Sacrament Renews All Covenants? Anyone ever hear this?

[Stargazer]

I do spend a bit of time on Quora, which is a Q&A website. I answer a lot of questions pertaining to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are "Spaces" for particular topics, among with are a "Latter-day Saints" and an "Ex-Mormon" space. I get pinged for questions by both, though oddly enough, more Ex-Mormon than the other. And I learn some things even from the Exes.

A case in point was this question:

Did anyone else notice the LDS church quietly shifting the doctrine about ‘renewing covenants’? For decades they taught the sacrament renews all covenants, baptismal, temple, marriage, everything. Now leaders seem to be implying you have to go to the temple to ‘renew’ those. If doctrine is supposed to be eternal, what do you make of this change? Is it just another example of the church retrofitting theology to match current priorities, or am I missing something?

Does anyone here recall this being taught before, that the Sacrament renews all other covenants? The question certainly surprised me; in my 60 years of membershipI  had never heard such a thing.

But while answering I picked up on something I had never thought of before. So, I'll present it, and invite comments upon it.

My answer:

Ah, you are definitely missing something! I don’t know where you heard that the Sacrament renews “all covenants,” because in my 60 years of membership I never heard it taught even once that the sacrament renews temple covenants. But the question does teach me something that had never entered my mind, and I thank you for it!

The temple covenants are not saving ordinances, they are exalting ordinances, and they have no need of renewal, per se. On the other hand, the sacrament is a reflection of the saving ordinance called baptism, which by Christ’s atonement saves us from the consequences of our sins. For it to be continuously valid, it must be renewed because we will still sin after baptism, and must repent. This is why the Apostle Paul made it clear that if we are guilty of sin, we must not partake of it until we have repented:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. [1 Cor 11:27–29]

This principle was re-emphasized to the Prophet Joseph Smith:

Ye are also commanded not to cast any one who belongeth to the church out of your sacrament meetings; nevertheless, if any have trespassed, let him not partake until he makes reconciliation. [D&C 46:4]

Now, all that being said, it is nevertheless true that without repentance, one’s baptism is invalid, and if one’s baptism is invalid, then one’s endowment is likewise invalid, because exaltation stands on the foundation of salvation, and you can’t have the building without the foundation.  So, in a sense, partaking worthily of the sacrament would seem to validate our endowment in a certain sense. But as for renewing it, no. It does not do so.

 

Edited yesterday at 12:45 PM by Stargazer

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Does anyone here recall this being taught before, that the Sacrament renews all other covenants? The question certainly surprised me; in my 60 years of membershipI  had never heard such a thing.

 

I wasn't taught that all covenants were being renewed, but I was definitely taught that baptism covenants were--to the point that I thought if I died sometime between sinning & repenting and being able to take the sacrament again that I might be screwed.

[bluebell]

Elder L. Tom Perry taught this in GC in 2006 and in that talk he quoted Elder Delbert L Stapley teaching the same thing in 1965.  It's a little controversial because there is nothing really in the standard works that backs up the claim, and Christ never says that about taking the sacrament either.  We've discussed it at least once on this board and probably more.  I think it's one of those things that certainly could be true but no member is under any obligation to believe it just because it was taught a few times.  I don't think there is any harm believing or not believing it.

(I'm curious where is the church now teaching that we renew temple covenants in the temple?)

I think the real question isn't about renewing covenants though it's about what doctrine is and how so many members (active and not) really don't have a good base understanding of that concept and that's why it causes consternation whenever our leaders understanding of something theological changes.

[MustardSeed]

I’ve always understood that the sacraments purpose is to renew our covenant (meaning baptismal covenant) 

[Pyreaux]

I always thought they should return to the temple yearly because a yearly personal re-endowment is very old school and I'm a fan of ancient practices. But it is modern times, and maybe with a focus on work for the dead, that counts as renewing them for yourself.

[let’s roll]

Much ado…IMHO.  One can renew one’s covenants at any time simply by recommitting in prayer or worship to those covenants.  The verbiage of the sacrament prayer does that for us and our amen to that verbiage is thus understood as a renewal of baptismal covenants.

While acting as a proxy in temple ordinances, I hear the words of the covenants and while accepting those covenants on behalf of another, I am certainly able to have in my mind and heart a desire to reaffirm my own commitment to those covenants.  I think it’s fair to characterize that as a renewal of my commitment to keep temple covenants.  Not sure why that concept would be viewed as new or controversial.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Elder L. Tom Perry taught this in GC in 2006 and in that talk he quoted Elder Delbert L Stapley teaching the same thing in 1965.  It's a little controversial because there is nothing really in the standard works that backs up the claim, and Christ never says that about taking the sacrament either.  We've discussed it at least once on this board and probably more.  I think it's one of those things that certainly could be true but no member is under any obligation to believe it just because it was taught a few times.  I don't think there is any harm believing or not believing it.

There are plenty of things that are harmless in that way, I think. Including the false notion that the Book of Mormon lands are in the Heartland. Yuck, yuck, don't anyone derail the thread, please, I just couldn't help myself. 🤪

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

(I'm curious where is the church now teaching that we renew temple covenants in the temple?)

The original question was that the church was no longer teaching it, and wondering why (implying the church was changing its teachings again, dang them!).

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think the real question isn't about renewing covenants though it's about what doctrine is and how so many members (active and not) really don't have a good base understanding of that concept and that's why it causes consternation whenever our leaders understanding of something theological changes.

When the Apostle Paul strongly suggests that the sacrament should not be partaken of by the unworthy, and the Lord says that the unworthy need to repent before partaking, I take it that the sacrament has something to do with repentance and forgiveness, just as baptism does. When @Notatbm said that he used to worry about dying between sinning and partaking of the sacrament, it reminded me that I have thought similarly in the past. 

But it ought to be clear that partaking of the sacrament is not a saving ordinance, in itself. The dead who are baptized by proxy have no opportunity to partake of the sacrament after that ordinance is performed, but the baptism alone suffices for their repentance, whenever it occurred in the spirit world. I feel that the sacrament is more of an opportunity to express our continuing faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and our willingness to strive to keep His commandments, rather than a touchpoint for forgiveness. Forgiveness comes from His grace, not an outward ordinance. He still desires us to partake it as opportunity occurs (D&C 20:75), and so we should strive to do so as often as possible. The sacrament prayers themselves promise only "that they may have his Spirit to be with them," not that last week's sins be forgiven.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

I wasn't taught that all covenants were being renewed, but I was definitely taught that baptism covenants were--to the point that I thought if I died sometime between sinning & repenting and being able to take the sacrament again that I might be screwed.

The same thought once occurred to me, as well, but I stopped worrying about it after taking on board a sentiment a Protestant once expressed to me about baptism (or, any ordinance whatsoever) as being just "magical sacramentalism."

Earlier this year (2026) I flew to the US to spend some time in my house there, but managed to come down sick with something my wife and stepson had caught but I thought I had escaped. I was housebound for three weeks (lost 20 pounds!) until I flew back to the UK, and wasn't able to attend church (I didn't want to infect anyone with it). On the airplane heading back I was still not doing very well, but was not worried about the airplane going down without having been able to partake of the sacrament for three whole weeks -- actually four, because I was still sick as a dog the next Sunday as well.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

Much ado…IMHO.  One can renew one’s covenants at any time simply by recommitting in prayer or worship to those covenants.  The verbiage of the sacrament prayer does that for us and our amen to that verbiage is thus understood as a renewal of baptismal covenants.

Yes, much ado, but there are those with questions, and sometimes serious questions. Some questions should be answered.

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

While acting as a proxy in temple ordinances, I hear the words of the covenants and while accepting those covenants on behalf of another, I am certainly able to have in my mind and heart a desire to reaffirm my own commitment to those covenants.  I think it’s fair to characterize that as a renewal of my commitment to keep temple covenants.  

You could characterize it that way. It isn't, but so what, a reminder of the covenants and my commitment to keeping them is definitely in order and very appropriate. I was in the London temple yesterday, and felt a strong desire to just stay there. A refuge from the world is of great value, and that is what it is.

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

Not sure why that concept would be viewed as new or controversial.

It wasn't being viewed as new or controversial that there was a renewal of covenants. The original Quora questioner was viewing a supposed giving up of the supposed principle of temple covenant renewal as new or controversial. Again, this was on the Ex-Mormon Quora Space, so the complaint was more an attack on the church than anything else. One that I felt needed a response.

I just wanted to see what others thought of the question, and possibly my response to it.

[the narrator]

38 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

a Protestant once expressed to me about baptism (or, any ordinance whatsoever) as being just "magical sacramentalism."

Exactly. I think that baptism, communion, endowment, sealings, etc should be understood as initiation rites into a community. In the Book of Mormon, particularly at the waters of Mormon, baptism is quite clearly portrayed as such, communion literally means "participation in something; that which is common to all; union in religious worship, doctrine, or discipline" (I have no idea how it came to be called "the sacrament" in Mormonism), and the temple endowment was literally modeled after initiation rites for the preeminent social club of the early 19th century. Somewhere along the way, though, these sacraments lost their role as communal initiation and became magical means to secure a spot in heaven.

Edited 20 hours ago by the narrator

[Notatbm]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

When @Notatbm said that he used to worry about dying between sinning and partaking of the sacrament, it reminded me that I have thought similarly in the past. 

When did I say this? Doesnt sound like anything I would have said… mebbe I was hitting the crack pipe rhst day. 

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

When did I say this? Doesnt sound like anything I would have said… mebbe I was hitting the crack pipe rhst day. 

Oh, dang it. It was @the narrator who said that. Not you. I must have been hitting that pipe myself or something.

[Notatbm]

28 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Oh, dang it. It was @the narrator who said that. Not you. I must have been hitting that pipe myself or something.

This commercial was a good one

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Exactly. I think that baptism, communion, endowment, sealings, etc should be understood as initiation rites into a community. In the Book of Mormon, particularly at the waters of Mormon, baptism is quite clearly portrayed as such, communion literally means "participation in something; that which is common to all; union in religious worship, doctrine, or discipline" (I have no idea how it came to be called "the sacrament" in Mormonism), and the temple endowment was literally modeled after initiation rites for the preeminent social club of the early 19th century. Somewhere along the way, though, these sacraments lost their role as communal initiation and became magical means to secure a spot in heaven.

The guy who called it "magical sacramentalism" was all "who cares, it doesn't matter" about the act of baptism itself. This is called taking Ephesians 2:8,9 and using it to throw out the baby of John 3:3-5 along with the bath water of Matthew 3:15.

If you Google the phrase "christians who say baptism isn't necessary" you will find all kinds of claims that say baptism isn't necessary for salvation. Along with a few that say otherwise. This is why the term "magical sacramentalism" came into play. In the view of these folks, when Peter proclaimed in response to "Men and brethren what should we do?" that they should "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," he was being descriptive and not prescriptive. And you can get into the kingdom of God with or without it. It's just a useless symbol to some Christians and it is highly suspect. Ask a Quaker. 

Is it magic that baptism saves you? No, it isn't. All baptism achieves is getting wet. What saves you is the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Does He give you His grace if you refuse to keep His commandments? No. Did He not say you can't enter into the kingdom of God without being baptized. Indeed He did say you can't. But who cares what He said? We know better.

 

[the narrator]

46 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Is it magic that baptism saves you? No, it isn't. All baptism achieves is getting wet. What saves you is the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Does He give you His grace if you refuse to keep His commandments? No. Did He not say you can't enter into the kingdom of God without being baptized. Indeed He did say you can't. But who cares what He said? We know better.

 

My point is that, in Mormonism, baptism and other sacramental rites have shifted away from their basic utility (covenant initiation into a community) and into magical rites by ignoring the basic utility and instead focusing on precise ritual acts and incantations--such that many Mormons believe that  God (or some weird cosmic reality) will not accept a baptism if a toe, some clothes, or hair floated to the top of the water or the priest skipped or misspoke part of the incantation.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Notatbm said:

This commercial was a good one

 

It still pops into my head frequently whenever dealing with prescriptions, even taking my meds.  A very smart ad, but a bit imprecise.

[Notatbm]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

It still pops into my head frequently whenever dealing with prescriptions, even taking my meds.  A very smart ad, but a bit imprecise.

If one applies it to the use of meth or bath salts…. Perfect.
 

Mj, opiates etc not so much. 

prescriptions?? I can’t recall what my wife was given but I had to take a leave of absence from work as it made her certifiably … out there 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

My point is that, in Mormonism, baptism and other sacramental rites have shifted away from their basic utility (covenant initiation into a community) and into magical rites by ignoring the basic utility and instead focusing on precise ritual acts and incantations--such that many Mormons believe that  God (or some weird cosmic reality) will not accept a baptism if a toe, some clothes, or hair floated to the top of the water or the priest skipped or misspoke part of the incantation.

The "incantation"? You're equating priesthood ordinances to magic rituals now? And who is this weird cosmic reality you speak of? 

 

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, the narrator said:

(I have no idea how it came to be called "the sacrament" in Mormonism)

It's easy enough. Sort of.

The English word "sacrament" comes from church Latin sacramentum, which ultimately derives from the Latin sacer, meaning 'sacred' or 'holy'. In Ancient Rome it was the term for a soldier's oath of allegiance. 3rd-century Christian writer Tertullian suggested that the word was also a sign of initiation into the Christian community, through baptism and the Eucharist. Seems reasonable to me.