Eternal Covenants/Baptism at 8 years old

[Rain]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

But really, we probably made our full covenant—the one we made knowing it required an all in commitment— back before this all started when we agreed to back God’s plan for coming to earth.  And we weren’t 8 then.

I've never understood ideas like this. If we truly understood something like that there would be no room for growth. 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Baptism as a covenant is probably just a rehearsal or reflection, reminder of the covenant we took that started us on this path.  It has no more bigger implications for the individual than that one surely.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Just postulate in your paradigm that spirits coming to earth already know what they're getting into, and have the ability to choose their path

After all, they by definition rejected Satan's plan already, or would not be on earth 

I think that would cover it 

It's an eternal being accepting what he/she ready accepted a jillion years ago

 

Then why do we have to make the covenant again? And why do so few have the opportunity to do so?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Are you sure you want to know?  “I guarantee, you won’t go to sleep”.  

You can watch the whole thing but the part about covenant breakers starts at 3:41

 

 

So God screwed up when He used the word agency which has a meaning? And the Saints all misunderstood because they took God literally? That is not the flex Elder Bednar seems to think it is.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

If we truly understood something like that there would be no room for growth. 

I am not understanding why there would be no room for growth anymore than there would be no room for growth if we have seen massive amounts of students graduating successfully from a university with some level of degree that they are all happy with and therefore we sign up to attend ourselves.  Even if we know for certain we will be graduating because the university ensures everyone who goes will somehow, we don’t know the content of what we will learn during that time even if we knew everyone eventually graduated with full honors (I am not saying this is the case, that everyone is eventually exalted; I do see it as a possibility though).

 

I don’t believe we truly understand something until we live it.  And we don’t truly have full agency until we understand, but we do have some agency like a child does when they know Mom and Dad have prepared a great meal for them, including cookies at the end and yet they see the plate of cookies sitting on the counter and know they could choose to eat some right away.  They may understand some consequences (parents will be upset) but not others (it may ruin their appetite so they miss out on the enjoyment of the entire wonderful meal).

At the council of heaven point in our existence, I believe we had enough interactions with God as well as being aware of how God created and guided others to exaltation that we were able to fully understand what trusting God entailed for us (we would be able to succeed how we ultimately actually wanted to succeed because God would be there for us to ensure our desires had full opportunity to be reached).  
 

And that is the fully mature choice I believe we made then, just to trust God.  When God told us the purpose of his plan  (or their plan if you prefer thinking of the family of God working together for the exaltation of the rest of their family), we may not have understood all the consequences of it, like what physical pain would feel like and my guess is we couldn’t comprehend how limited our awarenesses would be, how alone and lost we might feel, etc, even if we had the opportunity beforehand to see others living a mortal life as I believe we did, but we understood that God believed in us and we saw how things turned out for others who trusted in him, how they had joy or were able to fulfill the desires they had to become what they wanted to be and that was enough for us to make the covenant with God that we would go through mortality with the intent that we would obey all that he commanded, since that would be the most efficient way to reach exaltation (probably the only way to reach exaltation, though progress might have occurred with other scenarios).

I believe we made this covenant fully knowing there was no way we would be fulfilling it on our own given how limited mortals are. The covenant also involved what Christ would do for us and what he would offer as gifts as well as all the postmortal recapping and post game analysis needed  

I don’t believe the covenant’s completion is limited to mortality.  Mortality is dress rehearsal? (can’t think of a better term, practice does not really match either, we may be rehearsing but we don’t have a complete script to practice with, God intends a lot of ad libbing parts) imo, it is the next stage where we will get down to the analysis of our experiences and understanding what they all meant, why we went through them and most important, what we can now do with that knowledge.  And I suspect a lot of that analysis will involve watching others go through mortality so we can pick up from even more experiences than we had ourselves, just as watching others do a math problem, knit or change a tire can equip us with the same skill, in part because we have done similar things to them already.  We already have manipulated numbers or know how to crochet or have used levers and screws and so understand how the tire stays on and how it can be removed once we see the new tools used in familiar ways.  (I choose this version of vicarious experiential learning because reincarnation is repugnant to me since there is too large of a ratio of suffering to learning in mortality for too many, that ratio drops and shifts in favor of learning if we can borrow experience from others just like watching educational or DIY videos shortens the trial and error period plus the scriptures seem to negate reincarnation as an option imo.)

I also believe at the time of the council of the Gods we had a more spiritually mature mentality or at least were more aware of the consequences of our choice to covenant to obey God than mortals can have because we had access to our memories of eons of experience with God as our Father, including a multitude of choices we made to trust him in the past, memories which we don’t have—at least not in our mental awareness—in mortality. 

Edited January 13, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Last night and this morning I listened to an interview with a former member about her experience after baptism at 8 that I hadn't taken into account, since I didn't really comprehend much about my own. I just remember not being able to wear my mother's baptism dress that she'd worn as a child, that she hoped I could wear. Instead wore a pantsuit. Just remember being herded along with the other children from room to room. I probably felt the same things as this former member and forgotten because the memories are coming back a little of being afraid for things I'd done wrong afterwards. One time I was throwing tiny rocks after school with a friend and one hit a parked car, and I felt like I was in for so much trouble, one time I threw some clothing up and it landed on the church roof and I felt horrible, I even thought it might be my fault when walking with my mom and the neighbor lady and she tripped and fell, I felt responsible. 

Back to the interview, she talks about how before baptism we are taught that we're clean and afterward we can be held accountable for our sins. So this plays a mind game with vulnerable children. So even the little things done wrong can be blown out of proportion. She goes into depth about what can happen from then on in a member's life with these thoughts that can be harmful. 

So it made me want to reach out and say that even if you can express ways for your son to not be affected by such harms, maybe he will still hear things from leaders or teachers that could still get into his mind. 

I now wonder how it may have done a number on me and many members out there. This night and day transition after baptism.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

I understand that social conditioning is unavoidable, and even important especially at that age.   It is not social conditioning in and of itself that I have a problem with, it is the social conditioning of an 8 year old to enter a covenant that they can’t understand and where there are no take-backs.   Eternal covenants are like the Hotel California, you can check in, but you can never leave.  Seems like it is only ethical that an individual at least has some capacity of understanding that level of commitment.  My child sure doesn’t.

You seem to have concluded that your child can’t understand the baptismal covenant, which is your prerogative as a parent who rightfully plays the major role, and presumably asserts the major influence, in his social conditioning.

You also seem open to discussion concerning the relationship between eternal covenants, the social conditioning God has set up within the social structures and conditioning of a fallen world (including those of families), and the ethics involved. The scriptures are replete with how God establishes His covenant in family and community settings. The scriptures don’t speak to ethics, but they do speak to discernment, which is much more dynamic and flexible and allows us to act in perhaps counterintuitive and yet God-approved ways. Parents and children benefit when the parents’ expectations of their children align with God’s: parents cannot expect eight-year-olds to attach the same kind and level of meaning into the same covenant – even adults differ in that exercise. But God is merciful to His mustard seeds (we all start small), and whoever is faithful in small things receives greater, and to whom much is given much is expected.

I would say that the social environment that conditions us is as natural as the womb, and the Lord has a way to introduce His world into ours to gather His people, individually and collectively, from infancy (and even pre-infancy in the case of the preceding marriage covenant) onward. The D&C speaks of the tension between the light of Christ and the traditions of men, and how God’s light can prevail as the parents become as little children, and thus are able to relate to and guide their children’s spiritual preparedness for making covenants.

Social conditioning is not the only influence but given that people are socially conditioned and make decisions as socially conditioned children, their decisions may also change with the increasing complexity of life in general as they mature. Some people are able to adapt happily, and others not. This is partially why we have both converts and apostates – each has moved beyond their original social conditioning vis-à-vis eternal (i.e., religious and spiritual !) decisions. And those who were born into and remain in the covenant path may or may not move into a deeper relationship with God.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Last night and this morning I listened to an interview with a former member about her experience after baptism at 8 that I hadn't taken into account, since I didn't really comprehend much about my own. I just remember not being able to wear my mother's baptism dress that she'd worn as a child, that she hoped I could wear. Instead wore a pantsuit.

I'm so sorry about that.  My sister and I both wore my mom's dress.  I know my daughter wore it as well along with some, if not all, the rest of the granddaughters wore it. I'm not very sentimental, but that was a special thing to us. I'm sorry you didn't get that choice.

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Just remember being herded along with the other children from room to room. I probably felt the same things as this former member and forgotten because the memories are coming back a little of being afraid for things I'd done wrong afterwards. One time I was throwing tiny rocks after school with a friend and one hit a parked car, and I felt like I was in for so much trouble, one time I threw some clothing up and it landed on the church roof and I felt horrible, I even thought it might be my fault when walking with my mom and the neighbor lady and she tripped and fell, I felt responsible. 

Back to the interview, she talks about how before baptism we are taught that we're clean and afterward we can be held accountable for our sins. So this plays a mind game with vulnerable children. So even the little things done wrong can be blown out of proportion. She goes into depth about what can happen from then on in a member's life with these thoughts that can be harmful. 

So it made me want to reach out and say that even if you can express ways for your son to not be affected by such harms, maybe he will still hear things from leaders or teachers that could still get into his mind. 

I now wonder how it may have done a number on me and many members out there. This night and day transition after baptism.

 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So God screwed up when He used the word agency which has a meaning? And the Saints all misunderstood because they took God literally? That is not the flex Elder Bednar seems to think it is.

I can see what Elder Bednar is teaching here, but I think it goes in the same folder as that article that Elder Nelson wrote decades ago for the Ensign about how God's love is always conditional.  It's true from a certain perspective but not every perspective.  And like you said, it can't be broadly applied to every use of the word.

There is room for those kinds of strict interpretations of words (and sometimes we need to consider them and grow in our relationship with God through such consideration), but they can be incorrect as much as they are correct. It just depends on how someone is looking at the issue and the context.

(Elder Christofferson pushed back--or maybe clarified is a better word--on Elder Nelson's 2003 ensign article during a conference talk in 2016, where he taught that God does always love us, but never in our sins and that is why His love can be described as both conditional and unconditional at the same time, depend on what is being talked about).

As far as Elder Bednar's definition of agency has not been taught over the pulpit or as official doctrine, I think that we should consider it and take the good we can from it but I don't think we are under obligation to adopt this perspective fully as our own.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

I was showing you the culture of fear associated with covenants.  It is impactful.  I can share more from the scriptures he directs us to, but not tonight - I want to sleep 😁He is right though, the scriptures are replete with examples.   

Perhaps any who have left the church can share their personal experiences associated with fears of violating covenants?  I felt the fear viscerally even thinking about it.  It is deeply engrained in our culture.

He was specifically addressing baptism covenants in this talk and only mentioned the temple as not being a choice after baptism.  We have to go to the temple in order to fulfill baptismal covenants, he said.  So it is all one giant web.  No escape.  There is only one way you can go, and that direction to the temple is eternally binding upon 8 year olds once they “make that decision” to be baptized.  They are essentially covenanting to go to the temple.  At 8!  They have no real choice after that.

It's one person's culture of fear though, that I haven't personally seen that much.  Especially not connected with children and baptism.  Since it's children being baptised that we are talking about in this thread, that's the perspective I'm speaking about.

What are the horrible consequences that our children are promised if they are baptized at 8 but then never actually gain a testimony of the gospel?  Where is it taught in the gospel that going to the temple is eternally binding on an 8 year old?

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

I was showing you the culture of fear associated with covenants.  It is impactful.  I can share more from the scriptures he directs us to, but not tonight - I want to sleep 😁He is right though, the scriptures are replete with examples.   

Perhaps any who have left the church can share their personal experiences associated with fears of violating covenants?  I felt the fear viscerally even thinking about it.  It is deeply engrained in our culture.

He was specifically addressing baptism covenants in this talk and only mentioned the temple as not being a choice after baptism.  We have to go to the temple in order to fulfill baptismal covenants, he said.  So it is all one giant web.  No escape.  There is only one way you can go, and that direction to the temple is eternally binding upon 8 year olds once they “make that decision” to be baptized.  They are essentially covenanting to go to the temple.  At 8!  They have no real choice after that.t

 

The bednar clip (I only watched about half to get the gist) reminds me of when bednar came to our area, gave a talk, and in it discussed the problems with people wishing church was shorter and the goodness of 3 hr church. I think that very next conference they announced the 2hr service. Apostles have opinions, sometimes they're wrong. I don't teach things I feel or know to be wrong my kid. I plan when she's old enough, to understand the principle of fallible leaders as thoroughly as I can. That sometimes they can be wrong, they don't know everything you may need for your individual life, and that there can still be good things they say or do even if they trip on this or that point. I deeply value the part of me that constantly questions authority to some degree....even as I value their service. And I see a lot of potential problems coming from views where authority is leaned on too heavily. So I just won't do that and hope for the best.

 

I've never technically left the church. My husband did and he honestly didn't think about the covenant breaking bit your describing. Fear is rarely in his vocabulary and especially not as a teen. So it just wouldn't have been a thing for him. When he left, he believed that God was a man-made construct. So any covenant he made before then would have been seen as about as real and weighty as your child's "marriage" will in a couple years.  For me I didn't technically leave, but there was definitely a time I definitely didn't care about religion or all things God. That was around 13-ish. I was a ball of rage, insecurity, and growing discomfort with my family life, which was getting worse. My friends and neighborhood at the time solidly fit me. I also didn't think about how some of my actions "broke my covenants." And I didn't care. 

This idea is weird to me. And Bednar's choppy view described here has parts I think (?) I agree with and parts I don't. If I, with fuller knowledge of right and wrong and greater capacity to fullfill my covenants, decide to willingly break them, I'll be in trouble. I've grown in and through my covenants and my own life. I value these commitments in a profound, even if imperfect, way. I wholeheartedly make them. So doing something that violates my understanding and belief in them would be a deep mark on my integrity and dissonant to my relationship with God. I have a friend who has also technically broken her covenants. Her understanding of them, her understanding of God, and her own capacity to choose has been severely hindered by a long history of serious abuse and poor teachings/behaviors from her local leaders and parents. If I did what she did, I would be fully and utterly accountable and deeply in the wrong. She is not. She is working to piece together basic constructs that had been shattered by other people's choice, that I implicitly get at this point in my life. So even though we're in a similar age range, have taken the same covenants, and were raised in the same church, I don't see us as equally accountable to the covenants we made in very different circumstances. 

 

An 8 year old is not a 35 year old. The experience and expectations around the covenant they made is not the same. We are held accountable not just by an act that I barely remember (I actually don't remember being baptized, just the events around it) but by the meaning and purposes we derive from it and the space we were given to fulfill them. If the covenants hold no meaning to them, they're useless and about as good as your son's marriage is. If there is almost no space for us to properly experience and practice our covenants, I have seen how much God comes with mercy and expects me or others to meet that person with mercy, compassion, and care. If we don't, we are wrong; we are the ones who need to better understand the covenants we've made better. 

My daughter is turning 5 this year. I've been thinking a lot about what does she need to know in order to make a decision about baptism. I go back to the basic covenant found in the BOM. She needs to first feel and desire the Love of God and understand that they are our loving heavenly parents. She needs to know that Jesus is our Savior and teacher. She needs to understand that doing this she's promising to love and care for others as she can. And that it's the beginning for her to learn about and grow in Jesus more by following His example. That's what I want her to know and if she did I would feel comfortable with her making that decision, while assuming it would be limited by her limits, just as I am limited in mine. If she didn't then I wouldn't want her to get baptized. And if she, like her parents, hit a rough patch with the church and didn't believe it anymore, I would hope she would live up to whatever truth and goodness she could still experience whispered to her soul. I would trust that God is the author of her soul and will weigh her knowledge, her capacity, and her experiences in what she promised and follows. Since I know God within my limitations, I don't really fear that inevitably. They're loving, merciful, healing, and promise all of us who choose whatever light we can, a fullness in the end.

 

 

With luv, 

BD 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2024 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Rain said:

I've never understood ideas like this. If we truly understood something like that there would be no room for growth. 

Not at all.

That's like saying that a seedling can never become a redwood tree!

Scientists are now studying how life could have developed chemically with essentially rocks from asteroids.

One "drop" of intelligence might grow into a world.

Edited January 13, 2024 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then why do we have to make the covenant again? And why do so few have the opportunity to do so?

Because perhaps we don't remember it!! 

Don't you remember when we were all stuck in an asteroid?

Cheesh! 😜

Edited January 13, 2024 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's one person's culture of fear though, that I haven't personally seen that much. 

That may be true and I probably would have said the same thing that it is not something that I have seen much of...until I faced my own faith crisis.  I know now why they call it a "crisis".   There are deep visceral fears that I had never before known existed because I had never before been where I am now.  It is not unusual, but seems to be the norm.  It truly can be traumatic for some. 

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Especially not connected with children and baptism.  Since it's children being baptised that we are talking about in this thread, that's the perspective I'm speaking about.

These 8 year olds inevitably grow up.  This thread is about eternally binding covenants over the course of a lifetime, and to discuss the competency of children and thus the appropriateness of allowing (even encouraging) children to enter such eternally binding covenants.  You are right though, nothing scary at all for an 8 year old.  We make it all too easy, it seems.  That is why it can feel like a trap for some.  Easy in, but no way out.  When these kids do mature and become more competent, it is too late.  No take-backs.  That just doesn't feel right. It feels like setting up an arranged marriage for an 8 year old, and then threatening them as they mature with terrifying eternal consequences if they ever second guess their marriage covenants.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

What are the horrible consequences that our children are promised if they are baptized at 8 but then never actually gain a testimony of the gospel?  Where is it taught in the gospel that going to the temple is eternally binding on an 8 year old?

Going to the temple is part of the fulfillment of taking the name of Christ upon us and obeying all of the commandments that we covenant to do at baptism.  It is where the 'covenant path" unavoidably takes us.  Worshiping in temples is a commandment.  That is all set in place at 8 in a very binding way.  

Edited January 13, 2024 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

That may be true and I probably would have said the same thing that it is not something that I have seen much of...until I faced my own faith crisis.  I know now why they call it a "crisis".   There are deep visceral fears that I had never before known existed because I had never before been where I am now.  It is not unusual, but seems to be the norm.  It truly can be traumatic for some. 

These 8 year olds inevitably grow up.  This thread is about eternally binding covenants over the course of a lifetime, and to discuss the competency of children and thus the appropriateness of allowing (even encouraging) children to enter such eternally binding covenants.  You are right though, nothing scary at all for an 8 year old.  We make it all too easy, it seems.  That is why it can feel like a trap for some.  Easy in, but no way out.  When these kids do mature and become more competent, it is too late.  No take-backs.  That just doesn't feel right. It feels like setting up an arranged marriage for an 8 year old, and then threatening them as they age with terrifying eternal consequences if they ever want to divorce.   

Going to the temple is the fulfillment of taking the name of Christ upon us and obeying all of the commandments that we covenant to do at baptism.  It is where the 'covenant path" unavoidably takes us.  Worshiping in temples is a commandment.

THIS!

Read it again!

 

[mfbukowski]

I had my crisis as Catholic, and studied until I found the "missing link" 😉 of how God could be a man.

This is the crux: BECOMING.

I have not overcome the world by any means but I KNOW I have the path.

Edited January 13, 2024 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Critics will say:

"You have just found a psychological bandaid!"

Then who is that whispering in my ear with billions of other believers?

The experience itself becomes an empirical fact.

You may call it "Buddhism" or "The Universe" or an "instinct".

How does a dumb bird know how to fly thousands of miles to the island of his birth?

It is SOMETHING/SOMEONE far bigger than we are, that says "Follow me"!

Edited January 13, 2024 by mfbukowski

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

That may be true and I probably would have said the same thing that it is not something that I have seen much of...until I faced my own faith crisis.  I know now why they call it a "crisis".   There are deep visceral fears that I had never before known existed because I had never before been where I am now.  It is not unusual, but seems to be the norm.  It truly can be traumatic for some. 

I've never connected the fear from a faith crisis with the fear of breaking covenants.  I thought the fear/crisis was that the covenants might not be based on anything real, not a fear of what will happen if you break covenants that have no power because they are false.   

Can you explain that a little more?

Quote

These 8 year olds inevitably grow up.  This thread is about eternally binding covenants over the course of a lifetime, and to discuss the competency of children and thus the appropriateness of allowing (even encouraging) children to enter such eternally binding covenants.  You are right though, nothing scary at all for an 8 year old.  We make it all too easy, it seems.  That is why it can feel like a trap for some.  Easy in, but no way out.  When these kids do mature and become more competent, it is too late.  No take-backs.  That just doesn't feel right. It feels like setting up an arranged marriage for an 8 year old, and then threatening them as they age with terrifying eternal consequences if they ever want to divorce.  

They do grow up, but you said that you support people making such covenants as adults, but not for children.  So which are we talking about?  The appropriateness of making binding covenants at all, or for children?

Because if we are talking about the binding nature of covenants made at the time of childhood, my point still stands.

If a child makes covenants as a child and then continues to believe and sincerely renew them into adulthood, then it is not the covenants made in youth that are binding them anymore.  They are bound by covenants they renewed (based on sincere belief) as an adult.

If they later decide that they don't believe, it is not the covenants foisted upon them as a child (that they didn't fully understand or agree to) they are breaking.  They are breaking covenants agreed to (added upon, if they have gone through the temple) and renewed as an adult with adult understanding.  These are the people that Elder Bednar is talking about.

If a child is baptized without a testimony or with a rudimentary one, and that child is never converted to the gospel as an adult and leaves the church, then of course, they are not held to the same standard.

Quote

Going to the temple is the fulfillment of taking the name of Christ upon us and obeying all of the commandments that we covenant to do at baptism.  It is where the 'covenant path" unavoidably takes us.  Worshiping in temples is a commandment.

I agree.  But worshipping in the temple is not a commandment binding upon children.  It is a commandment binding upon adults.  That is why only those with sincere testimonies based on adult understandings of the gospel make temple covenants.

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If a child makes covenants as a child and then continues to believe and sincerely renew them into adulthood, then it is not the covenants made in youth that are binding them anymore.  They are bound by covenants they renewed (based on sincere belief) as an adult.

It has been said that even Heavenly Father progresses.

Gotta grow up SOMETIME!

😳

[Teancum]

On 1/12/2024 at 3:11 PM, Calm said:

No one really understands the covenants until one lives them, just like one can’t really comprehend what marriage is or commitment to a job even until one experiences the influences/pressures and choices that come with that life.

I agree but only to a certain extent. We all enter into contracts. In addition to my CPA license I hold a series 7 securities license and a life and health insurance license in the state where I reside. In almost every ethics training I have had the nature of contracts and the ability of the person buying the product to enter the contract is emphasized.  A client that is aged and declining mentally may not be able to to understand a product and the related contract. Unethical professionals sometime take advantage of the elderly.  And if they are found out the face stiff fines. The same is true for someone to young to enter a contract.  Indeed for those under a certain age it is illegal for them to sign contracts.  IMO an 8 year old is to young and not able to make or commit to the baptismal covenant. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I can see what Elder Bednar is teaching here, but I think it goes in the same folder as that article that Elder Nelson wrote decades ago for the Ensign about how God's love is always conditional.  It's true from a certain perspective but not every perspective.  And like you said, it can't be broadly applied to every use of the word.

There is room for those kinds of strict interpretations of words (and sometimes we need to consider them and grow in our relationship with God through such consideration), but they can be incorrect as much as they are correct. It just depends on how someone is looking at the issue and the context.

(Elder Christofferson pushed back--or maybe clarified is a better word--on Elder Nelson's 2003 ensign article during a conference talk in 2016, where he taught that God does always love us, but never in our sins and that is why His love can be described as both conditional and unconditional at the same time, depend on what is being talked about).

As far as Elder Bednar's definition of agency has not been taught over the pulpit or as official doctrine, I think that we should consider it and take the good we can from it but I don't think we are under obligation to adopt this perspective fully as our own.

I would agree with this and I would be much less annoyed if he were presenting it as a ‘way of looking at it’.

Instead it was presented as almost everyone is teaching it wrong. Then he presents a take I have never heard before. There is an insinuation that if we would have paid attention or focused or studied more we wouldn’t be wrong. I can also find direct contradictions to what he said in correlated material. If everyone is getting it wrong the blame lays on the apostles in this instance. Hence why i don’t think this is a solid flex. It should have been more of a ‘we have screwed up on teaching this right’ explanation.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would agree with this and I would be much less annoyed if he were presenting it as a ‘way of looking at it’.

Instead it was presented as almost everyone is teaching it wrong. Then he presents a take I have never heard before. There is an insinuation that if we would have paid attention or focused or studied more we wouldn’t be wrong. I can also find direct contradictions to what he said in correlated material. If everyone is getting it wrong the blame lays on the apostles in this instance. Hence why i don’t think this is a solid flex. It should have been more of a ‘we have screwed up on teaching this right’ explanation.

Oh I know he’s not presenting it as a perspective. But that’s what it is regardless of how he’s presenting it.

But what you are saying reminds me of when leaders have talked about how women haven’t understood how the priesthood applies to them. That always makes me a little annoyed, because the ways that we view women and the priesthood today are a lot different than what I was taught about the priesthood and women growing up. If we haven’t seen our relationship with the priesthood correctly, it’s in large part because it hasn’t been taught to us correctly.

[Calm]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then why do we have to make the covenant again? And why do so few have the opportunity to do so?

We make the sacramental covenant weekly.  There is something to be said for being constantly reminded of our covenants…to the best of our current understandings. 

as to the second question…

Because they have a different set of needs that need to be filled by firsthand experience perhaps or maybe because it was simply the timing of when they wanted to be mortal or were ready for mortality.

Don’t really know.

 

 

Edited January 13, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

That may be true and I probably would have said the same thing that it is not something that I have seen much of...until I faced my own faith crisis.  I know now why they call it a "crisis".   There are deep visceral fears that I had never before known existed because I had never before been where I am now.  It is not unusual, but seems to be the norm.  It truly can be traumatic for some. 

These 8 year olds inevitably grow up.  This thread is about eternally binding covenants over the course of a lifetime, and to discuss the competency of children and thus the appropriateness of allowing (even encouraging) children to enter such eternally binding covenants.  You are right though, nothing scary at all for an 8 year old.  We make it all too easy, it seems.  That is why it can feel like a trap for some.  Easy in, but no way out.  When these kids do mature and become more competent, it is too late.  No take-backs.  That just doesn't feel right. It feels like setting up an arranged marriage for an 8 year old, and then threatening them as they mature with terrifying eternal consequences if they ever second guess their marriage covenants.

Going to the temple is part of the fulfillment of taking the name of Christ upon us and obeying all of the commandments that we covenant to do at baptism.  It is where the 'covenant path" unavoidably takes us.  Worshiping in temples is a commandment.  That is all set in place at 8 in a very binding way.  

I can empathize with the adult who comes to feel as though he was not in a position to be baptized (or married), however he conceptualizes his obligations in hindsight. Some are happy with how things turned out, and as you point out, some are traumatized and terrified by the existential threat of abandoning religious/spiritual obligations they no longer believe in. What does such a person yet believe in that terrifies them; why does he hold on to residual terror based on something he no longer believes in; how is the trauma to be resolved? It seems more to me a matter of mental health rather than doctrine and culture, both of which can be dropped and replaced, or a new paradigm toward them adopted.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

 What does such a person yet believe in that terrifies them; why does he hold on to residual terror based on something he no longer believes in; how is the trauma to be resolved? It seems more to me a matter of mental health rather than doctrine and culture, both of which can be dropped and replaced, or a new paradigm toward them adopted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit–duck_illusion

"Thomas Kuhn used the rabbit–duck illusion as a metaphor for revolutionary change in science, illustrating the way in which a paradigm shift could cause one to see the same information in an entirely different way.^[6] According to Vasso Kindi, Kuhn also rejected Wittgenstein's distinction between perception and interpretation in favor of the theory-ladenness of observation.^[6]""

Mfb: Not bad for wikipedia.

Duck vs Rabbit.  Seeing as.

"Just" see it diifferently.  Paradigm switch. 🤫

Edited January 14, 2024 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I can empathize with the adult who comes to feel as though he was not in a position to be baptized (or married), however he conceptualizes his obligations in hindsight. Some are happy with how things turned out, and as you point out, some are traumatized and terrified by the existential threat of abandoning religious/spiritual obligations they no longer believe in. What does such a person yet believe in that terrifies them; why does he hold on to residual terror based on something he no longer believes in; how is the trauma to be resolved? It seems more to me a matter of mental health rather than doctrine and culture, both of which can be dropped and replaced, or a new paradigm toward them adopted.

Even when the “danger” is gone the habits and the anxieties persist.