Pray-Reading

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I saw the booklet prior to 1981, but it may be that the LSM published it in 1981. What I saw was clearly something that RG had put together prior to being published. I may be mistaken but I think KR helped him with his research.

Before leaving the LC, around 80/81, I heard rumblings of this booklet, even read some of it at one point, tho it may have been after the LC.

The booklet is nothing but an attempt to justify and legitimize the practice of pray-reading that, anyone on the outside of the LC thought to look like crazy mindless parroting of words in the Bible. It's purpose to validate that mindless insanity, that : pray reading the Bible would result in magic transformation ... when all that the transformation resulted in was attending meetings, conferences, and such, and acting like a bunch of crazies at large from the insane asylum.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Before leaving the LC, around 80/81, I heard rumblings of this booklet, even read some of it at one point, tho it may have been after the LC.

The booklet is nothing but an attempt to justify and legitimize the practice of pray-reading that, anyone on the outside of the LC thought to look like crazy mindless parroting of words in the Bible. It's purpose to validate that mindless insanity, that : pray reading the Bible would result in magic transformation ... when all that the transformation resulted in was attending meetings, conferences, and such, and acting like a bunch of crazies at large from the insane asylum.

I didn't see it that way. It seemed to me that what the booklet showed was that the word of God is designed to be prayed and has been prayed over throughout the centuries. There was nothing in the booklet that suggested to me that pray reading as a practice should be done in a mindless way.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I didn't see it that way. It seemed to me that what the booklet showed was that the word of God is designed to be prayed and has been prayed over throughout the centuries. There was nothing in the booklet that suggested to me that pray reading as a practice should be done in a mindless way.

I'm not sure that I would assert that the word of God was "designed to be prayed." It was designed to reveal God through its various forms. Among the various ways that you may be able to use and understand portions of it would include through prayer.

But the last time I read anything by the LSM that was trying to show others "pray reading" I was unable to conclude that any of them (or at least few of them) actually engaged in what the LRC had called pray-reading. I've heard scripture used in prayers in many ways, but outside of the LRC, I have not heard, or heard of such a practice that looks like their version of it.

What I recall from what I read was some descriptions of some notable people through history that made reference of some kind of prayer as they read the scripture. Virtually all of these were part of their personal study time. And I somehow recall only finding one or two that were even possibly found to have mixed the scripture in with their prayer, although the description I recall was still nothing like the deconstruction that was practiced in virtually every LRC endeavor that I had any knowledge of or participation in.

So they found "pray" or "prayer" within a reasonable proximity of the word "read" within a sentence that was talking about scripture and determined that their practice was thereby blessed.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not sure that I would assert that the word of God was "designed to be prayed." It was designed to reveal God through its various forms. Among the various ways that you may be able to use and understand portions of it would include through prayer.

But the last time I read anything by the LSM that was trying to show others "pray reading" I was unable to conclude that any of them (or at least few of them) actually engaged in what the LRC had called pray-reading. I've heard scripture used in prayers in many ways, but outside of the LRC, I have not heard, or heard of such a practice that looks like their version of it.

What I recall from what I read was some descriptions of some notable people through history that made reference of some kind of prayer as they read the scripture. Virtually all of these were part of their personal study time. And I somehow recall only finding one or two that were even possibly found to have mixed the scripture in with their prayer, although the description I recall was still nothing like the deconstruction that was practiced in virtually every LRC endeavor that I had any knowledge of or participation in.

So they found "pray" or "prayer" within a reasonable proximity of the word "read" within a sentence that was talking about scripture and determined that their practice was thereby blessed.

I would agree that the word was designed to reveal God but I would add that it reveals God's will as well. Jesus taught us to pray like this "Thy will be done". I wouldn't know God's will if it wasn't for his word.

Now you might not be so sure, but Hannah, Solomon, Moses, Joshua, and Daniel all prayed God's word to Him. And, Mary's praise in Luke could be considered a thanksgiving for answered prayer, in which case she clearly viewed the Bible verses as prayers designed to be prayed.

Hannah prayed in 1Samuel 2:1-10 and that, to my mind, is a Biblical example of praying the word of God back to God.

Solomon’s prayer, recorded in 2 Chronicles 6 is also, to my mind, a Biblical example of praying the word of God back to God.

Moses prayed to God in Numbers 14:17-19 saying “let the power of my Lord be great, according as thou has spoken, saying…” to which God responded in verse 20 “I have pardoned according to thy word”. Moses prayed God’s word to Him and God pardoned according to Moses’ word which was in fact God’s word spoken by Moses.

In Joshua 19:50 it says that Joshua prayed for a city to be given him “according to the word of the Lord” and “according to the word of the Lord they gave him the city which he asked”.

Daniel prayed the word in Jeremiah concerning the return of Israel back to God.

Mary’s praise beginning in Luke 1:46 could be a praise for answered prayer. The verses she quotes can easily be viewed as promises of God. We are instructed to remind God of His promises.

1Thess 3:1 tells us exactly what to pray for. Clearly, if you receive that word and pray according to Paul’s request it is fair to say that word was designed to be prayed.

Psalm 119:25 “quicken thou me according to they word” – yes this word of God is a prayer and I would say was designed to be prayed.

Psalm 119:28 “strengthen me according to thy word” – ditto

Psalm 119:49 “remember the word unto thy servant, upon which thou hast caused me to hope”. Praying the promises of God back to God is a way of reminding God of these promises. Not only does the word teach us the promises of God but we are also instructed to remind God of these promises. Repeatedly the men of God prayed that God would “remember His word”.

119:58 I intreated thy favour with my whole heart: be merciful unto me according to thy word. Again, another word in the Bible that I would say was designed to be prayed.

119:89 LAMED. For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. The Lord taught us to pray that God’s will would be done on Earth as it is in heaven. This verse says that God’s word is settled in heaven. God’s word reveals His will.

119:133 Order my steps in thy word: The Lord taught us to pray that God would forgive us as we also forgive others. Our actions and our living are intertwined with our prayer. But this verse tells us that our steps are ordered in the word. James says that the prayer of a Godly man is very effective. How can you be a Godly man apart from God’s word?

Isaiah 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Clearly God spoke a word to accomplish something, that by definition, is His will. The Lord said that we are to pray “thy will be done”. Surely the Lord’s instruction is referring to this very thing. This is a promise, from God, that we should remind Him of. Yes, this word was designed to be prayed.

Jeremiah 1:12 Then said the LORD unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it. This is another example that the Lord’s will is revealed in His word.

29:10 For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place. This word was prayed back to God by Daniel.

2:17 The LORD hath done that which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old: This is a principle that is repeated over and over in the Bible. God will fulfill His word. Therefore it is a very powerful thing to remind God of His word and pray that He would fulfill it, even as Jesus taught us.

12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, The word of God has a burden. I believe that we join with the Lord’s burden in prayer, that is where we agree with God. That to me, is what the Lord instructed us to do when He taught us to pray.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would agree that the word was designed to reveal God but I would add that it reveals God's will as well. Jesus taught us to pray like this "Thy will be done". I wouldn't know God's will if it wasn't for his word.

These verses all have to be stretched beyond recognition to support the type of pray-reading practiced in the LC. They are not even close. They do not indicate the Bible was designed to be prayed. You are reading into them something not intended, for why I don't know.

What I'm wondering is why you feel so strong as to over reach in your support for pray-reading.

I haven't pray-read for 30 yrs, and don't miss it at all. In fact, if I did try to pray-read the Bible I'd feel silly and stupid, like I would be in need to have my head examined.

What a silly unnecessary practice. May as well say some Buddhist mantra over and over again, or whirl like the dervishes. And that's okay if that's what you want to do. Sometimes being silly can be fun. So have at it. Pray read all the day long. Just don't let family and friends catch ya doing it, or they may check you into Bellevue for a 3 day mental examination.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

These verses all have to be stretched beyond recognition to support the type of pray-reading practiced in the LC. They are not even close. They do not indicate the Bible was designed to be prayed. You are reading into them something not intended, for why I don't know.

What I'm wondering is why you feel so strong as to over reach in your support for pray-reading.

I haven't pray-read for 30 yrs, and don't miss it at all. In fact, if I did try to pray-read the Bible I'd feel silly and stupid, like I would be in need to have my head examined.

What a silly unnecessary practice. May as well say some Buddhist mantra over and over again, or whirl like the dervishes. And that's okay if that's what you want to do. Sometimes being silly can be fun. So have at it. Pray read all the day long. Just don't let family and friends catch ya doing it, or they may check you into Bellevue for a 3 day mental examination.

I think the issue here is "the practice in the LRC". I am not defending the practice in the LRC. What I have said consistently from my first post on this thread to this one is that "pray reading" as defined by RG's book is scriptural.

OBW has argued that this book was written to defend the practice of the LRC and that by using the term "pray reading" it is a form of equivocation. I feel that it is too strong to accuse RG of this without more evidence. However, I think applying his use of equivocation to this thread is very accurate. Everyone that disagrees with my posts has done so based on "the practice in the LRC" whereas no one has actually disagreed with what I have actually said, which is "pray reading as defined in RG's book is scriptural".

The second thing that I have argued is that there was not a uniform practice of pray reading. When I was in Houston it was clearly a practice that was being hyped and sold, but not necessarily embraced or employed. When I was in Irving working on the hall it was almost non existent. When I was in Odessa, I did not bring this practice, nor did GW (thankfully) so it was not an issue at all. When I was in the FTTT it was there and I ignored it. When I was in NY the practice in the meetings was quite different from the practice in Dunton house and it was a minor irritant (as a High School teacher I have a high tolerance for minor irritants).

The third thing I have argued is that with sin and the flesh we should be absolute and uncompromising. But since this was neither we should be general, strict on ourselves, general with others. I have stated that judging the way a man serves his Lord is to cross a line and you will regret that at the Lord's judgement seat. But having said that I have fulfilled my responsibility.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the issue here is "the practice in the LRC". I am not defending the practice in the LRC. What I have said consistently from my first post on this thread to this one is that "pray reading" as defined by RG's book is scriptural.

OBW has argued that this book was written to defend the practice of the LRC and that by using the term "pray reading" it is a form of equivocation. I feel that it is too strong to accuse RG of this without more evidence. However, I think applying his use of equivocation to this thread is very accurate. Everyone that disagrees with my posts has done so based on "the practice in the LRC" whereas no one has actually disagreed with what I have actually said, which is "pray reading as defined in RG's book is scriptural".

The second thing that I have argued is that there was not a uniform practice of pray reading. When I was in Houston it was clearly a practice that was being hyped and sold, but not necessarily embraced or employed. When I was in Irving working on the hall it was almost non existent. When I was in Odessa, I did not bring this practice, nor did GW (thankfully) so it was not an issue at all. When I was in the FTTT it was there and I ignored it. When I was in NY the practice in the meetings was quite different from the practice in Dunton house and it was a minor irritant (as a High School teacher I have a high tolerance for minor irritants).

The third thing I have argued is that with sin and the flesh we should be absolute and uncompromising. But since this was neither we should be general, strict on ourselves, general with others. I have stated that judging the way a man serves his Lord is to cross a line and you will regret that at the Lord's judgment seat. But having said that I have fulfilled my responsibility.

Actually, I started by trying to find out when the book was actually written and whether it was the one that described the very disjointed, deconstructive practice of pray reading. I believe that Igzy and/or someone else had suggested that Lord Thou Saidst was written during the turmoil of the Nelson/Mindbenders lawsuits and would appear to be defending the LRC's pray reading.

I do not recall where I read it, but through some online resources, either in the LSM online books, or through another repackaged web site, I read several of the comments actually made by some of the people that were cited earlier. It has been a long time, so finding it again in the format that is drifting foggily through my brain could be difficult. But I recall that virtually none of them described anything like what I had ever seen as the practice of pray reading in the LRC. I admit that I only saw Dallas, Arlington, and Irving, plus whatever happened at conferences (mostly Dallas, Houston, Austin or Irving) and trainings (Anaheim or Irving).

Relative to my experience and observation, RG's book does not represent anything descriptive of the LRC practice of pray reading. So there is a disconnect from the very beginning outside of the use of the term "pray reading."

You need to forget this "judging a man's servant" malarkey. That is just a way to hide error. RG is the only one "judged" at any level and according to the rules of this forum, he is fair game. If you don't like it, argue why the judgment is incorrect. Just saying it should not happen is sooo like saying that we will be struck down for leaving the LRC. You sound quite foolish for it.

Besides, in the capacity as writer of the book we are discussing, whose servant is RG? If you argue that he is God's, then we might as well shut this forum down because we are all God's servants. And to take that position is to presume that he is actually doing what he did at the behest of his master. I don't think that God directed RG to write a book about a practice that the LRC did not employ so that through a common terminology it would be viewed as covering a practice that they did employ. That is deception. That is actually called equivocation. RG may have been blind enough to actually think that finding practices that mixed prayer with reading scripture was sufficient. But if he did, then he is not qualified to be writing such a book, or having anything to do with leading an organization of more than a handful of people.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I didn't see it that way. It seemed to me that what the booklet showed was that the word of God is designed to be prayed

So the Bible is designed to be prayed....

Really! Is that so? Are there Bible verses that advise us to pray it? References please. Educate me.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So the Bible is designed to be prayed....

Really! Is that so? Are there Bible verses that advise us to pray it? References please. Educate me.

Yes, that was the thesis of RG's book as I recall it. I don't have a copy, but if the LSM published it you might get a copy from them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, that was the thesis of RG's book as I recall it. I don't have a copy, but if the LSM published it you might get a copy from them.

Chicago Bible and Books carries it ...

http://biblesandbooks.com/mm5/mercha...egory_Code=BSA

[OBW]

ZNP,

For all of your examples, I see exactly what I said. There are numerous places where as part of a prayer, passages were, in effect, recited back to God. This is the kind of praying of the word that I have seen with significant impact. Even simply repeating the "Lord's Prayer" is profound as part of a larger prayer. It fills in our poor prayers with at least generalities concerning the broad categories we were taught to pray. To pray for more than just kingdom stuff. To also pray for those "poor, pathetic" things about ourselves and our lives that Lee so despised.

But that is not the practice that was being defended by anything written by the LRC and published by the LSM. The practice being defended by Graver's little book was the one described in the earlier book in which neither true reading of the word, nor prayer that looks anything like what Jesus taught when he said, among other things "Thy will be done." Nor any of the other passages you quote in which clear, coherent sentences of profound meaning were turned into something like:

"Our Father. Oh, Lord, Amen, Our Father! Yes, Lord, our Father! Hallelujah, our Father! . . . Thy kingdom! Oh, Lord, Your kingdom! It's all about your kingdom! Save us prom prayers about anything but your kingdom! Come. Oh, Lord, Come! Come! Come! . . . "

And so on. And it can be argued that simply because the actual words from scripture are in there, it is a "sound" praying of the word. But while I did manage to leave the content vaguely recognizable, the process of dealing with scripture are more than sanctified syllables that contain power in their utterance — sort of like the effects of speaking the words from the Book of the Dead in the Mummy series of semi-modern swashbuckling adventure movies. The words contained in The Word have far less meaning as dictionary entries as they do in sentences, paragraphs, and whole passages.

And while there is power in the Word of God, it is not from merely saying the words contained in it. It is from reading for wisdom and understanding — something that the deconstruction of sentences into snippets divorced from their companions cannot do. There is no mystical power in mashing a bunch of words together in a meaningless way. That is not "letting the Word wash over you." It is no better than sitting in a circle and chanting "om." You feel better. You have been engaged in an exercise of emotional exhilaration but with no spiritual significance.

And the problem is not that there is no such thing through history as what might be called "pray reading," but that there is no record of the kind of thing that the LRC pushed as "pray reading." As you point out, there are numerous examples of praying by using passages of scripture as major portions of your own prayer. Or mixing parts of passages into your coherent sentences that, joined together, pray currently in a manner consistent with the passage mixed into your prayer.

So, a little book like Lord Thou Saidst correctly points to prayer in conjunction with what we know to be written in scripture. But that book is not being used to defend the practices mentioned in it, but something different. Something that only shares the words "pray" and "reading" with the examples brought out in the book.

In effect, the whole premise of that book is a kind of equivocation. They make note of practices that they call pray reading (and even others have called pray reading), then assert that their practice is also called pray reading and is therefore covered. But it ain't necessarily so.

So save your dissertation on examples of praying words from prior scripture contained within the scripture. I already agreed with that kind of practice.

And for anyone who still practices that stew-of-a-prayer the LRC calls pray reading, are you empowered to go out and care for the needy after pray reading those passages? Or is pray reading them not on the agenda?

Oh, and finding places where scripture contains the recording of a prayer that we can also pray does not support the general statement that scripture in general "was designed to be prayed." A prayer was designed to be prayed. That is not a general statement about the rest of scripture. So you can correctly assert that "there is scripture that was designed to be prayed" and that would be because it was a prayer when it was recorded.

And just because the word accomplishes God's will, and the words "Thy will be done" are found in a prayer does not support a general statement that the words of scripture are "designed to be prayed." That is just nonsense.

Yes. Pray the Word. Use it all in prayer. We can pray anything (although there clearly is no purpose in praying the American Heritage Dictionary). But that does not make any of it broadly "designed to be prayed." The purpose of scripture in general was not to be prayer. It was to be God's speaking. We can pray it. It is possible to do so. In some cases it is profitable to do so. But I do not see any evidence that, as a whole, it was "designed" as such.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

the problem is not that there is no such thing through history as what might be called "pray reading," but that there is no record of the kind of thing that the LRC pushed as "pray reading."

I remember Mr. Lee saying that it was like cutting up a steak. Cut it up into tiny peices and chew on it. Nice analogy; but where is the basis of this, beyond Mr. Lee's inspiration? Suddenly the "historical basis" evaporates.

Originally Posted by OBW

In effect, the whole premise of that book is a kind of equivocation. They make note of practices that they call pray reading (and even others have called pray reading), then assert that their practice is also called pray reading and is therefore covered. But it ain't necessarily so.

Right. Cite others where it is convenient; ignore details which are not convenient. I think this is a trend which goes beyond the subject of pray-reading. You know, make a big deal about being rooted in the history of the christian faith, then when you want to deviate from that history, tell people how God wants a "new move". Then you can have it both ways.

That was easy, wasn't it?

Originally Posted by OBW

finding places where scripture contains the recording of a prayer that we can also pray does not support the general statement that scripture in general "was designed to be prayed." A prayer was designed to be prayed. That is not a general statement about the rest of scripture.

I remember being told (I don't doubt it goes back to Mr. Lee) that Paul told us "Unceasingly pray", therefore we were supposed to pray-read ALL the Bible, not just read it.

And when you got to the nasty parts, like Job's wife telling him to curse God and die, or Peter denying the Lord Jesus, you couldn't say "Amen" or "Hallelujah"... your repertoire of "prayers" shrank to "Oh Lord" and "Lord Jesus".

Reminds me of Lee's famous line that "Christianity (i.e. the clergy-laity system) has nullified the function of the members of the body." My prayers got shrunk to only 3 words!!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

ZNP, For all of your examples, I see exactly what I said. There are numerous places where as part of a prayer, passages were, in effect, recited back to God. This is the kind of praying of the word that I have seen with significant impact. Even simply repeating the "Lord's Prayer" is profound as part of a larger prayer. It fills in our poor prayers with at least generalities concerning the broad categories we were taught to pray. To pray for more than just kingdom stuff. To also pray for those "poor, pathetic" things about ourselves and our lives that Lee so despised.
But that is not the practice that was being defended by anything written by the LRC and published by the LSM.

I do not understand the fixation and hangup with the fact that there are superficial Christians whether in the LRC or anywhere else? I find this mockery particularly distasteful since I do not meet with the LRC and in my experience, there are plenty of superficial Christians outside of the LRC. I have heard many prayers that are as fleshly as you can get. But I don't mock them because I realize the real error in the LRC is their pride and arrogance.

As I recall I thought RG's book "Lord...Thou saidst" (thank you Ohio) was beneficial in improving my prayer life. I felt as a result of that book and the Biblical evidence he provided that if I could punctuate my prayer with "Lord...thou saidst" not as a formula, but by Finding God's will in His word, that would have impact. Please do not misunderstand what I am saying, I don't ever use the phrase "Lord thous saidst" in my prayer, but I often do seek to pray God's word back to him.

No doubt your mockery of pray reading is a shoe that fits many in the LRC, but certainly not everybody. I stayed at Dunton House in 1996. There were two older sisters there (in their 70s and 80s) and an elder (also in his 70s I think) in addition there was another brother. These 4 had all been in the LRC far longer than I, and I first met with the LC in '78. Their practice of praying the word for morning watch did not resemble your mockery in any way. We read the word, fellowshipped over it (perhaps, perhaps not), raised some prayer requests / burdens (again maybe yes, maybe no) and then finished by each praying. They refused to use that LSM booklet. The church in NY had a schedule on a weekly basis of verses for morning watch that were based on the messages during the Lord's day morning. No other church that I had met with had that practice, but so what, we used those verses in our morning watch.

For those of us who understood the genealogy of the practice, the point was that the word of God keeps us aligned with God's will and we knew that prayer is, at least in part, praying that God's will would be done.

As for your mockery, I wish many more Christians would have a time in the word every morning along the lines that we did.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Oh, and finding places where scripture contains the recording of a prayer that we can also pray does not support the general statement that scripture in general "was designed to be prayed." A prayer was designed to be prayed. That is not a general statement about the rest of scripture. So you can correctly assert that "there is scripture that was designed to be prayed" and that would be because it was a prayer when it was recorded.

And just because the word accomplishes God's will, and the words "Thy will be done" are found in a prayer does not support a general statement that the words of scripture are "designed to be prayed." That is just nonsense.

Yes. Pray the Word. Use it all in prayer. We can pray anything (although there clearly is no purpose in praying the American Heritage Dictionary). But that does not make any of it broadly "designed to be prayed." The purpose of scripture in general was not to be prayer. It was to be God's speaking. We can pray it. It is possible to do so. In some cases it is profitable to do so. But I do not see any evidence that, as a whole, it was "designed" as such.

Once again you take a very general statement "the word of God is designed to be prayed" and put your very strict definition on it. If I said Cheerios were designed to be eaten would you assume I was talking about the box?

No it is not nonsense. If I can show you a verse in the Bible that was clearly designed to be prayed that is proof of the statement. I never said that every word was designed to be prayed. I understand that there is a range of acceptance on this point, personally I feel that a very high percentage of the Bible is designed to be prayed, but if others feel only 5% is designed to be prayed, so what, that does prove my statement. Not your absurd assumptions about what the statement meant. This is typical of you. Take a reasonable statement, put absurd inferences on the statement that then make the statement almost impossible to prove and say the statement is false. If you agree, which you have stated that you do, that one word in the Bible is designed to be prayed, then you have agreed to the statement that "the word of God is designed to be prayed". All you are doing is qualifying it to say you don't agree that every word is designed to be prayed. So what?

Likewise, if you agree that the word of God reveals God's will. Then without a doubt praying that God's will be done can certainly involve praying this word back to God as many examples in the Bible attest. Yes, this definitely proves that "God's word is designed to be prayed". Once again you color this statement with an absurd inference that I used the qualifier "every". Also you cut the verse references out of the context. It is as though I had a two step proof and you argue that step one by itself is not a proof?! The proof is this: 1. the Lord taught us to pray "thy will be done" (we all agree this is what is taught), 2. We learn of God's will from the word of God (again, no dispute that the word of God reveals God's will). 3. There are many examples of prayers recorded in the Bible in which God's will from His word is prayed back to God (once again no dispute). Therefore, to pray God's will as revealed in the word is a Biblical practice of the Bible. Try respecting the ways of God and his servants.

Instead, I would say that as you find the easiest words to pray back to God you will find others as well. So although you initially may feel that only 5% of the Bible was designed to be prayed, that percent will grow as you pray.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I didn't see it that way. It seemed to me that what the booklet showed was that the word of God is designed to be prayed and has been prayed over throughout the centuries. There was nothing in the booklet that suggested to me that pray reading as a practice should be done in a mindless way.

Expect for the pesky little fact of how pray reading is actually practiced in "the Recovery", so much of the time.

In other words, that little devil called context.

[aron]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

ZNP: "Nothing in that booklet showed me that pray-reading was to be done in a mindless way"

Except for the pesky little fact of how pray reading is actually practiced in "the Recovery", so much of the time.

Right. Chopping up sentences into words and phrases and chanting them with an extremely limited repertoire of accompanying words ("Oh Lord", "Amen", "Hallelujah") is probably not most people's definition of prayer. It's probably not the definition of prayer of the authors quoted in RG's "Lord, Thou Saidst".

Which doesn't definitively disqualify LC practice as "prayer". But to use those authors to prop up your practice of "pray-reading" is probably too much of a stretch.

1. George Washington wore a blue coat.
2. I have a blue coat, which I also occasionally wear.
3. Thus, I am also qualified to be president.

Um, no, sorry. Fallen human logic at work here.

Also, regarding the "mindless" part: I was definitely told by several people not to use my mind. Just to say "Oh Lord", "Amen", and "Hallelujah". If I really wanted to stretch the envelope, I could say "Lord Jesus" or "Praise the Lord". But to actually compose sentences containing original thoughts was not encouraged.

"Get out of your mind", "Exercise your spirit", etc is what I remember in my "pray-reading" instructions. Ray Graver probably didn't write to pray in a mindless way: surely he knew it would look bad (this book was at least partly to put a "public face" on LC doctrines and practices). So it was behind closed doors that we were clearly instructed not to use our fallen human minds as we pray-read the Bible.

But it was ok for RG to use his fallen human mind to compile a book of quotes on praying God's word. Because, you know, he was under "the deputy authority", so even when he was wrong he was right.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Right. Chopping up sentences into words and phrases and chanting them with an extremely limited repertoire of accompanying words ("Oh Lord", "Amen", "Hallelujah") is probably not most people's definition of prayer. It's probably not the definition of prayer of the authors quoted in RG's "Lord, Thou Saidst".

Probably the single greatest difference between the edifying praying of scripture by numerous men of God, as recorded in Graver's book, and what was often promoted in the LC's by LSM, could be characterized by the Lord's instruction in the "Sermon on the Mount." Here He admonishes the disciples not to pray as the "hypocrites" but to pray to your heavenly Father in secret "in your closet." He also warns them not to "repeat empty words." (Matt 6.5-8)

Once LSM began to promote these public "prayers," giving them a structured format, with a 6.7.6.7 cadence accompanied by somewhat robotic "Amens," it was not very long until the LC's fell into the danger of "praying like the Gentiles." Firstly, the danger of praying before man, and not praying from the heart, is a very real danger indeed. It doesn't matter if the words of the Bible are used. The nature of prayer has been changed. This is why the Lord warned the disciples.

Secondly, repetitive "amens" of a public nature, can force prayer into a man-pleasing performance. Bad habits become self-reinforcing, since they are loudly promoted by the entire congregation. Genuine prayer gives way to robotic repetitions, as the "Amen-volume" is cranked up. I strongly promote the praying of scripture, and I equally discourage the repetitive shouting of verse-slogans. The two practices have nothing in common. Unfortunately LSM has messed up the whole thing, to the damage of many a LC'er prayer life.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Probably the single greatest difference between the edifying praying of scripture by numerous men of God, as recorded in Graver's book, and what was often promoted in the LC's by LSM, could be characterized by the Lord's instruction in the "Sermon on the Mount." Here He admonishes the disciples not to pray as the "hypocrites" but to pray to your heavenly Father in secret "in your closet." He also warns them not to "repeat empty words." (Matt 6.5-8)

Once LSM began to promote these public "prayers," giving them a structured format, with a 6.7.6.7 cadence accompanied by somewhat robotic "Amens," it was not very long until the LC's fell into the danger of "praying like the Gentiles." Firstly, the danger of praying before man, and not praying from the heart, is a very real danger indeed. It doesn't matter if the words of the Bible are used. The nature of prayer has been changed. This is why the Lord warned the disciples.

Secondly, repetitive "amens" of a public nature, can force prayer into a man-pleasing performance. Bad habits become self-reinforcing, since they are loudly promoted by the entire congregation. Genuine prayer gives way to robotic repetitions, as the "Amen-volume" is cranked up. I strongly promote the praying of scripture, and I equally discourage the repetitive shouting of verse-slogans. The two practices have nothing in common. Unfortunately LSM has messed up the whole thing, to the damage of many a LC'er prayer life.

I have a theory on this. I believe that if you are living in sin and then forced to stand up in front of the entire assembly of the church and pray you will feel like all of your sins are open for all to see. Therefore you need a fig leaf. Once the LRC closed their eyes to the sins around them they needed a fig leaf and that is when the practice of pray reading and other practices really became nothing but a front to pretend they were spiritual, just like the hypocrites Jesus warned of.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

Expect for the pesky little fact of how pray reading is actually practiced in "the Recovery", so much of the time.

In other words, that little devil called context.

Why would the fact that there are superficial Christians out there have any influence on my reading of the Bible and learning from the spiritual men before me? I am not looking at the LRC practice.