A Different Take On The Abrahamic Covenant

[Bikeemikey]

I think that is the difficulty: we simply happen not to have a canon that documents a line as clearly as Abraham's. But I believe there were other lines, as allued to in D&C 84:6+

 

For example, the names listed before Abraham undoubtedly gave the covenant to more than one person who passed it on to his descendants, and they did likewise.

 

Thanks for you thoughts on this subject. I have appreciated reading them.

[Ahab]

No--that is just what we call it since his was the dispensation where this covenant was restored according to the testament of our scriptures. They record that line of continuity (Abraham-isaac-Jacob... Moses... etc.).

It is clear through Melchizedek and Jethro for example that here were other patriarchal lines where this covenant was preserved. But because the restoration uses the Old and New Testament and Book of Mormon records and not those of "other sheep" (to borrow a phrase), we use that term.

It is easy to focus on the biological lineage and not the spiritual lineage, but the scriptures support both. Abraham 2:11 is a good example of bridging both concepts. Ideally the covenant is passed from father to son in righeousness (for example, our "BIC"), and just as ideally "strangers" are adopted into the covenant (for example, missionary work).

Now there is also the foreordained role of Israel, but these souls are both BIC and converts as well. And even the gentiles are given foreordained promises along a different route, with an eye toward joining up with Israel.

For those of us who joined the Church as adults without our parents joining with us, which was my situation, the idea that we can receive the priesthood from our biological father doesn't occur to us, because we didn't receive it from our father, and not all of us go on to have a son later in this mortal life who we can ordain to the priesthood, either, so we tend to think of receiving the priesthood in some other way, with some of us even still with the idea that we can receive it just by understanding the gospel, kinda like those who are not in the Church who think they can receive the priesthood of God just by understanding the Bible.

[CV75]

For those of us who joined the Church as adults without our parents joining with us, which was my situation, the idea that we can receive the priesthood from our biological father doesn't occur to us, because we didn't receive it from our father, and not all of us go on to have a son later in this mortal life who we can ordain to the priesthood, either, so we tend to think of receiving the priesthood in some other way, with some of us even still with the idea that we can receive it just by understanding the gospel, kinda like those who are not in the Church who think they can receive the priesthood of God just by understanding the Bible.

Yes, and by keeping our covenants and receiving the priesthood according to the Restored Gospel, we become the seed of Christ (Mosiah 15:10+), the sons of Moses and Aaron and the seed of Abraham (D&C 84:33-34).

[Scott Lloyd]

We're you meaning Covenantal lineage?

 

Yes. I just noticed the error and fixed it.

So it is necessary in our time that the lineage come through Abraham? Though in Abrahams time the covenant came in virtue of faithfulness, nothing more?

 

It was a matter of lineage in Abraham's time as well. And in our time, one can receive the covenant through adoption as though one were part of the lineage.

 

To be adopted by accepting the covenant simply means that we have embraced the covenant and if we are faithful we reap it's promises. We have made our own covenant.

 

We become the "seed of Abraham," just as it says in the Doctrine and Covenants (see Section 84).

 

This is one part of the gospel that still feels awfully like the Sadducees at the time of Christ. Constantly pointing to a historical covenant by the third party rather than their own need for their own covenant.

 

On the contrary, it is quite egalitarian, as anyone, through personal righteousness and personal choice, can be adopted into the chosen lineage.

[Scott Lloyd]

For those of us who joined the Church as adults without our parents joining with us, which was my situation, the idea that we can receive the priesthood from our biological father doesn't occur to us, because we didn't receive it from our father, and not all of us go on to have a son later in this mortal life who we can ordain to the priesthood, either, so we tend to think of receiving the priesthood in some other way, with some of us even still with the idea that we can receive it just by understanding the gospel, kinda like those who are not in the Church who think they can receive the priesthood of God just by understanding the Bible.

That's what temple work is for. You can have the ordinances performed for your father and your kindred dead and, if they accept them, they will be part of the lineage extending down to you.

[Ahab]

Yes, and by keeping our covenants and receiving the priesthood according to the Restored Gospel, we become the seed of Christ (Mosiah 15:10+), the sons of Moses and Aaron and the seed of Abraham (D&C 84:33-34).

Yes, but you're not saying much to clarify if you mean that in a biological sense, or some other sense.

Close those loopholes, please.

[Ahab]

That's what temple work is for. You can have the ordinances performed for your father and your kindred dead and, if they accept them, they will be part of the lineage extending down to you.

So would you say that until our next in line immediate biological father receives the priesthood, if he ever does, we who receive it from some other man who lays his hands on our head is thus acting as a mediator between us and our last biological father who did receive it, and that he, however far removed from us and our immediate father, could trace his line back biologically to certain key people, such as Ephraim and Abraham and Noah and Adam, who are also in some sense biological fathers to us?

I would very much appreciate it if you would say that. I think it helps to realize how we need connections to our biological fathers who received the priesthood, and how they play a part in ordaining us to the priesthood.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Ahab

[Bikeemikey]

 

On the contrary, it is quite egalitarian, as anyone, through personal righteousness and personal choice, can be adopted into the chosen lineage.

 

I guess my point is more that given that anyone, through personal righteousness and choice can access the blessings of the covenant, whats the point of still holding on to the idea of a chosen lineage?

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess my point is more that given that anyone, through personal righteousness and choice can access the blessings of the covenant, whats the point of still holding on to the idea of a chosen lineage?

It recognizes the fact that Abraham and his descendants were given the divine commission to bless all the families of the earth by taking the gospel to them (see Genesis 12:3).

 

His descendants have the responsibility to this very day. It is by virtue of our membership in that lineage -- either through blood relationship or adoption -- that we carry forward that responsibility once we have received the covenants ourselves. Those whom we reach who receive the covenants themselves in turn become part of the chosen lineage.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So would you say that until our next in line immediate biological father receives the priesthood, if he ever does, we who receive it from some other man who lays his hands on our head is thus acting as a mediator between us and our last biological father who did receive it, and that he, however far removed from us and our immediate father, could trace his line back biologically to certain key people, such as Ephraim and Abraham and Noah and Adam, who are also in some sense biological fathers to us?

I would very much appreciate it if you would say that. I think it helps to realize how we need connections to our biological fathers who received the priesthood, and how they play a part in ordaining us to the priesthood.

I have never heard that before, but it is not an unreasonable concept.

[mfbukowski]

Yes. I just noticed the error and fixed it.

It was a matter of lineage in Abraham's time as well. And in our time, one can receive the covenant through adoption as though one were part of the lineage.

 

We become the "seed of Abraham," just as it says in the Doctrine and Covenants (see Section 84).

 

On the contrary, it is quite egalitarian, as anyone, through personal righteousness and personal choice, can be adopted into the chosen lineage.

The reality is that nearly everyone on earth could be a descendant of anyone who has surviving lineage going back that far.

 

It is said that everyone of European ancestry is a descendant of Charlemagne- just google it and you will see a zillion articles on that.

 

So if one takes that logic back in time several thousand more years, we all could be literal descendents of anyone who lived that long ago.  Bottom line is that I am not worried about being "really" a descendent of say, Ephraim because in fact any of us could be a descendent of ALL the tribes of Israel at once.

 

Literalism pretty much always confuses everything. 

[Scott Lloyd]

The reality is that nearly everyone on earth could be a descendant of anyone who has surviving lineage going back that far.

 

It is said that everyone of European ancestry is a descendant of Charlemagne- just google it and you will see a zillion articles on that.

 

So if one takes that logic back in time several thousand more years, we all could be literal descendents of anyone who lived that long ago.  Bottom line is that I am not worried about being "really" a descendent of say, Ephraim because in fact any of us could be a descendent of ALL the tribes of Israel at once.

 

Literalism pretty much always confuses everything. 

Indeed. I have opined before that, as a practical matter, the idea of adoption into the blood of Israel might well be moot at this point in time.

[Bikeemikey]

It recognizes the fact that Abraham and his descendants were given the divine commission of blessing all the families of the earth by taking the gospel to them (see Genesis 12:3).

His descendants have the responsibility to this very day. It is by virtue of our membership in that lineage -- either through blood relationship or adoption -- that we carry forward that responsibility once we have received the covenants ourselves.

I have ways been taught that the Abrahamic was the same covenant that god also made with Adam.

If the covenant goes back to Adam (which I have always been told it does), and we are descended from Adam, then we are all descended from the covenant via blood anyway.

It begs the question as to whether the abrahamic "divine commission" is really a people reading a sort of specialness and separateness from the rest of the world that Christ later some and condemned.

[Bikeemikey]

Duplicate.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Scott Lloyd]

I have ways been taught that the Abrahamic was the same covenant that god also made with Adam.

 

 

It is. But many of Adam's posterity were not righteous. Hence, by Abraham's time, there were many on the earth who had not received the covenant. The obligations and promises were therefore renewed through Abraham and verified through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob.

 

As mfbukowski has pointed out, likely everyone now living is descended from Abraham anyway, so the concept of adoption is probably moot by now. But, according to the scriptures, we don't inherit the promises and assume the obligations -- i.e. we don't become "the seed of Abraham" -- until we receive the covenant.

 

It begs the question as to whether the abrahamic "divine commission" is really a people reading a sort of specialness and separateness from the rest of the world that Christ later some and condemned.

 

 

Oops. You used the phrase "begs the question' incorrectly. See here.

 

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

What is it Not?

To beg the question does not mean "to raise the question." (e.g. "It begs the question, why is he so dumb?") This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word "question" in the phrase to refer to a literal question.

 

If you were to phrase your comment in this manner: ...

 

It raises the question as to whether the Abrahamic "divine commission" is really a people reading a sort of specialness and separateness from the rest of the world that Christ later some and condemned.

 

 

... I would respond by saying this is an entirely wrong-headed way of looking at the matter. And it amounts to your ignoring the point I have already made.

 

If the purpose of the Abrahamic covenant is to earnestly and energetically take the gospel to everyone and to bring as many people into the fold of God as will receive the gospel and enter into the covenant themselves, you cannot properly or fairly say it's "a people reading a sort of specialness and separateness from the rest of the world that Christ ... condemned." The only "specialness and separateness" about it is assuming the duty and responsibility to take the covenant and blessings to everyone. Christ didn't condemn this; on the contrary, it is He Himself Who commanded it.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

It is. But many of Adam's posterity were not righteous. Hence, by Abraham's time, there were many on the earth who had not received the covenant. The obligations and promises were therefore renewed through Abraham and verified through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob.

 

As mfbukowski has pointed out, likely everyone now living is descended from Abraham anyway, so the concept of adoption is probably moot by now. But, according to the scriptures, we don't inherit the promises and assume the obligations -- i.e. we don't become "the seed of Abraham" -- until we receive the covenant.

 

Oops. You used the phrase "begs the question' incorrectly. See here.

 

If you were to phrase your comment in this manner: ...

 

... I would respond by saying this is an entirely wrong-headed way of looking at the matter. And it amounts to your ignoring the point I have already made.

 

If the purpose of the Abrahamic covenant is to earnestly and energetically take the gospel to everyone and to bring as many people into the fold of God as will receive the gospel and enter into the covenant themselves, you cannot properly or fairly say it's "a people reading a sort of specialness and separateness from the rest of the world that Christ ... condemned." The only "specialness and separateness" about it is assuming the duty and responsibility to take the covenant and blessings to everyone. Christ didn't condemn this; on the contrary, it is He Himself Who commanded it.

 

My point here is that we have no evidence that the claim of the enduring "specialness" of the descendants of Abraham beyond the statements of the descendants of Abraham. While my intention was not to use the term in its proper philosophical meaning (we are on a mormon discussion forum not a philosophical one) it is not incorrect in either the proper sense or the informal "raise the question" sense.

 

My entire point is that i do not believe their is evidence to support the later claims of specialness that came after Abraham. In fact, all the evidence from the Biblical text shows the lack of favor that the descendants of Abraham experienced relative to their relationship with God.

 

It seems to me that it is just as likely that we have theologically institutionalized racial bigotry from almost 5000 years ago because those people wrote about it. This seems no different to the blacks and the priesthood experience the modern church has gone through. Distinctions based on some kind of social identity persisting over time and then having religious justification concocted after the fact.

[CV75]

Distinctions based on some kind of social identity persisting over time and then having religious justification concocted after the fact.

I think this is what Jesus was alluding to in Matthew 3:9 and Luke 3:8.

 

When you look at how Jesus blesses Abraham and his seed, "all nations" are invited to partake, but there are consequences for those who refuse or do not live up to it. While the unrighteous can and do impose disadvantages on their descendants, the righteous continue to reach out to those descendants who can accept the extended blessings. Of course this was not fully possible until the Restoration.

[Scott Lloyd]

My point here is that we have no evidence that the claim of the enduring "specialness" of the descendants of Abraham beyond the statements of the descendants of Abraham. While my intention was not to use the term in its proper philosophical meaning (we are on a mormon discussion forum not a philosophical one) it is not incorrect in either the proper sense or the informal "raise the question" sense.

 

My entire point is that i do not believe their is evidence to support the later claims of specialness that came after Abraham. In fact, all the evidence from the Biblical text shows the lack of favor that the descendants of Abraham experienced relative to their relationship with God.

 

It seems to me that it is just as likely that we have theologically institutionalized racial bigotry from almost 5000 years ago because those people wrote about it. This seems no different to the blacks and the priesthood experience the modern church has gone through. Distinctions based on some kind of social identity persisting over time and then having religious justification concocted after the fact.

I'm not certain where you are coming from with this, but it is apparent that, in effect, you reject the promises made by Jesus Christ in Genesis and affirmed in Abraham 2 in the Pearl of Great Price that in Abraham and his "seed" or posterity that all the families (or "nations" in some passages) would be blessed. Moreover you appear to deny the authenticity of the words of Jesus Christ in Doctrine and Covenants 84 that those who faithfully receive preisthood covenants in this latter-day dispensation become "the seed of Abraham" (D&C 84:34).

 

Moreover, your obstinate insistence that this amounts to "bigotry" ignores my repeated explanations that it could hardly be bigotry or elitism when the intent is to offer the same covenants and promises to anyone anywhere who will accept them.

[Bikeemikey]

I'm not certain where you are coming from with this, but it is apparent that, in effect, you reject the promises made by Jesus Christ in Genesis and affirmed in Abraham 2 in the Pearl of Great Price that in Abraham and his "seed" or posterity that all the families (or "nations" in some passages) would be blessed. Moreover you appear to deny the authenticity of the words of Jesus Christ in Doctrine and Covenants 84 that those who faithfully receive preisthood covenants in this latter-day dispensation become "the seed of Abraham" (D&C 84:34).

 

Moreover, your obstinate insistence that this amounts to "bigotry" ignores my repeated explanations that it could hardly be bigotry or elitism when the intent is to offer the same covenants and promises to anyone anywhere who will accept them.

 

Contrary to the way in which you have framed my thoughts, and that is all they are, not assertions or accusations or any thing else, I do not deny the "blessings" of the promises made by Christ to anyone.

 

In fact, as has been pointed out, it appears that such a proclamation is in fact statistically guaranteed this long after the fact, as we are likely all of Abrahamic descent.

 

My question is specifically limited: are such promises available to the righteous regardless of Abraham's covenant. 

 

And if such promises are possible on a personal level why all the emphasis on Abrahams covenant.

 

The answer I seem to get is because all of the folks in the OT seemed to make a a real big deal of it, in fact it seems they used it as excuse for war, genocide and all sorts of other things.

 

Then along comes Christ and says I am the new covenant, time to move past that old one, then 2000 years later we are still mediating promises through the the very covenant that Christ came to fulfill. 

 

I do think that the promise to Abraham was unique, that is through his seed all the world would be blessed. It seems to me this is was fulfilled when Christ was born from the seed of Abraham. In that sense the Christ was both a literal and a figurative fulfillment of the promise. 

 

I am however confused as to why we still mediate our religious experience through to long fulfilled Abrahamic covenant when our salvation rests on the new and everlasting covenant (Christ) and the private covenant we must make with Christ.

 

It seems to me the emphasis on the Abrahamic covenant today may well be the final vestige of a bias written into the OT text by the people of the time, one that they were chastised for when Christ finally arrived.

[Scott Lloyd]

It seems to me the emphasis on the Abrahamic covenant today may well be the final vestige of a bias written into the OT text by the people of the time, one that they were chastised for when Christ finally arrived.

Nowhere did Christ chastise anyone for a belief in the perpetuation of the covenant of Abraham.

 

If that were the case, Christ would not have sent Elias to appear to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and commit "the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in [them] and [their] seed all generations after [them] should be blessed" (Doctrine and Covenants 110:13).

 

If that were the case Christ would not have said to Joseph Smith, "This promise is your also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father,wherein he glorifieth himself" (Doctrine and Covenants 132:31).

 

If that were the case, Christ would not have referred to those who receive the priesthood as "the seed of Abraham" (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:34).

 

He would not have referred to the members of the latter-day Church as "Israel" (alternate name for Jacob, grandson of Abraham and one in whom the Abrahamic covenant was verified) or spoken of latter-day Church leaders as those "with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers," and "lawful heirs according to the flesh."

 

Now, perhaps you are disputing the authenticity of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, in which event we are not even on the same page and there is hardly any point in continuing this conversation.

Edited March 12, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

I have never heard that before, but it is not an unreasonable concept.

It's a very basic concept and I'm sure you accept it even though the words I used to express it didn't seem familiar to you.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's a very basic concept and I'm sure you accept it even though the words I used to express it didn't seem familiar to you.

That may well be the case.

[Bikeemikey]

Nowhere did Christ chastise anyone for a belief in the perpetuation of the covenant of Abraham.

 

If that were the case, Christ would not have sent Elias to appear to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and commit "the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in [them] and [their] seed all generations after [them] should be blessed" (Doctrine and Covenants 110:13).

 

If that were the case Christ would not have said to Joseph Smith, "This promise is your also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father,wherein he glorifieth himself" (Doctrine and Covenants 132:31).

 

If that were the case, Christ would not have referred to those who receive the priesthood as "the seed of Abraham" (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:34).

 

He would not have referred to the members of the latter-day Church as "Israel" (alternate name for Jacob, grandson of Abraham and one in whom the Abrahamic covenant was verified) or spoken of latter-day Church leaders as those "with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers," and "lawful heirs according to the flesh."

 

Now, perhaps you are disputing the authenticity of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, in which event we are not even on the same page and there is hardly any point in continuing this conversation.

 

Yep your right, thats what i'm doing.

 

It is a statement of incredulity, not dissent.

 

I am saying I would not be surprised at all to die and find out that God was very amused at the way we attached onto things...

 

Nothing more.

[Ahab]

I think the point is that any missing links between someone who has received the priesthood covenants that Abraham received and anyone who has not received the same covenants are bridged when that person who missed out before receives those same covenants, and that when they are bridged the links are no longer missing between Abraham and all others who receive those covenants.

Like when Joseph Smith had missing links between himself and others who had received the same covenants that Abraham had received in his life. People came to him who could and did give him the same covenants that Abraham had received in his life, and any links between himself and those people (Peter James and John) could also be bridged in the same way. Between people who received those covenants and people who at one point did not. And while the more missing links we fill in the more close knit the chain then becomes, then chain is still connected and acts as if there are no missing links. So that even if my most immediate biological father never receives the same covenants that Abraham and I have both received, there will still be an active link between myself and whoever is the next most immediate biological father in my family line.