DiscussMormonism.com

So, maybe Donald Trump has insights into the divine after all. He's transactional, everything is a zero sum game to him. It's as if he can't grasp the concept of even more value from synnergistic relationships.

And so, when I hear the likes of MG 2.0 and the LDS church leaders invoke that they are a covenant people, making covenants with God, it is--well--so transactional. For them that seems to be the fulcrum that they fall back on, as Gad has recently observed, when they are questioned.

Perhaps for Mormons, the Bible (and their other scriptures) might collectively be regarded as "The Art of the Deal."

I wasn't really thinking about it that way, I only meant that "covenants" rose to the occasion unexpectedly, as a way to defend the value of a Mormon's life efforts when nobody is buying anything special about them. So what if you go to church 2 hours on Sunday? Oh, it fulfills a covenant and therefor we can't judge it because we don't understand it. I give MG credit as I don't recall ever seeing this desperate apologetic -- it was original.

But now that you bring up the nature of a covenant I see a connection that I initially missed. It's easy to point out that "covenants" can be really bad. Torturing and killing animals and humans alike, even children, are the obvious examples of what a "covenant" is all about. I go out and kill a few innocent creatures and god gives me a nice crop that year. I was going to mention this in my post but didn't. We know that covenants can be bad. So how could the "covenant" defense help?

But as you mention the transactional nature, it makes me realize that not only can covenants be bad, but, they might be necessarily bad. At least, they range from the horrific to the strange or useless. This might be a feature. I'm thinking to qualify as a covenant, the agreement must result in a zero-sum win for the deity. If I give 10$ to the Church or hand out a Book of Mormon, that counts toward my covenant. If I help a poor person out it would be seen as good but I don't think anyone would count it toward my Mormon covenants. To see why: If all I did was hand out book of Mormons and pay tithing, it would count a lot, but if all I did was silently help the poor, it wouldn't count at all. Now, if I help via a Church program, that counts more because it supports the Church's PR campaign. In general, benefiting another party can be allowed, but the more zero-sum the more sacrosanct. Examples: Jesus said "the poor will be with you always" when Judas suggested selling the perfume to help the poor.

In general, the more the act builds the Church's kingdom at the expense of or to the detriment of other people or institutions the more it counts toward the covenant obligation.

That’s a thoughtful breakdown, Gad, and I think you’re right that the “covenant” idea often functions in practice more as an institutional construct than a spiritual one.

When it comes up in discussions, it can feel less like a theological reflection and more like a moral judgment. A way to shame or disqualify those who’ve stepped away.

That was my impression of how it was being used in the other thread. The mention of “covenants” wasn’t to explore the meaning, but to remind people that they’ve broken one.

I thought it was a cheap shot, frankly.

Speaking of cheap shots, this seems to have coincidentally shown up on DCP’s blog in the wake of one of our own dying.

And here, although it’s actually not a video, is a wise piece in Meridian Magazine from Amanda Freebairn: “The Hidden Cost of Normalizing Doubt.” I like this passage that Sister Freebairn cites from a letter written by Flannery O’Connor: “If you feel you can’t believe, you must at least do this: keep an open mind. Keep it open toward faith, keep wanting it, keep asking for it, and leave the rest to God.” And I like this warning that she cites from President Russell M. Nelson, against “increasing [our] doubts by rehearsing them with other doubters.” I think that one of the most damaging effects of social media on spiritual health is the creation of ersatz “communities” of disaffected cynics that can take the place of genuine communities of faith (without conferring the spiritual and other benefits that real faith communities can provide) and reinforce doubts and grievances.

Classy.

Sic et Non and most of the Mopologetic creations over the years are creations of cynicism and negativity, it's just that the subject matter is criticizing critics. The Punisher and Dexter weren't "positive spiritually healthy people" just because they targeted the bad guys. Giving Dan the benefit of the doubt that we are the bad guys, his career has still been one of negativity. His foremost supporters, Midgley, Schryver, etc., are all angry bitter people who seek to even the score with critics. Even his pseudo positive content about the afterlife or magic is either to troll us or to somehow meant as a jab against unbelievers, a response to unbelievers, not natively positive faith-promoting material.

In Leviticus 6:26, the LORD wrote: The priest who offers it shall eat it; it must be eaten in a holy place, in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting.

In several other places as well the Pentateuch makes clear that the Old Testament sacrifices, including tithing, weren’t just debts paid to God. They supported the priestly class, feeding them so that they did not have to work the land like other people, but could instead remain holy and perform rituals. It was nice work if you could get it, but it was a closed shop. Only hereditary priests and Levites could get the gig.

sock puppet wrote: ↑

Mon Nov 03, 2025 4:14 pm

So, maybe Donald Trump has insights into the divine after all. He's transactional, everything is a zero sum game to him. It's as if he can't grasp the concept of even more value from synnergistic relationships.

And so, when I hear the likes of MG 2.0 and the LDS church leaders invoke that they are a covenant people, making covenants with God, it is--well--so transactional. For them that seems to be the fulcrum that they fall back on, as Gad has recently observed, when they are questioned.

Perhaps for Mormons, the Bible (and their other scriptures) might collectively be regarded as "The Art of the Deal."

The notion of religious covenants isn’t uniquely Mormon, much as MG would have you believe. Lots of faith traditions utilise the concept of a covenant in a religious sense. It can be seen as a form of institutional coercive control when it’s leveraged against your perceived standing within a religious community.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 04, 2025 2:03 am

Speaking of cheap shots, this seems to have coincidentally shown up on DCP’s blog in the wake of one of our own dying.

And here, although it’s actually not a video, is a wise piece in Meridian Magazine from Amanda Freebairn: “The Hidden Cost of Normalizing Doubt.” I like this passage that Sister Freebairn cites from a letter written by Flannery O’Connor: “If you feel you can’t believe, you must at least do this: keep an open mind. Keep it open toward faith, keep wanting it, keep asking for it, and leave the rest to God.” And I like this warning that she cites from President Russell M. Nelson, against “increasing [our] doubts by rehearsing them with other doubters.” I think that one of the most damaging effects of social media on spiritual health is the creation of ersatz “communities” of disaffected cynics that can take the place of genuine communities of faith (without conferring the spiritual and other benefits that real faith communities can provide) and reinforce doubts and grievances.

Classy.

Another dig at counterfeit life experiences. We all know the only real, meaningful activities take place inside the Mormon zeitgeist right?

To be clear, the “she” who cited Nelson was surely Amanda Freebairn, and not Mary Flannery O’Connor, whom Freebairn also quoted. Flannery O’Connor was a devout Catholic who died in 1964, long before anyone was likely to cite Russell Nelson.

I’ve never read Flannery O’Connor (that I can remember), but I’ve been meaning to, just for her arresting titles, like “Everything That Rises Must Converge”. It’s a Teilhard de Chardin quote, and a cool title for a short story, I think.

drumdude wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 04, 2025 2:03 am

Speaking of cheap shots, this seems to have coincidentally shown up on DCP’s blog in the wake of one of our own dying.

And here, although it’s actually not a video, is a wise piece in Meridian Magazine from Amanda Freebairn: “The Hidden Cost of Normalizing Doubt.” I like this passage that Sister Freebairn cites from a letter written by Flannery O’Connor: “If you feel you can’t believe, you must at least do this: keep an open mind. Keep it open toward faith, keep wanting it, keep asking for it, and leave the rest to God.” And I like this warning that she cites from President Russell M. Nelson, against “increasing [our] doubts by rehearsing them with other doubters.” I think that one of the most damaging effects of social media on spiritual health is the creation of ersatz “communities” of disaffected cynics that can take the place of genuine communities of faith (without conferring the spiritual and other benefits that real faith communities can provide) and reinforce doubts and grievances.

Classy.

Mormons really get butt hurt about the notion that ex-Mormons talk with each other about their Mormon experiences, their departures from the LDS church/beliefs and the veracity vel non of the Mormon "truth" claims. Oaks and others have expressed their claim that their right to free exercise of religion is being trampled by non-believers' expression of their disbelief, even though there is no impingement on their exercise of religion.