On another thread, commenter Benyamin Abrams asks:
Most prayers are addressed to Heavenly Father and closed in the name of Jesus Christ. The Sacrament prayer has both the opening and closing in the opening. I asked some members of my Ward if there were any other prayers with the same format.
It’s an interesting question. After all, the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen” is practically synonymous with LDS prayer. But does the name of Christ really have to come at the end of the prayer, rather than (for example) at the beginning?
I’ve sometimes heard the name of Christ invoked at the beginning. Particularly in ordinances such as confirmation, I have heard the invocation of Christ’s name done at the same time as the statement of priesthood authority: “in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Melchezidek priesthood . . .” But in my experience, those prayers generally end in the name of Christ as well. Is that really necessary? It seems that a prayer of that form would not need a second mention that it is being performed in the name of Christ. That is, it could go:
“Brother X, in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Melchezidek priesthood, we confirm you . . . [blessings] . . . Amen.”
Perhaps, for the sake of sounding more prayer-like, we would want a nice rhetorical bookend, like: “and all these blessings we give you in accordance with your faith. Amen.”
That prayer would be unusual in tone. But would it still be valid? I think it probably would.
What about prayers on the food? A simple, common structure goes along these lines
“Dear Heavenly Father
We thank thee for this food
and ask thee to please bless it
In the name of Jesus Christ
Amen.”
Wouldn’t it be equally valid to structure the prayer:
“Dear Heavenly Father
In the name of Jesus Christ
We thank thee for this food
and ask thee to please bless it.
Amen.”
I’m curious. Is there a compelling reason why the standard form is so widely used? Does anyone have any experience or thoughts about praying in a form that invokes Christ’s name somewhere other than the end of the prayer?
The people in the audience who are sleeping wouldn’t get the “in the name of” cue in order to wake up and say “Amen” at the right time if you put it at the first. It seems to me it would be valid, but would cause confusion because we have been socialized to expect it at the end.
Invoking Christ’s name in the beginning of the pray may have the virtue of reminding the individual praying that what is said should reflect the will of the Lord.
The “rule” is to pray to the father in the name of Christ. Placement isn’t specified, but I think we’re all strongly conditioned to close with it.
Habitually putting “in the name of Jesus Christ” at the end of prayers, talks, etc., serves two major purposes:
1. It gives a signal that the end of whatever it is is nigh.
2. It makes it extremely likely that those people who claim they sat through an entire church meeting without hearing anyone mention Christ are liars.
More seriously, though, I think the name of Christ is used in the openings of priesthood ordinances without set wordings because the person performing the ordinance wants to get every necessary element of the ordinance in before continuing with the optional parts. At least, that’s why I do it.
I suppose you could try it. But I doubt anyone in the congregation would remember anything you prayed about …
People might not sit next to you in Gospel Doctrine class either …
Closing a talk “In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.” is a pretty new development. It was popularized by Bruce McConkie in the 50’s. I did a cursory analysis of Invoking the Lord’s name in discourses here.
More often than not, when I administer a priesthood blessing, I typically invoke the Lord’s name in the begining and close with a simple “Amen”.
While placing the Lord’s name at the begining of a prayer is perfectly acceptable, I would imagine that there is a large body of Saints who would find it heretical (for no good reason) – I guess that is a good reason to start ;)
I don’t think they’d consider it heretical so much as rude.
They’d wonder why you’ve seen fit to take upon yourself the reform of church procedure. They’d probably wonder if you were trying to make some sort of statement. Some might even be irritated that you’re showing off.
Kinda like a bridesmaid upstaging the bride at a wedding.
It’s not about you, you nameless drone!
Not that I’d think any of these things, but some might.
Your example #1 food prayer is the exact prayer President Hinckley says EVERY TIME he and his family say a food prayer (according to his grandson).
As many have noted, like so much else in sacrament meeting and in church in general, that’s the current script. It sounds strange to our ears when someone goes off script, but as long as the elements are there, it’s all good. Like J. Stapely, if I’ve invoked Christ’s name at the beginning of a (again, usually priesthood) prayer/blessing, I just close with “Amen.”
On a similar note, how does everyone feel about repeating the appelation “Father” over and over in a prayer (eg, at the beginning of a new thought or “section”)?
“After all, the phrase “in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen” is practically synonymous with LDS prayer.”
It’s also synonymous with LDS testimonies and talks, of whatever sort. The result is that whenever an LDS person gives any kind of public discourse, he runs the risk of accidently importing this practice into contexts when it is not appropriate. For example, when I was in 7th grade, I gave a presentation in “speech class” on some non-religious topic, and then closed it with “in the name of Jes….”, and then stopped myself. How very, very embarassing this was, let me tell you.
As a result of this experience, I became very sensitive to how I would close my talks/speeches in any environment. Things came full circle in high school: I was was asked to give a talk in Sacrament Meeting, and as I was accustomed to giving speeches regularly at school, I closed my church talk without referencing Christ (or even bearing testimony at all). This I did only out of habit (and I was too young and proper to yet have a reputation for trying to stir up trouble at Church :) ). Interestingly, I received nothing but compliments from a few members, who strangely seemed to appreciate the originality of not closing as expected. Weird.
Aaron B
I recall a seminary lesson back in ninth grade. The topic was Christ’s admonition to pray in his name. My seminary teacher discussed the topic exactly as you have, Kaimi, and at the end of the class I was asked to give the closing prayer. Thinking I was building on what we had been discussing for half an hour I began my prayer, “Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus Christ…” and when I finished a student in the first row looked at me and asked, “Can you do that?”
If a full discussion of the propriety of changing the order and structure of a prayer can be followed by concern and dissent, think of what would happen if you just got up in sacrament meeting and did that?
I had a similar experience while serving in a bishopric a few years ago. While reviewing procedures for sustaining ward members in new callings we noticed that the Handbook of Instructions simply states that the congregation is to manifest it by the uplifted hand, not necessarily the right hand. We mused about bucking the trend by all using our left hands in the future, though we decided it was sort of pompous and self-congratulatory to do so.
In principle, however, I don’t think God is nearly as concerned as we sometimes think he is about these things, ordinances and such naturally excluded.
Like no. 4, in the blessing context, I often invoke the name of JC up front as a safeguard to make sure I get the required elements in, but then I also close in the name of JC, amen, using the normal formula. This is indeed repetitive and unnecessary, but that is the way formulae often are.
Re: no. 9, on my mission I learned to avoid saying Father at the beginning of successive clauses, as apparently some people found it annoying. So I never do that anymore.
And I agree with no. 11 that God doesn’t care nearly so much as we seem to about these niceties.
I seem to recall being specifically instructed to invoke the name of Christ in the beginning of a blessing of healing, along with the priesthood authority, and to close with a simple “Amen.” I have since found that this gets me weird looks at the end of the blessing. I looked it up in the Family GuideBook, which says I had it backwards; only the priesthood at the beginning, with the name of Christ at the end.
A pet peeve of mine:
Kaimi wrote: “Brother X, in the name of Jesus Christ and by the power of the Melchezidek priesthood, we confirm you … [blessings] … Amen.”
Technically the ordinance is done by the authority of the priesthood; whether or not one has power in the priesthood is dependent upon if the Lord sees fit to grant him such. So one would properly open with “by the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood,” not “by the power of.”
(As a sidenote, I’m always moved by our supplication in the temple endowment that the Father will grant us and our descendants that power.)