Baptismal Covenants

[ryanh]

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. . . . By placing a focus on mourning with mourners, bearing the burdens of others, etc., and stating that these are "baptismal covenants"

The huge difference between the two, and why mourning and bearing are associated with baptismal covenants above and before we would ever talk of tithing is precisely because BoM prophets have done so!!! From my perspective, you are arguing against the scriptures with this turn of rationalization.

possibly even including myself.

[whtaylor]

True.

[whtaylor]

I don't understand why you believe I am arguing against the scriptures or that I am rationalizing. I'm not aware of any post where I have made any argument contrary to the scriptures. Why would I be rationalizing? Give me an example so I can better understand your comment. Where have BOM prophets placed mourning and bearing above tithing? Maybe I used two poor examples...perhaps I should have used not murdering and not commiting adultery rather than tithing and word of wisdom. I think BOM and Old Testament prophets believed those commandments to be pretty important and to have been contained within our baptismal covenant...of course these commandments should be obeyed by everyone and therefore would not distinguish us particularly from non-members. Hey, for that matter, I know many non-mormons who mourne with those that mourn and bear each other's burdens. So what is your point?

[Dravin]

Whtaylor, it'll make things less confusing for readers if you use the quote functionality available on the board. Enclose the text you want to quote with (quote) (/quote) except use square brackets

. Just copy and paste it.

Copy and pasted text

You can also use it but do

for the first tag and you get:

Copy and pasted text

Therefore you can make it clear who and exactly what you are responding to, and even respond to multiple posts in just one post yourself if you desire. Alternatively there is a quote button that will quote the entirety of the post: . The one advantage of using the button is it provides a link back to the post in case you've decided to prune the entire quote to just what you are responding to. So using your first post as an example:

Trimmed. I just wanted to demonstrate the link. The little blue box with an arrow in it.

[MarginOfError]

I don't understand why you believe I am arguing against the scriptures or that I am rationalizing. I'm not aware of any post where I have made any argument contrary to the scriptures. Why would I be rationalizing? Give me an example so I can better understand your comment. Where have BOM prophets placed mourning and bearing above tithing? Maybe I used two poor examples...perhaps I should have used not murdering and not commiting adultery rather than tithing and word of wisdom. I think BOM and Old Testament prophets believed those commandments to be pretty important and to have been contained within our baptismal covenant...of course these commandments should be obeyed by everyone and therefore would not distinguish us particularly from non-members. Hey, for that matter, I know many non-mormons who mourne with those that mourn and bear each other's burdens. So what is your point?

This is amusing. If you're arguing that baptism and the baptismal covenant are supposed to set members apart from non-members, you've sorely missed the point of baptism. It's about access to forgiveness. That is, those who are baptized are entitled to forgiveness as they repent and strive to live the commandments including (but not limited to) mourning with those who mourn, standing as a witness of God, not murdering, not committing adultery, paying tithing, obeying the Word of Wisdom, and keeping the Sabbath day holy.

So, I'm not sure why the actions of members or non-members matter. That has nothing to do with the baptismal covenant.

[mordorbund]

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

Seems odd that it wouldn't be used at the time the covenant is made.

To renew anything, you have to have made it prior to the time of renewal.

Who said the Sacrament is a renewal of baptismal covenants?

Members and leaders alike would agree that we renew our baptismal covenants by partaking of the sacrament.

You yourself have set the bar that it is not enough to be popular; the idea must also be scriptural. So how is the Sacrament a renewing of baptismal covenants?

[whtaylor]

Yes, it seems odd that the words of the covenant are not used at the time the covenant is made, but as I have said in other posts--who am I to question how God wants his ordinances performed. I have been taught from the time I was a child that when we partake of the sacrament we renew our baptismal covenant. You make a good point. The concept of such a renewal of covenants through the sacrament should be scriptural. I'll have to do some further scripture study on that question. Then again...we believe that modern revelation via conference talks, etc. is just as valid as the doctrine taught in the standard works. I'm sure if I dig, I could come up with some quote from a prophet, church manual (approved by GAs) or some conference talk that states we renew our baptismal covenants when we take the sacrament.

[MarginOfError]

Yes, it seems odd that the words of the covenant are not used at the time the covenant is made, but as I have said in other posts--who am I to question how God wants his ordinances performed. I have been taught from the time I was a child that when we partake of the sacrament we renew our baptismal covenant. You make a good point. The concept of such a renewal of covenants through the sacrament should be scriptural. I'll have to do some further scripture study on that question. Then again...we believe that modern revelation via conference talks, etc. is just as valid as the doctrine taught in the standard works. I'm sure if I dig, I could come up with some quote from a prophet, church manual (approved by GAs) or some conference talk that states we renew our baptismal covenants when we take the sacrament.

If that's your criterion, then, why can't you accept the doctrinal basis of Mosiah 18:8-10 as part of the baptismal covenant?

[pam]

Seems odd that it wouldn't be used at the time the covenant is made.Who said the Sacrament is a renewal of baptismal covenants? You yourself have set the bar that it is not enough to be popular; the idea must also be scriptural. So how is the Sacrament a renewing of baptismal covenants?

According to lds.org:

On the night before His Crucifixion, Jesus Christ met with His Apostles and instituted the sacrament (see Luke 22:19–20). After His Resurrection, He instituted the sacrament among the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 18:1–11). Today the sacrament is an ordinance in which Church members partake of bread and water in remembrance of Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice. This ordinance is an essential part of worship and spiritual development. Through this ordinance, Church members renew the covenants they made with God when they were baptized.

[skhunt]

If you want to find the Baptismal covenant, you must read and study D&C 20: 37

D&C 20: 37 "And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the fSpirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church."

This is the baptismal covenant that we renew when partaking the Sacrament.

[NeuroTypical]

Hi skhunt (two initials up front, all lowercase) - welcome to the forum. Any relation to whtaylor (two initials up front, all lowercase) who started this thread?

[skhunt]

No relation at all. I was doing some quick research for a talk on Sunday and did a Google search and came across this topic by random luck. I just couldn't stop without a reply. I know I need to introduce myself in the proper way and I will. I was at work and was researching during a slow moment and didn't have time to linger too long.

[Traveler]

If you want to find the Baptismal covenant, you must read and study D&C 20: 37

D&C 20: 37 "And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the fSpirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church."

This is the baptismal covenant that we renew when partaking the Sacrament.

The point is not a sum of specific words contained in verse 37 or later in the same section of the D&C in verses 77 and 79. That there are differences is not the point of study to determine a differentiation. What I believe we are to understand in the various words provoking a covenant is that they are intended to underline the same covenant of obligation, benediction and malediction.

Covenants with G-d are by intention worded both vague and short in manner. But it is also the economy of G-d to create repetition. Thus instead of being a single event for a single dimensional covenant one begins a journey with many multi dimensional covenants that they learn more and more; line upon line upon line, precept upon precept upon precept.

The Traveler

[Whynot]

Regarding the covenant and what Jesus said, the most complete record is in the gospel accounts, and He said the covenant was His blood and body and the Sacrament was a time to remember Him and what has been done for us - as a memorial to honor His giving His life blood and the abuse and scourgings prior to the cross. Passover was a memorial to the time when God freed Israel from bondage to Egypt, as we are freed from bondage to sin, and called to a new life in abiding in the Lord and His word and His example.

I'm trying to digest the quote above. The simple reading seems to say LDS believe they have the Spirit before they are baptized? and that they believe baptism is into their Church - as some protestant denominations also believe?

Please correct me if wrong.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

I'm trying to digest the quote above. The simple reading seems to say LDS believe they have the Spirit before they are baptized? and that they believe baptism is into their Church - as some protestant denominations also believe?

Yes, we believe that we are baptized into the church.

In regards to the Spirit, we believe in manifestations of the Spirit before we are baptized. These serve to be witnesses that God lives. Jesus Christ is our Savior. And other essential truths for our Salvation. However, a manifestation like that does not mean that the Spirit is with them or us always.

Once we are baptized we receive the Spirit(always), through a covenant with God. In effect a covenant, it is a two-way promise with an individual and God. We promise to live a certain way(such as Keep His Commandments). And God promises certain blessings for living our promise. One of these blessings is to have the Spirit with us always.

Therefore, through this covenant, we can have the Spirit. However, if we do not keep our promise to God, then God cannot bless us with His blessings from His promise in the Covenant.

[Whynot]

The Spirit works to draw us to Christ or convicts us if we reject His gospel, so in that sense I can see critical action of the Spirit prior to receiving the Lord. After we are baptized the presence of the Spirit is undeniable. And He still lets us know when we stray, but I don't think He leaves us with each stumble, but pressures us to repent and make things right, so long as we don't keep rejecting His direction to us and then leave us without conviction of our errors.

I thought LDS believed the same thing about baptism as the Church of Christ, as many early LDS were in the same fellowship as the 'Campbellites', which take a very literal view of Acts 2:38, that it is a matter of the promise of God to all generations to come since then, and that it is for the forgiveness of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit. I've heard Evangelicals say baptism is what one does as a result of being forgiven and having been given the gift of the Holy Spirit - a matter of what 'eis' means - because of - or - for. And that the record in Acts implies it is God who adds to the Church those who are being saved (those who were baptized), which implies the role is in heaven, and this relates to the 'book of life' spoken of in other Scriptures. Church of Christ will not recognize anyone as a member who has not been baptized for the forgiveness of sins and such that is not in complete accord with the promise of God that Peter gave.

Am I misunderstanding something?

Thanks!

Edited January 26, 2011 by Whynot

[jayanna]

I don't really understand what your question is in the most recent post, but I do understand the concern you expressed in the original post.

I vividly remember my baptismal interview and missionary discussions. The interview questions did include the four things listed in your o.p. as well as the ones listed in this 1988 article describing an interview given a by a district leader: With All Thy Heart - New Era Apr. 1988

Some things I changed in order to be ready for baptism was to stop drinking coffee and tea, I started to pay tithing (though it was explained to me that I technically did not have to until the baptism was performed) I started daily personal and family scripture study, and FHE, to name a few.

I find it alarming that members who were baptized in their childhood, though after the age of accountability, come back to church after being inactive for a long period tend to assume that they are keeping their baptismal covenants, even though they are not keeping laws that were required for me (and other adult converts) to keep to be ready for baptism, and covered in the interview. I don't think it is good for their spiritual development to be under the impression that keeping the word of wisdom, tithing, Sabbath day obervance, and even chastity are exclusively temple recommend requirements.

I don't know if it is a lack of education, or maybe they are in denial, or what, but it seems to be a huge stumbling block for them as well as their non-member family members and investigating friends who come to church with them. They are disappointed when they find out they have to quit doing some things in order to be baptized when they do those things with the re-activating member, who usually has told them that all they have to do to be baptized is believe in Christ and be willing to accept one another's burdens. I have had one long-time member tell me, "Oh, it's okay that I don't pay tithing, I haven't been to temple yet, so it's not like I'm breaking any covenants"

I did try to explain to her that it is a baptismal covenant, but she didn't believe me, because someone with authority did not tell it to her.

I think that teachers in classes, and possibly home teachers as well, should think about maybe bringing some understanding about these covenants.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

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.

I understand what you are saying but like you said keeping the commandments includes the things Alma at the waters of Mormon.

They are implied in the Sacrament prayer because we have to bear each others burdens to love each other and to love each other is the second greatest commandment after loving God with all your heart and mind and strength.

All that the Church is doing is making sure that the investigator understands what it means to keep the commandments that they promise to keep when they are baptized.

If we included every commandment we had to obey in the sacrament prayer the prayer itself would be an hour long! LOL

Jesus Christ made it just the way it should be at the Lord's Supper, concise and covering everything needed to remind us of our responsibilities as Christians without taking an hour to tell us each time we said the prayer each commandment also.

We have Sunday School and Priesthood/Relier Society to teach us all the commandments Christ made the prayer to remind us not to chronicle all the commandments!

Hope my opinion helps you!

[Dan]

Several points to contribute to this discussion.

1) Nobody raised the issue that Elder Oaks did back in 1985 when he said we do not covenant to take upon us the name of Christ at baptism but to be “willing” to do so.  If you read Section 20:37 and the baptismal prayers carefully one could conclude that we do not covenant to keep the commandments either, but only a willingness to do so.

2) Elder Oaks suggested we take upon ourselves the name of Christ in the temple.  I would add we commit to obedience too.  Maybe there is a grace period for newly baptized people to grow toward taking upon themselves the name of Christ and promising to keep the commandments, and that becomes a reality in the temple.

3) President Lee actually said that the temple  covenants "which ... are ... an embodiment or and unfolding of the covenants each person should have assumed at baptism." Clyde J. Williams, ed., The Teachings Of Harold B. Lee, (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1996), p. 574.

4) There are numerous statements now that we renew all covenants we have made when we partake of the Sacrament.  The earliest I know of is 1965 by Elder Stapley and the latest is 2015 by Elder Ballard.  A number in between.

5) This all suggests that the Church (and its leaders) may be growing in their understanding of the details and technicalities regarding the covenants of baptism and sacrament (once upon a time didn’t they do rebaptisms to renew the covenant, which also suggests they didn’t understand things the way we do now?), and so it seems possible to me that it is perfectly legitimate for modern living prophets help us understand that Mosiah 18 is a part of the baptismal covenant as part of this growth in learning that is taking place in the Church.

I would add in this regard that the most recent book by Bruce and Marie Hafen, Covenant Hearts, goes a long way to suggest there is a considerable difference between the laws and ordinances which are associated with the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods that seem to be relevant to these issues as well.

[bytebear]

How about this idea.  When we are baptized, we also are joining the church.  Maybe the bearing burdens, etc, are our obligation as church members and so are part of the baptism covenant, but are separate (but implied) from the things mentioned in the sacrament prayer.

Edited May 31, 2016 by bytebear

[LeSellers]

7 hours ago, bytebear said:

How about this idea.  When we are baptized, we also are joining the church.  Maybe the bearing burdens, etc, are our obligation as church members and so are part of the baptism covenant, but are separate (but implied) from the things mentioned in the sacrament prayer.

And there's Alma's sermon by the waters of Mormon. No one should be baptized who has not read the Book of Mormon, at least few key passages like this one.

Quote

8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; 9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—10 Now I say unto you, if this 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, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

Lehi

[Guest]

As the OP asked, I do believe he was making a mountain out of a molehill.  The passage in question is no different than James saying "pure religion and undefiled before God is this..."  Is that really all there is to being proper followers of Christ?  Of course not.  But that is a good place to focus our temporal efforts.

[LeSellers]

On 10/18/2010 at 0:02 AM, whtaylor said:

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.

As a stickler, you ought to recognize that the candidate makes one covenant with the Lord. The covenant includes four (or more, many more) elements, one of which is His spirit to be with the newly baptized person.

It's one covenant, not four or six or nine. It's defined by the Lord, and we, as potential covenanters, choose whether to accept it s terms or not. If so, we get baptized and become subject to the conditions we agree to (including more than is in the Sacrament Prayers), and He agrees to fulfill His part of the agreement. He never breaks His word, and is lenient when we break ours (within some limits, of course).

Lehi

 

Edited May 31, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

14 hours ago, Dan said:

Nobody raised the issue that Elder Oaks did back in 1985 when he said we do not covenant to take upon us the name of Christ at baptism but to be “willing” to do so.  If you read Section 20:37 and the baptismal prayers carefully one could conclude that we do not covenant to keep the commandments either, but only a willingness to do so.

 

I agree with you, but could you give us a reference to that talk.  I could search for it myself, but since you quoted the year, I thought you might know the name of the talk.

I was introduced to this concept by Elder Bednar in his talk, Honorably Hold a Name and a Standing. 

  Elder Bednar further said that we do take the Lord's name upon us in the temple.  Thus baptism is pointing us toward the temple.

[Dan]

Literate:

Glad to help:

The talk is:   Oaks, Dallin H.  “Taking upon Us the Name of Jesus Christ.”  Ensign 15 (May 1985): 80-83.   He followed it up with this great little book which was recently republished in paperback:  Oaks, Dallin H.  His Holy Name.  Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1998.