Making And Keeping Covenants

[Guest]

We had a returned missionary give his report on his mission today.  He told of an interesting phenomenon in the Dominican Republic.  Many people would love the message of the gospel and would want to be baptized.  But when the subject of marriage came up, it was over.  A huge percentage of people insist on living together and never getting married.  He spoke of some couples he taught that had been together for 40 years and intend to do so for the rest of their lives.  They even raised multiple children and had grandchildren.  But when they were asked to simply "sign this paper" that made them husband and wife, they refused.  The reason?

"That's too big of a commitment".

I remembered a visitor to this site a while back saying that baptism was "work" and since works don't save us, it is an incorrect principle.  So he refused to get baptized.  Really?  It is apparent that the simple "accepting Christ into your heart" is the important ingredient.  And it takes no work.  But baptism is too much work.  Well, tell that to Naaman.

Then my mind went to the oft quoted axiom that salvation is about making and keeping covenants.  Salvation cometh not to those who cry out "Lord, Lord."  It comes to those who make and keep covenants.  It became clear to me that one of the "abominations" of the sectarians is their insistence in denying covenants of the Lord.  Just as these couples in the DR would "feel" great and "want" to belong, they were unwilling to do what it took to make the commitment to a new way of life. 

As C.S. Lewis observed.  "We cannot go on being an ordinary decent egg."  "If I want the grassfield to produce wheat, it must be plowed and resown." 

[Sunday21]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

A huge percentage of people insist on living together and never getting married.  He spoke of some couples he taught that had been together for 40 years and intend to do so for the rest of their lives.  They even raised multiple children and had grandchildren.  But when they were asked to simply "sign this paper" that made them husband and wife, they refused. 

We have this problem as well. I think perhaps they feel that their partner will begin to mistreat them if they mak a commitment. I have heard this rationale given with respect to these arrangements in Australia as well. I sometimes look at Church marriages here and wonder if thr marriage commitment is used as an opportunity to mistreat a spouse. The she/he won’t leave me so I’ll...

Edited October 14, 2018 by Sunday21

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

We have this problem as well. I think perhaps they feel that their partner will begin to mistreat them if they mak a commitment. I have heard this rationale given with respect to these arrangements in Australia as well. I sometimes look at how Church marriages here and wonder if thr marriage commitment is used as a rationale to mistreat a spouse. The she/he won’t leave me so I’ll...

After 40 years someone will "all of a sudden" become an abuser?

[Sunday21]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

After 40 years someone will "all of a sudden" become an abuser?

Abuse is I think too strong a term. I think in more temporary relationships & marriages, there is an unspoken threat that ‘if you behave badly, I will leave’. 

 I don’t date anymore but when I used to date, a prospective spouse would often tell me smugly that after marriage, they ‘would do whatever they wanted’ which I interpreted as ‘quit job, have wife support me’. 

Outside marriage, the threat of dissolving the union keeps some people behaving. I had an ex boyfriend who was living with a friend of mine. I asked her why she didn’t marry him and she said that she thought he would stop looking after himself and become more selfish.

Some marriages in the church here do have one incredibly selfish spouse. 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Abuse is I think too strong a term. I think in more temporary relationships & marriages, there is an unspoken threat that ‘if you behave badly, I will leave’. 

Outside marriage, the threat of dissolving the union keeps some people behaving. I had an ex boyfriend who was living with a friend of mine. I asked her why she didn’t marry him and she said that she thought he would stop looking after himself and become more selfish.

I'm having difficulty seeing this logic. 

I honestly cannot see why there is any reason to believe "not" being married makes this somehow a better arrangement.  Does being married mean you can't leave?  If it is about the "sin of divorce" why is that worse than the "sin of fornication"?

23 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

 I don’t date anymore but when I used to date, a prospective spouse would often tell me smugly that after marriage, they ‘would do whatever they wanted’ which I interpreted as ‘quit job, have wife support me’. 

When we let go of the traditional family roles, some unintended consequences build up in the system.  When the woman is "supposed to be" in the home, then this ^^ mentality would never happen.

My FIL lost his job of many years and it really did a number on his psyche.  He fell into a deep depression.  He felt like the world was about to end and there was nothing he could do about it. There were many factors that I'm leaving out due to privacy.  But there was a reason he was having difficulty finding more work.

Finally, his wife decided that if he was not going to be able to find a job, then she would.  Because he was really old school, there was something primal inside of him that awakened.  He utterly refused to let her be the bread winner.  He somehow found a way that he hadn't thought of before.  He found work doing something that he would not normally have done.

In today's world of "women belong in the workforce just as much as men", why wouldn't some men be thinking,"I'll let my wife support me"?  Why would that be wrong?

Quote

Some marriages in the church here do have one incredibly selfish spouse. 

And how is that different than the "non-marriages" that you just mentioned?  I want all the benefits without the commitment.  That sounds completely unselfish.

NOT!!!

Edited October 15, 2018 by Guest

[Sunday21]

@Carborendum I think that in these nonmarried relationships, one or more parties feel that the greater perceived ability to leave gives them more power in the relationship. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

@Carborendum I think that in these nonmarried relationships, one or more parties feel that the greater perceived ability to leave gives them more power in the relationship. 

To bring it back to the OP: Just as the "lack of baptism" gives some evangelicals the "perceived" greater dependence on the Savior and thus "saved status".

[Guest MormonGator]

There's a famous joke: 

"We've been together for two decades. Have three kids and have our names tattooed on each other, but we won't get married because we are afraid of commitment." 

Um, what? 

[JohnsonJones]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

To bring it back to the OP: Just as the "lack of baptism" gives some evangelicals the "perceived" greater dependence on the Savior and thus "saved status".

I'm not sure if evangelicals think this.

My thoughts were that they felt that the Lord was all powerful and the creator of the Law.  As he is the creator of the Law and the giver of justice and mercy, it is HE who decides who is saved in the Kingdom of Heaven...NOT MAN.

Hence, we, as men, cannot judge.  We cannot say this person is going to heaven or this person is going to hell.  ONLY the LORD has this power and this right.

As such, he can decide whoever he wants to save.

The idea that one can be saved without being baptized goes even beyond this (and those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually share this belief to a degree in regards to anyone under the age of 8).

If one has accepted the Lord and has an intent to follow him, this can be enough.  This does NOT negate the need for baptism, and one who is truly saved will try to be baptized.  In fact, in some ways it is just as necessary to be baptized if one CAN be baptized.  However, the Lord knows the intent and belief of our hearts.  If they cannot be baptized but have accepted him, that will be enough due to the mercy and justice of the Lord.

Accepting the Lord as their Lord and Savior is merely the first step, not the last.  Baptism is merely a work that symbolized one's own covenant but it is NOT the thing that saves a person.  The thing that saves a person is the Lord himself.  It is the Lord's grace that saves.  An individual who is a Baptist can KNOW that they are saved by having it revealed/shown to them in a change in their heart.  Thus they KNOW that they have been saved.  This may happen before or after Baptism.  If before, then they will want to only do good and thus be baptized. 

Those who are in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also believe that children that die before the age of accountability will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom.  This is because of the mercy of the Lord.  We also believe that through the ordinances in the temple, those who accepted the gospel but never had a chance to be baptized will not be denied the blessings thereof and will be saved.  In that same light, we also believe it is possible that those who die without knowledge of the gospel will have the chance to accept it via the same ordinances.

In that way one could say we believe this concept to an even deeper degree than the evangelicals who normally do not have a persuasion regarding those who die without the law, or whom may have died without the law but whom they may say rejected it because of this in this mortal frame.

[Traveler]

I was raised somewhat different.  I believe that the first step to salvation (or if you will - freedom and liberty) is discipline.

I believe Discipline is one of the most misunderstood principles of intelligence which is the means of order over chaos.  One will never accomplish anything without discipline.  Not in music, not in science, not in art, not even in love and most certainly not in drawing near to and becoming one with G-d.  I do not believe in the notion of "falling in love" or for that matter - falling into anything else.  I believe that those that "fall" in love will eventually "fall" out of it.  The same is of all things - I believe if we fall in - then there will come a time when we have falling out.

The first principle of discipline is commitment and the second principle of discipline is covenant.  I believe a commitment is what one does to or for themselves.  A covenant is what we do with or for someone else.  Shakespeare once wrote - "To thine own self be true and it shall follow as the night the day - thou cannot be false to any man".  Tue commitment will always lead to covenant.

One night, the wife and I were in bed talking when she asked, "Do you love me?"  I responded yes.  But she asked again - "Are you sure you love me?" - again I responded yes.  Again she asked, "Are you certain you really really love me?"  And again I responded - yes.  Then she said, "Do you love me enough to die for me?"  "No" I responded - "Mine is an undying love".  Sometimes I think our intentions are good but we communicate it in poor ways.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I'm not sure if evangelicals think this.

My thoughts were that they felt that the Lord was all powerful and the creator of the Law.  As he is the creator of the Law and the giver of justice and mercy, it is HE who decides who is saved in the Kingdom of Heaven...NOT MAN.

Hence, we, as men, cannot judge.  We cannot say this person is going to heaven or this person is going to hell.  ONLY the LORD has this power and this right.

As such, he can decide whoever he wants to save.

The idea that one can be saved without being baptized goes even beyond this (and those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually share this belief to a degree in regards to anyone under the age of 8).

If one has accepted the Lord and has an intent to follow him, this can be enough.  This does NOT negate the need for baptism, and one who is truly saved will try to be baptized.  In fact, in some ways it is just as necessary to be baptized if one CAN be baptized.  However, the Lord knows the intent and belief of our hearts.  If they cannot be baptized but have accepted him, that will be enough due to the mercy and justice of the Lord.

Accepting the Lord as their Lord and Savior is merely the first step, not the last.  Baptism is merely a work that symbolized one's own covenant but it is NOT the thing that saves a person.  The thing that saves a person is the Lord himself.  It is the Lord's grace that saves.  An individual who is a Baptist can KNOW that they are saved by having it revealed/shown to them in a change in their heart.  Thus they KNOW that they have been saved.  This may happen before or after Baptism.  If before, then they will want to only do good and thus be baptized. 

Those who are in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also believe that children that die before the age of accountability will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom.  This is because of the mercy of the Lord.  We also believe that through the ordinances in the temple, those who accepted the gospel but never had a chance to be baptized will not be denied the blessings thereof and will be saved.  In that same light, we also believe it is possible that those who die without knowledge of the gospel will have the chance to accept it via the same ordinances.

In that way one could say we believe this concept to an even deeper degree than the evangelicals who normally do not have a persuasion regarding those who die without the law, or whom may have died without the law but whom they may say rejected it because of this in this mortal frame.

You may not remember.  But in the past, I've made exactly the same point you just made.  That wasn't what this post was about.  And you also misunderstand what I was saying about evangelicals.

[SilentOne]

On 10/14/2018 at 6:21 PM, Carborendum said:

My FIL lost his job of many years and it really did a number on his psyche.

Am I remembering correctly that he used to post here?

[zil]

12 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

Am I remembering correctly that he used to post here?

Yes.