Keeping Covenants Without Understanding

[changed]

3 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

No one is suggesting they need to understand everything the first time, or the second, or....

 

Signing onto something you do not understand is coercion.  

The moral way of making a contract is to only ask someone to sign onto what they 100% understand.

Honest - gradual - transparent - nothing hidden - clear, step by step.  That would be the just way of doing things.

I don't think it is from God - this secret, coercive, way of doing things.  

Edited May 6, 2019 by changed

[JLHPROF]

29 minutes ago, changed said:

Haha - "implied" - not specifically said, just "implied"... what is actually said - is marriage NOT sealed... it is a marriage.

Ridiculous semantics.  I  don't see how an eternal marriage or a couple sealed for eternity are any different.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Can one keep a covenant if one doesn’t understand it?

I think we need to look at the practicality of the question.

No, one could not keep a covenant if one does not understand it.

Like a contract, a covenant means a meeting of the minds. If either party disagrees on any point there is no contract.

But we are talking about a covenant with God here.

Should we suddenly decide that there were implications to the covenant that we did not understand, and we feel that it was wrong to make such a promise we did not understand, a just God would understand.

if I had ever disagreed or not understood any Temple covenants I would have stood up and walked out.

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Wade Englund]

45 minutes ago, changed said:

Signing onto something you do not understand is coercion.  

That is your gospel, NOT Christs. With Christ, it is a mater of development in faith (see, for example Alma 32)

Quote

The moral way of making a contract is to only ask someone to sign onto what they 100% understand.

Wrong. This isn't even the case in secular law (see HERE) Granted, one needs to be "competent" (or have the "capacity--see HERE), but this means  "they are of legal age to sign a contract; they have the mental capacity to understand what they are signing; and they are not impaired at the time of signing – meaning they are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol." (ibd) Note that there is no mention of "100% understanding", in part because that isn't definable, let alone feasible. Keep in mind that ignorance is not an excuse under the law,  However, as @mfbukowski indicated, God will understand when we don't.  

In short, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to God's way or man's way. You are merely speaking to YOUR way.

Thanks, -Wade Engound-

Edited May 6, 2019 by Wade Englund

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

if I had ever disagreed or not understood any Temple covenants I would have stood up and walked out.

How do you understand “the law of the gospel as contained in the holy scriptures?”  Where is it found in the scriptures?

Realizing that I covenanted to something I really don’t understand and it’s bothering me.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Poppycock.  In fact I believe it would be the opposite.

You can only remove yourself from a covenant.  It would completely violate agency if your speculation were at all valid.

For a sealing in heaven to be valid, it must be valid on earth. It is not valid unless the first wife consents. That is the law. So no, it does not violate agency. Perhaps you think it is OK to violate the agency of the first wife who disagrees? The 2nd marriage becomes just that - an earthly marriage that ends, since the Holy Spirit would not be able to seal it in heaven without the consent of the first.

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, changed said:

Polygamy is hell, adultery is hell, what Emma went through and what BY's wives went through, and all of Warren Jeff's wives went through is hell.  

If you have not experienced it - have not experienced adultery, then please... do not pretend that you would be "ok" with it.

Haha - "implied" - not specifically said, just "implied"... what is actually said - is marriage NOT sealed... it is a marriage.

You said the everlasting covenant was akin to hell or amounted to hell. That is not the case. Eternal marriage is part of the everlasting covenant. You are confabulating it with polygamy when that is not necessarily the case. I can see that you will not be convinced, but nowhere does 132 say that polygamy is the everlasting covenant. If people enter into it willingly, and wish to live it, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Are you now saying they have to live by your desires? And that anything else but your standard is hell? 

I am living the everlasting covenant right now with one wife. I don't need two to receive the promised blessings. You are reading into 132 what is not there. You are reading Warren Jeffs into it. He never followed 132, and probably doesn't even know what it says. He is an adulterer and a child molester. These girls don't give consent for what he's done. It's an unconsensual crime. Even if he only did one of his "marriages" to one of these girls, it would be a crime, because the ones I have heard about didn't consent to marry. That is not a covenant. It is just a crime. It's a crime with one, and a crime with more than one. Polygamy doesn't have anything to do with that. 

[sheilauk]

5 hours ago, changed said:

Polygamy is hell, adultery is hell, what Emma went through and what BY's wives went through, and all of Warren Jeff's wives went through is hell.  

If you have not experienced it - have not experienced adultery, then please... do not pretend that you would be "ok" with it.

 

So, you are able to speak for Emma and Brigham's wives and know better than them what they experienced?   When we have their own words about it?  What would you say if someone else denied them their voices or feelings about something?  They do not describe it as hell.   As for Jeff's,  some still support him, despite his crimes. (Amazingly, in my opinion, but they do). You can think of it as hell, you cannot impute that to others.  If you complain that others can't say they would be ok with adultery unless they've been through it, you can't put your feelings onto others who have experienced Polygamy.  You may not be happy with their choice, and you may try as many do, to remove their choice and their voice and claim they were coerced / manipulated,  but some are ok with Polygamy (even now, see Sister Wives).  Every person has their own choice/belief /desire to make.  Do you not believe that? 

[sheilauk]

5 hours ago, changed said:

How is anyone supposed to "understand" everything in the temple the first time they go through - the first time they make all these covenants?  No one is allowed to read anything or study anything ahead of time - everyone goes in blind (if they are faithful and did not watch new-name-Noah's videos)  

the excuse is "milk before meat" - just show you the milk to get you through the door, then when you discover the 'meat' - the bloody carnage ... some people stay, others go.  

Most people do not leave because of 'sin" - read the faith crisis report - people leave because church teachings like polygamy go against their moral compass.

Your 1st statement is not true.  I thought about issuing a CFR.  The temple prep class needs work, imo,  but a person preparing for the temple can read or study whatever they want to, though probably many choose not to.   There are several books and articles by apostles and general authorities that talk about the temple and the covenants.  Even 10 years ago, when I was preparing,  I found a lot of information on the church website and realised that the scriptures reference much of what happens in the temple.  And now,  the church has more specific videos on its website.  You don't have to go through blind.  

As for the meat being carnage, that's a very subjective and hyperbolic term. Which is why many stay. 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

For a sealing in heaven to be valid, it must be valid on earth. It is not valid unless the first wife consents. 

So it's D&C 132:61 vs 65 again.

Your reduction of the second marriage to inferior status is pure bias not found in scripture. Unless you think what Sarah did to Hagar and her child is God approved.

[bluebell]

Some posters seem to be confused about what the new and everlasting covenant actually is.  Here is a good summary from lds.org.  Some relevant parts:

"The new and everlasting covenant “is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations” given anciently and again restored to the earth in these latter days. This is explained in Doctrine and Covenants 66:2: “Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old.” Because the covenant has been restored in the last dispensation of time, it is “new,” and because it spans all eternity, it is “everlasting.”

In the scriptures the Lord speaks of both “the” new and everlasting covenant and “a” new and everlasting covenant. For example, in Doctrine and Covenants 22:1, He refers to baptism as “a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.” In Doctrine and Covenants 132:4, He likewise refers to eternal marriage as “a new and an everlasting covenant.” When He speaks of “a” new and everlasting covenant, He is speaking of one of the many covenants encompassed by His gospel.

When the Lord speaks generally of “the” new and everlasting covenant, He is speaking of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which embraces all ordinances and covenants necessary for the salvation and exaltation of mankind. Neither baptism nor eternal marriage is “the” new and everlasting covenant; rather, they are each parts of the whole."

"In Doctrine and Covenants 132:4, the Lord stated that He was going to reveal “a” new and everlasting covenant and added, “If ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” These words refer to the covenant of eternal marriage performed by proper priesthood authority, which is a central and essential part of “the” new and everlasting covenant (the fulness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ). The Lord emphasized the great importance of the covenant of eternal marriage by telling us that those who reject this covenant will not receive eternal life.

Some people, including some Church members, inaccurately read Doctrine and Covenants 132:4 to mean that plural marriage is necessary for exaltation, leading them to believe that plural marriage is a necessary prerequisite for exaltation in the eternal realm. This, however, is not supported in the revelations. As recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 131 and 132, the Lord introduced the law of eternal marriage by expressly referring to the sealing of one man and one woman (see Doctrine and Covenants 132:4–7, 15–25). By setting forth the law of eternal marriage in the context of a monogamous marriage, the Lord makes plain that the blessings of exaltation, extended to each man and each woman who worthily enters into the covenant of eternal marriage performed by proper priesthood authority, are independent of whether that marriage is plural or monogamous."

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

How do you understand “the law of the gospel as contained in the holy scriptures?”  Where is it found in the scriptures?

Realizing that I covenanted to something I really don’t understand and it’s bothering me.

All of the scriptures. You know like 10 commandments and the two great commandments.

Presumably you were already living that or you wouldn't have gotten a recommend assuming you were telling me the truth.

The rest is between you and God. What's He going to do sue you?

If you don't believe it doesn't matter.  

That's why I think this is a silly topic.

You make a covenant with a god you don't believe in what difference does it make?

What if you make a covenant with Zeus?

Does it matter if you make a covenant with a non-existing person?

This is God we're talking about. He's not going to trip you up on some stupid linguistic trick. We are talking about our loving heavenly father. Did you all have fathers that did that kind of thing?

"Aha! It says right here in line 87 subsections f, and u, of the fine print that XYZ. I've got you now!"

Come on guys get real.

Edited May 6, 2019 by mfbukowski

[SouthernMo]

20 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

All of the scriptures. You know like 10 commandments and the two great commandments.

Presumably you were already living that or you wouldn't have gotten a recommend assuming you were telling me the truth.

The rest is between you and God. What you going to do sue you?

If you don't believe it doesn't matter.  

That's why I think this is a silly topic.

You make a covenant with a god you don't believe in what difference does it make?

What if you make a covenant with Zeus?

Does it matter if you make a covenant with a non-existing person?

This is God we're talking about. He's not going to trip you up on some stupid linguistic trick.

"Aha! It says right here in line 87 of the fine print that XYZ. I've got you now!"

Come on guys get real.

Not sure i follow some of what you wrote.

"What you going to do sue you?"

Who said I don't believe in god?  Where is that coming from?  I believe in God.

I've been taught that trying to understand and keep my covenants is a serious topic (rather than silly), so I think it's worthwhile to understand them (at least better understand them).

Normally, your comments are very insightful, so I must be missing something about your response.

 

Help me understand what you mean, man!

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

So it's D&C 132:61 vs 65 again.

Your reduction of the second marriage to inferior status is pure bias not found in scripture. Unless you think what Sarah did to Hagar and her child is God approved.

Hagar was Sarah's slave so It was legal under earthly law at the time. That's why she gets called a concubine. Hagar apparently consented. I believe Keturah was a full second wife under the law at that time, despite what 1 Chronicles says, because Jethro was apparently a Midianite who had the priesthood. However, these details are unknown. It was common practice at the time to marry a cousin as a second wife.

[mfbukowski]

Luke 11:11

"11 “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for[f]a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

[mfbukowski]

29 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Not sure i follow some of what you wrote.

"What you going to do sue you?"

Who said I don't believe in god?  Where is that coming from?  I believe in God.

I've been taught that trying to understand and keep my covenants is a serious topic (rather than silly), so I think it's worthwhile to understand them (at least better understand them).

Normally, your comments are very insightful, so I must be missing something about your response.

 

Help me understand what you mean, man!

Sorry that was a typo. I've changed it.

The overall point is that he is your loving father and is not out to trip you up. Yes of course the covenants are important and serious.

But as we grow in the gospel we learn more and more. It's about becoming a new creature and as we become that new creature our understanding grows.

And yet again I will quote Luke 11

11 “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for[f]a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Your father will not condemn you for misunderstandings.

And if in the long run you find that you do not agree with the covenant then there is no harm because you have in effect never believed in the God that gave you that covenant. 

Suppose you made a covenant to be a lifelong Buddhist and then figured out that you wanted to change religions.

Your belief in Buddhism let's say was an error. You no longer believe that Buddhism has any power over you.

I was a Catholic and that is the way it happened for me. The Catholic Church says that I have excommunicated myself. but I no longer believe the Catholic church has any authority, so any covenants I made, was with an entity that has no authority over me, and no possible enforcement action is possible. 

For me that entity has become imaginary. 

I am no longer worried about displeasing Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, or gods I regard as non-existent.

God is not out to trap us in some fine point of doctrine.

I hope that is clearer.

Edited May 6, 2019 by mfbukowski

[SouthernMo]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry that was a typo. I've changed it.

The overall point is that he is your loving father and is not out to trip you up. Yes of course the covenants are important and serious.

But as we grow in the gospel we learn more and more. It's about becoming a new creature and as we become that new creature our understanding grows.

And yet again I will quote Luke 11

11 “Which of you fathers, if your son asks for[f]a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion?13 If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Your father will not condemn you for misunderstandings.

And if in the long run you find that you do not agree with the covenant then there is no harm because you have in effect never believed in the God that gave you that covenant. 

Suppose you made a covenant to be a lifelong Buddhist and then figured out that you wanted to change religions.

Your belief in Buddhism let's say was an error. You no longer believe that Buddhism has any power over you.

I was a Catholic and that is the way it happened for me. The Catholic Church says that I have excommunicated myself. but I no longer believe the Catholic church has any authority, so any covenants I made, was with an entity that has no authority over me, and no possible enforcement action is possible. 

For me that entity has become imaginary. 

I am no longer worried about displeasing Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, or gods I regard as non-existent.

God is not out to trap us in some fine point of doctrine.

I hope that is clearer.

I wonder if the greater point is to study to better understand my covenants.  Do you think we have a responsibility to study our covenants?  Or does god excuse us if we just keep what we think we covenanted to without giving it more thought and consideration?

[freedad]

Toward the end of my mission I attended a Priesthood class where the instructor asked us to name the five covenants or laws that we promise to keep in the temple endowment ceremony and to do it in order.  I panicked because I didn't know or understand all five.  But I wasn't the only one.  No one in the class that day could name all five of their covenants.

I determined to study the scriptures about these five specific covenants and to attend the temple as often as possible to learn their meaning.  Learning and understanding our covenants is our responsibility.  To make a covenant and not make the effort to understand what is expected of us becomes our problem because we didn't make to effort on our own.

When we are judged by the Savior, He will surely ask us about our covenants.  If we say we couldn't remember or just didn't understand, I don't think He'll give us a pass when we could have made the effort to understand but didn't.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I wonder if the greater point is to study to better understand my covenants.  Do you think we have a responsibility to study our covenants?  Or does god excuse us if we just keep what we think we covenanted to without giving it more thought and consideration?

No definitely study them out.  Much can be learned from the symbols associated with them also in contemplation of what each covenant means and its consequences.

Sacrifice is a basic plan of life- we do it every day as part of advancing in life.  We like farmers, make a sacrifice and plant seeds (the sacrifice is the expense of the seed, and the work involved) to hope to achieve something more- our crop or orchard bearing fruit (Alma 32).   We spend time and expense in going to college to get a better life

Life is about being "square" with obedience and sacrifice. If you are not honestly obedient, your sacrifice will be worthless.  Think of those who sacrificed large sums of money to get their kids into good schools.  

But they did it without being honest- they were not STRAIGHTforward !  Sacrifice is actually in a way the same as obedience- it is a major sacrifice for me personally to BE obedient because I am very skeptical and arrogant and always think I know better than the one giving directions.   Why should I listen to this guy?  But through obedience I learn that by DOING I learn things I might not have learned had I not been obedient for the sake of obedience!  We must be honest, straight and true in our obedience for it to work and get the results of our sacrifice.

If we plant seeds, sacrificing our time and money, but do not obey the "rules" of what it takes to raise them- like weeding and watering etc, then our sacrifice of planting the seed will not bear fruit!

If nothing else we can learn to listen and become humble through obedience.   It is a sacrifice to be obedient.  Covenenting to be obedient keeps us square with the Lord and others!  We can be dependable and true to our promises.  We promise to keep the commandments- a sacrifice of our obedience - and in turn we hope for (and achieve) a better life.

One should be straight and forthright in dealing with people which requires sacrifice at times- in being honest, for example.  Do we fudge on our taxes?  How about tithing? Are we straight and true in times when no one will know what we have done?  But what if we are not obedient and honest?  Will the government be after us for being dishonest in paying tax?

Perhaps this will be a little veiled in meaning but it needs to be- note the various definitions of "square" and why in court we raise our arms to swear to tell the truth, which is obedience to at least one commandment:

1.  

Quote

 

1. at right angles; perpendicular.

   "these lines must be square to the top and bottom marked edges"

   • ASTROLOGY

     having or denoting an aspect of 90°.

     "Jupiter is square to the Sun"
2. 4.

   level or parallel.

   "place one piece of wood on top of the other, ensuring that they are exactly square"

   • properly arranged; in good order.

     "we should get everything square before we leave"
   • compatible or in agreement.

     "he wanted to make sure we were square with the court's decision and not subject to a lawsuit"
   • fair and honest.

     "she'd been as square with him as anybody could be"

     synonyms:

     fair, honest, just, equitable, straight, true, upright, above board, ethical, decent, proper, right and proper, honorable, genuine;  informalon the level "she'd been as square with him as anybody could be"

     antonyms:

     underhand

3. 5.

   (of two people) owing nothing to each other.

   "an acknowledgment that we are square"

 

 

Ezekiel 11 speaks of many many symbolic ways of seeing the face of God connected with squares and circles as well and how they are related to each other.

 

I am just bringing this up to show how one might study further the implications of obedience and sacrifice and being square with others, and how all these symbols work together.  

So yes you have to study them out to learn all the implications.

 

[SouthernMo]

Thanks for sharing, @mfbukowski.

As a follow up to an earlier answer you gave: I asked how you understood the "law of the gospel" and where it can be found in the scriptures, to which you replied - "All of the scriptures. You know like 10 commandments and the two great commandments."

How do you see the difference between the law of obedience and the law of the gospel?

FYI, the closest I have seen in scripture teaching about the law of the gospel is D&C 104:18.  But, this principle is one that is not taught today nearly as strongly as Joseph Smith did.

[clarkgoble]

On 5/5/2019 at 10:18 AM, MustardSeed said:

I certainly hope so.  I should think we would get some credit for efforts , doing the best we can with what we presently know. 

That's the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and grace. If we're trying we're exercising faith and God will transform us so eventually we can fully be one with God.

 

[changed]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's the nature of Jesus' sacrifice and grace. If we're trying we're exercising faith and God will transform us so eventually we can fully be one with God.

 

whosoever would save his soul would lose it... salvation is the realization that we have no way of saving ourselves.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, freedad said:

When we are judged by the Savior, He will surely ask us about our covenants.  If we say we couldn't remember or just didn't understand, I don't think He'll give us a pass when we could have made the effort to understand but didn't.

And so what will be the consequences?

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I was a Catholic and that is the way it happened for me. The Catholic Church says that I have excommunicated myself. but I no longer believe the Catholic church has any authority, so any covenants I made, was with an entity that has no authority over me, and no possible enforcement action is possible. 

Dude, you've got the indelible mark of baptism on your soul. You can check out any time you'd like but you can never leave...  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Dude, you've got the indelible mark of baptism on your soul. You can check out any time you'd like but you can never leave...  

I was wondering what that thing was. I've tried steel wool and stain remover I just can't get rid of it. 🤩

Indelible Mark.

Nice ring to it.

I could change my name I guess.

I also have a certificate from Pope Pius 12th in the 1950s saying that if any one of my dad's family dies with the name of Jesus on their lips they will get a plenary indulgence. That must have cost somebody some bucks

Bwahaha. 

I suppose I can always get my lip tattooed......

So does that count even if I misunderstood the covenant?

 

 

Edited May 7, 2019 by mfbukowski