Sacrament Renews All Covenants? Anyone ever hear this?

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

You completely missed the point. "Sacrament" is essentially synonymous with "ordinance" or "ritual." Baptism is a sacrament. Confirmation is a sacrament. Communion is a sacrament. The endowment is a sacrament. Sealings are sacrament. Etc. In the rest of Christianity (and in early Mormonism, I believe), the term is used to describe all of the key ordinances and rituals of Christianity. Early Mormons also used "Lord's supper" and "communion," but somewhere along the way they began using "the sacrament" exclusively for communion. I suspect it comes from a misunderstanding of D&C 20, which uses "the sacrament" as a simple reference to communion but then later began to be misread as the actual name of the ritual.

I didn't miss the point. You're just trying to belabor some point, and I'm not entire sure which one, to be honest.

I know it's synonymous with "ordinance" or "ritual". The Catholics call several things "sacraments," including baptism, the Eucharist, marriage, and so on. We just use the word to mean that one thing, what others call the Eurcharist. Are you going to argue that it's wrong? You want more precision or something? I thought you were denigrating things taken too precisely as "incantations." Shall we exchange pedantry over all this?

I was simply explaining where that came from. Like you asked in your little parenthetical. But it appears it was a rhetorical question, and you weren't interested in an answer. 

 

[webbles]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

You completely missed the point. "Sacrament" is essentially synonymous with "ordinance" or "ritual." Baptism is a sacrament. Confirmation is a sacrament. Communion is a sacrament. The endowment is a sacrament. Sealings are sacrament. Etc. In the rest of Christianity (and in early Mormonism, I believe), the term is used to describe all of the key ordinances and rituals of Christianity. Early Mormons also used "Lord's supper" and "communion," but somewhere along the way they began using "the sacrament" exclusively for communion. I suspect it comes from a misunderstanding of D&C 20, which uses "the sacrament" as a simple reference to communion but then later began to be misread as the actual name of the ritual.

I bet it is influence from Rigdon and his group.  Campbellites used the term "ordinances" instead of "sacraments".  (https://www.bobcornwall.com/2017/12/the-disciples-of-christ-and-sacraments.html talk a bit about this).  Along with D&C 20 specifically using sacrament for the communion and Campbellites using ordinances for baptism and communion and then needing a word for what happens in the temple, it seems like a natural language evolution.

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

If precise ritual acts and precise ritual language are required to sway God's will or the cosmos, that makes it an incantation. Argue with English, not with me.

English isn't arguing with me. You are. This isn't Army of Darkness with the final word of the incantation "Klaatu Barad Nikto" being pronounced incorrectly and then all hell breaks out.

 

[the narrator]

53 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I know it's synonymous with "ordinance" or "ritual". The Catholics call several things "sacraments," including baptism, the Eucharist, marriage, and so on. We just use the word to mean that one thing, what others call the Eurcharist. Are you going to argue that it's wrong? You want more precision or something? I thought you were denigrating things taken too precisely as "incantations." Shall we exchange pedantry over all this?

I was simply explaining where that came from. Like you asked in your little parenthetical. But it appears it was a rhetorical question, and you weren't interested in an answer. 

Yo, chill out. I was merely pointing out that I did not know when and precisely why Mormons began using "sacrament" exclusively for communion.

[the narrator]

36 minutes ago, webbles said:

I bet it is influence from Rigdon and his group.  Campbellites used the term "ordinances" instead of "sacraments".  (https://www.bobcornwall.com/2017/12/the-disciples-of-christ-and-sacraments.html talk a bit about this).  Along with D&C 20 specifically using sacrament for the communion and Campbellites using ordinances for baptism and communion and then needing a word for what happens in the temple, it seems like a natural language evolution.

That makes sense. Thanks.

[The Nehor]

On 10/1/2026 at 8:14 PM, Stargazer said:

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

 

If you can find a dividing line between religious ordinances and ritual magic you will probably be the first to do so.

I’ve read translations of a few medieval grimoires and they invoke God and/or angels to make the magic work and have precise steps that must be followed as part of the ritual to achieve the desired results. It was almost entirely Catholic clerics passing these spellbooks around too.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you can find a dividing line between religious ordinances and ritual magic you will probably be the first to do so.

I’ve read translations of a few medieval grimoires and they invoke God and/or angels to make the magic work and have precise steps that must be followed as part of the ritual to achieve the desired results. It was almost entirely Catholic clerics passing these spellbooks around too.

Could the dividing line be one of control?

It seems like religious ordinances are a symbolic act used to replace our will with that of the supernatural while ritual magic is a literal act used to exert our will over the supernatural?  It seems like religious ordinances are centered on giving up personal control while ritual magic is about gaining personal control.

For sure though, many a religious person has attempted to exert control over God.  I would guess almost all of us have subconsciously tried to make religious observance and worship into ritual magic on occasion.  That's why we keep getting the 'God is not a vending machine' talks.  The dividing line between the two is definitely there but we struggle with it because following a "recipe" that could ensure a specific outcome is a lot easier than Mosiah 3:19.

 

[3DOP]

18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you can find a dividing line between religious ordinances and ritual magic you will probably be the first to do so.

I’ve read translations of a few medieval grimoires and they invoke God and/or angels to make the magic work and have precise steps that must be followed as part of the ritual to achieve the desired results. It was almost entirely Catholic clerics passing these spellbooks around too.

I am not sure if this post gives a complete description of what the Catholic Church has taught and practiced regarding these grimoires. If it was unintended, I am maybe overly sensitive, and thought that the post reflected negatively on the Catholic faith in medieval times. For practical purposes, from what I have recently heard about this issue, is that these superstitious and possibly Satanic books were usually written in Latin. Few non-clerics spoke Latin. But rogue priests passed them around quietly among themselves. The reason for this secrecy is because the Church in which they were supposed to minister had serious canonical penalties for believing in these incantations, owning the books, and passing them around among themselves.

I did a quick online search and the AI directed me to some very strong and specific denunciations of this kind of practice from the Council of Trent. This is certainly a firm renunciation of grimoires by the highest magisterial authority in the Church. However, as I pointed out to my non-personal interlocutor, you all might find that unsatisfying if you were to know that Trent was convened in the 16th Century, over two hundred years after the practice had begun to be detected.

I then mentioned this problem of potential time-line critiques of using Trent to the AI. It responded this way:

"To make your online response entirely airtight, you should point to the 14th Century, right in the heart of the Middle Ages. The medieval Church absolutely did not tolerate this practice; in fact, they explicitly rewrote the legal system to hunt down clerical magic. The exact historical text you need is the Papal Bull, Super illius specula, issued by Pope John XXII in 1326.

This is the definitive medieval decree where the papacy officially classified ritual magic as formal heresy, giving the Inquisition the power to prosecute it.

Key points for your forum response based on this 1326 decree:

1. It Redefined the Law: Pope John XXII shifted church law from viewing magic as mere superstition to declaring the use of grimoires and commanding spirits as heresy.    

2. It Explicitly Targeted Grimoire Content: The text targets physical items like, rings, mirrors, and phials used to ensnare demons, matching Solomonic ritual magic.

3. It Triggered the Inquisition: Classifying this as heresy handed direct jurisdiction to the Inquisition to prosecute offenders.

4. The "Undergound" Nature: The decree confirms that magical practices operated strictly as a criminal subculture outside official approval, where clerics acted in secret...  

     Using Pope John XXII's 1326 bull provides a rock-solid medieval source showing the Church actively fought to destroy these books rather distribute them."

------------

I am afraid I had never heard of a grimoire. I had no quick knowledge at hand without AI. As a Catholic, I was certain that the Church disapproved of these practices if they were even real. I was surprised that they were at least real, however it made me feel like some further history might be helpful to some here, who while not being Catholic, have always been respectful, and might like to see what I tried to learn.

I don't like using it (AI). It might have mistakes. It might have noticed how I am Catholic. It is very obsequious and flattering. It tries to say what it thinks will please you. Maybe this is one of those times? 

The sentence above that is cut short with ellipses was my doing because I could not figure out how to finish the sentence using single space. It would have continued as follows: "...knowing discovery meant severe punishment."

Edited Monday at 12:43 PM by 3DOP

[Tony uk]

As a Catholic myself, and based upon my own knowledge of Catholic history. A grimoire/spell book, has never been used in official/sanctioned matters. In the early days of the Church, long before the communications and media we have now. As the Church was establishing itself, the people's from different cultures, may have had access to materials such has a grimoire, in my opinion. Over time this would have been discouraged, as the the early church was building it's own, Christian rites and rituals.

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am not sure if this post gives a complete description of what the Catholic Church has taught and practiced regarding these grimoires. If it was unintended, I am maybe overly sensitive, and thought that the post reflected negatively on the Catholic faith in medieval times. For practical purposes, from what I have recently heard about this issue, is that these superstitious and possibly Satanic books were usually written in Latin. Few non-clerics spoke Latin. But rogue priests passed them around quietly among themselves. The reason for this secrecy is because the Church in which they were supposed to minister had serious canonical penalties for believing in these incantations, owning the books, and passing them around among themselves.

I did a quick online search and the AI directed me to some very strong and specific denunciations of this kind of practice from the Council of Trent. This is certainly a firm renunciation of grimoires by the highest magisterial authority in the Church. However, as I pointed out to my non-personal interlocutor, you all might find that unsatisfying if you were to know that Trent was convened in the 16th Century, over two hundred years after the practice had begun to be detected.

I then mentioned this problem of potential time-line critiques of using Trent to the AI. It responded this way:

"To make your online response entirely airtight, you should point to the 14th Century, right in the heart of the Middle Ages. The medieval Church absolutely did not tolerate this practice; in fact, they explicitly rewrote the legal system to hunt down clerical magic. The exact historical text you need is the Papal Bull, Super illius specula, issued by Pope John XXII in 1326.

This is the definitive medieval decree where the papacy officially classified ritual magic as formal heresy, giving the Inquisition the power to prosecute it.

Key points for your forum response based on this 1326 decree:

1. It Redefined the Law: Pope John XXII shifted church law from viewing magic as mere superstition to declaring the use of grimoires and commanding spirits as heresy.    

2. It Explicitly Targeted Grimoire Content: The text targets physical items like, rings, mirrors, and phials used to ensnare demons, matching Solomonic ritual magic.

3. It Triggered the Inquisition: Classifying this as heresy handed direct jurisdiction to the Inquisition to prosecute offenders.

4. The "Undergound" Nature: The decree confirms that magical practices operated strictly as a criminal subculture outside official approval, where clerics acted in secret...  

     Using Pope John XXII's 1326 bull provides a rock-solid medieval source showing the Church actively fought to destroy these books rather distribute them."

------------

I am afraid I had never heard of a grimoire. I had no quick knowledge at hand without AI. As a Catholic, I was certain that the Church disapproved of these practices if they were even real. I was surprised that they were at least real, however it made me feel like some further history might be helpful to some here, who while not being Catholic, have always been respectful, and might like to see what I tried to learn.

I don't like using it (AI). It might have mistakes. It might have noticed how I am Catholic. It is very obsequious and flattering. It tries to say what it thinks will please you. Maybe this is one of those times? 

The sentence above that is cut short with ellipses was my doing because I could not figure out how to finish the sentence using single space. It would have continued as follows: "...knowing discovery meant severe punishment."

Oh, I apologize. I did not meant to apply that the use of ritual magic contained in those books was in any way licit within the Church. It was considered to be a sin. One historian has called it the “clerical necromantic underground” which would make a great band name. Nor is it unique to Christianity. Judaism had similar magic texts at the time. In the early centuries BCE and CE there was a kind of underground amongst the Rabbis practicing stuff like Merkabah mysticism which was condemned by the majority but practiced semi-secretly amongst some. Based on some things Paul says he might have been a practitioner.

Christianity went harder on anti-magic sentiment than Judaism. Many polytheists were willing to allow Jesus and other Christian figures to work miracles since it fit in with the trope of magic using wise men. Christians wanted to sharpen the distinction and tried to create a harder line between approved ritual and iillicit magic. Despite that magic was around amongst Christians even though it wasn’t approved. A common slur against Christians that didn’t follow the proto-orthodox Christianity that would develop and win out was that the heretics were using magic. The ‘heretics’ said the same about the proto-orthodox. The shade these groups threw at each other DID NOT hold back. Vicious.

Note that magic disapproval was more along the lines of it being a conventional sin like gluttony or fornication. Something that was disapproved of but a regular sin. You had the University of Paris leadership trying to get the students to stop messing around with magic a few times for example. It was almost treated like a prank or adolescent type of being naughty.

Later magic got promoted from sin to heresy. Mostly in the early modern period. Magic was moved from a sin that was largely assumed to not work and to be silly and a waste of time to apostate as the moral panic over witches started up and magic was taken from prankish silliness to consorting with Satanic forces. This was tied to the Protestant Reformation, a bit of end-times hysteria, and some misogyny. The Protestants also got in on the witch hunting thing and took it to a whole new level way beyond what the Catholics were doing. King James went nuts with the stuff.

Anyways, sorry if I implied that the Catholic clergy was deep in magic with Church leadership approving it. There was magic going around but it was something that was kept on the down low and was not approved.

[The Nehor]

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

Could the dividing line be one of control?

It seems like religious ordinances are a symbolic act used to replace our will with that of the supernatural while ritual magic is a literal act used to exert our will over the supernatural?  It seems like religious ordinances are centered on giving up personal control while ritual magic is about gaining personal control.

For sure though, many a religious person has attempted to exert control over God.  I would guess almost all of us have subconsciously tried to make religious observance and worship into ritual magic on occasion.  That's why we keep getting the 'God is not a vending machine' talks.  The dividing line between the two is definitely there but we struggle with it because following a "recipe" that could ensure a specific outcome is a lot easier than Mosiah 3:19.

 

That works for some religious acts but there are others in the LDS faith that we are told just work. It is not whether it is God’s will or our will. It just happens. Baptism does something. Confirmation does something. Temple ordinances do things. Some of what it does is contingent but other stuff is just supposed to happen regardless.

And some of our covenantal language has quasi-magical language. ‘I the Lord am bound when you do what I say’ suggests that this overrides even God’s will and the language of binding sounds like some ritual magic where you would try to bind angels and/or demons to do your will. Then you have D&C 130:

“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”

A law God either cannot or will not revoke and a bunch of if you do A you get B. Of course we don’t have access to what those laws are but if this is a true and you had that knowledge you could fine-tune your acts to get specific blessings. This does sound like the ‘vending machine’ would work if we knew enough. We don’t though.

Outside of the LDS faith in Christianity the prosperity gospel borders on a form of magic sometimes. Particularly as some of the megapastor churches that show up on TV teach it where they are basically selling financial miracles. A kind of magic.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Baptism does something. Confirmation does something. Temple ordinances do things. Some of what it does is contingent but other stuff is just supposed to happen regardless.

But these are all invalidated or useless if one is not worthy or sincere, so not sure how it can be said that something happens regardless.  
 

I agree the language does sound quite a bit like you do A and get B.  I think that is one issue with approaching faith from an economic view (debt and redeem, contracts, etc)

[Calm]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A kind of magic.

Time to break into song…

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That works for some religious acts but there are others in the LDS faith that we are told just work. It is not whether it is God’s will or our will. It just happens. Baptism does something. Confirmation does something. Temple ordinances do things. Some of what it does is contingent but other stuff is just supposed to happen regardless.

And some of our covenantal language has quasi-magical language. ‘I the Lord am bound when you do what I say’ suggests that this overrides even God’s will and the language of binding sounds like some ritual magic where you would try to bind angels and/or demons to do your will. Then you have D&C 130:

“There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”

A law God either cannot or will not revoke and a bunch of if you do A you get B. Of course we don’t have access to what those laws are but if this is a true and you had that knowledge you could fine-tune your acts to get specific blessings. This does sound like the ‘vending machine’ would work if we knew enough. We don’t though.

Outside of the LDS faith in Christianity the prosperity gospel borders on a form of magic sometimes. Particularly as some of the megapastor churches that show up on TV teach it where they are basically selling financial miracles. A kind of magic.

For sure, it's possible to explain and/or understand the gospel in a way that makes it very similar to the idea of ritual magic. Both outside of the church and definitely inside of it. But in terms of the gospel as it actually is (and the ordinances thereof), I still think the line between ordinances and ritual magic is pretty solid. 

Calm already brought up one obvious difference and that is that baptism and confirmation doesn't actually do anything.  It's the sealing of the Holy Spirit of promise that provides the blessing, not the act itself.  If an unrepentant sinner insincerely decided to be baptized, it would do absolutely nothing for them (and might even cause some spiritual harm).  Same for temple ordinances.  None of it happens "regardless".  I think it was Elder Bednar that reiterated that point this last weekend in GC (but it might have been another apostle, I can't remember for sure). 

I think D&C 130 is one of those verses that gets us into trouble, probably because we so badly want the gospel to be transactional sometimes (speaking mostly for myself).  Who hasn't wanted to believe you could guarantee the outcome of an event or experience by saying the right combination of words, or doing a certain number of good deeds, or paying a certain amount in tithing?  But I think deep down we know it doesn't work that way.  Maybe not at first but the pool gets pretty deep the further you go (to steal Elder Christofferson's? pool analogy from GC) and eventually it becomes crystal clear. 

We can only A) obey God's laws because of the Atonement and B) we have no say over what or when the blessings will be.  From my perspective D&C 130 is just another example of the teachings in Mosiah 3:19.  Follow Christ, submit to His will and leave your will behind, and He will bless you to become like He is.  He provides the way and He chooses the blessings.  We exert no control over anything, not the doing and not the getting.  

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

But these are all invalidated or useless if one is not worthy or sincere, so not sure how it can be said that something happens regardless.  
 

I agree the language does sound quite a bit like you do A and get B.  I think that is one issue with approaching faith from an economic view (debt and redeem, contracts, etc)

I’ve been told they aren’t useless but will actively condemn you as you under covenants you aren’t following so something changes and happens. Unless you cast the counter spell/get excommunicated.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I’ve been told they aren’t useless but will actively condemn you as you under covenants you aren’t following so something changes and happens. Unless you cast the counter spell/get excommunicated.

Is it the ritual that condemns you or your own heart’s knowledge or possibly the burden that habits can add by shaping thoughts and feelings as well as behaviours over time so we become more and more what we do, making it more difficult to turn to obedience to the Lord?

I have also been told quite a few times it is better to be baptized even if one goes inactive and not get excommunicated because then when you are ready to truly accept it, the ordinance is already in place.  

Edited yesterday at 09:48 AM by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Is it the ritual that condemns you or your own heart’s knowledge or possibly the burden that habits can add by shaping thoughts and feelings as well as behaviours over time so we become more and more what we do, making it more difficult to turn to obedience to the Lord?

I have also been told quite a few times it is better to be baptized even if one goes inactive and not get excommunicated because then when you are ready to truly accept it, the ordinance is already in place.  

I’ve been told that too but I’ve also been told it makes things worse if you end up not accepting it. It is a fuzzy subject.

[manol]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree the language does sound quite a bit like you do A and get B.  I think that is one issue with approaching faith from an economic view (debt and redeem, contracts, etc)

Then there are people who have done A in full faith that the result would be B and it didn't work out that way.  For years I structured my life around that concept as advocated and expounded upon by the book "Drawing on the Powers of Heaven" by Grant Von Harrison.  It didn't "work".  Yes at the time it felt wonderful to "know" that the outcome I desired was going to happen, but then it didn't.  So I now think it's a mistake to be focused on outcomes.  I don't think we get to control outcomes, and that is probably a very good thing.

Imo rituals and sacraments and ordinances and priesthoods are tools, and they can be very powerful tools if one has faith in them.  They can even facilitate a person entering into the state of being filled with the pure love of Christ.  They give permission where we might otherwise think we don't have permission.  But they are not, in and of themselves, the pure love of Christ.  They are not, in and of themselves, the mighty change of heart.  They are not, in and of themselves, the presence of the Divine.  Imo nothing external is needed (except perhaps correct teachings), but that doesn't mean no ritual or sacrament or ordinance or priesthood can be a facilitator.   

For instance I don't think a special occasion is needed to renew promises one has made to God, but if it helps, wonderful! 

Edited yesterday at 05:41 PM by manol

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Then there are people who have done A in full faith that the result would be B and it didn't work out that way.  For years I structured my life around that concept as advocated and expounded upon by the book "Drawing on the Powers of Heaven" by Grant Von Harrison.  It didn't "work".  Yes at the time it felt wonderful to "know" that the outcome I desired was going to happen, but then it didn't.  So I now think it's a mistake to be focused on outcomes.  I don't think we get to control outcomes, and that is probably a very good thing.

Imo rituals and sacraments and ordinances and priesthoods are tools, and they can be very powerful tools if one has faith in them.  They can even facilitate a person entering into the state of being filled with the pure love of Christ.  They give permission where we might otherwise think we don't have permission.  But they are not, in and of themselves, the pure love of Christ.  They are not, in and of themselves, the mighty change of heart.  They are not, in and of themselves, the presence of the Divine.  Imo nothing external is needed (except perhaps correct teachings), but that doesn't mean no ritual or sacrament or ordinance or priesthood can be a facilitator.   

For instance I don't think a special occasion is needed to renew promises one has made to God, but if it helps, wonderful! 

The problem is it is very hard to get rid of the ‘vending machine’ approach because the scriptures are full of it. The Old Testament is overflowing with it. The New Testament is a little better but it is still there. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants are more like the Old Testament than the New in terms of promising fairly specific blessings.

[Eschaton]

50 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is it is very hard to get rid of the ‘vending machine’ approach because the scriptures are full of it. The Old Testament is overflowing with it. The New Testament is a little better but it is still there. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants are more like the Old Testament than the New in terms of promising fairly specific blessings.

Yup, the vending machine approach was the standard Israelite teaching until the apocalyptic period. After that it became about rewards in the afterlife, since it was becoming apparent that following the law did not guarantee a good life (after centuries of persecution and occupation). But the old vending machine approach from Isaiah and other scriptures didn't disappear from scripture. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I’ve been told that too but I’ve also been told it makes things worse if you end up not accepting it. It is a fuzzy subject.

I think it is something where people are filling in the gaps.  But then I treat scripture like a cafeteria.  😛 

Edited yesterday at 08:09 PM by Calm

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Yup, the vending machine approach was the standard Israelite teaching until the apocalyptic period. After that it became about rewards in the afterlife, since it was becoming apparent that following the law did not guarantee a good life (after centuries of persecution and occupation). But the old vending machine approach from Isaiah and other scriptures didn't disappear from scripture. 

Yeah, but the new model is just the old ‘vending machine’ model with extra steps. You may not get blessings in this life but, trust us bro, you are scoring all kinds of brownie points in the next. When you test God’s promises and they fail does it really make sense to rationalize that the promises work but just work in an untestable way? Maybe….kind of….I dunno, I don’t find it that comforting or helpful.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, manol said:

They give permission where we might otherwise think we don't have permission. 

Perfect

I also see the purpose of ritual as getting our brains aligned with a certain mindset that makes us more receptive to the Spirit.  Others may see that as just more suggestible if they don’t believe in the Spirit.  I am okay with that.  Only make use of it in a good way, not to manipulate people.

I have noticed it with the Sacrament at home.  It does little for me because it doesn’t ‘feel’ like the sacrament.  The sense of community when doing it at church is very powerful for me.  
 

There are quite a few other things that I do as secular rituals to help me transition from one mindset to another to prepare.

Edited yesterday at 08:15 PM by Calm

[manol]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The problem is it is very hard to get rid of the ‘vending machine’ approach because the scriptures are full of it. The Old Testament is overflowing with it. The New Testament is a little better but it is still there. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants are more like the Old Testament than the New in terms of promising fairly specific blessings.

Agreed!

So, here's the thing: Can you expand your paradigm beyond what the scriptures and the Sunday School manual explicitly give you permission to believe and embrace?   (This is a rhetorical question; I'm pretty sure I've seen you do so.)

Some version of the vending machine approach arguably has a place in a paradigm where outcomes not only matter, but are pretty much the only thing that really matters. Which kingdom are you and those you love going to wind up in? That would be an outcome which matters. The vending machine approach is, at least theoretically, about being able to control outcomes, including that one.

And I would have a really hard time arguing from the LDS canon that we don't need to worry about outcomes. Such is my opinion, and imo such is the unarticulated truth behind the oft-repeated injunction to “fear not”, but there are far more scriptures giving reasons to be fearful than giving reasons not to be.

Personally, I think this sort of thing is by design. I think there comes an intentional point where circumstances call upon a person to apply what they've learned about how to recognize truth. Sort of like, “you've passed the lecture part of the course, now here's the lab where you put it into practice.”

And of course I could be wrong.

 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Perfect

Thanks!

 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I also see the purpose of ritual as getting our brains aligned with a certain mindset that makes us more receptive to the Spirit...

There are quite a few other things that I do as secular rituals to help me transition from one mindset to another

Me too. Sometimes I can go straight "there" just by having the intention, but most of the time I have to consciously and deliberately choose thoughts which “tune me in” to that particular “radio station”.