"Covenants"; still applicable?

[_Mister Scratch]

I understand certain temple covenants differently (at least those where God is one of the parties to the coventant). To me, God's side of the bargain is to bless the obediant with various spiritual enrichments that would enable them ultimately to continue growing until they become like him, and to take upon them the loving and righteous nature of Christ. I don't see how or where he has broken his side of the bargain. Certainly, the onset of a person's unbelief or disbelief in the restored gospel of Christ does not constitute God breaking the covenants. Rather, such is a personal opinion and choice of some on the other side of the bargain. As far as I can tell, God hasn't changed his mind about the verity of his restored gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have a question for you, Wade. Do you think these covenants should still count if they were made under coercion, or via the use of threats?

[_Sethbag]

I think it is clear to many of us that the church was the one that broke the covenants, so I will agree with your statement about that. My other post above discusses the marriage covenants made in the temple. I see that as a much grayer area, but a challenge when the church did not disclose all information first. This could have been so much better if it would have been otherwise...

I differ in my interpretation of things. I don't think that the church "broke" the covenants. I just think the church represented themselves as acting on behalf of a being which doesn't actually exist. There can be no valid covenant where one party to the covenant doesn't actually exist. There were never any valid covenants to break, by either side.

[_BishopRic]

I think it is clear to many of us that the church was the one that broke the covenants, so I will agree with your statement about that. My other post above discusses the marriage covenants made in the temple. I see that as a much grayer area, but a challenge when the church did not disclose all information first. This could have been so much better if it would have been otherwise...

I differ in my interpretation of things. I don't think that the church "broke" the covenants. I just think the church represented themselves as acting on behalf of a being which doesn't actually exist. There can be no valid covenant where one party to the covenant doesn't actually exist. There were never any valid covenants to break, by either side.

Probably semantics, and yes, I totally agree with your position...there were never any real covenants in place, so I suppose one could say the "other party" had no way to fulfill the stated covenants.

Either way, I think we agree.

[_skippy the dead]

I understand certain temple covenants differently (at least those where God is one of the parties to the coventant). To me, God's side of the bargain is to bless the obediant with various spiritual enrichments that would enable them ultimately to continue growing until they become like him, and to take upon them the loving and righteous nature of Christ. I don't see how or where he has broken his side of the bargain. Certainly, the onset of a person's unbelief or disbelief in the restored gospel of Christ does not constitute God breaking the covenants. Rather, such is a personal opinion and choice of some on the other side of the bargain. As far as I can tell, God hasn't changed his mind about the verity of his restored gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But if the church itself is simply manmade, it follows that the temple rites are likewise the product of a man, and not of God. Your assumption that the rites are a part of the restored gospel is based on your belief that the church represents the restored gospel - I think the statement to which you are responding was predicated on the fact that the church is NOT the restored gospel. You bypass that and simply state that the rites are from God because they are true. This makes no sense.

by the way - since I am quite unconvinced that the God defined by the LDS church exists, any covenants purported to be made in his name have no meaning to me.

By way of clarification:

First, I think you have made the common mistake of confusing your opinion (or Shades' opinion) with "fact". Whether the Church or its temple rites are manmade and NOT the restored gospel, is a matter of personal opinion, not fact. Naturally, I was stating things from my opinion, while respectfully allowing others to differ in their opinion.

Second, while the conclusion that the temple rites are manmade may reasonably follow from the opinion that the Church, itself, is simply manmade, the covenants made in the Church, by their very nature, presuppose a belief in God as professed through the restored gospel. Those who enter into such covenants (at least those who do so honestly and sincerely), do so according to, and in acceptance of, that presupposition. That some may later change their minds and hearts, does not negate the presuppoition (except in their current minds) or their having entered into the coventant upon having accepted the presupposition.

Third, I did NOT state that the rites are from God because they are true (though I believe that they are from God, and are true). I was intentionally silent on that score.

Fourth, my response spoke to the nature of the covenants (who was party to the covenants and what the parties are covenanting to), and not whether the parties are manmade or true. I am fine with leaving such to personal opinion. It wasn't that I was "bypassing" Shades opinion, but rather I was expressing a different point of view (hence, my use of the openning phrase "I understand certain temple covenants differently").

Please do try in the future to get at least some things correct. It will help ease the flow of conversation. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your clarification served no purpose. It basically either misread what I wrote, or restated what I wrote, or responded to something I did not write.

And your final statement was quite unnecessary - the wink smilie does little to disguise your attempted insult when I offered none.