How are we supposed to divide our worship of the Godhead?

[Guest]

This has been a topic that I've been wondering about. We talk about mainly Jesus in church,  conference talks and scriptures and it's His church, but isn't Heavenly Father the one we should be worshipping and forming a relationship with since He's the Father of us and God? And where does the Holy Ghost come in in our worship? 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Zarahemla

[zil]

7 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

isn't Heavenly Father the one we should be worshipping

Yes.

7 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

and forming a relationship with

Somewhere, there was a GA talk about not explicitly trying to form a special relationship with one member of the Godhead over the others.  (But I can't go hunt for it now.  Perhaps someone else remembers...)

7 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

And where does the Holy Ghost come in in our worship?

IMO, we worship the Father, in the name of the Son (and through his grace), and receive their will, guidance, and blessings through the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Sunday21]

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/10/the-souls-sincere-desire?lang=eng

In this conference talk, Sis mcconkie describes involving each member of the Godhead in prayer. This material is found towards the end of the talk.

[Edspringer]

Hi, there

In Exodus 20:3 we read: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”. This commandment refers to having any other person or thing to worship but God, the Father. He is the only true and living God to whom we are commanded to worship. Remember that Jehovah, the pre-mortal Jesus, who gave that commandment to the children of Israel.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has stated, in the last General Conference (talk entitled The Godhead and the Plan of Salvation), that to mortals, to us, the most visible member of the Godhead is Jesus Christ. I strongly recommend you to read the whole talk, but it becomes easier for us to understand why Jesus Christ seems to be more worshiped than the Father or the Holy Ghost. In fact His Atonement is essential in the plan of our Heavenly Father, but we must remember that the Savior credited all the glory to His Father and our Father. So, in my view, in terms of reverence, all three members of the Godhead are to be worshiped. In terms of glory, only the Father must be worshiped.

Now, it is important to understand and know:

We worship God the Father as the life Giver and the One who will reward us with eternal life;

We worship Jesus Christ because of His atoning sacrifice by having faith in Him, repenting of our sins and making and keeping covenants of salvation;

We worship the Holy Ghost by living in accordance to the laws and commandments of the Gospel, so our minds and hearts will be pure enough to receive His influence constantly. The Apostle Paul said we are the temple of the Spirit.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Edspringer

[Guest]

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_relationship-lord/

[The Folk Prophet]

12 hours ago, Zarahemla said:

This has been a topic that I've been wondering about. We talk about mainly Jesus in church,  conference talks and scriptures and it's His church, but isn't Heavenly Father the one we should be worshipping and forming a relationship with since He's the Father of us and God? And where does the Holy Ghost come in in our worship? 

I don't know if this has been said yet as I haven't read through the thread, but...we don't divide it. Why would we divide it? They are not divided. When we worship one we worship three and vice versa. This is the point of the whole "one God" statements in the scriptures.

Beyond that, we pray to the Father, we do so in the name of The Son, and we listen to the Holy Spirit.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 hours ago, Edspringer said:

We worship God the Father as the life Giver and the One who will reward us with eternal life;

 

We worship Jesus Christ because of His atoning sacrifice by having faith in Him, repenting of our sins and making and keeping covenants of salvation;

 

We worship the Holy Ghost by living in accordance to the laws and commandments of the Gospel, so our minds and hearts will be pure enough to receive His influence constantly. The Apostle Paul said we are the temple of the Spirit.

 

Not really. We worship God. That's it. It includes them all and when we worship one we worship the three. Everything you say about the three above also applies to the other two.

[Vort]

5 hours ago, zil said:

Somewhere, there was a GA talk about not explicitly trying to form a special relationship with one member of the Godhead over the others.  (But I can't go hunt for it now.  Perhaps someone else remembers...)

McConkie, "Our Relationship with the Lord"

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_relationship-lord/

EDIT: Looks like Carb already took care of this.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Vort

[Rob Osborn]

The scriptures teach us to pray to Heavenly Father in and through Jesus Christ. We shouldnt try to get too technical about things and miss the point in trying to invent the letter of the law.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We shouldnt try to get too technical about things and miss the point in trying to invent the letter of the law.

How does one "invent the letter of the law"? What does that even mean? And how does one get "too technical" when praying?

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

How does one "invent the letter of the law"? What does that even mean? And how does one get "too technical" when praying?

I think the point was a way of trying to say, without being rude, that the question wasn't one worth asking.

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

How does one "invent the letter of the law"? What does that even mean? And how does one get "too technical" when praying?

I am oft reminded of a talk years ago about the language of prayer. I did a lor of research on the matter and came ti the conclusuin that we, as a church, kind of adopted and helped invent this proper language with the whole "thee" "thine" "thou", etc. I remember after that in my ward I was living in we had a fifth sunday lesson devoted entirely on the subject. For a long time after that people seemed kind of afraid they may not be praying with the correct language. It was entirely bothersome and troubling. This is the perfect example of inventing a letter of the law issue and missing the mark entirely. My older brother prays with great power. But, he doesnt use the fancy language thats all puffy. He closes his prayers by saying "we love you with all our hearts..." I guarentee that God hears and answers his prayers over otgers because he uses a more pure and simple form of communication.

Likewise, its simple who we worship. We worship God, the Father. We pray to Heavenly Father. We ask blessings from him and thank him personally. We do these things in the name of Jesus Christ because thats where the power and authority come from. Its that simple. Anything beyond that creates an invention that becomes a new heading that we end up worshiping. We did this with our "prayer language" and in a way corrupted our own power of speech because we forced it to be technical. God hears the hearts of and intent thereof in our prayers, not the puffiness of our speech.

[zil]

19 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

...fancy language thats all puffy...

The use of thou, thee, thy, and thine, with corresponding verb endings is not, in and of itself "fancy" or "puffy", nor does it corrupt one's "power of speech" (quite the contrary for those who fully understand them), nor does it "force it to be technical".  Their absence is not necessarily "more pure and simple".

Whatever your personal experience in relation to these pronouns and their verb forms, I see no justification for objecting to their use by others.

[Vort]

43 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I am oft reminded of a talk years ago about the language of prayer. I did a lor of research on the matter and came ti the conclusuin that we, as a church, kind of adopted and helped invent this proper language with the whole "thee" "thine" "thou", etc. I remember after that in my ward I was living in we had a fifth sunday lesson devoted entirely on the subject. For a long time after that people seemed kind of afraid they may not be praying with the correct language. It was entirely bothersome and troubling. This is the perfect example of inventing a letter of the law issue and missing the mark entirely.

Yet Elder Oaks -- an apostle -- saw fit to dedicate an entire General Conference talk to this issue. He seemed not to agree with your assessment that using "thou" and "thee" is "entirely bothersome and troubling."

43 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

My older brother prays with great power. But, he doesnt use the fancy language thats all puffy.

If you think using "thou" and "thee" is "all puffy", that suggests the issue is with you, not with the words.

43 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

He closes his prayers by saying "we love you with all our hearts..." I guarentee that God hears and answers his prayers over otgers because he uses a more pure and simple form of communication.

I disbelieve you. Specifically, I disbelieve you have any possible claim on the facts of which prayers God hears and answers over which others.

[The Folk Prophet]

52 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I guarentee that God hears and answers his prayers over otgers because he uses a more pure and simple form of communication.

Um....no. God doesn't care about language. He cares about our hearts. Someone who refuses to use thee and thou as some sort of protest has pride problems. Someone who doesn't use thee and thou because they think their way of praying is "better" than what the prophets have recommended also has pride problems. Someone who fails to use thee and thou because they don't know any different and are doing their best will be heard just the same as one who uses thee and thou because the prophets and apostles have suggested we do in humility and respect. God looketh on the heart.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I am oft reminded of a talk years ago about the language of prayer. I did a lor of research on the matter and came ti the conclusuin that we, as a church, kind of adopted and helped invent this proper language with the whole "thee" "thine" "thou", etc. I remember after that in my ward I was living in we had a fifth sunday lesson devoted entirely on the subject. For a long time after that people seemed kind of afraid they may not be praying with the correct language. It was entirely bothersome and troubling. This is the perfect example of inventing a letter of the law issue and missing the mark entirely. My older brother prays with great power. But, he doesnt use the fancy language thats all puffy. He closes his prayers by saying "we love you with all our hearts..." I guarentee that God hears and answers his prayers over otgers because he uses a more pure and simple form of communication.

Likewise, its simple who we worship. We worship God, the Father. We pray to Heavenly Father. We ask blessings from him and thank him personally. We do these things in the name of Jesus Christ because thats where the power and authority come from. Its that simple. Anything beyond that creates an invention that becomes a new heading that we end up worshiping. We did this with our "prayer language" and in a way corrupted our own power of speech because we forced it to be technical. God hears the hearts of and intent thereof in our prayers, not the puffiness of our speech.

Actually no. God hears the prayers of everyone who truly tries to reach Him. It doesn't matter how you communicate or what your skills with language are. 

You are way off with this. So off that I sort of think you are joking or we are all missing your  point. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by MormonGator

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

looketh

Sounds puffy.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Sounds puffy.

[Rob Osborn]

44 minutes ago, zil said:

The use of thou, thee, thy, and thine, with corresponding verb endings is not, in and of itself "fancy" or "puffy", nor does it corrupt one's "power of speech" (quite the contrary for those who fully understand them), nor does it "force it to be technical".  Their absence is not necessarily "more pure and simple".

Whatever your personal experience in relation to these pronouns and their verb forms, I see no justification for objecting to their use by others.

Its all in perception. How does a child pray? With very simple plain language. Shouldnt we do the same? I say this in light of the fact that we dont really teach any formal prayer language and children use a more pure torm of speech because they communicate as a child would to their biologic parent with intent being foremost important. When my child who is 9 prays, the language is similar to how they speak to me. But, when we as adults pray, it suddenly tajes on its own language. Its all well and good, we do have proper intent, but in Christs day, he taught his disciples to pray in normal language but with true intent. Were stuck in an early protestant ideaology of thinking some sort of special language exists when addressing God. But, God never taught that.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

How does a child pray? 

The way their parents teach them to.

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its all in perception. How does a child pray? With very simple plain language. Shouldnt we do the same?

My children all pray with "thou", "thee", "thy", and "thine". Simple and plain. I do the same.

[person0]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

My children all pray with "thou", "thee", "thy", and "thine". Simple and plain. I do the same.

'Back in the day' is this not how nearly everyone prayed?  Even beside that, shouldn't it be normal to understand how this type of language is used if one reads the scriptures on a regular basis?

[zil]

Just now, person0 said:

'Back in the day' is this not how nearly everyone prayed?

In English, yes, it was normal back in the day.  In many other modern languages, it is still normal to this day.  And that seems to be a degree of understanding that is lacking.  This is not simply the old way of saying "you" singular.  This is not simply archaic.  It has a very specific, significant, relevant meaning which adds depth of meaning to our language, when used with understanding.

1 minute ago, person0 said:

Even beside that, shouldn't it be normal to understand how this type of language is used if one reads the scriptures on a regular basis?

It has always baffled me to encounter life-long members who grew up reading scripture who yet don't understand the language thereof.

[zil]

45 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Um, unless there's another person off screen in the foreground (one who is also wearing mother's drapes), that should be, "Doth Mother know thou wearest her drapes?"

[zil]

There are exceptions to everything, however...

It has been my experience that those who dislike the use of "thou", etc., generally do not understand their meaning nor how grammar works, and usually aren't interested in gaining understanding.  Often they also don't know a foreign language (as this form is still common in modern use in many foreign languages, thus aiding in comprehension of its use in English).  Thus, the use of these terms is difficult for them and interferes with expressing their thoughts and feelings.

It has been my experience that those who like the use, generally understand it and grammar rules in general, and often know a foreign language.  Thus, the use of these terms enhances and expands their ability to express their thoughts and feelings.

It has been my experience that there are many who fall in between and mimic what others do without a solid understanding (and therefore struggle when trying to figure out how to say something new), and don't give it much thought one way or the other.  Thus, the use of these terms results in a mixture of "no difference", "no special meaning", and "interference".

I do not make assumptions about any person based on their word choices in prayer, rather, I try to join my heart into their prayer.  Their reasons for their word choices are theirs, and I don't let their choices interfere.  Even were I called on to teach about use of the old second person forms, it would not be my place to judge another's choices, only to teach the how and why of the forms.

My reason for replying in this thread is not to judge anyone's personal word choices in their prayers, but simply to reject the notion that there is something wrong in choosing to use the old form of the second person in the English language.

As with all things, the solution, should one wish for a solution, is found in time and effort.  For me, knowing what I know, modern English does not have an appropriate word (with the proper depth of meaning) for me to use in addressing my Heavenly Father, therefore, I must use the old form, as it has the meaning necessary to express how I perceive my relationship with my Heavenly Father, and so that my Father is not insulted by me using a term that would be wrong if I used it.  In my mind, this is no different from someone needing to pray in their native tongue.

(Please note the italics before getting upset (should anyone be so inclined).  I have no doubt that when any given individual prays using the most appropriate language they know, our Heavenly Father hears their prayer just as gladly as any other.  But were one to deliberately use language that was less appropriate, I would expect Him to not be so pleased, as the only reason to knowingly use inappropriate language is to show some negative intent - disrespect, indifference, etc.)