Avatar4321 Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 I was listening to elder renlunds priesthood talk.at the end he exhorted us to receive the oath (as in oath & covenant). Does he mean that the oath is given separately from the ordination? how do those who have already been ordained receive this oath? Link to comment
ksfisher Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 46 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: I was listening to elder renlunds priesthood talk.at the end he exhorted us to receive the oath (as in oath & covenant). Does he mean that the oath is given separately from the ordination? how do those who have already been ordained receive this oath? "Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved." Doctrine and Covenants 84:40 1 Link to comment
Bobbieaware Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) 58 minutes ago, ksfisher said: "Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved." Doctrine and Covenants 84:40 Receiving the fullness of the power and authority of the priesthood DOES NOT occur at the moment of one’s initial ordination. Rather, the fulness of the priesthood’s power and authority is not made manifest until he receives the oaths and covenants of the temple. Many are mystified by what is meant when we speak of “the oath and covenant of the priesthood” because they recognise no actual oaths and covenants are made at the time one is ordained to the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. But mystery ends when it’s realized the oaths and covenants of the two priesthood’s are not made until one who is ordained participates in the oaths and covenants of the temple. Edited October 21, 2017 by Bobbieaware 1 Link to comment
cdowis Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) I seem to remember that Joseph Smith spoke about the three levels of the priesthood -- Aaronic, Melchizedek , and the patriarchal. It took me awhile to understand what he meant. Edited October 21, 2017 by cdowis 1 Link to comment
Stargazer Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: "Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved." Doctrine and Covenants 84:40 21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Receiving the fullness of the power and authority of the priesthood DOES NOT occur at the moment of one’s initial ordination. Rather, the fulness of the priesthood’s power and authority is not made manifest until he receives the oaths and covenants of the temple. Many are mystified by what is meant when we speak of “the oath and covenant of the priesthood” because they recognise no actual oaths and covenants are made at the time one is ordained to the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthood. But mystery ends when it’s realized the oaths and covenants of the two priesthood’s are not made until one who is ordained participates in the oaths and covenants of the temple. Looking at both of these posts, it appears that one may have been ordained, but has not yet received the priesthood until one has been endowed. This actually makes sense to me. This appears to parallel confirmation following baptism, in that when one is confirmed a member of the Church, the command is "receive the Holy Ghost", but at that moment one has not yet received the Holy Ghost. That usually comes later. Link to comment
Bobbieaware Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Looking at both of these posts, it appears that one may have been ordained, but has not yet received the priesthood until one has been endowed. This actually makes sense to me. This appears to parallel confirmation following baptism, in that when one is confirmed a member of the Church, the command is "receive the Holy Ghost", but at that moment one has not yet received the Holy Ghost. That usually comes later. I thought of the same parallel but I would say the unendowed priesthood holder does indeed have the priesthood but just not the fulness thereof. For example, an unendowed elder has the priesthood power and authority to administer to the sick, confirm Church membership and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. But it also must be said that receiving the greater fulness of the priesthood ordinances is preferable. This is why both male and female missionaries are required to receive the oaths and covenants of the priesthood in the temple before they can serve missions. (maybe I just let a cat out of the bag?) 1 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said: I thought of the same parallel but I would say the unendowed priesthood holder does indeed have the priesthood but just not the fulness thereof. For example, an unendowed elder has the priesthood power and authority to administer to the sick, confirm Church membership and confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. But it also must be said that receiving the greater fulness of the priesthood ordinances is preferable. This is why both male and female missionaries are required to receive the oaths and covenants of the priesthood in the temple before they can serve missions. (maybe I just let a cat out of the bag?) I am a temple worker who assists missionaries and others entering the temple for the first time to receive their own endowments. I am with them from literally them entering the door until they enter the celestial room and am privileged to officiate in the ordinances they receive. There are only very slight differences in wording in the ordinances for missionaries than anyone else, or for those who have passed on. Are you saying this is a special ceremony for missionaries? It is not on the list of items specifically administered to missionaries as part of receiving their own endowment. Perhaps you just mean that missionaries also receive those covenants along with the covenants made in the endowment, and receiving the endowment is required- right? Link to comment
Bobbieaware Posted October 21, 2017 Share Posted October 21, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I am a temple worker who assists missionaries and others entering the temple for the first time to receive their own endowments. I am with them from literally them entering the door until they enter the celestial room and am privileged to officiate in the ordinances they receive. There are only very slight differences in wording in the ordinances for missionaries than anyone else, or for those who have passed on. Are you saying this is a special ceremony for missionaries? It is not on the list of items specifically administered to missionaries as part of receiving their own endowment. Perhaps you just mean that missionaries also receive those covenants along with the covenants made in the endowment, and receiving the endowment is required- right? I’m just repeating the well-known fact that missionaries aren’t sent out without being endowed. I had no idea there was a subtle difference in wording for the missionaries. My point is that the Lord wants missionaries in the field who have not only been ordained but also endowed, and this so that they are endowed with a fuller manifestation of priesthood empowerment. Always a pleasure, Mark. Edited October 21, 2017 by Bobbieaware 1 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said: I’m just repeating the well-known fact that missionaries aren’t sent out without being endowed. I had no idea there was a subtle difference in wording for the missionaries. My point is that the Lord wants missionaries in the field who have not only been ordained but also endowed, and this so that they are endowed with a fuller manifestation of priesthood empowerment. Always a pleasure, Mark. Ok, got it. The wording difference just does not include "for and behalf is.....who is dead" because they are not. That should not be a shocking revelation, or something I can't reveal. Link to comment
Bobbieaware Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Ok, got it. The wording difference just does not include "for and behalf is.....who is dead" because they are not. That should not be a shocking revelation, or something I can't reveal. I think we’ve all known a missionary or two who was more or less “dead.” 😏 1 Link to comment
CV75 Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 7 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: I was listening to elder renlunds priesthood talk.at the end he exhorted us to receive the oath (as in oath & covenant). Does he mean that the oath is given separately from the ordination? how do those who have already been ordained receive this oath? I think it is an ongoing thing, continually believing in and counting on the Lord's promise (oath) to exalt the true and faithful, or those who receive the priesthood and His servants, magnify their callings and live by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God. And who repent when they don't! Link to comment
Avatar4321 Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 I could see how the temple covenants would be priesthood covenants but I don't remember an oath administered there. I just always considers the oath and covenant as something we received with the priesthood. From the language it sounded like it was more individual. Do we need God to actually swear an oath to us to receive the fulness? Link to comment
Benjamin Seeker Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 I believe D&C is at least partly making allusion to Hebrews 7, and Paul's delineation between priesthoods: 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec ... 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore 1 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: I could see how the temple covenants would be priesthood covenants but I don't remember an oath administered there. I just always considers the oath and covenant as something we received with the priesthood. From the language it sounded like it was more individual. Do we need God to actually swear an oath to us to receive the fulness? No, go back and read the thread. He already has sworn the covenant- see below Edited October 22, 2017 by mfbukowski Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 6 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I believe D&C is at least partly making allusion to Hebrews 7, and Paul's delineation between priesthoods: 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec ... 28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore Yes I agree- I have heard that before but had forgotten it- as has been said here, the M. Priesthood comes with an oath from God that is a two edged sword - on one hand it has all the blessings in section 84, -ie: exaltation- and on the other for those who "turn fully from it"... not good stuff. And the implication is that IF one has advanced spiritually far enough one could become a son of perdition- but that is reserved for very few who advance that far and then fall all the way back as Satan himself fell. Quote 40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved. 41 But whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come. And of course this would also include endowed sisters- no discrimination here! 1 Link to comment
Kenngo1969 Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 14 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Ok, got it. The wording difference just does not include "for and behalf is.....who is dead" because they are not. That should not be a shocking revelation, or something I can't reveal. Heretic!!! "Activate MDD* Hit Squad #1! Please advise when target has been acquired and eliminated!" *Modern-Day Danite P.S.: If you happen to bump into Bill Reel, don't tell him about this thread or about this post, he hates it when I use emoticons! P.P.S.: You know I love you, Bishop! 1 Link to comment
RevTestament Posted October 22, 2017 Share Posted October 22, 2017 21 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Heretic!!! "Activate MDD* Hit Squad #1! Please advise when target has been acquired and eliminated!" *Modern-Day Danite P.S.: If you happen to bump into Bill Reel, don't tell him about this thread or about this post, he hates it when I use emoticons! I think I will start a thread on emoticon abusers - they are worse than male or female abusers ya'know. 1 Link to comment
Avatar4321 Posted October 22, 2017 Author Share Posted October 22, 2017 I found this visiting teaching message about the oath and covenant. It talks about the temple covenants being part of it and sisters receiving the oath and covenant. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/04/oath-and-covenant-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng Link to comment
janderich Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Take a look at this article. It makes a number of connections on the oath and covenant of the priesthood and points to sources worth studying: https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/061-30-37.pdf Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 On 10/21/2017 at 2:18 PM, Avatar4321 said: I was listening to elder renlunds priesthood talk.at the end he exhorted us to receive the oath (as in oath & covenant). Does he mean that the oath is given separately from the ordination? how do those who have already been ordained receive this oath? Great question! I remember hearing this at the time and thinking it strange. He spends time talking about covenants we make with Heavenly Father. Simply put, covenants are promises between multiple parties. He points out that an oath is different. The father takes an oath (or makes a promise) that is not contingent on anything we may or may not do. It is not a covenant. But then he doesn't explain what the oath is. I think most of us recognize the covenant part of the oath and covenant of the priesthood. It's the whole "if-then" scenario. Those who receive the father will receive all that the father hath etc. But what is the oath? What's the promise God makes that has no condition? Perhaps I'll slap my head with an "of course" but I sure can't think of it at the moment. Is it possible the oath is the 2nd anointing? 1 Link to comment
Storm Rider Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 On 10/21/2017 at 8:54 PM, mfbukowski said: Ok, got it. The wording difference just does not include "for and behalf is.....who is dead" because they are not. That should not be a shocking revelation, or something I can't reveal. mfb is only talking about the difference between a live endowment and an endowment done for those who have died. Link to comment
Avatar4321 Posted October 23, 2017 Author Share Posted October 23, 2017 been studying the oath and covenant more this morning and a few things struck me: 1) It's the Father that swears the oath. For some reason I thought it was Christ. 2) He confirmed the priesthood upon those present that day which leads to more questions: those present were previously ordained does that mean the priesthood must be confirmed separately from ordination? does those present, include us through our likening the scriptures unto ourselves or do we need to receive revelation confirming our priesthood as well? 3) we are told to live off every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord, thus it seems revelation is key to everything we do. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Storm Rider said: mfb is only talking about the difference between a live endowment and an endowment done for those who have died. Yep, I thought that was clear but I guess not. The question was whether or not the endowment was different for missionaries, it us not. Edited October 23, 2017 by mfbukowski Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: been studying the oath and covenant more this morning and a few things struck me: 1) It's the Father that swears the oath. For some reason I thought it was Christ. 2) He confirmed the priesthood upon those present that day which leads to more questions: those present were previously ordained does that mean the priesthood must be confirmed separately from ordination? does those present, include us through our likening the scriptures unto ourselves or do we need to receive revelation confirming our priesthood as well? 3) we are told to live off every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord, thus it seems revelation is key to everything we do. These questions are answered in the anointing part of the initiatories, and that is why the speaker is Elohim, as in the veil ceremony. Only the Father can allow you into His presence. The confirmation of exaltation is preparatory and contingent on faithfulness, per the initiatories. Edited October 23, 2017 by mfbukowski Link to comment
Avatar4321 Posted October 26, 2017 Author Share Posted October 26, 2017 Can you receive the oath before receiving all the blessings of the temple? Link to comment
Recommended Posts