Baptismal Covenants


whtaylor
 Share

Recommended Posts

I consider myself a stickler when it comes to doctrinal issues. Over the last several years, I have found more and more church members and authorities propounding a doctrine that while not entirely false, is not entirely correct. When an individual is baptized, the individual makes certain (3) covenants with the Lord and the Lord makes one (1) covenant with the individual. The specific covenants made are recited in the Sacramental prayers, which might I add, must be said precisely and without error each time the sacrament is administered. The individual covenants to: 1) Take upon themselves the name of Christ; 2) always remember Christ, and 3) Keep Christ's commandments. In turn, the individual is promised that he/she will always have Christ's spirit with them. I don't know where or when this doctrinal variance made its appearance, but members are beginning to regularly use Mosiah 18: 8-10, 13 as an outline of covenants we make at baptism. A careful reading of the scripture indicates that Alma was simply asking the people who he was teaching at the waters of Mormon what they had against being baptized and entering into the baptismal covenant if they indeed had certain feelings. No where in the scripture does Alma identify the attributes mentioned by him:

* To bear one another's burdens

* To be willing to mourn with those that mourn

* To comfort those who stand in need of comfort

* To stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places even until death.

as baptismal covenants. Followers of Christ and members of the church should obviously possess these attributes and want to do these things, but that does not mean that individuals covenant to do these specific things when they are baptized. Arguably these actions are included in the baptismal covenant "keep the commandments", but so does keeping the Word of Wisdom, Keeping the Sabbath Day Holy, etc., yet we do not tell people that these commandments are part of the baptismal covenant.

Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? It just drives me up a wall when people include these four items as covenants when they are not included in the sacramental prayer. I feel that if the Lord wanted these included, he would have included them in the prayer. By the way, does anyone know what general authority is responsible for first disseminating this strange doctrine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I consider myself a stickler when it comes to doctrinal issues. Over the last several years, I have found more and more church members and authorities propounding a doctrine that while not entirely false, is not entirely correct. When an individual is baptized, the individual makes certain (3) covenants with the Lord and the Lord makes one (1) covenant with the individual. The specific covenants made are recited in the Sacramental prayers, which might I add, must be said precisely and without error each time the sacrament is administered. The individual covenants to: 1) Take upon themselves the name of Christ; 2) always remember Christ, and 3) Keep Christ's commandments. In turn, the individual is promised that he/she will always have Christ's spirit with them. I don't know where or when this doctrinal variance made its appearance, but members are beginning to regularly use Mosiah 18: 8-10, 13 as an outline of covenants we make at baptism. A careful reading of the scripture indicates that Alma was simply asking the people who he was teaching at the waters of Mormon what they had against being baptized and entering into the baptismal covenant if they indeed had certain feelings. No where in the scripture does Alma identify the attributes mentioned by him:

* To bear one another's burdens

* To be willing to mourn with those that mourn

* To comfort those who stand in need of comfort

* To stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places even until death.

as baptismal covenants. Followers of Christ and members of the church should obviously possess these attributes and want to do these things, but that does not mean that individuals covenant to do these specific things when they are baptized. Arguably these actions are included in the baptismal covenant "keep the commandments", but so does keeping the Word of Wisdom, Keeping the Sabbath Day Holy, etc., yet we do not tell people that these commandments are part of the baptismal covenant.

Am I making a mountain out of a mole hill? It just drives me up a wall when people include these four items as covenants when they are not included in the sacramental prayer. I feel that if the Lord wanted these included, he would have included them in the prayer.

An even stranger doctrine is the one that purports that the Sacrament is an exact mirror of baptism.

By the way, does anyone know what general authority is responsible for first disseminating this strange doctrine?

Just a guess, but I'd say Joseph Smith, Jr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, as Jesus said, make disciples and baptize them and teach them to keep My commandments.

Have you ever done an accounting of them? Just start in Matthew and mark each teaching Jesus gave that you think might be a commandment He gave. I came up with about 200. The same thing can be done in the other gospel accounts, Acts, and even Revelation. Powerful stuff, to keep His commandments - even just to see them for what they are!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just drives me up a wall when people include these four items as covenants when they are not included in the sacramental prayer.

I'm afraid you'll have to add the Church in general to that list. We teach it as part of our doctrine. Here's the relevant part of the Gospel Principles manual:

We Make Covenants When We Are Baptized

Many scriptures teach about baptism. In one of these scriptures, the prophet Alma taught that faith and repentance are steps that prepare us for baptism. He taught that when we are baptized we make a covenant with the Lord. We promise to do certain things, and God promises to bless us in return.

Alma explained that we must want to be called the people of God. We must be willing to help and comfort each other. We must stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things and in all places. As we do these things and are baptized, God will forgive our sins. Alma told the people who believed his teachings about the gospel:

“Behold, here are the waters of Mormon. … And now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, … what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?” (Mosiah 18:8, 10). The people clapped their hands for joy and said it was their desire to be baptized. Alma baptized them in the Waters of Mormon. (See Mosiah 18:7–17.)

Alma taught that when we are baptized we make covenants with the Lord to:

1. Come into the fold of God.

2. Bear one another’s burdens.

3. Stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all places.

4. Serve God and keep His commandments.

When we are baptized and keep the covenants of baptism, the Lord promises to:

1. Forgive our sins (see Acts 2:38; D&C 49:13).

2. Pour out His Spirit more abundantly upon us (see Mosiah 18:10).

3. Give us daily guidance and the help of the Holy Ghost (see Acts 2:38; D&C 20:77).

4. Let us come forth in the First Resurrection (see Mosiah 18:9).

5. Give us eternal life (see Mosiah 18:9).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a general misunderstanding concerning covenants and commandments. Covenants have three elements:

1. Obligations – It is understood that covenants involve two parties each making an offering or a contract to complete an action

2. Benedictions – This is what each party receives of loyalty to the covenant.

3. Maledictions – This is the payment for not keeping the covenant.

There is a covenant of baptism. What many do not understand is what is meant by a covenant. They begin to think that the obligations are many. Jesus explained that all obligations and commandments can be summarized by the understanding or loyalty to G-d or loving G-d.

Taking the name of Christ is in reality covers many obligations. Just as a name is provided in marriage there are many legal implications – such as ownership in common so is the ancient understanding of a receiving a name. By taking the name of Christ we become his legal agent and example of sharing one another’s burdens as Christ shared our burdens. The brethren are in no way misleading us concerning our baptismal covenants. Quite the opposite they are given additional insight for those willing to by loyal and faithful to their covenant

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a cursory search of GospeLink. From the sources contained there, the idea of Mosiah 18 as a formal aspect of the baptismal covenant seems to have arisen simultaneously in the late 1940s with Bruce R. McConkie and a student of Joseph Smith's writings (and Institute instructor) named Lowell Bennion. Harold B. Lee embraces the idea in a book he wrote in 1973; and then you get an explosion of references around the early-to-mid 1990s.

The notion may not hark back to Joseph Smith; but it isn't exactly new either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So "taking upon us the name of Christ" and "keeping the commandments" includes what Alma is saying? If this be the case then could it be said what we covenant to do in the temple is really encompassed in baptismal covenants as well? And the temple obligations are formalities in order to introduce additional benedictions and maledictions that are not included in the baptismal covenants? Could it be looked at in this light??????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this be the case then could it be said what we covenant to do in the temple is really encompassed in baptismal covenants as well? And the temple obligations are formalities in order to introduce additional benedictions and maledictions that are not included in the baptismal covenants? Could it be looked at in this light??????

That's kind-of how I've always looked at it. Temple covenants are nothing new. The signs and what not are, but the covenants we make are just extensions -- more specific ones -- of our baptismal covenants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if you have heard a baptismal interview lately, but before being baptized I was interviewed. I had to agree to live the law of chastity, the word of wisdom, the law of tithing, keep the Sabbath day holy, teach the gospel in the home, testify of Christ, have a testimony of Joseph Smith and the current prophet, before I could be baptized. It was all in the interview and explained in the lessons I received from the missionaries.

As a ward missionary I had the chance to explain to an investigator why members had to pay 10% of thier income in order to go to the temple. He had asked and I didn't have a complete answer for him right away, but I was given a dream of how to explain it to him. In the eternities we will have all things in common, we will share everything and there will be no poor. Tithing is practice for that. If you are not ready to give ten percent, how can you say that you are ready to live in a state where you will share it all?

Baptismal covenants are preparatory to our temple covenants. The receiving of the Holy Ghost is also an ordinance with covenants. The sacrament is a renewal of both of these, as well as the rememberance we were told to do in the New Testament and 3 Ne. in the Book of Mormon. The sacrament prayer, if re-wording each of those, would take quite a bit longer. It has its own prayer, which is simple, and yet complete enough to cover all of those things, as well as arm the receiver of the sacrament with the tools necessary to continue in the world afterwards.

Our temple covenants are preparatory to later as well. Line upon line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some do not always understand that the L-rd does not count things as scholars may. Sometimes what we may count as one or more the L-rd looks upon as the same things. Consider Genesis 41:32. Here we learn that the L-rd repeats things that are the same over and over in different ways to establish the things that come from G-d. All covenants with the L-rd are in essence the same covenant. The L-rd is the same yesterday today and forever.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for running the GospeLink search, Just-a-Guy. I think that you are the only respondant who understood the question posed. Last night I picked up Mormon Doctrine, just to see what Brother McConkie had to say about the topic and to my amazement found in the baptism subsection of the book this Mosiah baptismal covenant belief. The apparent fact that this "doctrine" did not exist prior to the last few decades causes me to take pause. Although I appreciate the importance of the concept that the words of live prophets can trump and are more important than the words of dead prophets, I don't know quite how to deal with leaders who express their own beliefs as revealed truth, when many times the belief is simply personal opinion--nor have I figured out how I can distinguish when a leader is disseminating his beliefs or actual revelation. I believe in modern revelation and that authorities are sometimes inspired, but I do not believe that they are omniscent or infallible. Now some would say that is an apostate attitude, but I do not think so. I guess that is why it is so important to live close to the Spirit and to allow him to guide and assist us. The more I read Brother McConkie's writings, the more I believe I need to question some of his more fringe beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice tweet. You must be one of those individuals who believes in the Mosiah baptismal covenant doctrine. Please explain yourself. I did not say that the Sacrament exactly mirrored baptism. I said that the sacrament prayer contains the covenants that we make at baptism. Through the sacrament we renew our baptismal covenants, which are specifically outlined in the sacrament prayer. Do you have a cite that demonstrates Joseph Smith, Jr. or anyor his contemporaries taught the Mosiah baptismal covenant doctrine? If you do, I would love to have it. If you look later on the thread, someone actually ran a search and found that it appeared in a book authored by Harold B. Lee and that it was also spoken of my Bruce R. McConkie--but exploded in the 1990s. It appears that the "doctrice" is more recent/modern than Joseph Smith, Jr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point exactly...then why do members and leaders point to the four or so items singled-out by

Alma at the Waters of Mormon as actual baptismal covenants? Is it simply because the setting was prior to or in a baptismal service? It makes no sense to me. Alma could have just as easily said: "Are you willing to be honest in all your dealings? Are you willing to be faithful to your wife? If so, what have ye against being baptized?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence the point of my question. Why do members of the church and church authorities, through manuals, talks, and otherwise, promote a doctrine that at its core is incorrect? I guess for the rest of my life I am doomed to simply wince everytime I hear the Mosiah doctrine, knowing that the member, missionary, instructor has no idea what they are talking about and are simply mimicking what they have heard others say or what they have read in church manuals. Perhaps one of the tests of this life is to be a good sheeple and go with the flow...after all we are ultimately judged based on how obedient we are and our capacity to love and serve others and not the correctness of our beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please feel free to learn to use the quoting functionality as it makes it easier to identify to whom you are responding.

Nice tweet. You must be one of those individuals who believes in the Mosiah baptismal covenant doctrine. Please explain yourself. I did not say that the Sacrament exactly mirrored baptism. I said that the sacrament prayer contains the covenants that we make at baptism. Through the sacrament we renew our baptismal covenants, which are specifically outlined in the sacrament prayer.

I find it odd that you define the baptismal covenant based on the text of an ordinance that is only valid after baptism. Wouldn't it make more sense to define the baptismal covenant prior to a person being baptized?

The Sacrament wasn't intended to define the baptismal covenant. It was meant to review it; to be a reminder of what we covenanted at baptism. That review is that we agree to take upon ourselves the name of Christ, always remember Him, and keep His commandments. But it's important to remember that the Sacrament is a reminder and a review of the baptismal covenant....not the baptismal covenant. If you want to be such a stickler for doctrine, perhaps you'd like to go in search of the baptismal covenant in the scriptures as it's explained before a person is baptized.

Do you have a cite that demonstrates Joseph Smith, Jr. or anyor his contemporaries taught the Mosiah baptismal covenant doctrine? If you do, I would love to have it. If you look later on the thread, someone actually ran a search and found that it appeared in a book authored by Harold B. Lee and that it was also spoken of my Bruce R. McConkie--but exploded in the 1990s. It appears that the "doctrice" is more recent/modern than Joseph Smith, Jr.

I do have a citation actually. Mosiah 18:8-10. I believe it was Joseph Smith, Jr. who translated that passage. He was certainly aware of its existence when he taught people what was expected of them when they were baptized. Whether or not he emphasized that prior to their baptism is another matter. But whether doctrine is emphasized or not, it is doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point exactly...then why do members and leaders point to the four or so items singled-out by

Alma at the Waters of Mormon as actual baptismal covenants? Is it simply because the setting was prior to or in a baptismal service? It makes no sense to me. Alma could have just as easily said: "Are you willing to be honest in all your dealings? Are you willing to be faithful to your wife? If so, what have ye against being baptized?"

I think you're actually missing the point that others are trying to make. That is, the baptismal covenant is much larger and detailed than is contained in the Sacramental prayers. What we agree to do at baptism is multi-faceted, and doesn't fit succinctly into an itemized list to be reviewed in 15 seconds. The covenants we make are scattered throughout the scriptures.

The Mosiah reference is convenient because it does have an easy to process list conveniently placed next to a baptismal service. That makes it quite simple to catch the message--something that is incredibly advantageous when introducing people to the Gospel. But it is by no means complete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The apparent fact that this "doctrine" did not exist prior to the last few decades causes me to take pause.

As it should (provided that my conclusions are borne out by further research). But that's also the fun of being a member with a "living" Church--we believe God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to His Kingdom.

Although I appreciate the importance of the concept that the words of live prophets can trump and are more important than the words of dead prophets, I don't know quite how to deal with leaders who express their own beliefs as revealed truth, when many times the belief is simply personal opinion--nor have I figured out how I can distinguish when a leader is disseminating his beliefs or actual revelation.

Sure, and I think you pretty much nail it when you go on to speak of the importance of living close to the Spirit. (see also Elder Oaks' most recent Conference talk.)

But to the extent that we covenant to keep all of the commandments at baptism, it's not wrong to identify specific commandments--including those outlined in Mosiah--as elements of that covenant. An over-simplification and possibly (depending on context) semantically misleading--perhaps; but I'm not prepared to get all aflutter over the possibility that Elder McConkie introduced some false doctrine into the Church. The idea that members of the body of Christ have an obligation of mutual brotherhood and support, is hardly a "fringe belief".

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that all commandments can be placed into the two major categories of loving God and loving our fellowman, as summarized by Christ. I believe that I also understand the various elements of a covenant. When we covenant to take upon ourselves the name of Christ and to keep His commandents, we exercise our faith through action by engaging in not only overt acts--baptism and the partaking of the sacrament, but also by agreeing that we are willing to follow Christ by humbly keeping His commandments. We have the understanding that we will not necessarily be able to keep all the commandments, but that we will give it our best effort and that Christ will make up the difference. We do not covenant to keep all the commandments because no one other than Christ has been able or will be able to do so. We basically covenant to make a good faith effort. The atonement of Christ takes care of our deficiency. Unlike a typical legal contract, the parties are of unequal bargaining position, so the covenant is not a contract in the truest sense of the word--unless you want to consider it adhesive in nature.

I am not accusing the brethren of misleading anyone concerning baptismal covenants. Surely if members do those things as outlined by Alma in Mosiah, they demonstrate their love of God and their fellow man...and it will be well with them. Surely the actions outlined by Alma are, as are many other commandments and behaviors, incapsulated within the actual covenants. Nevertheless, those actions outlined by Alma are not, have never been, and never will be "the baptismal covenants". I feel uncomfortable when men change plain and precious truths in favor of embellishment--even if they think that it offers additional insight. Like Nephi, I prefer plainness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that all commandments can be placed into the two major categories of loving God and loving our fellowman, as summarized by Christ. I believe that I also understand the various elements of a covenant. When we covenant to take upon ourselves the name of Christ and to keep His commandents, we exercise our faith through action by engaging in not only overt acts--baptism and the partaking of the sacrament, but also by agreeing that we are willing to follow Christ by humbly keeping His commandments. We have the understanding that we will not necessarily be able to keep all the commandments, but that we will give it our best effort and that Christ will make up the difference. We do not covenant to keep all the commandments because no one other than Christ has been able or will be able to do so. We basically covenant to make a good faith effort. The atonement of Christ takes care of our deficiency. Unlike a typical legal contract, the parties are of unequal bargaining position, so the covenant is not a contract in the truest sense of the word--unless you want to consider it adhesive in nature.

I am not accusing the brethren of misleading anyone concerning baptismal covenants. Surely if members do those things as outlined by Alma in Mosiah, they demonstrate their love of God and their fellow man...and it will be well with them. Surely the actions outlined by Alma are, as are many other commandments and behaviors, incapsulated within the actual covenants. Nevertheless, those actions outlined by Alma are not, have never been, and never will be "the baptismal covenants". I feel uncomfortable when men change plain and precious truths in favor of embellishment--even if they think that it offers additional insight. Like Nephi, I prefer plainness.

But you continue to define "the baptismal covenant" on a post hoc definition. Of course you can reach the conclusion you do, you are starting from a faulty premise.

Again, I ask you, provide scriptural documentation of "the baptismal covenant" that is not a retrospective definition. What is the covenant people are being asked to take upon themselves at the time of baptism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I appreciate the importance of the concept that the words of live prophets can trump and are more important than the words of dead prophets,

Clarification there - living prophets don't "trump" dead prophets. Gospel truth is unchanging and eternal. The way God deals with His kids changes, because His kids change. So OT prophets asked the people to give burnt offerings, and these days we are asked to give a broken heart and contrite spirit. That isn't a case of the rules changing, just the way God deals with very different cultures.

I don't know quite how to deal with leaders who express their own beliefs as revealed truth, when many times the belief is simply personal opinion

Oh, I do! "Great opinion! I might accept it as my own if I see the value in it!" And then if I don't, I walk away, with a spring in my step and a current temple recommend card in my pocket.

I can give you a good example: Back in 1998, Pres Hinckley introduced a subject in the Priesthood session of gen Conf by saying this:

"Now, brethren, I want to make it very clear that I am not prophesying, that I am not predicting years of famine in the future. But I am suggesting that the time has come to get our houses in order."

He went on to talk about the things that worried him about our levels of debt, and he talked about what he considered to be sound principles of personal finance, and urged us strongly to give heed to his words. Not revalation. Explicitly not revelation. He did quote some prior revalation on the matter, and talked about how it applied.

So, I followed his advice, and my family has enjoyed blessings in times of financial hardship ever since. It was good advice. If I thought his advice stank, I wouldn't have heeded it. But I didn't, and I followed it, and it worked out, and hooray.

From my perspective, most church leaders have been pretty good at identifying which is the inspiration and which is the advice. It seems to me like a big hefty chunk of church members couldn't tell the difference if their lives depended on it though. But it can usually be done though. No reason for you to be stuck here:

--nor have I figured out how I can distinguish when a leader is disseminating his beliefs or actual revelation.

IMO, I draw the line at what they actually say. If they are claiming revelation, I take it they're giving revelation. If they don't, I take it that they're doing the best they can to pass on principles they believe in.

I believe in modern revelation and that authorities are sometimes inspired, but I do not believe that they are omniscent or infallible. Now some would say that is an apostate attitude, but I do not think so. I guess that is why it is so important to live close to the Spirit and to allow him to guide and assist us. The more I read Brother McConkie's writings, the more I believe I need to question some of his more fringe beliefs.

Well, I don't really have much to say to any of that, other than 'welcome to the club'. I don't think you have an apostate attitude, I think you're following Brigham Young's advice:

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150

Does any of this help?

LM

(p.s. - learn how to use the quote function!)

Edited by Loudmouth_Mormon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to differ. The sacramental prayer is the baptismal covenant. Members and leaders alike would agree that we renew our baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament. To renew anything, you have to have made it prior to the time of renewal. Why would we be required by God to recite the sacramental prayer word perfect and with exactness if the exact words were not important. Why are the words of the sacramental prayer so important? I posit that the words are important because the prayer explicitly outlines our baptismal covenant. The sacramental prayer allows no margin for error in explaining exactly what we covenant to do and the promise we receive if we are faithful in keeping that covenant.

The baptismal covenant remains the same before or after the ordinance is performed. Nothing in the ordinance changes the nature or effect of the baptism. The suggesting that I look for scriptural references that "explain the covenant" before a person is baptized is ludicrous. You, as well as I , know that the only scriptural reference that meets your criteria for defining the baptismal covenant is the Mosiah scripture. You have deftly used your own argument to support your argument and avoided my original request.

I asked you for citation from Joseph Smith, Jr. or his contemporaries, not a self-serving scriptural citation that is the object of the inquiry. Joseph Smith, Jr. was obviously aware of the teachings of several Anti-Christs contained in the Book of Mormon, yet that does not mean that he believed in such teachings or taught them. Doctrine must be based on truth to, in fact, be categorized as doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not accusing the brethren of misleading anyone concerning baptismal covenants.

Then what is your point? Because I am missing it. Is it to simply argue about something that you apparently agree has no deleterious effect? I cannot see a point in your posts other than to gripe a pet point, or accuse leadership of leading astray over a trivial point - and that based on (as MoE points out well) a post hoc definition that is only a part of the picture!

Besides, the sacramental prayer covenant to "take upon us the name of Christ" is wide enough to encompass pretty much all of the Gospel itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you believe that this particular doctrine regarding the baptismal covenant or any other doctrine for that matter cannot be approached from a retrospective perspective? Who is to say that your approach from an ante hoc perspective is any more correct than my approach. God sees things past, present, and future as being one. God is the one who reveals ordinances and the specifications for their performance. I guess God could have required us to state the covenant we were taking upon ourselves as part of the baptismal ordinance, but he did not. Who am I to question God? If you read Mosiah 18 carefully and are honest with yourself you will realize that Alma did not teach the people that those things mentioned in verses 8-9 were "covenants" made at baptism. Alma states in verse 10: "Now I say unto you, if this [the things he had mentioned in the previous scriptures] be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, [here it comes--this is the covenant] that ye will serve him [i.e. take upon you his name--become his agent] and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?" All three of these covenants mentioned by Alma are in the sacramental prayer and not one of the items mentioned in 8-9 are included in that prayer. I'm convinced that Alma understood the actual covenant far better than many members of the church do today--possibly even including myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you say is true. I agree. In the long run and from an eternal perspective it really doesn't matter what each individual believes to be the actual covenants made at baptism. The baptismal covenant is broad enough to include everything. I guess I could teach and state, correctly, that the payment of tithing and the refraining from drinking alcoholic beverages are baptismal covenants. Since both are commandments and I covenanted to obey the commandments, I am technically correct....but I think that some would find it odd that I singled-out those two commandments (from literally thousands) to focus on as being baptismal covenants. I just believe that it is more accurate and simple to stick with the covenants as outlined in the sacramental prayers. By placing a focus on mourning with mourners, bearing the burdens of others, etc., and stating that these are "baptismal covenants", we misconstrue the actual covenants (which are much broader, as you have pointed out). The sacrament is such a sacred ordinance for me, individually, that I don't want the simple, basic covenants added to--even by well-meaning individuals. If I were asked in priesthool meeting or sunday school class to name the baptismal covenants and I said "pay tithing", although correct, I would get a lot of odd looks. If, however, I said "bear one another's burdens", no one would think twice and I would be considered a positive contributor to the class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to differ. The sacramental prayer is the baptismal covenant.

Says who, though? Is this an idea that's been with the Church since its inception? For all I know, this too may be something that originated with Elder McConkie (or some other mid-20th-century LDS authority/theologian).

If we're going to question everything, we may as well question everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share