Making Covenants

[Dr Exiled]

Gotta love making covenants because legend has it that some imaginary people disobeyed the prior covenants they supposedly made with their imaginary god. And this is the basis for a certain poster to think he is somehow superior?

I realize that among many the Abrahamic Covenant, Moses, and other figures from ancient times are shrouded in mythos. If it wasn’t for the restoration and the purported manifestation of these individuals and reestablishing of keys and authority I would be more than likely to ‘sign on’ and join the bandwagon of those that see the mythos as exactly that.

As it is, I have a certain degree of confidence that there is an over arching ‘truth’ inside the mythos in which a monotheistic God (the one true God) manifest Himself in the ancient world and reintroduced Himself in the meridian of time. That same God then appeared to Joseph Smith and restored lost knowledge and keys that had in one form or another come and gone over the ages of Judaeo Christian history.

It’s not a popular position to take, I know. And covenants made with God are mixed in with all of it.

On the other hand, secularism and mythos mix together very well.

And there are educated/academic folks that do have a confidence in the historical prophets and their mission and purpose in the ancient world. I side with them as a result of also seeing these same prophets from the past revealing themselves during the restoration process.

Again, I know that among secularists and those that profess agnosticism/atheism that’s a non starter.

But I appreciate your position.

Superiority has nothing to do with it. That is your own perception/conclusion.

Regards,
MG

I beg to differ. Here is your opening post:

I’ve been reading a book by Kerry Muhlestein whom many of you are probably familiar with. In this book he lays out the importance of making covenants with God.

The foremost reason we should learn about the covenant is because of the bond that forges between us and God. Covenants have always been about creating relationships. In ancient times, they delineated the relationship between countries or people. The covenant path is really about our relationship with God; it is a path to a perfect relationship of full unity. Throughout history, people have either been in a covenant relationship with God, which defines them as His people, or they have not, which means they are not His people. Clearly, everyone is a child of God, but the choice to be part of a covenant enhances and changes that relationship. Even for those in the covenant, the relationship is defined by whether or not they keep the covenant. Yet there is a difference between those who have made a covenant and are not keeping it, and those who have not made the covenant, even if people in those two categories are behaving in the same way.
pg.9

President Nelson has been emphasizing covenants for many years now. As prophet he is emphasizing it even more. If you haven’t read this book, I’d recommend it. I’m learning a lot about covenants and covenant keeping that I haven’t ever really thought about before.

https://www.amazon.com/God-Will-Prevail ... 478&sr=8-1

In essence, the gospel is all about covenant keeping with God.

It’s easy to lose sight of that.

Regards,
MG

Why on earth would you want to discuss with atheists and agnostics about covenant keeping with an invisible god? Who cares if you made a covenant with a non-existent entity and what Pres. Nelson thinks about it? No, you love dusting it up with the sinners, implying every chance you get that we are somehow condemned because we don't engage in your fantasy beliefs any longer. It's your prerogative, but that is what you are doing.

[malkie]

MG, you may feel comfortable being "vulnerable" and "transparent" on a public forum. Good for you - really, good for you.

But when you say "All for thee but not for me." in this context it suggests that you feel somehow entitled to have posters offer details on what makes them tick.

Especially when you say "I have seen VERY little of that sort of transparency and/or vulnerability from you or Morley and some of the other critics here that love to criticize others and yet seem to be very reticent about going into any detail on what makes them tick." it leaves me with the impression that you would like that information for the purpose of giving you some sort of leverage. Perhaps that's not what you intend, but you should be aware that some people will think that of you when you ask them to make themselves vulnerable. Sorry to say, but it sounds a bit creepy to me.

For me, I don't much care if giving you more information about how I think would increase your esteem for me - I'm not here for your or anyone else's esteem.

People will reveal, usually unbidden, what they want to reveal, and will be reluctant to reveal more on demand, particularly when they think it may be used against them.

ETA: "... along with others that my not know you ..." - definitely count me as not one of the "others" interested in seeing posters interrogated like this.

That’s fine. I wouldn’t expect that anyone who doesn’t want to is going to share anything more than they want about what makes them tick and/ or their Mormon story.

And no, I’m not after anything “creepy”.

Sheesh. C’mon.

Regards,
MG

I'm not accusing you of being after anything creepy - if you read my comment you'll see that it's about the "look and feel", the impression that your words give.

It's easy to avoid the appearance of so being - to repeat:

• when you say "All for thee but not for me." in this context it suggests that you feel somehow entitled to have posters offer details on what makes them tick - as if you've been open, so others ought to be also
• when you say "I have seen VERY little of that sort of transparency and/or vulnerability from you or Morley and some of the other critics here that love to criticize others and yet seem to be very reticent about going into any detail on what makes them tick." it leaves me with the impression that you would like that information for the purpose of giving you some sort of leverage - people who seem reticent are usually reticent for a reason, and likely have already shared as much as they are comfortable with
• a list of a dozen or so questions about personal history that you want to know about them, so that they can feel esteemed by you, or so that you can feel better about interacting them, combined with the above two points, makes for a creepy look

I may be misremembering, but didn't you previously ask MG to declare themselves male of female so that you would know how to deal with them? If I'm mistaken, I apologise, but this seems like more of the same, but on steroids ***

As I said, that may not have been your intent, but I'm honestly surprised you didn't seem to have realised that that's how it may look.

*** ETA: found it: viewtopic.php?p=2775365#p2775365

[Gadianton]

Gadianton, I hope my rather long reply to you a number of pages back helped you understand me a little bit better

Well, maybe a tiny bit, as I didn't know you grew up in a Sunstone home. However, the answers at face value are changing the terms of the questions as we go along.

I believe my initial question was, what did Muhlestein tell you about the Abrahamic Covenant that you didn't already know? Your response was basically, nothing, but the bulwark needs fortifying. I was skeptical that anything could possibly deter your faith, I figure that you're basically beyond being wrong about anything religious in nature that is material to the case. And so I asked what information could possibly make a dent in your faith? Your response was to list a number of secular authors you'd read and disclose your Sunstone family background. Most of the writers you referenced were secular, and nothing in that list would detract from faith that I could see, save from the fact that human knowledge in general contradicts the bulk of religious propositions out there, and so I asked if we should get rid of secular learning and only teach doctrine in school -- for instance, think about the Abrahamic Covenant for several hours a day? Your response was that you just need a balance.

And so the best I can surmise, is that you don't find any information fundamentally threatening, and therefore Muhlestein neither takes your knowledge of doctrine to new levels nor actively protects against ideas of the adversary, but you seem to be implying that there is a natural entropy to your faith. And so books that repeat things you already know, or make points that aren't material to anything in your religious life, are beneficial in that this reading acts as a ritual of sorts, where your mind stays focused on matters of your faith for enough hours of the day prevent natural deterioration.

[MG 2.0]

I realize that among many the Abrahamic Covenant, Moses, and other figures from ancient times are shrouded in mythos. If it wasn’t for the restoration and the purported manifestation of these individuals and reestablishing of keys and authority I would be more than likely to ‘sign on’ and join the bandwagon of those that see the mythos as exactly that.

In other words, if you decide Mormonism is true and the Mormon god exists as described within Mormonism, your job isn't to understand what the evidence tells you. It's to tell the evidence how it can best conform to your prior beliefs.

Given that any physical evidence is a bit hard to come by in the ancient world that Abraham would have lived in it’s a bit presumptuous to claim with any accuracy that Abraham didn’t exist as a matter of fact. Essentially all we have to work with are written records. Abraham was a wanderer and lived a nomadic existence as did other Old Testament prophets. Expecting hard physical evidence is a crap shoot isn’t it?

I think we may, as moderns, think that we ought to readily find evidence of ALL those that we have written record/mythos as having existed anciently. I don’t think it’s that cut and dried. Just as many other things that center around religious worship and belief the jury is out. As a result respected acamidicians on both sides of the aisle will disagree as to the veracity of the accounts we have in the Bible.

The way is open for prophets from past dispensations shrouded in the historical past to appear in our day as Joseph and others witnessed that they did. Admittedly it’s a stretch as we view this with our modern eyes. But, alas, it seems as though almost anything connected with faith has a fair amount of uncertainty mixed in.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Given that any physical evidence is a bit hard to come by in the ancient world that Abraham would have lived in it’s a bit presumptuous to claim with any accuracy that Abraham didn’t exist as a matter of fact.

You think that it's presumptuous to claim that a man who lived to be 175 years-old (and whose wife gave birth when she was 90 years-old) didn't actually exist?

[malkie]

Given that any physical evidence is a bit hard to come by in the ancient world that Abraham would have lived in it’s a bit presumptuous to claim with any accuracy that Abraham didn’t exist as a matter of fact.

You think that it's presumptuous to claim that a man who lived to be 175 years-old (and whose wife gave birth when she was 100 years-old) didn't actually exist?

I'd say, given the lack of evidence, that it's even more presumptuous to claim that he did exist - that is, the specific Abraham of the Bible and the PoGP.

[MG 2.0]

Why on earth would you want to discuss with atheists and agnostics about covenant keeping with an invisible god?

I’m hoping that there are others here in addition to atheists and agnostics who might find the topics I’m interested in also interesting to them. And that they might engage. kairos and msnobody recently engaged a bit.

There may be others that might be willing to come out of the woodwork. But until then those folks can observe and appreciate the varying points of view being discussed. Rather than only seeing one point of view from the vantage point of skeptic/unbeliever.

Folks can be a bit intimidated when the majority view of the critics and unbelievers is the only one that the echo chamber throws around. But those folks are listening in. They can decide who is truthful or not. And who knows, they may join in in greater numbers.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

I'd say, given the lack of evidence, that it's even more presumptuous to claim that he did exist - that is, the specific Abraham of the Bible and the PoGP.

I will reluctantly grant that a different Abraham might have existed. This Abraham is not of The Bible, nor of The Pearl of Great Price. This Abraham works in IT, vacations in Sedona, and has a peanut sensitivity. This Abraham is vulnerable enough for MG2.0 to talk to.

[honorentheos]

In other words, if you decide Mormonism is true and the Mormon god exists as described within Mormonism, your job isn't to understand what the evidence tells you. It's to tell the evidence how it can best conform to your prior beliefs.

Given that any physical evidence is a bit hard to come by in the ancient world that Abraham would have lived in it’s a bit presumptuous to claim with any accuracy that Abraham didn’t exist as a matter of fact. Essentially all we have to work with are written records. Abraham was a wanderer and lived a nomadic existence as did other Old Testament prophets. Expecting hard physical evidence is a crap shoot isn’t it?

There are standards of evidence that are used when dealing with people whose lives are in the fog of history.

In the case of Abraham we have conflicting narratives preserved in texts that are widely viewed as mythology. And we have no other evidence for his existence outside of those myths.

I think we may, as moderns, think that we ought to readily find evidence of ALL those that we have written record/mythos as having existed anciently. I don’t think it’s that cut and dried. Just as many other things that center around religious worship and belief the jury is out. As a result respected acamidicians on both sides of the aisle will disagree as to the veracity of the accounts we have in the Bible.

The idea a few academics may believe in a literal Abraham isn't the same as saying within the applicable disciplines and fields he is generally seen as not being an actual person.

Look, the reality here is not only was there no Abraham that existed to make this covenant with an impossible Mormon God. But the very concepts you assert matter can be traced to priestly authors writing in post- exilic times with a relatively clear motive. The ideas behind the Abrahamic Covenant arose out of a historical context where the returned Jews were grappling with the reality of their place in the world in conflict with their belief they were chosen of the one true God.

You want a Sunday School discussion, bring it up in Sunday School. I'm sure lots of folks will nod knowingly and you'll all feel the spirit when talking about how chosen y'all are along with Abraham and Joseph Smith. Here? The conversation is about the topic, and this topic can be tied to historical issues that undermine everything your Sunday School view is predicated on.

[honorentheos]

Why on earth would you want to discuss with atheists and agnostics about covenant keeping with an invisible god?

I’m hoping that there are others here in addition to atheists and agnostics who might find the topics I’m interested in also interesting to them. And that they might engage. kairos and msnobody recently engaged a bit.

There may be others that might be willing to come out of the woodwork. But until then those folks can observe and appreciate the varying points of view being discussed. Rather than only seeing one point of view from the vantage point of skeptic/unbeliever.

Folks can be a bit intimidated when the majority view of the critics and unbelievers is the only one that the echo chamber throws around. But those folks are listening in. They can decide who is truthful or not. And who knows, they may join in in greater numbers.

Regards,
MG

Truthful? Odd standard given everyone involved supposedly is being truthful and engaging in good faith. The issue is if one is making a coherent argument based on evidence or not.