DiscussMormonism.com

Are all temple covenants of equal importance? Does taking God'S name is vain make you a Covenant breaker on par with an adulterer, liar, smoker, drinker, one who reveals temple secrets, or those who don't continue to wear garments? If not, why not? Why would the Church care more about some covenants than others?

asbestosman wrote:Are all temple covenants of equal importance? Does taking God'S name is vain make you a Covenant breaker on par with an adulterer, liar, smoker, drinker, one who reveals temple secrets, or those who don't continue to wear garments? If not, why not? Why would the Church care more about some covenants than others?

This is one of those areas that brings up the C word. The fear of breaking temple secrets is MUCH more ingrained in the TBM psyche than that of other sins. I've seen members who have little problem having adulterous sex, but hold those temple covenants as somehow more sacred than that.

I think the sin priority goes something like this

Denying the HG
Murder
Revealing temple covenants (including your new name)
Adultery
smoking/drinking/coffee
Taking the lords name in vein
Fornication
any other sexual sin
not going to church
the 10 commandments
...

asbestosman wrote:Are all temple covenants of equal importance? Does taking God'S name is vain make you a Covenant breaker on par with an adulterer, liar, smoker, drinker, one who reveals temple secrets, or those who don't continue to wear garments? If not, why not? Why would the Church care more about some covenants than others?

Yes, "All [covenants] are equal, but some [covenants] are more equal than others."

Also, I thought we're automatically under Satan's power if we break ANY temple covenants...does that mean if infringe on "loud laughter" or any of the other more minor ones I can also be suddenly possessed for life?

asbestosman wrote:Are all temple covenants of equal importance? Does taking God'S name is vain make you a Covenant breaker on par with an adulterer, liar, smoker, drinker, one who reveals temple secrets, or those who don't continue to wear garments? If not, why not? Why would the Church care more about some covenants than others?

Really what the Church thinks is irrelevant. The Church didn't make the covenants with you. They promise nothing and aren't a part of the agreement. God is the one you need to ask to find out if he has a hierarchy of sin though I suspect he would rather we spend time trying to eliminate sin rather then spend time categorizing it.

Since God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance, they are all equally important as far as actually getting into the kingdom of heaven is concerned. To what degree you attain is another matter entirely.

The Nehor wrote:God is the one you need to ask to find out if he has a hierarchy of sin though I suspect he would rather we spend time trying to eliminate sin rather then spend time categorizing it.

God says there is a hierarchy of sin:
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matt. 23:23) See also talk by President Faust available in Nov. 1997 Ensign and also one by Elder Oaks available in Jan. 2001 Ensign

My bishop also says there's a heirarchy of sin. He won't hold a church court if I stop paying tithing, but he will if I start revealing certain things about the temple, or commit adultery. I'm not sure, I but I don't think he'd hold a church court if I started drinking coffee either although he would revoke my temple recommend. Thus we see that there is a hierarchy of sin.

My real point was this: why do we bother calling some people "covenant breakers" when in fact it is obvious that not all temple covenants carry the same weight? The term "covenant breaker" thereby becomes vague and is even robbed of meaning when it is used equally to describe someone who uses God's name in vain and someone who commits adultery.

asbestosman wrote:

The Nehor wrote:God is the one you need to ask to find out if he has a hierarchy of sin though I suspect he would rather we spend time trying to eliminate sin rather then spend time categorizing it.

God says there is a hierarchy of sin:
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matt. 23:23) See also talk by President Faust available in Nov. 1997 Ensign and also one by Elder Oaks available in Jan. 2001 Ensign

My bishop also says there's a heirarchy of sin. He won't hold a church court if I stop paying tithing, but he will if I start revealing certain things about the temple, or commit adultery. I'm not sure, I but I don't think he'd hold a church court if I started drinking coffee either although he would revoke my temple recommend. Thus we see that there is a hierarchy of sin.

My real point was this: why do we bother calling some people "covenant breakers" when in fact it is obvious that not all temple covenants carry the same weight? The term "covenant breaker" thereby becomes vague and is even robbed of meaning when it is used equally to describe someone who uses God's name in vain and someone who commits adultery.

This is all true but most of us are not Bishops. There are sins that may be easier to repent of and there may be sins that have more serious immediate consequences but most of that is for God to decide (i.e. how long it takes to repent, withholding of the Spirit, etc.). Bishops have a list of offenses that are actionable. These are situations where the Bishop must decide if the sinner needs consequences and/or assistance to repent. Still, I don't doubt that there are people out there to whom God would be more forgiving towards them committing adultery and vice-versa. Depends on the person as always.

*bump*

I thought this might be interesting with to the whole exmo trustworthiness vs temple covenants thing.

I think it's interesting that most Mormons would still trust each other if someone took God's name in vain, but they'd be quite upset with anyone who would reveal temple content. I find it odd that we don't call cursers "covenant breakers" or somehow think that they're untrustworthy. Why is that? It doesn't seem fair somehow.

Scottie wrote:I think the sin priority goes something like this..

Honestly Scottie.

The only covenants I made that were the most sobering, had the consequence of disembowelment, my throat cut from ear to ear or my ribcage gutted.

I assumed I would be conscious if/when this was to occur. What a horriffic way to pass from this life. I've seen beheadings. It can't be much less gruesome.

This Trump's the list of consequences meeted out by the legal administrators of the unchangeable Mormon God.


By the way, for us older folk, this covenant has never been formally rescinded and thus remains in affect (hey boaz, duck).


Think about it.

Inconceivable wrote:

Scottie wrote:I think the sin priority goes something like this..

Honestly Scottie.

The only covenants I made that were the most sobering, had the consequence of disembowelment, my throat cut from ear to ear or my ribcage gutted.

I assumed I would be conscious if/when this was to occur. What a horriffic way to pass from this life. I've seen beheadings. It can't be much less gruesome.

This Trump's the list of consequences meeted out by the legal administrators of the unchangeable Mormon God.


By the way, for us older folk, this covenant has never been formally rescinded and thus remains in affect (hey boaz, duck).


Think about it.

Take solace in the fact (I presume) that you weren't required to covenant that you would avenge the blood of Joseph & Hyrum and teach your children to do so as well.

Did anyone keep that covenant?