Can a Person Covenant with God Without Becoming a Member of the House of Israel, God's Covenant People?

[telnetd]

On 1/22/2025 at 4:57 PM, bluebell said:

Even though they don't have a problem not accepting our baptism as equal their theirs.  

Do and @Calm  believe Catholic baptisms are valid in the eyes of God even though they
don't have the same priesthood as in the LDS Church?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Do and @Calm  believe Catholic baptisms are valid in the eyes of God even though they
don't have the same priesthood as in the LDS Church?

Not for the same ordinance as is required by God and fulfilled by the baptism done in the LDS Church.  That has been revealed to be needed to be done by those given the priesthood authority that comes through ordinances performed in our faith, I believe.

I am open to God having another significant purpose for Catholic baptisms or others’ baptisms.

I cannot see how God would be anything but pleased by other baptisms that are at the very least an expression of faith in Christ.

There does appear to be a problem with infant baptisms if it’s believed that without it, children and even infants who die go to hell because of sin according to Moroni.  If baptism of babies and young children is done without that understanding, perhaps it is okay? (Maybe done to signify they belong to God, for example?)

If circumcision is okay, I would assume infant baptisms done for that reason would be acceptable as well, but I am not certain.

Quote

And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.

10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!

13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

Bold mine.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/moro/8?lang=eng

We did baptisms for healing in the past.  Was that because we linked ill health to sin that needed to be repented or was the label baptism attached to what was really a purification rite?  Anyone know?

Edited January 24, 2025 by Calm

[Peacefully]

11 hours ago, JVW said:

I'm curious to hear read your perspective about how potentially offensive it would be to hear that the baptism isn't properly authorized. I really don't believe that that is an issue that is at the top of the list for Christians who hate Mormons. I'm pretty sure the "you worship a different Jesus and believe in a works-based salvation" is the thing that they're on about.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't really care that other churches view the authority in my church as false and coming from the devil. I think it's sad and comes from a place of ignorance. I don't think many are intentionally malicious toward the LDS church so I just go along doing my thing.

I think it would be very offensive to the believers. I also think an issue many people in my neck of the woods have is the mistaken idea that we worship Joseph Smith instead of Jesus Christ. 

[smac97]

On 1/22/2025 at 10:13 AM, bluebell said:

Another question that is just an interesting thing to ponder is whether or not someone can covenant with God without being either a literal or adopted member of the House of Israel?  I'm wondering because I was thinking about Adam, and Enoch, and Noah, and Moses, etc and whether or not they would be considered gentiles since they lived before God covenanted with Abraham.  

Also, if someone is automatically adopted into the House of Israel at baptism, was Adam adopted into Abraham's family when he was baptized?  Because it kind of seems like Adam outranks Abraham in the whole scheme of things.

D&C 132:7:

Quote

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.

From this I surmise that temporary covenants can be made by man, and perhaps accepted by God, but that such covenants will not be preserved into the eternities.

AFAICS, only covenants made through authorized ordinances, and "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise," will endure.  All others "have an end when men are dead."

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

D&C 132:7:

From this I surmise that temporary covenants can be made by man, and perhaps accepted by God, but that such covenants will not be preserved into the eternities.

AFAICS, only covenants made through authorized ordinances, and "sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise," will endure.  All others "have an end when men are dead."

Thanks,

-Smac

Agreed. I just wondered if this covenant was necessary before someone could go to paradise after death, even if they had already fully accepted the gospel in mortality.

[MustardSeed]

I can totally understand why outsiders would hang their judgments on the belief that we worship Joseph Smith, that we hang our salvation on works and that we believe in a different Jesus than they do. 
I’m assuming that most churches also believe that they have the most correct interpretation of requirements to be with God after mortality. Our church is certainly vocal about its stance that we have the one and only truth. I’m sure that ruffles a few feathers for others.
I’m also sure that it riles some people up to want to put us in our place. 
Some might even come here, and present as friendly to gain our trust and then to pull a gotcha. 
I have come to trust that Tony is open hearted and I appreciate that.  There are other long-term friends among us who have taught me a lot about their own religion or point of view without coming across as being malintended.  I appreciate that. 
That said, circling back to the question, admit, I have no idea what the official doctrine of the church would say about the question, but I personally believe anybody can make a promise with God and that God can make promises back.  
As far as our own temple specific covenants? I would’ve assumed not but I don’t know the answer.

Edited January 25, 2025 by MustardSeed

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Our church is certainly vocal about its stance that we have the one and only truth.

‘The one and only fulness of the truth that is the gospel’*** might be a more precise, if wordy way of saying this since as written some might choose to interpret the above as no one else has any truth….which I am fairly certain you are not intending to suggest.   
 

I was thinking maybe you were thinking of “one and only true church”?  I did a site search on both “one and only truth” and “one and only true church” out of curiosity and found no hits for the first one the Church’s official website and even for “one and only true church”, a phrase I’ve heard among members at times.  There are only two hits for this on the website and those are both back in the 70s, so if leadership were ever inclined to phrase the “only true and living church… with which I, the Lord, am well pleased” doctrine in such a way on the past, it would appear that preference has been out of fashion for over 40 years (and it should be imo as an inaccurate rephrasing of what scripture actually says).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/1?lang=eng

added:  my brain shifted a bit more into gear and it occurred to me to site search for “only true church” and that does bring up recent hits, so I am modifying what I said above to say the preference to speak of the “only true church” has not gone out of fashion among leaders or others.  For example:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ftsoy/2021/01/questions-and-answers/people-tell-me-its-arrogant-to-say-were-the-only-true-church-what-should-i-tell-them?lang=eng

***https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/inspiration/what-is-the-fulness-of-the-gospel?lang=eng

Quote

President Russell M. Nelson once spoke about this. He said:

“This unique mortal mission of the Lord—the gospel as He defined it—we know as [His] Atonement. The fulness of the gospel, therefore, connotes a fuller comprehension of [His] Atonement. This we do not obtain from the Bible alone.”¹

The other parts of Christ’s doctrine are important too, of course. But the most important thing is His Atonement. His Atonement is “the gospel”—and it is fully discussed in the Book of Mormon!

 

Edited January 25, 2025 by Calm