LDS/Non-LDS And Covenants

[Anakin7]

I recently came across this on my computer by a non-LDS Christian woman who has problems with certain aspects of LDS Doctrine/Theology but I believe she puts LDS in the Christian Mansion House. Her materials on Covenants are welcomed by us I believe. Do Protestant Evangelical critics of LDS Doctrine, Teaching, Thought, Practice, Walk, Run, Journey have such covenants ?. What say Ye ?. https://likeananchor.com/2023/10/28/inheriting-covenants-revisited/  Thoughts are welcomed. The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine, In His Eternal Debt/Grace, Accessing His Grace By Faith, Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood, He Died To Make Man Holy, It's Not Just 6 Words To A Song, They Have Eternal Meaning. Salvation Comes In And Through His Atoning Blood And In No Other Way.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Anakin7

[Pyreaux]

Depends greatly on who, but some think Jesus probits oath making. Those who study the matter find Jesus was saying instead, it's best not to make a vow that you have no intention of keeping, vows reinforced by things you don't have control over (by your hair, by heaven), and vows should not be made on just any occasion (Matthew 5:33-37).

Oaths should be sworn to God and biblical oaths were all blood oaths. The oath of the covenant demanded blood of oath breakers, hence by proxy, animals and Jesus atoned for our covenant oaths with blood. To deny all covenants is to deny the purpose for which Jesus bled.  There is no atonement if there is no sin. There is no sin where there is no law. There is no law if there is no covenant. You are not a part of a covenant if no one swore an oath, agreeing to the terms of the law by which you sin and require atonement.

Edited October 28, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Nofear]

I think there is a somewhat different perspective on the purpose of covenants. For us, heaven isn't just a reward or something like that for being good and receiving the saving grace of Christ. Those aspects apply but it is also about what laws we are going to be comfortable with. "For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory," D&C 88:22-23.

With covenant, I voluntarily agree to level by a certain level and standard of behavior -- to obey laws. Celestial level laws are different that Terrestrial or Telestial level laws*. If I obey those laws and through the Atonement become the kind of person who naturally obeys them that is good. On the other hand, if I *don't* fully make use of the Atonement to change to a Celestial standard but only change enough where I am naturally comfortable with a Terrestial level of law, that would be my comfortable spot, my reward. In the eternities, God isn't going to force me into a society where I am continually chaffing under the burden of laws I don't want to obey.
 

edit to add: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/10/42freeman?lang=eng
A nice talk that emphasizes a different (but same) aspect of covenants.

 

 

* We don't know all that much of the difference since the Gospel is designed to get us to the Celestial level.

edit: to add a *don't*

Edited October 31, 2023 by Nofear

[mfbukowski]

On 10/30/2023 at 10:30 AM, Nofear said:

I think there is a somewhat different perspective on the purpose of covenants. For us, heaven isn't just a reward or something like that for being good and receiving the saving grace of Christ. Those aspects apply but it is also about what laws we are going to be comfortable with. "For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory. And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory," D&C 88:22-23.

With covenant, I voluntarily agree to level by a certain level and standard of behavior -- to obey laws. Celestial level laws are different that Terrestrial or Telestial level laws*. If I obey those laws and through the Atonement become the kind of person who naturally obeys them that is good. On the other hand, if I *don't* fully make use of the Atonement to change to a Celestial standard but only change enough where I am naturally comfortable with a Terrestial level of law, that would be my comfortable spot, my reward. In the eternities, God isn't going to force me into a society where I am continually chaffing under the burden of laws I don't want to obey.
 

edit to add: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/10/42freeman?lang=eng
A nice talk that emphasizes a different (but same) aspect of covenants.

 

 

* We don't know all that much of the difference since the Gospel is designed to get us to the Celestial level.

edit: to add a *don't*

This is exactly how we can measure the " best" paradigm for our lives: pick the belief or behaviors which have shown themselves to be the "best for all":

Watch your weight 

Get exercise

Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you

Promote peace and happiness.

Do what a perfect human/"Jesus" would do.

Believe in a god that is most like the Ideal Human, simply because WE ARE human.

Listen to the little voice in you that tells you what is right and wrong.

Pick a lifestyle shown to make humanity better.

So how do these principles apply to the Church OJCLDS?

Follow the word of wisdom - the FULL w.o.w. !

Obey the golden rule

Have an embodied God in your paradigm, so you can live as He would/ does live.

Live in peace with others, and in a traditional  family culture. 

Follow "the spirit " within.

Couldn't find nothin' bettah!🤔 👍

Edited October 31, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Leaf474]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is exactly how we can measure the " best" paradigm for our lives: pick the belief or behaviors which have shown themselves to be the "best for all":

Watch your weight 

Get exercise

Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you

Promote peace and happiness.

Do what a perfect human/"Jesus" would do.

Believe in a god that is most like the Ideal Human, simply because WE ARE human.

Listen to the little voice in you that tells you what is right and wrong.

Pick a lifestyle shown to make humanity better.

So how do these principles apply to the Church OJCLDS?

Follow the word of wisdom - the FULL w.o.w. !

Obey the golden rule

Have an embodied God in your paradigm, so you can live as He would/ does live.

Live in peace with others, and in a traditional  family culture. 

Follow "the spirit " within.

Couldn't find nothin' bettah!🤔 👍

Does the little voice or Spirit within tell different people different things about right and wrong?

[Pyreaux]

14 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Does the little voice or Spirit within tell different people different things about right and wrong?

There is a law written everyone's heart that tells them right from wrong, put there by the Spirit (the Light of Christ, the conscience). A list might be shorter depending on perhaps intelligence or baseness.

Edited November 1, 2023 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Does the little voice or Spirit within tell different people different things about right and wrong?

Of course!

But that is in the case of minor differences, or psychosis.  I think no healthy human would find war a desirable thing to do except for dire circumstances.

Fornication? Why not? I can show you thousands of ways that is not a peaceful, desirable way to live.  Just watch Judge Judy. 😉 Yet it virtually required, on a small level, on The Bachelor.

This is our culture.  Adultery? Good way to end up full of buckshot! 

USUALLY what we may call "sin" leads to undesirable circumstances, or at very least NOT the best for society "if everyone did that" behavior.

As your mommy, and Kant, said, " What if EVERYONE did that"?

Universalise every "sinful" behavior and see if the world is better, as judged by the Golden Rule, for that behavior to thrive.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

There is a law written everyone's heart that tells them right from wrong, put there by the Spirit (the Light of Christ, the conscience). A list might be shorter depending on perhaps intelligence or baseness.

On the other hand, it could be evolved "instinct" after an eon or two of what "works" in society, molding the way we see things.

But even leaving God out of it, the golden rule still works!

Of course I agree with you about what we call "spirit" and such experiences. 

BUT my point is that these are PARADIGMS/ "THEORIES" that can be seen either way. 

Peaceful, Christlike behavior is desirable to atheists as much as it is for us.  If we think " pragmatically", we are all looking for the same thing for ourselves and our kids, and quit arguing about which paradigm is "correct" since ultimately they are the same in practice.

But I KNOW there is a "Super Intelligence" out there, not of my making, guiding and directing my decisions about important matters because I experience it as surely as anything "out there" in the world.

The only thing separating us is our speech, and way of seeing.

Edited November 1, 2023 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course!

But that is in the case of minor differences, or psychosis.  I think no healthy human would find war a desirable thing to do except for dire circumstances.

This is a very modern view. Historically war wasn’t the last resort when everything else fails. It was what you did when you figured you could win and that victory would be worth the cost.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Fornication? Why not? I can show you thousands of ways that is not a peaceful, desirable way to live.  Just watch Judge Judy. 😉 Yet it virtually required, on a small level, on The Bachelor.

Effective and pretty reliable forms of contraception have changed the strategic calculus here too. 

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Watch your weight 

Get exercise

Do unto others as you would like them to do unto you

Promote peace and happiness.

Do what a perfect human/"Jesus" would do.

Believe in a god that is most like the Ideal Human, simply because WE ARE human.

Listen to the little voice in you that tells you what is right and wrong.

Pick a lifestyle shown to make humanity better.

Don't all Christian groups to one degree or another support all of these? Some stress one or more, in ways stronger or as more important than others. Christ is our God who is most like the ideal Human, because HE IS the ideal human. Each group is a different group, at least because of the different ways in which they advocate for one or more of these. For example, Mennonites, Amish and the Society of Friends promote peace much more than other Christian groups. I don't think any Christian group has a better hold on these (when taken as a whole) than any other. I certainly have been taught all of these in the few faiths I have participated in, including the LDS. 

[Leaf474]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

There is a law written everyone's heart that tells them right from wrong, put there by the Spirit (the Light of Christ, the conscience). A list might be shorter depending on perhaps intelligence or baseness.

Sounds good 🙂 Can a person be wrong about what the spirit is saying to them through that law?

[Leaf474]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Of course!

But that is in the case of minor differences, or psychosis.

What kinds of minor differences?

 

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think no healthy human would find war a desirable thing to do except for dire circumstances.

Fornication? Why not? I can show you thousands of ways that is not a peaceful, desirable way to live.  Just watch Judge Judy. 😉 Yet it virtually required, on a small level, on The Bachelor.

This is our culture.  Adultery? Good way to end up full of buckshot! 

USUALLY what we may call "sin" leads to undesirable circumstances, or at very least NOT the best for society "if everyone did that" behavior.

As your mommy, and Kant, said, " What if EVERYONE did that"?

Universalise every "sinful" behavior and see if the world is better, as judged by the Golden Rule, for that behavior to thrive.

 

 

 

[Nofear]

18 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Sounds good 🙂 Can a person be wrong about what the spirit is saying to them...

"Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light." D&C 93:31

That is, yes. A generally true statement is that humans believe what they want to believe and very rarely otherwise.

[Navidad]

Just now, Nofear said:

That is, yes. A generally true statement is that humans believe what they want to believe and very rarely otherwise.

I might word that just a bit differently. My theory is that humans believe what they believe to be true. That believed truth becomes a predicate for belief. The challenge comes when they go one step farther to believe their truth is Thee Truth on any given subject. That then becomes a primary catalyst for human conflict. It leads to onlyism, ranking, and othering. More antecedents for more conflicts. Neils Bohr says it best, "The opposite of a true statement is a false statement. The opposite of profound truth may well be another profound truth." I like that a lot.

[Pyreaux]

58 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Sounds good 🙂 Can a person be wrong about what the spirit is saying to them through that law?

Yes, to the point of unknowingly convicting yourself with your own heart.

Nathan unto David,

There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb... the rich man spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd... but took the poor man's lamb...

[David could feel in his heart what was right and wrong]

And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I might word that just a bit differently. My theory is that humans believe what they believe to be true. That believed truth becomes a predicate for belief.

 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

The challenge comes when they go one step farther to believe their truth is Thee Truth on any given subject.

Assuming you meant The Truth, the OP has this:

"Salvation Comes In And Through His Atoning Blood And In No Other Way."

 

Should a person say that is The Truth, or should they allow that there are other truths?

 

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

That then becomes a primary catalyst for human conflict. It leads to onlyism, ranking, and othering. More antecedents for more conflicts. Neils Bohr says it best, "The opposite of a true statement is a false statement. The opposite of profound truth may well be another profound truth." I like that a lot.

 

[Leaf474]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Yes, to the point of unknowingly convicting yourself with your own heart.

Nathan unto David,

There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb... the rich man spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd... but took the poor man's lamb...

[David could feel in his heart what was right and wrong]

And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.

Well... If a person can be wrong about what the spirit has placed in their heart, then it doesn't seem like that would be a reliable source of information. Or at least not reliable in isolation.

 

At least that's how it looks to me. Thanks for the input ❤️

[Pyreaux]

10 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Well... If a person can be wrong about what the spirit has placed in their heart, then it doesn't seem like that would be a reliable source of information. Or at least not reliable in isolation.

 

At least that's how it looks to me. Thanks for the input ❤️

We are all liable to personal apostasy, so there are safeguards. The Apostles and the church's purpose is to keep people and each other from going astray. Trust in the spirit to lead you, but make sure it's the Spirit (by experience), get regular follow ups (factors could have changed), get specific clarification to questions if you depart from the church teachings. Doesn't mean you are correct, but you should follow the spirit, seek a true oracle, be humble, you should at least be less copiable for mistakes and unashamed of those actions. I bet fewer wrong choices were made from meditating too hard upon something than not at all.

[Leaf474]

8 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

We are all liable to personal apostasy, so there are safeguards. The Apostles and the church's purpose is to keep people and each other from going astray. Trust in the spirit to lead you, but make sure it's the Spirit (by experience), get regular follow ups (factors could have changed), get specific clarification to questions if you depart from the church teachings. Doesn't mean you are correct, but you should follow the spirit, seek a true oracle, be humble, you should at least be less copiable for mistakes and unashamed of those actions. I bet fewer wrong choices were made from meditating too hard upon something than not at all.

Thanks for the input ❤️

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Well... If a person can be wrong about what the spirit has placed in their heart, then it doesn't seem like that would be a reliable source of information. Or at least not reliable in isolation.

 

At least that's how it looks to me. Thanks for the input ❤️

If you wanted reliability I think you came to the wrong planet. 

[Navidad]

36 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Should a person say that is The Truth, or should they allow that there are other truths?

I think it is certainly Truth, but not the singular or complete Truth in its entirety. I believe that Christ will judge with perfect balance of perfect mercy and perfect righteousness. I believe that will lead to a lot of people who have either never heard or responded to the atonement being judged favorably by He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and who is the gateway to eternity with the Father. I personally would be more comfortable with someone saying what you quoted as "that is Truth" rather than saying that is The Truth - which sounds kind of final, singular and complete to me.  I also think we see through a glass darkly and have much to learn about the next life and the decisions regarding eternity. As you probably know from my posts, I am not a big advocate of certainty. That is why I am an Evangelical and not a Fundamentalist. Take care and best wishes.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Well... If a person can be wrong about what the spirit has placed in their heart, then it doesn't seem like that would be a reliable source of information. Or at least not reliable in isolation.

 

At least that's how it looks to me. Thanks for the input ❤️

If the spirit taught scientific "truth" we would all be driving flying cars with no possible accidents, and all disease would have been wiped out thousands of years ago.

It depends on what you are calling " reliable information".

It's about subjective problems, like what is right FOR ME in a given situation. 

Besides that, it seems you didn't understand the parable.

David was the bad guy all along.

 

Edited November 1, 2023 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

If the spirit taught scientific "truth" we would all be driving flying cars with no possible accidents, and all disease would have been wiped out thousands of years ago.

Okay, which alternate timeline is this and how do I get there?

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Nofear said:

That is, yes. A generally true statement is that humans believe what they want to believe and very rarely otherwise.

Of course! We believe we will create our own world(s) one day, but where do we get practice?

Right here, as we create our first world during life.

People believe there is a world " out there" but all we see is INTERPRETATIONS of what our senses tell us.  Are there colors?

How do you know what a "house" is?

One must already know what a house is, in order to perceive it!

From one of my friends and professors, Robert Solomon, (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_C._Solomon ) describing Kant's "synthetic a priori", showing us how the "outside world" is synthesized mentally:

Edited November 2, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

More about Solomon:

"Solomon developed a cognitivist theory of the emotions as moral judgements about reality that inherently manifest a natural, pre-deliberative logic. As such, they are susceptible to rational appraisal and revision no less than our beliefs and propositions, and furthermore to strategic ethical reasoning. Emotions should not be suppressed or repressed by efforts at philosophic rationalism, which suffers a withering critique under his analysis, calling it "emasculated" and "absurd". It is our passions, according to R.Solomon, and not our reason, which are capable of demonstrating to us the meaning and purpose of life.^[1] Every emotion has an purpose or goal, even those that seem stupid or painful. Although the objects and strategies differ with each emotion, person, and relationship,^[2] the natural purpose of each is to maximize human dignity, the good for oneself and for humankind. Regarding the "air of paradox surrounding an attempt by philosophy to deal with the passions" and the "certain irony that surrounds an attempt by philosophy to deal with the question of the meaning of life", Solomon asks, "is not philosophy, itself, the problem?". Romeo's conclusion constitutes his premise: "Hang up philosophy! Unless philosophy can make a Juliet."^[3][4]