A Covenant People

[sock puppet]

Senior missions are served as husband and wife. Our situation with my wife's parents has not allowed us to go on a mission yet. Individual circumstances vary.

The judgement of critics is fairly uniform and predictable.

Regards,
MG

Those covenants don’t include the caveat “if it suits” or “if it’s convenient” or “if circumstances permit”. You’re expected to trust that the Lord will take care of things back home if you have the faith to honour your covenants. Clearly you don’t have the courage of your claimed conviction. Which is fine. That’s your choice. But don’t pretend that covenants are special to you, when they clearly aren’t.

Boo-Yah!!!

[MG 2.0]

MG’s argument here makes no sense to me. Let’s take a vanilla Christian who is saved by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. If that Christian obeys Gods laws, it is out of no expectation of further reward. They are conforming to God’s will out of love and devotion.

A covenant is transactional. God makes a promise to his followers in exchange for their obedience. The obedience is conditioned on some expectation of a reward from God. It is not selfless; it is selfish. So why is the obedience more praiseworthy than that of the vanilla Christian who does the same thing in anticipation of no reward whatsoever?

Different contractual agreements? The same thing is operative within the world of men. Different agreements/contracts lead to different outcomes.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

MG’s argument here makes no sense to me. Let’s take a vanilla Christian who is saved by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. If that Christian obeys Gods laws, it is out of no expectation of further reward. They are conforming to God’s will out of love and devotion.

A covenant is transactional. God makes a promise to his followers in exchange for their obedience. The obedience is conditioned on some expectation of a reward from God. It is not selfless; it is selfish. So why is the obedience more praiseworthy than that of the vanilla Christian who does the same thing in anticipation of no reward whatsoever?

Different contractual agreements? The same thing is operative within the world of men. Different agreements/contracts lead to different outcomes.

Regards,
MG

For a vanilla Christian, obedience to God doesn’t get them anything in addition to what accepting Jesus as their savior got them. They obey our of love for and devotion to God. There is no “contract” that includes obedience as a term.

[I Have Questions]

MG’s argument here makes no sense to me. Let’s take a vanilla Christian who is saved by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. If that Christian obeys Gods laws, it is out of no expectation of further reward. They are conforming to God’s will out of love and devotion.

A covenant is transactional. God makes a promise to his followers in exchange for their obedience. The obedience is conditioned on some expectation of a reward from God. It is not selfless; it is selfish. So why is the obedience more praiseworthy than that of the vanilla Christian who does the same thing in anticipation of no reward whatsoever?

Different contractual agreements? The same thing is operative within the world of men. Different agreements/contracts lead to different outcomes.

Regards,
MG

It is also operative within the world of women.

[sock puppet]

MG’s argument here makes no sense to me. Let’s take a vanilla Christian who is saved by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. If that Christian obeys Gods laws, it is out of no expectation of further reward. They are conforming to God’s will out of love and devotion.

A covenant is transactional. God makes a promise to his followers in exchange for their obedience. The obedience is conditioned on some expectation of a reward from God. It is not selfless; it is selfish. So why is the obedience more praiseworthy than that of the vanilla Christian who does the same thing in anticipation of no reward whatsoever?

Different contractual agreements? The same thing is operative within the world of men. Different agreements/contracts lead to different outcomes.

Regards,
MG

Indeed. A vanilla Christian (ob. Res Ipsa) believes God's benevolence and grace are what saves. Mormon God, however, is transactional--like Donald Trump. Tit for tat.

[MG 2.0]

Different contractual agreements? The same thing is operative within the world of men. Different agreements/contracts lead to different outcomes.

Regards,
MG

For a vanilla Christian, obedience to God doesn’t get them anything in addition to what accepting Jesus as their savior got them. They obey our of love for and devotion to God. There is no “contract” that includes obedience as a term.

That is true to the best of my understanding.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

For a vanilla Christian, obedience to God doesn’t get them anything in addition to what accepting Jesus as their savior got them. They obey our of love for and devotion to God. There is no “contract” that includes obedience as a term.

That is true to the best of my understanding.

Regards,
MG

So, it’s not, as you argued, a matter of different contracts. Which is the source of my confusion. Why is obedience to God in exchange for a reward somehow more admirable than obedience to God out of love and devotion?

[MG 2.0]

That is true to the best of my understanding.

Regards,
MG

So, it’s not, as you argued, a matter of different contracts. Which is the source of my confusion. Why is obedience to God in exchange for a reward somehow more admirable than obedience to God out of love and devotion?

I think that God makes different covenants with different groups of people, in and out of Christianity. These covenants my either be known or unknown to the parties involved. Yes, in some form or fashion it is a two-way thing going on, but the person living under a certain covenantal relationship may not look at it that way. They are simply doing what they think is right in the situation/life that they've been given.

Some folks, under covenant, are taking covenants/contracts to a level in which there is more knowledge/responsibility known on the part of the receiving party to the 'agreement' between them and God. Kind of the where more is given, more is expected model.

It sort of comes back to what may have gone on in a pre-earth arrangement/agreement that occurred in our 'first estate'. So yeah, I'm looking at it from a mormonistic view of what came before and what comes after. First and second estate stuff. Obviously, this way of looking at things might be in certain respects/elements be unique to the theology of the LDS Church.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

So, it’s not, as you argued, a matter of different contracts. Which is the source of my confusion. Why is obedience to God in exchange for a reward somehow more admirable than obedience to God out of love and devotion?

I think that God makes different covenants with different groups of people, in and out of Christianity. These covenants my either be known or unknown to the parties involved. Yes, in some form or fashion it is a two-way thing going on, but the person living under a certain covenantal relationship may not look at it that way. They are simply doing what they think is right in the situation/life that they've been given.

Some folks, under covenant, are taking covenants/contracts to a level in which there is more knowledge/responsibility known on the part of the receiving party to the 'agreement' between them and God. Kind of the where more is given, more is expected model.

It sort of comes back to what may have gone on in a pre-earth arrangement/agreement that occurred in our 'first estate'. So yeah, I'm looking at it from a mormonistic view of what came before and what comes after. First and second estate stuff. Obviously, this way of looking at things might be in certain respects/elements be unique to the theology of the LDS Church.

Regards,
MG

That’s a bunch of words that don’t come close to answering my question. I don’t understand why transactional obedience is in anyway more praiseworthy than obedience motivated by love and devotion.

[MG 2.0]

I think that God makes different covenants with different groups of people, in and out of Christianity. These covenants my either be known or unknown to the parties involved. Yes, in some form or fashion it is a two-way thing going on, but the person living under a certain covenantal relationship may not look at it that way. They are simply doing what they think is right in the situation/life that they've been given.

Some folks, under covenant, are taking covenants/contracts to a level in which there is more knowledge/responsibility known on the part of the receiving party to the 'agreement' between them and God. Kind of the where more is given, more is expected model.

It sort of comes back to what may have gone on in a pre-earth arrangement/agreement that occurred in our 'first estate'. So yeah, I'm looking at it from a mormonistic view of what came before and what comes after. First and second estate stuff. Obviously, this way of looking at things might be in certain respects/elements be unique to the theology of the LDS Church.

Regards,
MG

That’s a bunch of words that don’t come close to answering my question. I don’t understand why transactional obedience is in anyway more praiseworthy than obedience motivated by love and devotion.

Transactional obedience should be motivated by love and devotion...and knowledge.

Regards,
MG