"Covenants"; still applicable?

[_Sethbag]

Crocket, as a matter of law, wouldn't you agree that if a person, let's call him Joe Blow, claims to party X to represent party Y, and extracts a contract between X and Y executed by Joe Blow (on behalf of Y) and X, that if Joe Blow doesn't actually have authority from Y to represent them, or if party Y turns out not even to exist, that there is no valid contract, and party X is not bound by the terms of the contract he thought he had entered?

[_wenglund]

How do you suppose this "deal" will work in improving relations between members and former members? Or has your former intent become so much smoke--not unlike your Church and marital covenants?

Your dig at my "church and marital covenants" appears to be just that -- a dig. If you can't understand that many of us made "covenants" under circumstances that we feel today were dishonest, and without proper disclosure to the truth of the organization's history -- thereby making any alleged covenant fraudulant, null, and void, then you are much more ignorant than I thought.

Let me ask you Wade, do you feel that the covenant made by one of Warren Jeff's 14 year old brides is a true and binding eternal covenant? One that should never be challenged? That these 400+ girls that have been rescued fron Eldorado should not be given the opportunity to learn of the other side of their FLDS background, and be given the chance to be free to live a new life independent of their upbringing?

I will agree that there are differences between today's LDS and today's FLDS churches. But the principle is EXACTLY the same! My "covenants" you speak of were made without disclosure of the real history of the church. There was no encouragement to study the information I've learned of today. How can there be a valid "covenant" when it is done the way it is?

I know you don't agree with what we exmo's believe. But at least you should be able to understand where we are coming from, and have a small amount of empathy towards it.

Or have YOU chosen not to help bridge the gap?

I wanted to pull this forward and get a response from Wade -- if he is still around. I'm particularly interested in the concept of what constitutes a binding "covenant?"

Thoughts? Or for any other exmos, what "covenants" do you feel obligated to still adhere to?

To me, the only thing that binds a covenant is both parties willing adherence to the conditions of the covenant. Once the conditions of the covenant are broken by one party, the covenant, by its very nature, is no longer binding.

The more significant question to me, though, is whether either party is justified in breaking the conditions of the covenant, or even more importantly, whether it is in each parties best interest for one of the parties to break the conditions of the covenant?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_BishopRic]

How do you suppose this "deal" will work in improving relations between members and former members? Or has your former intent become so much smoke--not unlike your Church and marital covenants?

Your dig at my "church and marital covenants" appears to be just that -- a dig. If you can't understand that many of us made "covenants" under circumstances that we feel today were dishonest, and without proper disclosure to the truth of the organization's history -- thereby making any alleged covenant fraudulant, null, and void, then you are much more ignorant than I thought.

Let me ask you Wade, do you feel that the covenant made by one of Warren Jeff's 14 year old brides is a true and binding eternal covenant? One that should never be challenged? That these 400+ girls that have been rescued fron Eldorado should not be given the opportunity to learn of the other side of their FLDS background, and be given the chance to be free to live a new life independent of their upbringing?

I will agree that there are differences between today's LDS and today's FLDS churches. But the principle is EXACTLY the same! My "covenants" you speak of were made without disclosure of the real history of the church. There was no encouragement to study the information I've learned of today. How can there be a valid "covenant" when it is done the way it is?

I know you don't agree with what we exmo's believe. But at least you should be able to understand where we are coming from, and have a small amount of empathy towards it.

Or have YOU chosen not to help bridge the gap?

I wanted to pull this forward and get a response from Wade -- if he is still around. I'm particularly interested in the concept of what constitutes a binding "covenant?"

Thoughts? Or for any other exmos, what "covenants" do you feel obligated to still adhere to?

To me, the only thing that binds a covenant is both parties willing adherence to the conditions of the covenant. Once the conditions of the covenant are broken by one party, the covenant, by its very nature, is no longer binding.

The more significant question to me, though, is whether either party is justified in breaking the conditions of the covenant, or even more importantly, whether it is in each parties best interest for one of the parties to break the conditions of the covenant?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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...

[_The Nehor]

In a secular sense there is no binding covenant. All covenants in the Temple are between the person and God. The Church, your Priesthood leaders, even your spouse is not covenanted to. Therefore the only person who would and should have any say in the matter is God. If he doesn't exist, then the covenants are irrelevant. If he does, then it is up to him to enforce them,not the Church or anyone else.

[_Dr. Shades]

To me, the only thing that binds a covenant is both parties willing adherence to the conditions of the covenant. Once the conditions of the covenant are broken by one party, the covenant, by its very nature, is no longer binding.

The more significant question to me, though, is whether either party is justified in breaking the conditions of the covenant, or even more importantly, whether it is in each parties best interest for one of the parties to break the conditions of the covenant?

FAIR enough.

My side of the bargain was to observe the Temple covenants. God's side of the bargain is that the LDS church had to be true.

God broke His end of the bargain, so I am released from mine.

[_wenglund]

How do you suppose this "deal" will work in improving relations between members and former members? Or has your former intent become so much smoke--not unlike your Church and marital covenants?

Your dig at my "church and marital covenants" appears to be just that -- a dig. If you can't understand that many of us made "covenants" under circumstances that we feel today were dishonest, and without proper disclosure to the truth of the organization's history -- thereby making any alleged covenant fraudulant, null, and void, then you are much more ignorant than I thought.

Let me ask you Wade, do you feel that the covenant made by one of Warren Jeff's 14 year old brides is a true and binding eternal covenant? One that should never be challenged? That these 400+ girls that have been rescued fron Eldorado should not be given the opportunity to learn of the other side of their FLDS background, and be given the chance to be free to live a new life independent of their upbringing?

I will agree that there are differences between today's LDS and today's FLDS churches. But the principle is EXACTLY the same! My "covenants" you speak of were made without disclosure of the real history of the church. There was no encouragement to study the information I've learned of today. How can there be a valid "covenant" when it is done the way it is?

I know you don't agree with what we exmo's believe. But at least you should be able to understand where we are coming from, and have a small amount of empathy towards it.

Or have YOU chosen not to help bridge the gap?

I wanted to pull this forward and get a response from Wade -- if he is still around. I'm particularly interested in the concept of what constitutes a binding "covenant?"

Thoughts? Or for any other exmos, what "covenants" do you feel obligated to still adhere to?

To me, the only thing that binds a covenant is both parties willing adherence to the conditions of the covenant. Once the conditions of the covenant are broken by one party, the covenant, by its very nature, is no longer binding.

The more significant question to me, though, is whether either party is justified in breaking the conditions of the covenant, or even more importantly, whether it is in each parties best interest for one of the parties to break the conditions of the covenant?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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.

I am just curious. Could you please explain how the Church broke the following baptismal covenant (as renewed each sabbath through partaking of the sacrament):

"O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen." (Book of Moroni 4:3, Doctrine and Covenants 20:77)

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...

At the risk of being called "dense" or "Mcfly" by you, as I recall, the marriage covenant in the temple is between the husband and the wife. What information about you or your wife did the Church allegedly fail to disclose first, which would have made things better?

I ask these questions because I think there may be a difference of opinion as to who the two parties are to the covenants being made in the Church. As I understand things, the Church officiates in, and thereby provides the authoritative saction of, but is not one of the two parties to, the covenants--kind of like in civil marriages, the legal authorities officiate the wedding ceremonies, and thereby give governmental saction thereto, but they are not a party in the marital contract (the husband and wife are).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_krose]

When I read threads like this one that include stories like Ric's (and so many others), I realize how very fortunate I am that I did not heed the advice of my mission president to find a temple-wife immediately post-mish, and that I was able to resist the continuing pressure of bishops, stake presidents and others. I don't know if it was smart or just dumb luck, but staying single till past age 28 allowed me to work out my own inevitable belief and 'testimony' issues, after which I was able to settle down with a similarly unbelieving spouse and raise unbelieving kids.

There were several opportunities and close calls, and remaining virginal for those extra six years or so was extremely hard, but when I think of going through apostasy after a temple marriage and with a kid or two along for the ride (or -- more likely -- becoming a closet nonbeliever), it gives me nightmares. I really feel sad for those who go through that.

As for the OP question, I agree with Seth. Since I have determined that the temple officiators have no actual authority, there is no longer any reason at all to take the covenants seriously. It's like keeping a pinky-promise made with a first-grade imaginary friend.

[_wenglund]

To me, the only thing that binds a covenant is both parties willing adherence to the conditions of the covenant. Once the conditions of the covenant are broken by one party, the covenant, by its very nature, is no longer binding.

The more significant question to me, though, is whether either party is justified in breaking the conditions of the covenant, or even more importantly, whether it is in each parties best interest for one of the parties to break the conditions of the covenant?

FAIR enough.

My side of the bargain was to observe the Temple covenants. God's side of the bargain is that the LDS church had to be true.

God broke His end of the bargain, so I am released from mine.

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-

[_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.

[_wenglund]

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-