Praying to Jesus


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

In 3 Nephi, we read of the instance where the people prayed to Jesus directly.  Not to the Father in the name of the Son.  But directly to the Son.

As a practice, we pray to the Father in the name of the Son by the power of the Holy Ghost.  Thus we include all three in our worship.  But we simply don't single out any one of them.  We (very much like the trinitarians do) worship them as One God.

An explanation for why the Nephites prayed to Christ is that in the case of His actual presence, it is ok to pray to Him alone because He was physically present.  In that case "praying" to Him is simply talking to Him. 

But I was reading in Alma:

Quote

Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.

 -- Alma 36:18

I am wondering about what significance this has.  I wondered if Jesus was physically there with him to spark this.  I had thought that, being raised by his repentant father, Alma (the younger) would have been raised knowing the principles of the gospel even if he never gained a testimony himself.  In fact, he even refers to this:

Quote

I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.

 -- Alma 36:17

So, he knew some things.  But it seems that he didn't have a firm understanding.  He was present in his father's address to the people.  We might say that "he attended church."  But it seemed that he didn't give much heed to what he heard.  So, maybe he simply didn't now better.

Thoughts about Alma?  Thoughts about worshiping all three as one God?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think our beliefs and (dare I use the term) theology around this matter are simplified. I don't think they're incorrect, but I suspect there is significant nuance lacking. Not at all sure we are in a position to really understand that nuance. For the moment, I'm fine believing that if Christ is physically present, I will pray directly to him, but otherwise I pray only to the Father. Scriptures such as the Alma verse you cited provide interesting contrast.

I will note that we specifically invoke the Son when we make formal covenants with God. I wonder if this covenantal nature of invoking the Son may have something to do with the seeming "exceptions" we note in scripture, such as Alma and the king's wife calling out to Jesus, "...who has saved me from an awful hell".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vort said:

I think our beliefs and (dare I use the term) theology around this matter are simplified. I don't think they're incorrect, but I suspect there is significant nuance lacking. Not at all sure we are in a position to really understand that nuance. For the moment, I'm fine believing that if Christ is physically present, I will pray directly to him, but otherwise I pray only to the Father. Scriptures such as the Alma verse you cited provide interesting contrast.

I will note that we specifically invoke the Son when we make formal covenants with God. I wonder if this covenantal nature of invoking the Son may have something to do with the seeming "exceptions" we note in scripture, such as Alma and the king's wife calling out to Jesus, "...who has saved me from an awful hell".

This same "nuance" you refer to may be related to the fact that the Holy Ghost seems to not have been fully operational during Jesus' mortal ministry. There appears to be something about His physical presence that overrides standard procedure. 

7 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

As a practice, we pray to the Father in the name of the Son by the power of the Holy Ghost.  Thus we include all three in our worship.  But we simply don't single out any one of them.  We (very much like the trinitarians do) worship them as One God.

Thoughts about Alma?  Thoughts about worshiping all three as one God?

There are times while pondering that I'll address Heavenly Father directly seeking inspiration without officially praying "in the name of Jesus Christ." It's more of an open ended request than a formal prayer and I have often received the sought for guidance. I of course do so with the recognition that it's only through the merits of the Son that I have access to the Father and I would never make this a habit in my formal prayers as Jesus has clearly outlined how those should go. But when Christ's death on the cross split that veil in the temple he was essentially giving us direct access to the Father. 

I mentioned in another post about going through a temple session with the words being shown in the video. What I had never even considered but makes total sense is that it is not the Savior we converse with in the end but our Heavenly Father. Inspired prayer is done under the influence of the Holy Ghost telling us what to pray for and made efficacious through the merits of Jesus Christ but it is our Father in Heaven with whom we communicate.

I think the role of the Savior as Mediator, pleading for us before the throne of God might give some the false impression that our prayers are only being relayed by Jesus to Heavenly Father but I don't think that is the case. Part of the reason we take upon ourselves the name of Christ is to allow us to approach the throne ourselves with Jesus at our side. 

I have considered whether divine investiture could be taking place in this respect but that thought just doesn't feel right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

In 3 Nephi, we read of the instance where the people prayed to Jesus directly.  Not to the Father in the name of the Son.  But directly to the Son.

As a practice, we pray to the Father in the name of the Son by the power of the Holy Ghost.  Thus we include all three in our worship.  But we simply don't single out any one of them.  We (very much like the trinitarians do) worship them as One God.

An explanation for why the Nephites prayed to Christ is that in the case of His actual presence, it is ok to pray to Him alone because He was physically present.  In that case "praying" to Him is simply talking to Him. 

But I was reading in Alma:

I am wondering about what significance this has.  I wondered if Jesus was physically there with him to spark this.  I had thought that, being raised by his repentant father, Alma (the younger) would have been raised knowing the principles of the gospel even if he never gained a testimony himself.  In fact, he even refers to this:

So, he knew some things.  But it seems that he didn't have a firm understanding.  He was present in his father's address to the people.  We might say that "he attended church."  But it seemed that he didn't give much heed to what he heard.  So, maybe he simply didn't now better.

Thoughts about Alma?  Thoughts about worshiping all three as one God?

I think the formal pattern of prayer that is set for the Restored Church in dispensation of the fulness of times) (which reflects the pattern set by Jesus) is understandably "crisper" than a desperate sinner or those, having the Spirit instructing them on what to say and how to say it in the physical presence of He who is already speaking and interacting with them directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked my seminary teacher about this subject over fifteen years ago.  The question I asked was why the Nephites were praying to Christ when He was present with them in the book of III Nephi.  He replied to me that if Christ were physically present with you and a group of others you would probably be praying to Him as well.

I have come to believe that Christ oversees and has a lot of personal interaction what happens on this Earth as Heavenly Father has committed it into His hands.

But I will continue to do as revealed to the modern day prophets and pray unto Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2022 at 6:04 PM, laronius said:

But when Christ's death on the cross split that veil in the temple he was essentially giving us direct access to the Father. 

From my knowledge of Catholic teachings, they believe parishioners need human priests in their
interaction with God, even using Mary as their mediatrix.  I believe Christ is our only high priest
in heaven or on earth with whom we have to deal with, our only Mediator, and that all believers
(both men and women) constitute the royal priesthood of believers (1 Peter 2:5,9). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, romans8 said:

From my knowledge of Catholic teachings, they believe parishioners need human priests in their
interaction with God, even using Mary as their mediatrix.  I believe Christ is our only high priest
in heaven or on earth with whom we have to deal with, our only Mediator, and that all believers
(both men and women) constitute the royal priesthood of believers (1 Peter 2:5,9). 

Interesting.  We seem to believe the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, romans8 said:

From my knowledge of Catholic teachings, they believe parishioners need human priests in their
interaction with God, even using Mary as their mediatrix.  I believe Christ is our only high priest
in heaven or on earth with whom we have to deal with, our only Mediator, and that all believers
(both men and women) constitute the royal priesthood of believers (1 Peter 2:5,9). 

Yes, under the law of Moses there was a symbolic human mediator, the high priest, that would enter "God's presence" on their behalf. But that was a foreshadowing of Christ who was THE High Priest who prepared the way, in fact became the Way, to come back into God's presence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2022 at 4:04 PM, laronius said:

I mentioned in another post about going through a temple session with the words being shown in the video. What I had never even considered but makes total sense is that it is not the Savior we converse with in the end but our Heavenly Father.

(Tangent) The advantages of the live endowment were that you had a better sense of who was saying what—who was administering which covenants; which characters were physically present, which characters were not, and which characters you quit seeing after a certain point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, laronius said:

Yes, under the law of Moses there was a symbolic human mediator, the high priest, that would enter "God's presence" on their behalf. But that was a foreshadowing of Christ who was THE High Priest who prepared the way, in fact became the Way, to come back into God's presence.

And then, God changed. ;)

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