What is indoctrination?

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

We all too often miss the point that Christ did not die for a church.

I am curious as to you understanding of passages like Matthew 16:18 ("And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church...), Acts 2:47 ("And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved..."), Acts 15:4 ("And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders..."), Ephesians 5:25 ("Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it..."), Romans 12:5 ("So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another..."), .1 Cor. 10:32 ("Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:..."), 1 Cor. 12:27-28 ("Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers..."), and so on.

I'm not a big fan of prooftexting, and I'm not trying to do that here.  But for me the New Testament paints a picture of Christ establishing a church.  His church.  A visible church.  With members, leaders, doctrines, ordinances, groupings, meetings, agreements and disagreements between members, and so on.

I believe all of us, except the Sons of Perdition, will be the beneficiaries of Christ's atoning sacrifice, albeit  in varying degrees based on our willingness to follow Him.

Part of that calculus, for me, is the idea of joining and being part of Christ's Church, the one Paul said He "gave himself for."

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

His mission on earth and since was not to create a specific church or institution of any kind.

I think part of His mission was to create His Church.  He called apostles and seventies to help Him administer it.  It is spoken of extensively in the New Testament.  And it does indeed appear to be "a specific" one.  With leaders, structure, authority, doctrine, ordinances, and so on.

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

His mission was and is to create individuals who trust in Him, who lean not to our own understandings, and who seek to grow closer to Him, not to an institution.

I have difficulty with this alternative thing.  It would be like me saying "I love my wife, but not the marital community I inhabit with her."

The Church, as an organization, as a community, as an "institution," appears to have played a very significant role in the New Testament.

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

When we confuse the Lord of our faith with the location of our faith, the loss of our faith has already been germinated.

I'm not sure what this means.  Could you elaborate?

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

The foundation of my faith is not found or founded (puns intended) in or on any one institution.

I think most Latter-day Saints will readily and immediately agree with you.  Christ is the object of our faith.  Joining His Church is part of how we express that faith, along with obeying Him in other ways (repentance, baptism, service, love, forgiveness, and so on).

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

That is why I can worship and fellowship in an LDS ward, a Baptist, Orthodox, Mennonite, Catholic church, or on my patio by the river. My testimony is that the Lord is true. We won't know the "true" church until we participate in it in glory in eternity.

I think the whole point of the organized church referenced and described in the New Testament was to help individuals help each other, and also to be a conduit through which we can receive further revelations (as well as individually), officiate in ordinances, and so on.  It looks like we have different perspectives on what the "church" is, how it is supposed to function in our lives, and so on.  I appreciate and respect your willingness to share your views on this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

7 minutes ago, James 1 5 said:

Yes and I can see that difference.  We are more in agreement on this than I thought.  But a Christian is not necessarily a member of the true church of Christ.  It isn't a one step BOOM you're a Christian and thus BOOM you are automatically a member of the church of Christ.  Baptism is the ordinance that initiates church membership, a symbol of birth into the church, which is the symbolic bride and wife of Christ.  A newly baptized member of the church is as a babe in Christ's church, even if that newly baptized member has been a Christian for a very long time.

This is where you are wrong, specifically.  There are many Christians who are not members of the true church of Jesus Christ.

Again, try thinking of the church as a group of people rather than as an "institution".  The true church of Christ is a group of people who are bound to Christ by a covenant and to the group through the ordinance of baptism.

What is the covenant that is unique to the LDS church and by which you "are bound to Christ?" It has to be something beyond baptismal covenants which are common to virtually all Christian faiths.

[Vanguard]

41 minutes ago, Paloma said:

I believe that a Christian is anyone who has put one's trust for salvation in God.  (That's a very short version as I'm not getting into the vital role of Jesus' atonement and individual capacity to understand His atonement which provides the way of salvation, etc.)   What is essential on the part of the 'saved person' is a posture of trust that gives birth to obedience.  True trust (faith) bears the fruit of faithfulness which means living for God/following Jesus/ having a Spirit-filled life.

What I've just said is different, I think, from what you surmised about my believing a Christian is "anyone who considers his or her self to be a Christian".  

God, who knows our heart postures, knows who is a true Christian.  

All true Christians comprise the church, the body of believers, the bride of Christ.

And yes, I think that we disagree when it comes to my last statement.  My view of the church transcends institutions.

I think I understand and agree with your sentiment though you are using terms that could be confusing. To put my own spin on it, a Christian is anyone who has put one's trust for salvation in Christ - not God alone. I think it is an important distinction and one that differentiates us from say, our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters.

I am also of the belief that the Christian tent expands well beyond my own LDS parameters. Though I believe we are in possession of important truths that others do not have regards to gospel belief (though all will come to believe these truths at some point), these differences pale in comparison to another who has given him/herself 'up to Christ' from whatever Christian denomination that might be.

[James 1 5]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

What is the covenant that is unique to the LDS church and by which you "are bound to Christ?" It has to be something beyond baptismal covenants which are common to virtually all Christian faiths.

What makes the covenant unique to our church is that our church is the only church authorized by Christ to administer that covenant with his authority.  Other church do not have his authority to administer it.  We have exclusive rights.  From him.  Period.

[Navidad]

Just now, James 1 5 said:

What makes the covenant unique to our church is that our church is the only church authorized by Christ to administer that covenant with his authority.  Other church do not have his authority to administer it.  We have exclusive rights.  From him.  Period.

I am sorry for being thick- headed, but what or which covenant are you writing about? Now it sounds like you are talking about the two baptismal covenants which are made by the individual being baptized, not by the Church. How does someone administer a covenant? Only the petitioner can make the covenant, not the one administering the ordinance? Sorry, I guess I just don't understand.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

What is the covenant that is unique to the LDS church and by which you "are bound to Christ?"

The covenants officiated under the priesthood would, I think, be characterized by us as "unique to the {} Church."

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It has to be something beyond baptismal covenants which are common to virtually all Christian faiths.

I agree.  That "something beyond" is, I believe, priesthood authority.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Olmec Donald]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

We all too often miss the point that Christ did not die for a church.

Well said.

54 minutes ago, Navidad said:

For me, the Church is present wherever two or three are gathered together in His name.

The culmination of the LDS temple ceremony is a depiction of entering into the presence of the Lord.  And Christ himself taught that THAT is also the culmination of two or three being gathered together in His name.  Imo both are viable paths, and it is not clear to me that either is "better" than the other.  

Imo it is possible that the same lessons are being taught by outwardly different curriculums.

[Navidad]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The covenants officiated under the priesthood would, I think, be characterized by us as "unique to the {} Church."

I agree.  That "something beyond" is, I believe, priesthood authority.

Thanks,

-Smac

As I wrote to someone else . . . I am confused - isn't it the one being baptized who makes the covenants, not the one doing the baptizing? If I am correct, I don't understand how the authority to baptize has anything to do with the promise within a covenant made by the one being baptized? If I were baptized tomorrow, wouldn't I be the one making the covenants as a promise to God? Does the baptizer make the covenant for the one being baptized? Sorry, I don't understand.

[smac97]

Just now, Navidad said:

As I wrote to someone else . . . I am confused - isn't it the one being baptized who makes the covenants, not the one doing the baptizing?

Yes.  But "the one doing the baptizing" must, in our view, have proper authority and authorization to do it.

Just now, Navidad said:

If I am correct, I don't understand how the authority to baptize has anything to do with the promise within a covenant made by the one being baptized?

By way of analogy: Years ago I took the "Attorney Oath" for the State of Utah, at which point I became an attorney licensed to practice law in Utah.  Prior to that, I was not licensed.  Licensure required that I do certain things: graduate from college, take the LSAT, gain admission to law school, graduate from law school, take the bar exam, pass a background check, pay a fee, and then have the oath administered.  The process is summed up in this form letter from the Utah Supreme Court:

Quote

Enclosed is the Attorney Oath for the Utah Supreme Court. You may take the oath at the Bar Admissions Ceremony in May or October. You may also make arrangements with someone in your area to administer the oath to you. This person must have authority to administer the oath of office under Supreme Court Professional Practice Rule 14-716. Those with authority to administer the oath are the clerk of the Supreme Court, the clerk of a court of the United States, a Utah state judge of district or juvenile court level or higher, a judge of a court of the United States or a judge of a court of general jurisdiction or higher of a state of the United States. In the event of a military assignment, a military court judge may also administer the oath.

Now, let's say that I complete all of the pre-requisites for licensure, but then have the oath of office administered by someone who does not "have authority to administer the oath of office under Supreme Court Professional Practice Rule 14-716."  Does the oath "count" anyway?  Am I good to go?  What if the person who administered the oath was well-intentioned?  Is that sufficient to confer "authority" on him under the practice rule?  

Joining the Church of Christ is admittedly not as fastidious, but the general contours are there: pre-requisite qualifications (faith, repentance, desire/willingness to enter into a covenant, etc.) and officiation of an act (baptism) under proper authority.  

Just now, Navidad said:

If I were baptized tomorrow, wouldn't I be the one making the covenants as a promise to God? Does the baptizer make the covenant for the one being baptized? Sorry, I don't understand.

The covenant is the objective.  Receiving the ordinance associated with the covenant from those under proper authority to administer the ordinance is a necessary part of the means of achieving that objective.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, James 1 5 said:

 

This is where you are wrong, specifically.  There are many Christians who are not members of the true church of Jesus Christ.

 

It depends on how you want to define things.

Stephen Robinson had an article published in the Ensign talking about the church of the devil and the church of the Lamb (Nephi chapters 13 and 14), and he pointed out that the book of mormon teaches that there are many members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are actually of the church of the devil, and many people who are not members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are members of the church of the Lamb.

It depends on who has your heart, not who has your records.

[James 1 5]

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am sorry for being thick- headed, but what or which covenant are you writing about? Now it sounds like you are talking about the two baptismal covenants which are made by the individual being baptized, not by the Church.

I was talking about the covenant that binds someone to Christ as a member of his church.  Members of the Lord's church often make other covenants with the Lord after becoming a member of his church, but I was talking about that one.

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

How does someone administer a covenant? Only the petitioner can make the covenant, not the one administering the ordinance? Sorry, I guess I just don't understand.

Think of a wedding and how someone administers a marriage for a man and woman who are getting married.  The one who acts as the administrator, binding that couple as husband and wife, is the one administering that contract by the power of law and authority held by the administrator.  Someone with our Lord's authority acts as an administrator of our Lord's covenants in that same way.  Only someone with our Lord's authority is entitled or authorized to do it, and it is not by the power of the words that are used.  Someone who uses the same words but without the authority to do it may be going through the motions but without our Lord's authority to make it binding on him.

[James 1 5]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It depends on how you want to define things.

Stephen Robinson had an article published in the Ensign talking about the church of the devil and the church of the Lamb (Nephi chapters 13 and 14), and he pointed out that the book of mormon teaches that there are many members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are actually of the church of the devil, and many people who are not members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are members of the church of the Lamb.

It depends on who has your heart, not who has your records.

I'll say it depends on who has your heart AND who has your records.  

Living members of the Church are on Church records as members.  People who are dead may not be on record as members but the Church is not limited to only people who are now living.  I suspect the Church also has records in the world(s) of spirits.

If anyone is not a member today they should apply now or as soon as they can.

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But "the one doing the baptizing" must, in our view, have proper authority and authorization to do it.

By way of analogy: Years ago I took the "Attorney Oath" for the State of Utah, at which point I became an attorney licensed to practice law in Utah.  Prior to that, I was not licensed.  Licensure required that I do certain things: graduate from college, take the LSAT, gain admission to law school, graduate from law school, take the bar exam, pass a background check, pay a fee, and then have the oath administered.  The process is summed up in this form letter from the Utah Supreme Court:

Now, let's say that I complete all of the pre-requisites for licensure, but then have the oath of office administered by someone who does not "have authority to administer the oath of office under Supreme Court Professional Practice Rule 14-716."  Does the oath "count" anyway?  Am I good to go?  What if the person who administered the oath was well-intentioned?  Is that sufficient to confer "authority" on him under the practice rule?  

Joining the Church of Christ is admittedly not as fastidious, but the general contours are there: pre-requisite qualifications (faith, repentance, desire/willingness to enter into a covenant, etc.) and officiation of an act (baptism) under proper authority.  

The covenant is the objective.  Receiving the ordinance associated with the covenant from those under proper authority to administer the ordinance is a necessary part of the means of achieving that objective.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the reply, but I still don't understand. That is ok I guess. Here is my understanding of the covenants made by the one being baptized: One promises to take upon oneself the name of Jesus Christ, keep His commandments, and serve Him to the end. Many years ago I took upon myself the name of Jesus Christ - since then I have been a Christian. I promised to keep His commandments and serve him to the end. In my seventies I am almost at that point, the end of this mortal life. I have not kept His commandments perfectly, but I doubt that any LDS faithful member has either. Every sacrament service I renew those covenants just like everyone else in the sanctuary who does the same. My baptism had nothing to do with my making or steadfastly maintaining those commitments to my Lord and Savior. It was a simple act of my will.

So help me understand. . . did I never make those commitments to Christ? Did I do so, but He didn't accept them because I am not LDS? Since you don't know me you can't tell me I haven't kept them well. That might be a question for my wife! Have I not served Christ in sincerity and truth since I was a boy? Must someone have undergone baptism at the hands of an LDS priesthood holder to make any commitments to Christ? No one else made me make those commitments. No one else authorized me to make those commitments. No one else was around when I made those commitments to Christ. No one else can keep me from living out those commitments in a faithful manner.

I certainly didn't have an LDS priesthood holder near me to make any of the other many commitments I have made in my life. Right? I made commitments to my wife. I made commitments when I adopted my son. I made commitments when I was ordained. Is it just my spiritual commitments that you find lacking? All my other commitments are ok, even though to me they were equally spiritual? Have I been in a position of self-deception or ignorance my entire life? I just don't understand. I have lived my entire life as a committed believer. There were times I suffered for that commitment. Are you suggesting, like Brother Wilcox that I for sixty five years have simply been playing at being faithful? That is what it seems like to me. I know that is harsh, but I can come to no other conclusion if I understand you correctly. Thanks for your patience.

[James 1 5]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the reply, but I still don't understand. That is ok I guess. Here is my understanding of the covenants made by the one being baptized: One promises to take upon oneself the name of Jesus Christ, keep His commandments, and serve Him to the end. Many years ago I took upon myself the name of Jesus Christ - since then I have been a Christian. I promised to keep His commandments and serve him to the end. In my seventies I am almost at that point, the end of this mortal life. I have not kept His commandments perfectly, but I doubt that any LDS faithful member has either. Every sacrament service I renew those covenants just like everyone else in the sanctuary who does the same. My baptism had nothing to do with my making or steadfastly maintaining those commitments to my Lord and Savior. It was a simple act of my will.

So help me understand. . . did I never make those commitments to Christ? Did I do so, but He didn't accept them because I am not LDS? Since you don't know me you can't tell me I haven't kept them well. That might be a question for my wife! Have I not served Christ in sincerity and truth since I was a boy? Must someone have undergone baptism at the hands of an LDS priesthood holder to make any commitments to Christ? No one else made me make those commitments. No one else authorized me to make those commitments. No one else was around when I made those commitments to Christ. No one else can keep me from living out those commitments in a faithful manner.

I certainly didn't have an LDS priesthood holder near me to make any of the other many commitments I have made in my life. Right? I made commitments to my wife. I made commitments when I adopted my son. I made commitments when I was ordained. Is it just my spiritual commitments that you find lacking? All my other commitments are ok, even though to me they were equally spiritual? Have I been in a position of self-deception or ignorance my entire life? I just don't understand. I have lived my entire life as a committed believer. There were times I suffered for that commitment. Are you suggesting, like Brother Wilcox that I for sixty five years have simply been playing at being faithful? That is what it seems like to me. I know that is harsh, but I can come to no other conclusion if I understand you correctly. Thanks for your patience.

I think smac and I have the same understanding on this issue.  We all need authorized representatives of our Lord Jesus Christ AND his church to bind us to Christ AND his church.  It isn't something an outsider can do by him or her self.

And this in no way suggests that you haven't tried to follow Christ as well as you could on your own.  Not being a member of the true church of Christ doesn't mean you haven't tried your best to be a good Christian.

I believe I was a good Christian before I found out which church on this planet was and now is the true church of Jesus Christ.  And I was happy to join it when I found out. Not the one I was raised to believe it was.  I was indoctrinated into the wrong church, or one of many churches which are wrong, and I was still able to find the right church with our Lord's help.  It took me being willing to follow him even if it meant not following my family anymore.  They thought I was wrong, but the Lord helped me to know what was right.

[Vanguard]

17 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the reply, but I still don't understand. That is ok I guess. Here is my understanding of the covenants made by the one being baptized: One promises to take upon oneself the name of Jesus Christ, keep His commandments, and serve Him to the end. Many years ago I took upon myself the name of Jesus Christ - since then I have been a Christian. I promised to keep His commandments and serve him to the end. In my seventies I am almost at that point, the end of this mortal life. I have not kept His commandments perfectly, but I doubt that any LDS faithful member has either. Every sacrament service I renew those covenants just like everyone else in the sanctuary who does the same. My baptism had nothing to do with my making or steadfastly maintaining those commitments to my Lord and Savior. It was a simple act of my will.

So help me understand. . . did I never make those commitments to Christ? Did I do so, but He didn't accept them because I am not LDS? Since you don't know me you can't tell me I haven't kept them well. That might be a question for my wife! Have I not served Christ in sincerity and truth since I was a boy? Must someone have undergone baptism at the hands of an LDS priesthood holder to make any commitments to Christ? No one else made me make those commitments. No one else authorized me to make those commitments. No one else was around when I made those commitments to Christ. No one else can keep me from living out those commitments in a faithful manner.

I certainly didn't have an LDS priesthood holder near me to make any of the other many commitments I have made in my life. Right? I made commitments to my wife. I made commitments when I adopted my son. I made commitments when I was ordained. Is it just my spiritual commitments that you find lacking? All my other commitments are ok, even though to me they were equally spiritual? Have I been in a position of self-deception or ignorance my entire life? I just don't understand. I have lived my entire life as a committed believer. There were times I suffered for that commitment. Are you suggesting, like Brother Wilcox that I for sixty five years have simply been playing at being faithful? That is what it seems like to me. I know that is harsh, but I can come to no other conclusion if I understand you correctly. Thanks for your patience.

And that's where I believe that - as important as priesthood authority is - it pales in comparison to giving one's heart to Christ through individual covenant making. I believe the LDS ordinances (done through the power of the priesthood) will all be provided at some step during every man's/woman's mortality or beyond (after death). That you covenanted with your Savior during this mortality will be the reason behind why you accept these ordinances done on your behalf once you have passed or you may decide to receive these ordinances (covenant-making rituals done under the power of the priesthood) before the end of your mortal life. Either way, your heart is the variable that matters. The rest of these steps are rendered dare I say mere formalities as compared to this all important process of giving oneself up to Christ. : ) 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for the reply, but I still don't understand. That is ok I guess. Here is my understanding of the covenants made by the one being baptized: One promises to take upon oneself the name of Jesus Christ, keep His commandments, and serve Him to the end. Many years ago I took upon myself the name of Jesus Christ - since then I have been a Christian. I promised to keep His commandments and serve him to the end. In my seventies I am almost at that point, the end of this mortal life. I have not kept His commandments perfectly, but I doubt that any LDS faithful member has either. Every sacrament service I renew those covenants just like everyone else in the sanctuary who does the same. My baptism had nothing to do with my making or steadfastly maintaining those commitments to my Lord and Savior. It was a simple act of my will.

So help me understand. . . did I never make those commitments to Christ?

You did.

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Did I do so, but He didn't accept them because I am not LDS?

I think these will all be sorted out.  

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Since you don't know me you can't tell me I haven't kept them well.

It's not my place to assess such things.  I can only read the scriptures, seek out personal revelation, and do what I think is right based on these things.  I'm sure you have done the same.  Our failures, sins, and shortcomings will, I trust, be covered by the Lord's grace.  

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

That might be a question for my wife! Have I not served Christ in sincerity and truth since I was a boy? Must someone have undergone baptism at the hands of an LDS priesthood holder to make any commitments to Christ?

No, but I believe someone must receive baptism from one who has authority.

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

No one else made me make those commitments. No one else authorized me to make those commitments. No one else was around when I made those commitments to Christ. No one else can keep me from living out those commitments in a faithful manner.

I see and respect that.

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I certainly didn't have an LDS priesthood holder near me to make any of the other many commitments I have made in my life. Right? I made commitments to my wife. I made commitments when I adopted my son. I made commitments when I was ordained. Is it just my spiritual commitments that you find lacking?

I'm not really situated to assess another person's "spiritual commitments."  If I gave that impression, I apologize.

For me, obedience to God's commandments includes listening to prophets and apostles.  And receiving sacred ordinances.  And those ordinances must be performed under authority.  

Obedience also includes the "weightier matters" alluded to in Matthew 23:23.  Day-to-day steps along the path are just as important as (and likely more difficult to perform than) passing through the threshold onto the path in the first place.

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

All my other commitments are ok, even though to me they were equally spiritual? Have I been in a position of self-deception or ignorance my entire life? I just don't understand. I have lived my entire life as a committed believer. There were times I suffered for that commitment.

I don't think I have questioned or disputed any of this, but it appears I have given you that impression.  I apologize.  

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Are you suggesting, like Brother Wilcox that I for sixty five years have simply been playing at being faithful?

No.  Not at all.

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

That is what it seems like to me. I know that is harsh, but I can come to no other conclusion if I understand you correctly. Thanks for your patience.

You have misunderstood me.  I have said nothing about anyone "playing at being faithful," nor did I intend to imply that.  To the extent I have given such an impression, I wholeheartedly apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[James 1 5]

38 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

And that's where I believe that - as important as priesthood authority is - it pales in comparison to giving one's heart to Christ through individual covenant making. I believe the LDS ordinances (done through the power of the priesthood) will all be provided at some step during every man's/woman's mortality or beyond (after death). That you covenanted with your Savior during this mortality will be the reason behind why you accept these ordinances done on your behalf once you have passed or you may decide to receive these ordinances (covenant-making rituals done under the power of the priesthood) before the end of your mortal life. Either way, your heart is the variable that matters. The rest of these steps are rendered dare I say mere formalities as compared to this all important process of giving oneself up to Christ. : ) 

Imagine someone with the priesthood authority of God standing in an empty room with nobody to bless.    Now imagine a man and woman walking into that room with a desire to be sealed to each other for all of eternity.

Priesthood authority is one thing.   People or even only one person wanting to make a covenant with God is another thing.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

What is the covenant that is unique to the LDS church and by which you "are bound to Christ?" It has to be something beyond baptismal covenants which are common to virtually all Christian faiths.

Our view of “covenant”:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2011/10/covenants?lang=eng
 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1980/12/our-covenants-with-the-lord?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-15-the-lords-covenant-people?lang=eng

Quote

The fulness of the gospel is called the new and everlasting covenant. It includes the covenants made at baptism, during the sacrament, in the temple, and at any other time. The Lord calls it everlasting because it is ordained by an everlasting God and because the covenant will never be changed. He gave this same covenant to Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, and other prophets. In this sense it is not new. But the Lord calls it new because each time the gospel is restored after being taken from the earth, it is new to the people who receive it (see Jeremiah 31:31–34; Ezekiel 37:26).

When we accept the new and everlasting covenant, we agree to repent, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, receive our endowments, receive the covenant of marriage in the temple, and follow and obey Christ to the end of our lives. As we keep our covenants, our Heavenly Father promises us that we will receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom (see D&C 132:20–24; see also chapter 47 in this book).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng
 

Quote

During the endowment ordinance, you will be invited to make certain covenants with God. These covenants include:

• Law of Obedience, which includes striving to keep God’s commandments.

• Law of Sacrifice, which means doing all we can to support the Lord’s work and repenting with a broken heart and contrite spirit.

• Law of the Gospel, which is the higher law that He taught while He was on the earth.

• Law of Chastity, which means that we have sexual relations only with the person to whom we are legally and lawfully wedded according to God’s law.

• Law of Consecration, which means dedicating our time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed us to building up Jesus Christ’s Church on the earth.

 

There is nothing stopping anyone from making commitments to God and I believe they will receive blessings based on those commitments.  I do not know though how God would define his part in those covenants, if he is bound by them or not. God speaks of giving to those who ask in faith, but a nonordinance covenant seems to me to leave the choice of how God is going to bless the one making the covenant open to what God see as appropriate. A covenant created through an ordinance has a specific set of blessings promised by God tied to the covenant.
 

 I believe a covenant made through an ordinance performed by one given priesthood authority from God is different, just as I view our baptism as something different than other churches’ baptism though I recognize them as having power as expressions of faith.  Those with priesthood authority performing the ordinances are in essence the hands and voice of God explicitly expressing his part of the covenant.

Edited February 9, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

This is where probably Latter-day Saints could get accused of being legalistic, but we see it as following a commandment that these ordinances must be performed in a certain way, just as anciently Israelites were commanded to make their sacrifices in a certain way at their temples performed by their priests.  We aren’t performing them because we feel like it makes the covenant more powerful or expresses more faith.  We perform them because we are  commanded to do them, just as we are commanded to love one another and to love God.  We see it as God wanting us to make our covenants in that particular way.  Changing the form or completely dropping it, performing them without authority when we believe God has instructed us would be disrespecting the Lord (those who do not believe in or are not aware of the revelations we have received are not judged by the law God has given us…but we are certainly).

So with that in mind…my analogy…

You can commit to be married, have a personal ceremony, make vows to each other, have kids together, see oneself as parents, raise these children and stay together till one’s dying day, but if that marriage ceremony was not performed by someone authorized by the country one resides in and the country has stated it will not recognize a marriage unless performed and properly registered with the state, then if you were to die, your wife may have no claims on property that was in your name nor your children recognized as legitimate if the state doesn’t accept common law relationships.  You writing a letter saying you accept her as your wife and you want her to have all your worldly goods after you die may be meaningless in a country that requires an established legal relationship that was authorized by legal representatives of the state.  No one just declaring themselves a representative qualifies.  No one declaring themselves as married qualifies as a legal marriage relationship with the state required to recognize the rights and protections of that relationship. Just because you want the relationship to have those rights and protections, if you don’t go through the legal procedures your relationship won’t be given them even if it deserves them in a moral sense.

Latter-day Saint belief is that the ordinances are legal procedures where God is the State and the Church authorities are his authorized legal representatives.  There is a difference because while a country might deny rights if the individuals never go through a legal procedure themselves, God has authorized the Church to act on the behalf of individuals once they have died and perform needed ordinances that are somehow transferred to the individuals as if they had undergone the ordinances themselves.  It would be analogous to the state looking at an unofficial marriage relationship and choosing to validate it as a legal marriage relationship after the individuals died in order to protect their legacy.

Or if you want to compare it to Israelite law, an Israelite could offer a sacrifice outside the temple and it would be an expression of faith and thanksgiving and accepted as such by God, but it would not fulfill the commandment to offer up certain sacrifices at the temple.  Only by following the instructions as given in the Hebrew Bible would they fulfill that commandment.

We believe we have been given instructions to make certain covenants, some within the temple, all under the authority of the priesthood.  If someone makes the same covenants without priesthood involvement or outside the temple for those designated as temple covenants, then they may be important, valuable, and meaningful expressions of faith and commitment, but they are not fulfillment of commanded covenants just as a sacrifice e outside temple grounds without a priest was not the same as a temple sacrifice performed by a priest on behalf of the individual. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Calm

[James 1 5]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

This is where probably Latter-day Saints could get accused of being legalistic, but we see it as following a commandment that these ordinances must be performed in a certain way, just as anciently Israelites were commanded to make their sacrifices in a certain way at their temples performed by their priests.  We aren’t performing them because we feel like it makes them more powerful or expresses more faith.  We perform them because we are  commanded to do them, just as we are commanded to love one another and to love God.  We see it as God wanting us to do them.

So with that in mind…my analogy…

You can commit to be married, have a personal ceremony, make vows to each other, have kids together, see oneself as parents, raise these children and stay together till one’s dying day, but if that marriage ceremony was not performed by someone authorized by the country one resides in and the country has stated it will not recognize a marriage unless performed and properly registered with the state, then if you were to die, your wife may have no claims on property that was in your name nor your children recognized as legitimate if the state doesn’t accept common law relationships.  You writing a letter saying you accept her as your wife and you want her to have all your worldly goods after you die may be meaningless in a country that requires an established legal relationship that was authorized by legal representatives of the state.  No one just declaring themselves a representative qualifies.  No one declaring themselves as married qualifies as a legal marriage relationship with the state required to recognize the rights and protections of that relationship. Just because you want the relationship to have those rights and protections, if you don’t go through the legal procedures your relationship won’t be given them even if it deserves them in a moral sense.

Latter-day Saint belief is that the ordinances are legal procedures where God is the State and the Church authorities are his authorized legal representatives.  There is a difference because while a country might deny rights if the individuals never go through a legal procedure themselves, God has authorized the Church to act on the behalf of individuals once they have died and perform needed ordinances that are somehow transferred to the individuals as if they had undergone the ordinances themselves.  It would be analogous to the state looking at an unofficial marriage relationship and choosing to validate it as a legal marriage relationship after the individuals died in order to protect their legacy.

Or if you want to compare it to Israelite law, an Israelite could offer a sacrifice outside the temple and it would be an expression of faith and thanksgiving and accepted as such by God, but it would not fulfill the commandment to offer up certain sacrifices at the temple.  Only by following the instructions as given in the Hebrew Bible would they fulfill that commandment.

We believe we have been given instructions to make certain covenants, some within the temple, all under the authority of the priesthood.  If someone makes the same covenants without priesthood involvement or outside the temple for those designated as temple covenants, then they may be important, valuable, and meaningful expressions of faith and commitment, but they are not fulfillment of commanded covenants just as a sacrifice e outside temple grounds without a priest was not the same as a temple sacrifice performed by a priest on behalf of the individual. 

And now for some scripture to backup what you said:  Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.  (D&C 132:8)

And some more scripture preceding that scripture: ...all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.  And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.  And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

8

[Alexi Nakatology]

I like how this thread has become a continuation of the “what is the meaning of authority?” thread :]

If the context that characterizes the meaning of indoctrination seems to be authority… the meaning of authority seems to be the privilege to choose between context and even ultimate context 🤔 

I feel a bit of nostalgia 

[Paloma]

On 2/8/2022 at 4:42 PM, Vanguard said:

I think I understand and agree with your sentiment though you are using terms that could be confusing. To put my own spin on it, a Christian is anyone who has put one's trust for salvation in Christ - not God alone. I think it is an important distinction and one that differentiates us from say, our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters.

I am also of the belief that the Christian tent expands well beyond my own LDS parameters. Though I believe we are in possession of important truths that others do not have regards to gospel belief (though all will come to believe these truths at some point), these differences pale in comparison to another who has given him/herself 'up to Christ' from whatever Christian denomination that might be.

Vanguard, I like the clarity you've brought here.  I see there can be some confusion when using the term 'God'.  I am good with your words "a Christian is anyone who has put one's trust for salvation in Christ."  Clarity is always important when we have different church language and traditions, to greater and lesser extents.

I really appreciate your view of the Christian tent and your valuation of Christian surrender and devotion to Christ.