Cotrell]

I understand what your saying. However, the point I was trying to make with the Bereans is that we should measure teachings against the scriptures and that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16)

14 minutes ago, Traveler said:

(more pure and exact than our Biblical scripture)

In response to this, I would say that we have copies of every old testament book (with the exception of Esther) that were found in the caves at Qumran. These documents predate the pharisees of Jesus' time by hundreds of years. We can turn to these sources today to see that (the vast majority of) modern Bible translations match the original text.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

I understand what your saying. However, the point I was trying to make with the Bereans is that we should measure teachings against the scriptures and that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16)

In response to this, I would say that we have copies of every old testament book (with the exception of Esther) that were found in the caves at Qumran. These documents predate the pharisees of Jesus' time by hundreds of years. We can turn to these sources today to see that (the vast majority of) modern Bible translations match the original text.

As an amateur student of the Dead Sea Scripture – you error in understanding.  Actually there were multiple versions of the Old Testament scriptures with the exception of Isaiah for reasons that would take more time and space than would be interesting on a forum like this.  In fact until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered it was believed that the Masoretic Family of Biblical Texts were the most accurate of the ancient text (from which the foundation of Christian tradition was established over the last 2,000 years) – now it is considered almost the least accurate of many the families of Biblical Tests.  Even the Samaritan Pentateuch is considered more accurate because of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

What we have learned is that the vast majority of modern VERSIONS – note that modern Bibles are called “versions” and not translations – that from the collection of manuscripts involved in the Dead Sea Scrolls is that anciently the study of scripture was vastly different in method, structure as well and critical analysis than employed in modern culture.

History has proven that those “organizations” that have changed the culture of scripture analysis to the class of scholarly experts have failed miserably – so much so that there is no unity of doctrine among Christians that use the Bible as reference in modern society.

Note that no modern versions of the Bible today comes close to matching any ancient manuscript and that the establishment of the “Damascus” settlement by the Dead Sea was very close to the same time that the class of Pharisees were established in Jerusalem.  Please note that very few Christian scholars will admit that the Dead Sea settlement was called Damascus. 

 

The Traveler

Edited August 29, 2016 by Traveler
addid a note

[Larry Cotrell]

If you reject the Masoretic text, consider the Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated from original Hebrew texts. This translation was accepted by the Jewish leaders of the time as an accurate translation. We still have access to this document and can use it to check modern translations. Also, I am curious what translation of the Bible you read since you imply that the King James is unreliable (the King James translation is taken from the Masoretic text). 

[Traveler]

18 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

If you reject the Masoretic text, consider the Septuagint. The Septuagint was translated from original Hebrew texts. This translation was accepted by the Jewish leaders of the time as an accurate translation. We still have access to this document and can use it to check modern translations. Also, I am curious what translation of the Bible you read since you imply that the King James is unreliable (the King James translation is taken from the Masoretic text). 

 

First off – I did not say that any versions of the Bible are unreliable – what I am implying is that each copy of ancient texts has a place in history and all add value.  What we need to maintain is that scripture can be interpreted and applied in many different ways.  Many employ an attitude that the scriptures can only be applied with a particular interpretation.  But with all words in all languages – each word has what is called and extent and intent meaning.  The extent is all possible ways a particular word can be used.  The intent is an attempt to understand the intended purpose or meaning the word has in its context.   In addition there are literary structures that themselves add to the intended meaning – and with scripture there is often, by design, multiple intended meaning.

Thus in scripture there is what scholars call variant readings.  This is an effort to expand the meaning of various phrases in the text.  In addition there are two actual kind of original documents.  They are called autographs and autograms.   An autograph is a document written by the hand of the creator of the manuscript.  An autograph of the Book of Isaiah would be a manuscript written by the hand of Isaiah himself.  An autogram would be a document written by a scribe receiving dictation from the author themselves or an exact copy – in the same language – of an autograph.   Contrary to some uneducated claims – there are no originals of any Biblical texts.

One of the biggest problems in the religious community is the impression that they (they meaning a certain and particular group) understand the one and only meaning of a particular ancient passage of scripture.

In my personal library I have two King James versions and several other modern versions of the Bible – Including the only version I know that claims to be a direct translation of ancient Biblical texts.  I also have “official” translations of the Dead Sea Scripture – including the 50 DSS manuscripts that were anciently considered scripture that are excluded from modern Bibles.

I would also point out that anciently G-d called prophets to instruct, guide and act as proctor of covenants.  As valuable as ancient texts has been throughout history – there has never been a time when G-d communed to his covenant people that G-d did not employ both previous scripture and Prophets to employ understanding.

So may I ask you, @Larry Cotrell, if you are open to the possibility that the symbolism in ancient scripture that has been preserved for our day can have multiple application and meaning in our modern society?

 

The Traveler

[Larry Cotrell]

Yes, I would agree that symbolism in ancient scripture can have multiple applications in modern society.