65 replies to this topic

[Bernard Gui]

2Nephi 31
13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism -- yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

Nephi uses the same terminology as the sacrament prayer. I don't see any allusions to
Temple ordinances in this chapter.

Bernard

[Freedom]

 Bernard Gui, on 20 May 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

Nephi uses the same terminology as the sacrament prayer. I don't see any allusions to
Temple ordinances in this chapter.

Bernard

When you go to the temple and listen to the ordinances, you will see how they are connected. At least, this is how it appears to me.

[altersteve]

The covenants we make in the temple are not really separate from the ones we make at baptism, and nor are they separate from the more informal and personal covenants we make in our hearts at various times in our lives. They all involve us taking the name of the Savior upon ourselves, which is the first step to becoming like Him one day, and therefore all involve God promising to keep His Spirit with us. So yes, the sacrament (a symbolic reminder of the sacrifice Jesus Christ made for us) can renew any covenant if we partake of it with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.

Writing this post helped me understand covenants a lot better, so thank you for asking this question.

Edited by altersteve, 21 May 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[Robert F. Smith]

 Freedom, on 20 May 2012 - 10:13 PM, said:

Indeed it is the Holy Ghost, but this cleansing begins with the bestowal at baptism but culminates in the temple. Else why is there a washing and anointing in the temple if the sins are already washed away?

This is not the place to be discussing what does or does not take place, or is said in holy temple rites.

Ordinary baptism includes baptism by water and baptism by fire (confirmation & gift of the Holy Ghost) in which one becomes a member of the Kingdom of God on Earth.  That baptism by fire is for the purging from sin (remission of sins), but must be renewed via repentance and the taking of the emblems of the body & blood of Christ at the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper on a regular basis.  Being one of the Saints of God does not require more than that.

[David T]

I like to consider the Sacrament as a Pledge of Allegiance. As long as you are expressing that you desire to remain faithful to the Savior and all He represents, you can be assured that he will still fulfill all promises you've made with him. There's no need to get down to legal semantics on this. It's a promise of peace and guidance and fulfilling of promises as you express your desire to be one with the Lord. It's acknowledging that you've already been forgiven, and can be used as a mile marker, or anchor, to remember the last time you had a communion experience with the Lord, where you were assured that you're doing just fine. It also looks forward to the eschatological Meal of Fellowship with the Lord in his Kingdom.

I'm pretty sure there's not a ledger in heaven marking things 'good' every time you partake, and keeping you guilty when you don't. I consider it the ordinance of Remembrance, and renewed Hope.

Edited by David T, 21 May 2012 - 10:39 AM.

[Robert F. Smith]

 Freedom, on 20 May 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

It is important to note that when King Benjamin was giving his people a new name, the name of Christ, they were already members of the church. It is also important to note that they were gathered around the temple when this was occurring.

This was a typical Israelite covenant renewal ceremony which took place at the Fall Festival of Ingathering (New Year - Tabernacles) in which the members of the congregation were born again (Mosiah 5:7) in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah over a century later.  There was not as yet a Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, except that the annual Passover Festival was held 6 months after the Festival of Ingathering, and as pointed out above by Elder Cook, the Passover meal was the precursor to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  It is no accident that the Sacrament is considered the holiest ordinance in the LDS Church, and we need to resist the temptation to minimize its importance through discussion of esoteric temple rites.

[cinepro]

 Bernard Gui, on 19 May 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

Tonight at a stake conference meeting, one of the speakers claimed when we take the sacrament
we renew all our covenants, including temple covenants. My understanding is that renew our baptismal
covenants. In the temple, there is no renewal part of the ceremony. There is no mention of the temple
or of "all the covenants" in the sacramental prayer. Any comments?

Bernard

Can someone explain to me why a covenant even needs to be "renewed"?  I made a covenant in the Temple 19 years ago.  It's still just as much in effect today whether or not I've taken the Sacrament in the meantime, or even gone back to the Temple.

Covenants don't have a half-life.

Instead of saying that our covenant is "renewed", perhaps we should say we are "reminded" of our covenants.  That would seem to be more doctrinally (and practically) correct.  

I even view the Sacrament as a covenant that is binding on everyone who takes it, even if they haven't been baptized.  The prayer says "all souls who partake of it".  It doesn't say anything about being a member of the Church.

Edited by cinepro, 21 May 2012 - 11:10 AM.

[David T]

 cinepro, on 21 May 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Can someone explain to me why a covenant even needs to be "renewed"?  I made a covenant in the Temple 19 years ago.  It's still just as much in effect today whether or not I've taken the Sacrament in the meantime, or even gone back to the Temple.

Covenants don't have a half-life.

Instead of saying that our covenant is "renewed", perhaps we should say we are "reminded" of our covenants.  That would seem to be more doctrinally (and practically) correct.  

I even view the Sacrament as a covenant that is binding on everyone who takes it, even if they haven't been baptized.  The prayer says "all souls who partake of it".  It doesn't say anything about being a member of the Church.

That pretty much agrees with my post above.

[David T]

 Robert F. Smith, on 21 May 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

  It is no accident that the Sacrament is considered the holiest ordinance in the LDS Church

For me, this make the 'It's Too Sacred To Talk About' argument for Temple stuff kind of fall apart, seeing as we talk about, teach, read about, repeat the wording of, publicize, illustrate, and memorize the 'Holiest Ordinance'.

[Freedom]

 Robert F. Smith, on 21 May 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

This was a typical Israelite covenant renewal ceremony which took place at the Fall Festival of Ingathering (New Year - Tabernacles) in which the members of the congregation were born again (Mosiah 5:7) in anticipation of the coming of the Messiah over a century later.  There was not as yet a Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, except that the annual Passover Festival was held 6 months after the Festival of Ingathering, and as pointed out above by Elder Cook, the Passover meal was the precursor to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  It is no accident that the Sacrament is considered the holiest ordinance in the LDS Church, and we need to resist the temptation to minimize its importance through discussion of esoteric temple rites.

I will advise Bednar and Oaks of their error.

[Freedom]

 David T, on 21 May 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

For me, this make the 'It's Too Sacred To Talk About' argument for Temple stuff kind of fall apart, seeing as we talk about, teach, read about, repeat the wording of, publicize, illustrate, and memorize the 'Holiest Ordinance'.

If they are too sacred to talk about, why are they discussed in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism?

[Log]

 Freedom, on 21 May 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

If they are too sacred to talk about, why are they discussed in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism?

Or on the Church's website?

Edited by Log, 21 May 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[The Nehor]

 cinepro, on 21 May 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Can someone explain to me why a covenant even needs to be "renewed"?  I made a covenant in the Temple 19 years ago.  It's still just as much in effect today whether or not I've taken the Sacrament in the meantime, or even gone back to the Temple.

Covenants don't have a half-life.

Instead of saying that our covenant is "renewed", perhaps we should say we are "reminded" of our covenants.  That would seem to be more doctrinally (and practically) correct.  

I even view the Sacrament as a covenant that is binding on everyone who takes it, even if they haven't been baptized.  The prayer says "all souls who partake of it".  It doesn't say anything about being a member of the Church.

Covenants need to be renewed because we break them regularly. If a contract is made and one party defaults then both can agree to renew the contract.

If you aren't breaking your covenants through sin then there is no need for the sacrament.

[David T]

 Freedom, on 21 May 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

If they are too sacred to talk about, why are they discussed in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism?

 Log, on 21 May 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Or on the Church's website?

FWIW, I'm not someone defending that perspective.

However, it is the only explanation I've heard as to why we don't publish or consider it 'proper' to have talks or homilies in Conference or Sacrament Meeting on the phrases, language, and promises found in the initiatories, Endowment, or Sealing. Nothing in the ordinances themselves instruct one not to speak of them as a whole - the fact is, there are only an extremely select and limited things we specifically and clearly are instructed and commited to 'never reveal' as part of the experience.

While I'm glad this has the effect of not being told 'this is what it means', I think it also doesn't make sense as an explanation.

Edited by David T, 21 May 2012 - 12:45 PM.

[Freedom]

 Log, on 21 May 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Or on the Church's website?

Watch it or I will report that you are posting temple content.

We do have to be careful, but not as careful as many believe. Virtually the entire endowment is found in the bible and D&C.

[Freedom]

 David T, on 21 May 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

FWIW, I'm not someone defending that perspective.

However, it is the only explanation I've heard as to why we don't publish or consider it 'proper' to have talks or homilies in Conference or Sacrament Meeting on the phrases, language, and promises found in the initiatories, Endowment, or Sealing. Nothing in the ordinances themselves instruct one not to speak of them as a whole - the fact is, there are only an extremely select and limited things we specifically and clearly are instructed and commited to 'never reveal' as part of the experience.

While I'm glad this has the effect of not being told 'this is what it means', I think it also doesn't make sense as an explanation.

I would generally agree, but concepts like the prayer circle and the washing and anointing ceremony are well documented and openly discussed. We should not list out the covenants (although I read an article in the ensign that did just that without identifying where the specific list came from) or describe the ceremony and wording specifically, but this tends to happen because much of it is generic and found in the scriptures.

[David T]

 Freedom, on 21 May 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

We should not list out the covenants (although I read an article in the ensign that did just that without identifying where the specific list came from)

Tell that to Elder Hales, who published the covenants in an illustration in his latest book RETURN, showing their connection with the Temple, and under which Order of the Priesthood they were associated with.

Edited by David T, 21 May 2012 - 01:10 PM.

[calmoriah]

 David T, on 21 May 2012 - 11:17 AM, said:

For me, this make the 'It's Too Sacred To Talk About' argument for Temple stuff kind of fall apart, seeing as we talk about, teach, read about, repeat the wording of, publicize, illustrate, and memorize the 'Holiest Ordinance'.

However, choosing to only talk about a certain topic in a limited time and place can set it apart and creates a sacred space by intent around it.  So in a sense one can honestly say "it is too sacred for me to talk about because I have chosen to mark this sacred ritual by not talking about it even if I have chosen to mark as sacred other rituals and aspects in other ways."

The usual argument attached to "it is too sacred to talk about" actually reverses the cause with the effect...it makes the lack of talk the effect of sacredness rather then the sacredness the effect of not talking about it, among other things that set the temple apart.

[Bernard Gui]

 cinepro, on 21 May 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

Can someone explain to me why a covenant even needs to be "renewed"?  I made a covenant in the Temple 19 years ago.  It's still just as much in effect today whether or not I've taken the Sacrament in the meantime, or even gone back to the Temple.

Covenants don't have a half-life.

Instead of saying that our covenant is "renewed", perhaps we should say we are "reminded" of our covenants.  That would seem to be more doctrinally (and practically) correct.  

I even view the Sacrament as a covenant that is binding on everyone who takes it, even if they haven't been baptized.  The prayer says "all souls who partake of it".  It doesn't say anything about being a member of the Church.

From the Gospel Doctrine Manual (emphasis added):

Quote

The Covenants We Renew during the Sacrament•

• What covenants do we renew during the sacrament? What blessings does the Lord promise us as we keep those covenants?

Each time we partake of the sacrament, we renew covenants with the Lord. A covenant is a sacred promise between the Lord and His children. The covenants we make are clearly stated in the sacramental prayers. It is important to know what those covenants are and what they mean.
We covenant that we are willing to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. By this we show we are willing to be identified with Him and His Church. We commit to serve Him and our fellowman. We promise that we will not bring shame or reproach upon that name.
We covenant to always remember Jesus Christ. All our thoughts, feelings, and actions will be influenced by Him and His mission.
We promise to keep His commandments.
We take these obligations upon ourselves when we are baptized (see D&C 20:37; Mosiah 18:6–10). Thus, when we partake of the sacrament, we renew the covenants we made when we were baptized. Jesus gave us the pattern for partaking of the sacrament (see 3 Nephi 18:1–12) and said that when we follow this pattern, repenting of our sins and believing on His name, we will gain a remission of our sins (see Joseph Smith Translation, Matthew 26:24).
The Lord promises that if we keep our covenants, we will always have His Spirit to be with us. A person guided by the Spirit will have the knowledge, faith, power, and righteousness to gain eternal life.

D&C 20:37

Quote

37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

This has always been my understanding of the renewing efficacy of partaking of the sacrament.
Up until last weekend I had never heard the sacrament associated with temple covenants, at least
in scripture or doctrinal sources.

But, this article seems to imply the sacrament involves all covenants:

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

And this article limits it to baptism:
http://institute.lds...sp-11-20-20.asp

Bernard

Edited by Bernard Gui, 22 May 2012 - 10:23 AM.

[cinepro]

 Bernard Gui, on 22 May 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

From the Gospel Doctrine Manual (emphasis added):



D&C 20:37


This has always been my understanding of the renewing efficacy of partaking of the sacrament.
Up until last weekend I had never heard the sacrament associated with temple covenants, at least
in scripture or doctrinal sources.

But, this article seems to imply the sacrament involves all covenants:

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

And this article limits it to baptism:
http://institute.lds...sp-11-20-20.asp

Bernard

Ultimately aren't we talking about a symbolic ordinance?  Once we get beyond the fact that we're eating a small piece of bread and drinking a little cup of water and the actual wording of the prayer, who says it can't mean anything we want it to mean?