Making Covenants

[huckelberry]

Forgive if this has been addressed already, but what is the difference of this covenant making or being on the covenant path you are discussing and having and developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ which to me as an evangelical Christian is the most important element/activity in my life and in the lives of billions of Christians in many Christian denominations.
by the way I actually saw the words “personal relationship with Jesus” in writing on page 9 of the current Come follow me manual.
To see that in writing wow! Has Russell M. Nelson developed a personal relationship with Jesus as an element in his covenant path- just wondering!

k

I suppose it might be a stand out difference between LDS covenants and the Lords Supper that people do not make lists of specific promises with the sacrament. It is left open and I suppose like the phrase personal relationship with Jesus Christ it might for different people or different times fall anywhere between shallow and a bit false and profound.

I am unsure if making lists would change that spectrum of actual influence.

[MG 2.0]

Forgive if this has been addressed already, but what is the difference of this covenant making or being on the covenant path you are discussing and having and developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ which to me as an evangelical Christian is the most important element/activity in my life and in the lives of billions of Christians in many Christian denominations.
by the way I actually saw the words “personal relationship with Jesus” in writing on page 9 of the current Come follow me manual.
To see that in writing wow! Has Russell M. Nelson developed a personal relationship with Jesus as an element in his covenant path- just wondering!

k

Hi kairos. A covenant made with Jesus Christ is all important. If you don’t mind me asking, what do you do when you make a covenant with Christ? Is it public? Is it private? What does this covenant entail? What promises do you make and what promises to you receive from God as a result of making and keeping your covenant(s)?

I’m asking in sincerity. I’ve known a number of people along the way that were evangelical and/or born again but I’ve never asked them about the covenants they’ve made in any detail.

There has been a gradual move in recent years to emphasize Jesus as Lord and Savior/Redeemer. The One who performed the great act of Atonement. Jesus has always been numero uno…Joseph Smith taught as much…but sometimes other teachings and doctrine have been emphasized.

Yes, President Nelson has really been a prime motivator in emphasizing the meaning and worship of the Savior. I suppose a difference we may have is our emphasizing the relationship we have with our Heavenly Father. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Covenant making in the LDS Church does involve more covenants (I think?) than you as an evangelical might make. The covenant path includes baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and covenants made in the temple. I think you can actually find those listed online nowadays on the church website.

Thank you for your comments and questions kairos.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Then that's on you, mental gymnast. I've pretty much revealed everything about myself in more than a decade of posting here--some of it was in direct response to your questions. Others you claim to know nothing about have done the same.

Must be that dang memory of mine then. Have you said much about what kind of belief system you have? Institutional vs. private? Have you posted a fairly detailed timeline of your faith journey and whether or not you remained active or not during that time? Have you posted the actual materials that you came across that were the determining factors in your disaffection? Is your wife still an active member and are you still married? Your kids. How have they taken dad’s leaving the church? Did you serve a mission? What was your experience like? Actually, I can’t remember whether or not you’ve said if you’re still on the records or not. What is your age…or at least the decade you’re in? How active have you been in the church when you were active? Callings? Did you have spiritual experiences along the way that you’ve reconfigured as to their actual spirituality and/or influence from outside yourself? What were the shelf breakers for you? Do you still consider yourself a Christian in the sense of belief/faith in a resurrected Christ?

I’ll stop there. It would only take you a few minutes to answer all of these questions. I, for one, along with others that my not know you would appreciate your transparency and openness. And yes, even your vulnerability.

My estimation and respect for you would rise a notch rather than the comparative low estimation I have of you being just another critic with a bone to pick or a chip on their shoulder. If you would rather start a new thread, that’s fine.

Honestly, if the critics on this board were open enough to answer my questions and possibly a few more, nothing of an intimate personal nature obviously, my estimation would arise considerably. As it is I see more or less a unified Borg mentality/echo chamber and not a whole lot more.

I expect you may find reasons not to entertain all of my questions. Be that as it may, I’d be pleasantly surprised if you and others did. You could even use my questions in your opening post on a new thread.

I feel like I may know and/or have a feel for some of the personalities on this board.

But not you. I pretty much see you as a person that I can’t begin to put a face to. Only that you’re a mainstay critic.

Regards,
MG

Oh wow. What an utterly rude response. You really are a complete ass, mentalgymnast, a complete and total ass.

[msnobody]

Forgive if this has been addressed already, but what is the difference of this covenant making or being on the covenant path you are discussing and having and developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ which to me as an evangelical Christian is the most important element/activity in my life and in the lives of billions of Christians in many Christian denominations.
by the way I actually saw the words “personal relationship with Jesus” in writing on page 9 of the current Come follow me manual.
To see that in writing wow! Has Russell M. Nelson developed a personal relationship with Jesus as an element in his covenant path- just wondering!

k

Hi kairos. A covenant made with Jesus Christ is all important. If you don’t mind me asking, what do you do when you make a covenant with Christ? Is it public? Is it private? What does this covenant entail? What promises do you make and what promises to you receive from God as a result of making and keeping your covenant(s)?

I’m asking in sincerity. I’ve known a number of people along the way that were evangelical and/or born again but I’ve never asked them about the covenants they’ve made in any detail.

There has been a gradual move in recent years to emphasize Jesus as Lord and Savior/Redeemer. The One who performed the great act of Atonement. Jesus has always been numero uno…Joseph Smith taught as much…but sometimes other teachings and doctrine have been emphasized.

Yes, President Nelson has really been a prime motivator in emphasizing the meaning and worship of the Savior. I suppose a difference we may have is our emphasizing the relationship we have with our Heavenly Father. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Covenant making in the LDS Church does involve more covenants (I think?) than you as an evangelical might make. The covenant path includes baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and covenants made in the temple. I think you can actually find those listed online nowadays on the church website.

Thank you for your comments and questions kairos.

Regards,
MG

MG, I know your question is for, Kairos, but below I’ll post the text to a post I made about covenants.

In short, the covenant God made with Israel (and us by extension) was a faulty covenant, in that Heavenly Father did not enable us to keep the righteous requirements of the law. The Levitical priesthood was contained in a faulty covenant. Whereas in the new covenant, a better covenant, God regenerates us into morally able individuals.


Like I said in a previous post where I provided a link to The Better Covenant Part 1 & 2 [https://www.thbg.org/?T2], most of what I am posting below is gleaned, and some word for word, from listening to those two sermons. What I've learned in studying this is that God did not enable the Israelites to keep the righteous law of God, wherein the new covenant, God enables persons. The law was designed to make them (and us) conscious of sin, and thereby pointing them (and us) to their (our) need for a Savior (ie the promised seed). There was something else that stood out to me, but I don't remember what it was. I've got to start writing this stuff down.


Jesus, High Priest of a Better Covenant
Hebrews 8:6-13 ESV

6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,

9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more."

13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.


Covenant- A transaction or agreement between two parties whereby each party agrees to fulfill certain obligations and was promised certain advantages.


The promise-plan of God—(declaration of God to the human race revealed in redemptive history)
1. I will be your God
2. You will be my people
3. I will tabernacle with you (Exodus 29:45-46)


Old Testament references to the “seed” as the promised plan of God
- “Seed” who would defeat Satan (Gen. 3:15)
- Blessing upon the whole world through the “seed” (Gen. 12:2-3)
- Promise of an eternal throne established through the “seed” (2 Sam. 7:16)
- Promise of a new covenant established through the “seed” (Jer. 31:31-34)
- The “seed”- The individual man [Christ] who consummates God’s promise in history (Gal. 3:16)



Mosaic (Old) Covenant
- Centered on God giving his divine law to Moses on Mt. Sinai, covenant made with Israel
- Conditional (the blessings God promises are directly related to Israel’s obedience to the Mosaic Law; if Israel obeys, God will bless them, if Israel disobeys, God will punish them)
- A covenant established and maintained entirely by God (disobedience did not nullify it)
- Mediated by priests
- The Levitical priests were limited by their:
- Lineage (who they were descended from)
- Morality (they could not make a continuing on ongoing atonement-- they died)
- Sinfulness (they had to atone for their own sins first)
- Imperfect Offering (they had nothing perfect to offer, it was tainted by sin)
- Place of Offering (the temple was a shadowy copy, man-made building

The Levitical priesthood was contained in a “faulty” covenant (v. 7)
- God took no specific action to make the people morally able to keep the covenant (v. 9c)
- Ministry of the old covenant is one of dead ritual which never brought justification (Rom. 3:20)
- Designed to lead man to a knowledge of his sin (Rom.3:20)


New Covenant
- The consummation of all the previous covenants
- A covenant of grace
- A covenant established by the Son of God (Luke 22:20 new covenant “in my blood”)
- Jesus the mediator of the new covenant
- Ministry of the new covenant is one of grace which brings us directly into God’s presence


The changes of the new covenant
- God will put the “law” into the minds of those in the new covenant (v. 10b)
- God will “write” the law on the hearts (ie the will) of those in the new covenant (v. 10c)
- God will “be” the God of those in the new covenant (v. 10d)
- God will be “known” by those in the new covenant (v. 11)
- God will be “merciful” of the sin of those in the new covenant (v. 12)
- A real forgiveness and righteousness will be found; ritualism and religion will be done away with, brings justification
- Will unite that which is divided [Israel/Judah, God/man]
- Will be universal, not limited to a specific ethnic group
- Based on internal desire—the old was based in external ritual (vv. 10-11)

Promise Plan of God
1. Jesus is the Person of God. Those who belong to Jesus belong to God.
2. Jesus has a people who are his own given to him by the Father (John 6:37)
3. The incarnate Son of God tabernacles with human beings.

In the new covenant, God will regenerate people into morally able individuals (I will write the law on their hearts [on their moral will].

Biblical regeneration- The work of the Holy Spirit, through the preaching or hearing of the Word of God, to change the moral will of an individual so that he or she can respond to God’s offer of salvation in both repentance and faith.

I will also add:
Jude 1:24
Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Not only does enable us, but He holds us firm and secure (ie anchor for the soul (Heb. 6:29-20).

[MG 2.0]

Must be that dang memory of mine then. Have you said much about what kind of belief system you have? Institutional vs. private? Have you posted a fairly detailed timeline of your faith journey and whether or not you remained active or not during that time? Have you posted the actual materials that you came across that were the determining factors in your disaffection? Is your wife still an active member and are you still married? Your kids. How have they taken dad’s leaving the church? Did you serve a mission? What was your experience like? Actually, I can’t remember whether or not you’ve said if you’re still on the records or not. What is your age…or at least the decade you’re in? How active have you been in the church when you were active? Callings? Did you have spiritual experiences along the way that you’ve reconfigured as to their actual spirituality and/or influence from outside yourself? What were the shelf breakers for you? Do you still consider yourself a Christian in the sense of belief/faith in a resurrected Christ?

I’ll stop there. It would only take you a few minutes to answer all of these questions. I, for one, along with others that my not know you would appreciate your transparency and openness. And yes, even your vulnerability.

My estimation and respect for you would rise a notch rather than the comparative low estimation I have of you being just another critic with a bone to pick or a chip on their shoulder. If you would rather start a new thread, that’s fine.

Honestly, if the critics on this board were open enough to answer my questions and possibly a few more, nothing of an intimate personal nature obviously, my estimation would arise considerably. As it is I see more or less a unified Borg mentality/echo chamber and not a whole lot more.

I expect you may find reasons not to entertain all of my questions. Be that as it may, I’d be pleasantly surprised if you and others did. You could even use my questions in your opening post on a new thread.

I feel like I may know and/or have a feel for some of the personalities on this board.

But not you. I pretty much see you as a person that I can’t begin to put a face to. Only that you’re a mainstay critic.

Regards,
MG

Oh wow. What an utterly rude response.

I really do not see this post in the same way you apparently do. I think you may be trying to somehow act as a foil for Morley in order to give him a valid reason to ignore my questions. In all sincerity I would love to see some vulnerability on his part. You too for that matter.

I’ve been rather transparent and as recently as today admitted to having a faulty memory now and then and even making a mistake or two periodically. 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.

All for thee but not for me.

Stop your shenanigans and join in the conversation, will ya’?

You have constantly been derailing and throwing off the conversation on this thread. Would it do any good to tell you that this is my thread and you need to behave yourself or leave?

Please stop wasting our time. I don’t know that you’ve actually had ONE thing to add to the discussion besides belly aching.

It’s getting old, Lemmie/Marcus. Please stop.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Oh wow. What an utterly rude response. You really are a complete ass, mentalgymnast, a complete and total ass.

Again, please join the conversation and contribute something or go away. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG, I know your question is for, Kairos, but below I’ll post the text to a post I made about covenants.

In short, the covenant God made with Israel (and us by extension) was a faulty covenant, in that Heavenly Father did not enable us to keep the righteous requirements of the law. The Levitical priesthood was contained in a faulty covenant. Whereas in the new covenant, a better covenant, God regenerates us into morally able individuals.


Like I said in a previous post where I provided a link to The Better Covenant Part 1 & 2 [https://www.thbg.org/?T2], most of what I am posting below is gleaned, and some word for word, from listening to those two sermons. What I've learned in studying this is that God did not enable the Israelites to keep the righteous law of God, wherein the new covenant, God enables persons. The law was designed to make them (and us) conscious of sin, and thereby pointing them (and us) to their (our) need for a Savior (ie the promised seed). There was something else that stood out to me, but I don't remember what it was. I've got to start writing this stuff down.

Hi msnobody!

I may and try to come back to the rest of your post and that which I cut off later but at the outset I do have a question. The terminology is sometimes what seems to separate us. I’m not exactly sure that it needs to, but I think it may. That’s why I’m asking this question:

Would you go into some detail as to what you mean when you say “enable”? I take it that for some reason or another that people were unable to do something until they were enabled to do so. To me it sounds as if God stepped in somehow and did something. Anyway, that language is unfamiliar to me. Can you take off with that a bit?

I hope you know me well enough through my postings that me question is sincere with no alterior meaning or motive. I am a lifelong learner (I was in education until I retired) and LOVE to understand what makes other people tick. And it’s absolutely interesting to me how we as Christians have more in common than we do different. But the differences ARE interesting. Especially in the way we use words. ‘Enable’ is not a word we use much in the LDS Church, so I’m interested in what you mean and also what it might have to do with covenant making/keeping.

Thanks.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Oh wow. What an utterly rude response.

I really do not see this post in the same way you apparently do. I think you may be trying to somehow act as a foil for Morley in order to give him a valid reason to ignore my questions. In all sincerity I would love to see some vulnerability on his part. You too for that matter.

I’ve been rather transparent and as recently as today admitted to having a faulty memory now and then and even making a mistake or two periodically. 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.

All for thee but not for me.

Stop your shenanigans and join in the conversation, will ya’?

You have constantly been derailing and throwing off the conversation on this thread. Would it do any good to tell you that this is my thread and you need to behave yourself or leave?

Please stop wasting our time. I don’t know that you’ve actually had ONE thing to add to the discussion besides belly aching.

It’s getting old, Lemmie/Marcus. Please stop.

Regards,
MG

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.

[Morley]

Must be that dang memory of mine then. Have you said much about what kind of belief system you have? Institutional vs. private? Have you posted a fairly detailed timeline of your faith journey and whether or not you remained active or not during that time? Have you posted the actual materials that you came across that were the determining factors in your disaffection? Is your wife still an active member and are you still married? Your kids. How have they taken dad’s leaving the church? Did you serve a mission? What was your experience like? Actually, I can’t remember whether or not you’ve said if you’re still on the records or not. What is your age…or at least the decade you’re in? How active have you been in the church when you were active? Callings? Did you have spiritual experiences along the way that you’ve reconfigured as to their actual spirituality and/or influence from outside yourself? What were the shelf breakers for you? Do you still consider yourself a Christian in the sense of belief/faith in a resurrected Christ?

I’ll stop there. It would only take you a few minutes to answer all of these questions. I, for one, along with others that my not know you would appreciate your transparency and openness. And yes, even your vulnerability.

My estimation and respect for you would rise a notch rather than the comparative low estimation I have of you being just another critic with a bone to pick or a chip on their shoulder. If you would rather start a new thread, that’s fine.

Honestly, if the critics on this board were open enough to answer my questions and possibly a few more, nothing of an intimate personal nature obviously, my estimation would arise considerably. As it is I see more or less a unified Borg mentality/echo chamber and not a whole lot more.

I expect you may find reasons not to entertain all of my questions. Be that as it may, I’d be pleasantly surprised if you and others did. You could even use my questions in your opening post on a new thread.

I feel like I may know and/or have a feel for some of the personalities on this board.

But not you. I pretty much see you as a person that I can’t begin to put a face to. Only that you’re a mainstay critic.

Regards,
MG

Again: Hilarious.

[honorentheos]

So.

The New and Everlasting Covenant was code for the inner circle around Smith in Nauvoo practicing polygamy. Then it got turned into something different and more lofty sounding after the practice crashed and burned.

Next, the Abrahamic Covenant is up. Setting aside the fact Abraham is a fictional, mythological figure, the invention of a special place for Israel based on obedience is very likely the results of the so-called priestly authors and Deuteronomists identified in the documentary hypothesis. It's fitting this should follow the reframing of the New and Everlasting Covenant in this little examination, really.

Food for thought:
https://webpages.scu.edu/ftp/cmurphy/co ... iestly.htm

An amuse-bouche:

Yet while God is more distant, God's intent with humans is to bless them. This appears to be counterintuitive, given the actual post-exilic circumstances. Nevertheless, it is the Priestly authors' firm belief that the community must be organized in this hope. Brueggemann offers that the five characteristic blessings of the Priestly authors articulated in Gen 1:28 are a nice summary defying their real circumstances:

*be fruitful = no more barrenness
*multiply = no more lack of heirs
*fill the earth = no more being crowded out
*subdue = no more subservience
*have dominion = no more being dominated

The obligation of the people in the Priestly covenant is to maintain their holiness before God by socially just action and care for the poor and vulnerable. Proper worship is important, but is secondary to justice.

Laws and regulations relating to religious spaces, rituals and personnel are prominent features in the priestly source. Proper worship is so important that in the Priestly source there is no sacrifice until the first proto-Temple is built in the Sinai wilderness (Exod 35�40).

Genealogies feature prominently in the Priestly strands of the Torah. Being able to trace a consistent lineage establishes purity, legitimacy and order, and is particularly important for the priesthood if the relationship with God is to be maintained properly. In this source—that is, after the exile— the priesthood is limited to the descendents of Moses' brother, Aaron (and a particular line within that family), but there is no reason to presume that only Aaronids exercised the priesthood in the earlier monarchy. The Priestly source will offer many other genealogies beyond just that of the priesthood, as it seeks to (re-)establish a history and a hierarchy after the chaos of exile.