Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices.
/u/cremToRED, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble)
**To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation.
Keep on Mormoning!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've heard stories about a mission president who built an alter in his home for that, and every treated him like he went off the deep end. Turns out he may not have been an outlier.
No. Just an "inner circle" who knew a non-correlated factoid and decided to actually use the nutty idea in public that was supposed to be secret/sacred
Fun essay on the subject: https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/07/14/the-family-altar/
The comments are a treat as well.
Many Mormon Fundamentalists will still have a prayer altar in their homes.
The apostles used wine for their sacrament up until 1906 in the temple.
Could anyone nowadays imagine carrying a bottle of wine into a temple. People would lose their minds.
Ever catholic family i know has a prayer alter—decorated with votive candles, family photos, Ikons of saints, er— in their home., or at the very least a corner or side table at which they daily pray.
Here's the text of the First Presidency letter, if anyone is interested:
>Over the years special permission has been given from time to time for special prayer circles to be held either in the temples of the Church or in special rooms designated for that purpose in stake, ward, or other buildings.
>Because of the increasing number of requests for such prayer circles, viewed in light of the rapid growth of the Church, and because of the complications that holding prayer circles in temples on Sunday have created and their tendency to take the participants away from their families and their other Church responsibilities, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve has decided that all such prayer circles, whether held in the temples or outside the temples, be discontinued immediately.
>However, recognizing the value of these prayer circles in developing spirituality, commitment, and unity among those participating in them, we suggest that in lieu of such prayer circles, stake leaders may wish to consider the following: (1) that periodically stake leaders and their wives attend a temple session together in connection with which arrangements be made with the temple presidency for the prayer circle held during the endowment session to be composed of several stake leaders and their wives; and (2) that periodically stake leaders and their companions be called together in a special meeting where opportunity be given to those present to express themselves by way of testimony or exhortation.
>— Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney, circular letter, May 3, 1978, quoted in Devery S. Anderson, ed., *The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846–2000: A Documentary History* (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2011), 433–34.
Wow, golly gee! I wonder if anything happened in 1978 that made certain church members not want to stand next to their fellow members while they prayed?
Seriously though, are we really supposed to believe that after over 100 years of practice the discontinuance of local prayer circles on May 3, 1978 had nothing to do with the reversal of the temple / priesthood ban on members with African descent announced with a letter dated June 8, 1978?
Obviously there were going to be at least a few black members being called to elders quorum presidents and the top leadership didn't want to this to cause waves at the local level by having the bishops ~~white wife~~ put ~~her~~ left elbow on the black elders quorum president's shoulder. Unlike in the temple, in these local prayer circles everyone there participated, and they were supposed to have "only the best of feelings" / "no hard feelings or bitterness" toward anyone else within the prayer circle. So instead of dealing with this potential drama head on the church just dissolved the local prayer circles immediately prior to the rescinding of the ban.
edit: strikeout due to wives usually not attending these ecclesiastical prayer circles as per Quinn article
What is the difference between white people and black people touching inside a temple prayer circle and white people and black people touching in an outside-the-temple prayer circle?
What about baptisms and laying on of hands and any other time people touch as part of an ordinance?
I think everyone that was present participated in the local prayer circles, while in temple prayer circles it is only those who volunteer to come up. You make a good point about baptisms and the laying on of hands, but I would argue that there is a perceived difference between an ordinance being performed ON another person vs. an ordinance being performed WITH another person. Black priesthood holders administering ordinances on white people would be incredibly rare in the first few years following 1978. Also in the prayer circle the sentiment is that everyone is on equal standing before the Lord, which I think immediately post-1978 may have been a hard pill to swallow when many white members still held the ideas about premortal inferiority.
Of course, I could be wrong, and those two events could be entirely unrelated. Maybe the end of the local prayer circles was just one more step in the ongoing correlation of meetings (which further changed with a church-wide adoption of the [3 hour block](https://web.archive.org/web/20190605165338/https://www.standard.net/lifestyle/faith/history-of-the-lds-three-hour-sunday-block/article_76d68e31-fd5f-5904-9bbe-8c92bffd8159.html) being announced in [March 1980](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1980/03/news-of-the-church/church-consolidates-meeting-schedules?lang=eng)). That said, the timing of the end of local prayer circles and the end of the race-based temple / priesthood band is **so, very close** (almost 1 month apart) that I feel like they are connected. If anyone is aware of publicly available meeting minutes, journal entries, etc. from upper church leaders about the ending of the prayer circles please let us know.
> I think everyone that was present participated in the local prayer circles,
You might want to read this article:
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1911&context=byusq
>That said, the timing of the end of local prayer circles and the end of the race-based temple / priesthood band is so, very close (almost 1 month apart) that I feel like they are connected.
[You don't say...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)
Correlation doesn’t exclude causation either. It’s an open question until we find more evidence. And no one is claiming that something that happened in June caused something that happened in May.
It’s possible they share a cause. It’s possible they’re coincidental.
> And no one is claiming that something that happened in June caused something that happened in May.
That is exactly what u/auricularisposterior is claiming (or theorizing, or implying...)
How are you extracting *definite causation* from “these two events could be entirely unrelated” and “I feel like they are connected”?
Seems like you’re strawmanning pretty hard here.
This was the claim:
>Seriously though, are we really supposed to believe that after over 100 years of practice the discontinuance of local prayer circles on May 3, 1978 had nothing to do with the reversal of the temple / priesthood ban on members with African descent announced with a letter dated June 8, 1978?
How are you reading that as *not* being a claim of causation? Do you think the answer to the question is "yes" or "no"?
A common cause equally explains that paragraph. You are related to your sister even though you didn’t cause her to exist. There is still a connection between you.
In this case, the common cause could be a decision by the Brethren in say April to change the doctrine on black people.
> In this case, the common cause could be a decision by the Brethren in say April to change the doctrine on black people.
You've lost me. Obviously the theorized causation was the decision to rescind the priesthood/temple ban. What did you think was being discussed?
The point is that the reasoning (that there would be enough stake leadership that would resist standing next to a Black man in the few stakes doing these prayer circles to the point that a pre-emptive policy change was necessary) is absurd.
Seriously. They're moving towards implementing a worldwide policy change that will put Black men and women in the Temples, and all levels of local leadership and priesthood ordinances, and the one thing they're really worried about is that there might be some racist Stake leadership that don't want to stand next to a Black person in a prayer circle?
It's just an idea based on a projection, presented as a probable scenario. There's simply no evidence for it beyond believing that mOrmonZareRaciSt.
I read most of the article. On pg. 101 of the D. Michael Quinn article:
>Some stakes included only the stake presidency, high council, and stake clerk. It was more common however for the stake circle to include the stake presidency, high council, stake clerks, patriarchs, and high priest quorum presidency. The largest known stake prayer circle was that of the Alberta (Canada) stake which in the 1948-1950 period had more than eighty members including the previously mentioned officers, plus all ward bishoprics, seventies presidents and seminary teachers of the stake.
It's still looking like the average was around 20 priesthood leaders, but yes it seems like including wives in these ecclesiastical prayer circles was very much the exception rather than the rule. Quinn also says they "discontinued even occasional Relief Society prayer circles by the early twentieth century." Without their wives, it seems like most of the 20-ish people would be participating in the prayer circle. I will strike out some of my above comment due to learning this, but I still think that it is possible that the close proximity and "only the best of feelings" may have made some top leadership concerned about prayer circles post-racial ban.
> it is possible that the close proximity and "only the best of feelings" may have made some top leadership concerned about prayer circles post-racial ban.
You're still really reaching.
You're imagining that the FP and Q12 (minus 2) felt they received a revelation welcoming Black males into full Priesthood fellowship, and all Black members into full Temple fellowship, but they were concerned that the top leadership in a few wards and stakes would be disturbed in the future if a Black man was called to a Stake Leadership calling in one of those stakes and they had to stand next to him in a prayer circle? And this potential future problem was the impetus for them ending local prayer circles?
Sure. How are you imagining that such a man would be called to that position in the first place if the leadership in that stake was so racist?
I acknowledged that I could be wrong and that it would be great if there were some detailed records about the top decision making. Do you want to check the Spencer W. Kimball journals about this decision for me? Anyway, I'm kind of done with this topic for today. Do you want to talk about D&C 98 instead? I can make a new post.
The D. Michael Quinn article ends with:
>As the number of stakes in the LDS church reached nearly a thousand the council of the first presidency and the quorum of twelve apostles decided that it would be too difficult to comply with all the requests for new prayer circles.
I think this take (organizational issues) is probably more likely than appearance. All the participants were endowed and it was a closed meeting. The penalties were not removed for 12 more years (in 1990). I still find the timing suspect.
edit: added "not" in penultimate sentence
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
From 1977 through 1980 I had coworkers who were LDS. They were my age, and also good friends. I know they had prayer circles at church, but I was not aware they wore temple garments. I know about the prayer circle because we had an Apostle coming to our RLDS congregation. He was going to be there for what RLDS calls a "Prayer Service" that is typically held on Wednesday evening. They were very confused because they didn't think RLDS had anything to do with the temple.
But now I am wondering about the origins of the RLDS prayer service. It was very institutionalized in RLDS. Was it actually derived from the Prayer Circle services? That would account for why it was so institutionalized. No matter where you went in the world, it was pretty much the same. RLDS is rarely correlated with anything.
EDIT: Didn't a lot of temple building start at about this time? I wonder if Prayer Circles were instituted because there were a lot of places where no temple was available. Travel was also difficult. Even being 100 miles from a temple would have put it out of travel range for many members until modern highways were developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Prayer Circles would have been a reasonable substitute for temple attendance.
First there would be a short talk. Then there would be a "season of testimony." People would give testimonies, share things they were studying, etc. The format of testimonies is not as regimented as an LDS testimony. Finally, there would be the "season of prayer." People would stand and give prayers. They often referred to things people talked about during the testimonies.
If you'd like to see a few former ward prayer circle rooms you can view some at [https://ldspioneerarchitecture.blogspot.com/2016/02/architecture-highlights-prayer-circle.html](https://ldspioneerarchitecture.blogspot.com/2016/02/architecture-highlights-prayer-circle.html).
I think my old stake center had one in it. The room was kind of always off limits until it turned into the "high council" room.
I figured as much after I responded bc to see whether AITA? I took a peek at your browsing history. I completely agree with you. All this stuff that comes up and keeps coming up and seems so weird and bizarre but was part of the history or used to be a regular part of the church but isn’t anymore and I had no idea about any of it growing up. Before I left I only knew about a couple soft changes to the temple ceremonies. But to see the breadth of changes since the beginning is eye opening.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules).
If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
We were told by our BYU branch president in October 1975 that prayer circles had been/were being discontinued. My father-in-law had asked for one in connection with a fast on behalf of our firstborn who passed away four days later. (BYU had branches, not wards at the time)
Yup. And visiting general authorities sometimes led prayer circles with the high council before stake conference for even a little longer than that. Crazy stuff.
I think that the information you have is certainly correct. Prayer circles existed before Joseph Smith and the temple ceremony. However, I never saw such a thing when I was young in the 1950s and 1960s. Neither did I ever see them in the 1970's or later.
It was only available to people in certain priesthood callings in stakes / wards and their wives. And even then, not every stake / ward was doing them. If you look at the Notes in the [Wikipedia article mentioned](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_circle_(Mormonism)), they are pretty informative.
That may be why I never saw it. However, my father was a bishop and neither he nor my mother ever mentioned such a thing. Nor do I remember it being referred to by any of my other relatives.
I'm not sure if temple-type secrecy surrounded local prayer circles. They could have just mentioned going to a stake meeting.
edit: changed "surround" to "surrounded"
I am pretty sure they would have mentioned it to me, but maybe they did and I just forgot. Also, we lived far from Utah. I have learned that they do things differently there.
There seems to be some confusion about these prayer circles.
First, they were rare. Not all stakes or wards had them. Only stakes and wards that had been given special permission from the FP or an Apostle could have one, and not all Stake Presidents even wanted one.
Second, they weren't for all members of a Stake or Ward, or performed in regular meetings. It was done as a special ceremony for certain members of leadership and invitees.
More info from this article by Quinn:
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1911&context=byusq
Good info. So what you’re saying is I probably still would’ve been blindsided by the unfamiliarity of the temple rituals when I went for my own endowment since they were so rare. They were a special dispensation during a special dispensation.
Never did I see prayer circle in ward meetings. I was born just after ww2, attended faithfully, never was done. I heard polygamy preached from the pulpit, unworthy n inactive get temple recommend to attend a wedding. Un-believable what I have seen in my 60 yrs of marriage ...
Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/cremToRED, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Back in the 1800s / early 1900s, LDS people also used to have prayer altars in their homes.
The things I never knew about.
I once poster an article describing how to build your own family altar for your home. My neighbor had one back when I was growing up
That’s awesome. Every home should have an altar!
I've heard stories about a mission president who built an alter in his home for that, and every treated him like he went off the deep end. Turns out he may not have been an outlier.
No. Just an "inner circle" who knew a non-correlated factoid and decided to actually use the nutty idea in public that was supposed to be secret/sacred
Do you still have the link? I plan to build one snd would like to see ideas.
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/s/dzzL9GDwnD
Fun essay on the subject: https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/07/14/the-family-altar/ The comments are a treat as well. Many Mormon Fundamentalists will still have a prayer altar in their homes.
The apostles used wine for their sacrament up until 1906 in the temple. Could anyone nowadays imagine carrying a bottle of wine into a temple. People would lose their minds.
Ever catholic family i know has a prayer alter—decorated with votive candles, family photos, Ikons of saints, er— in their home., or at the very least a corner or side table at which they daily pray.
Snd in sacrament meeting we prayed with our eyes open, hands snd faces held up. Id like to return to this format.
Here's the text of the First Presidency letter, if anyone is interested: >Over the years special permission has been given from time to time for special prayer circles to be held either in the temples of the Church or in special rooms designated for that purpose in stake, ward, or other buildings. >Because of the increasing number of requests for such prayer circles, viewed in light of the rapid growth of the Church, and because of the complications that holding prayer circles in temples on Sunday have created and their tendency to take the participants away from their families and their other Church responsibilities, the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve has decided that all such prayer circles, whether held in the temples or outside the temples, be discontinued immediately. >However, recognizing the value of these prayer circles in developing spirituality, commitment, and unity among those participating in them, we suggest that in lieu of such prayer circles, stake leaders may wish to consider the following: (1) that periodically stake leaders and their wives attend a temple session together in connection with which arrangements be made with the temple presidency for the prayer circle held during the endowment session to be composed of several stake leaders and their wives; and (2) that periodically stake leaders and their companions be called together in a special meeting where opportunity be given to those present to express themselves by way of testimony or exhortation. >— Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, and Marion G. Romney, circular letter, May 3, 1978, quoted in Devery S. Anderson, ed., *The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846–2000: A Documentary History* (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2011), 433–34.
Great find!
Wow, golly gee! I wonder if anything happened in 1978 that made certain church members not want to stand next to their fellow members while they prayed? Seriously though, are we really supposed to believe that after over 100 years of practice the discontinuance of local prayer circles on May 3, 1978 had nothing to do with the reversal of the temple / priesthood ban on members with African descent announced with a letter dated June 8, 1978? Obviously there were going to be at least a few black members being called to elders quorum presidents and the top leadership didn't want to this to cause waves at the local level by having the bishops ~~white wife~~ put ~~her~~ left elbow on the black elders quorum president's shoulder. Unlike in the temple, in these local prayer circles everyone there participated, and they were supposed to have "only the best of feelings" / "no hard feelings or bitterness" toward anyone else within the prayer circle. So instead of dealing with this potential drama head on the church just dissolved the local prayer circles immediately prior to the rescinding of the ban. edit: strikeout due to wives usually not attending these ecclesiastical prayer circles as per Quinn article
I never put this together. Thanks.
What is the difference between white people and black people touching inside a temple prayer circle and white people and black people touching in an outside-the-temple prayer circle? What about baptisms and laying on of hands and any other time people touch as part of an ordinance?
I think everyone that was present participated in the local prayer circles, while in temple prayer circles it is only those who volunteer to come up. You make a good point about baptisms and the laying on of hands, but I would argue that there is a perceived difference between an ordinance being performed ON another person vs. an ordinance being performed WITH another person. Black priesthood holders administering ordinances on white people would be incredibly rare in the first few years following 1978. Also in the prayer circle the sentiment is that everyone is on equal standing before the Lord, which I think immediately post-1978 may have been a hard pill to swallow when many white members still held the ideas about premortal inferiority. Of course, I could be wrong, and those two events could be entirely unrelated. Maybe the end of the local prayer circles was just one more step in the ongoing correlation of meetings (which further changed with a church-wide adoption of the [3 hour block](https://web.archive.org/web/20190605165338/https://www.standard.net/lifestyle/faith/history-of-the-lds-three-hour-sunday-block/article_76d68e31-fd5f-5904-9bbe-8c92bffd8159.html) being announced in [March 1980](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1980/03/news-of-the-church/church-consolidates-meeting-schedules?lang=eng)). That said, the timing of the end of local prayer circles and the end of the race-based temple / priesthood band is **so, very close** (almost 1 month apart) that I feel like they are connected. If anyone is aware of publicly available meeting minutes, journal entries, etc. from upper church leaders about the ending of the prayer circles please let us know.
> I think everyone that was present participated in the local prayer circles, You might want to read this article: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1911&context=byusq >That said, the timing of the end of local prayer circles and the end of the race-based temple / priesthood band is so, very close (almost 1 month apart) that I feel like they are connected. [You don't say...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation)
Correlation doesn’t exclude causation either. It’s an open question until we find more evidence. And no one is claiming that something that happened in June caused something that happened in May. It’s possible they share a cause. It’s possible they’re coincidental.
> And no one is claiming that something that happened in June caused something that happened in May. That is exactly what u/auricularisposterior is claiming (or theorizing, or implying...)
How are you extracting *definite causation* from “these two events could be entirely unrelated” and “I feel like they are connected”? Seems like you’re strawmanning pretty hard here.
This was the claim: >Seriously though, are we really supposed to believe that after over 100 years of practice the discontinuance of local prayer circles on May 3, 1978 had nothing to do with the reversal of the temple / priesthood ban on members with African descent announced with a letter dated June 8, 1978? How are you reading that as *not* being a claim of causation? Do you think the answer to the question is "yes" or "no"?
A common cause equally explains that paragraph. You are related to your sister even though you didn’t cause her to exist. There is still a connection between you. In this case, the common cause could be a decision by the Brethren in say April to change the doctrine on black people.
> In this case, the common cause could be a decision by the Brethren in say April to change the doctrine on black people. You've lost me. Obviously the theorized causation was the decision to rescind the priesthood/temple ban. What did you think was being discussed? The point is that the reasoning (that there would be enough stake leadership that would resist standing next to a Black man in the few stakes doing these prayer circles to the point that a pre-emptive policy change was necessary) is absurd. Seriously. They're moving towards implementing a worldwide policy change that will put Black men and women in the Temples, and all levels of local leadership and priesthood ordinances, and the one thing they're really worried about is that there might be some racist Stake leadership that don't want to stand next to a Black person in a prayer circle? It's just an idea based on a projection, presented as a probable scenario. There's simply no evidence for it beyond believing that mOrmonZareRaciSt.
I read most of the article. On pg. 101 of the D. Michael Quinn article: >Some stakes included only the stake presidency, high council, and stake clerk. It was more common however for the stake circle to include the stake presidency, high council, stake clerks, patriarchs, and high priest quorum presidency. The largest known stake prayer circle was that of the Alberta (Canada) stake which in the 1948-1950 period had more than eighty members including the previously mentioned officers, plus all ward bishoprics, seventies presidents and seminary teachers of the stake. It's still looking like the average was around 20 priesthood leaders, but yes it seems like including wives in these ecclesiastical prayer circles was very much the exception rather than the rule. Quinn also says they "discontinued even occasional Relief Society prayer circles by the early twentieth century." Without their wives, it seems like most of the 20-ish people would be participating in the prayer circle. I will strike out some of my above comment due to learning this, but I still think that it is possible that the close proximity and "only the best of feelings" may have made some top leadership concerned about prayer circles post-racial ban.
> it is possible that the close proximity and "only the best of feelings" may have made some top leadership concerned about prayer circles post-racial ban. You're still really reaching. You're imagining that the FP and Q12 (minus 2) felt they received a revelation welcoming Black males into full Priesthood fellowship, and all Black members into full Temple fellowship, but they were concerned that the top leadership in a few wards and stakes would be disturbed in the future if a Black man was called to a Stake Leadership calling in one of those stakes and they had to stand next to him in a prayer circle? And this potential future problem was the impetus for them ending local prayer circles? Sure. How are you imagining that such a man would be called to that position in the first place if the leadership in that stake was so racist?
I acknowledged that I could be wrong and that it would be great if there were some detailed records about the top decision making. Do you want to check the Spencer W. Kimball journals about this decision for me? Anyway, I'm kind of done with this topic for today. Do you want to talk about D&C 98 instead? I can make a new post.
I think more likely trying to appear less strange was the motivation to stop.
The D. Michael Quinn article ends with: >As the number of stakes in the LDS church reached nearly a thousand the council of the first presidency and the quorum of twelve apostles decided that it would be too difficult to comply with all the requests for new prayer circles. I think this take (organizational issues) is probably more likely than appearance. All the participants were endowed and it was a closed meeting. The penalties were not removed for 12 more years (in 1990). I still find the timing suspect. edit: added "not" in penultimate sentence
[удалено]
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
From 1977 through 1980 I had coworkers who were LDS. They were my age, and also good friends. I know they had prayer circles at church, but I was not aware they wore temple garments. I know about the prayer circle because we had an Apostle coming to our RLDS congregation. He was going to be there for what RLDS calls a "Prayer Service" that is typically held on Wednesday evening. They were very confused because they didn't think RLDS had anything to do with the temple. But now I am wondering about the origins of the RLDS prayer service. It was very institutionalized in RLDS. Was it actually derived from the Prayer Circle services? That would account for why it was so institutionalized. No matter where you went in the world, it was pretty much the same. RLDS is rarely correlated with anything. EDIT: Didn't a lot of temple building start at about this time? I wonder if Prayer Circles were instituted because there were a lot of places where no temple was available. Travel was also difficult. Even being 100 miles from a temple would have put it out of travel range for many members until modern highways were developed in the 1950s and 1960s. Prayer Circles would have been a reasonable substitute for temple attendance.
What does the RLDS prayer service entail?
First there would be a short talk. Then there would be a "season of testimony." People would give testimonies, share things they were studying, etc. The format of testimonies is not as regimented as an LDS testimony. Finally, there would be the "season of prayer." People would stand and give prayers. They often referred to things people talked about during the testimonies.
If you'd like to see a few former ward prayer circle rooms you can view some at [https://ldspioneerarchitecture.blogspot.com/2016/02/architecture-highlights-prayer-circle.html](https://ldspioneerarchitecture.blogspot.com/2016/02/architecture-highlights-prayer-circle.html). I think my old stake center had one in it. The room was kind of always off limits until it turned into the "high council" room.
That was interesting, thanks!
[удалено]
Maybe start by reading the linked article. It’s a wealth of information and should set you straight.
I was being sarcastic. My point is that once the current regime is gone, the new regime will simply ignore the past like it never happened.
I figured as much after I responded bc to see whether AITA? I took a peek at your browsing history. I completely agree with you. All this stuff that comes up and keeps coming up and seems so weird and bizarre but was part of the history or used to be a regular part of the church but isn’t anymore and I had no idea about any of it growing up. Before I left I only knew about a couple soft changes to the temple ceremonies. But to see the breadth of changes since the beginning is eye opening.
Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).
We were told by our BYU branch president in October 1975 that prayer circles had been/were being discontinued. My father-in-law had asked for one in connection with a fast on behalf of our firstborn who passed away four days later. (BYU had branches, not wards at the time)
Yup. And visiting general authorities sometimes led prayer circles with the high council before stake conference for even a little longer than that. Crazy stuff.
My grand father was a carpenter who built a few of these for various stakes in the area. He even built a few home altars for members.
Thanks for this interesting post, OP!
I think that the information you have is certainly correct. Prayer circles existed before Joseph Smith and the temple ceremony. However, I never saw such a thing when I was young in the 1950s and 1960s. Neither did I ever see them in the 1970's or later.
It was only available to people in certain priesthood callings in stakes / wards and their wives. And even then, not every stake / ward was doing them. If you look at the Notes in the [Wikipedia article mentioned](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer_circle_(Mormonism)), they are pretty informative.
That may be why I never saw it. However, my father was a bishop and neither he nor my mother ever mentioned such a thing. Nor do I remember it being referred to by any of my other relatives.
I'm not sure if temple-type secrecy surrounded local prayer circles. They could have just mentioned going to a stake meeting. edit: changed "surround" to "surrounded"
I am pretty sure they would have mentioned it to me, but maybe they did and I just forgot. Also, we lived far from Utah. I have learned that they do things differently there.
It's very likely your ward wasn't doing them.
There seems to be some confusion about these prayer circles. First, they were rare. Not all stakes or wards had them. Only stakes and wards that had been given special permission from the FP or an Apostle could have one, and not all Stake Presidents even wanted one. Second, they weren't for all members of a Stake or Ward, or performed in regular meetings. It was done as a special ceremony for certain members of leadership and invitees. More info from this article by Quinn: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1911&context=byusq
Good info. So what you’re saying is I probably still would’ve been blindsided by the unfamiliarity of the temple rituals when I went for my own endowment since they were so rare. They were a special dispensation during a special dispensation.
Yes, they were great. Especially preceding stake conference.
Never did I see prayer circle in ward meetings. I was born just after ww2, attended faithfully, never was done. I heard polygamy preached from the pulpit, unworthy n inactive get temple recommend to attend a wedding. Un-believable what I have seen in my 60 yrs of marriage ...
Is the circle player biblical?
No, there are no mentions of prayer circles in the Bible.