Covenant Before Birth?


Carborendum
 Share

Recommended Posts

I had an interesting doctrine brought up recently from a couple of different sources.  My opinion was that this was false doctrine.  But I was wondering if anyone else had heard of this or had a different opinion.

It goes like this:

Coming to Earth (keeping our first estate) was part of a "covenant" made in the pre-mortal existence.  And if we stayed true to that covenant (keep our second estate) then we'd receive glory upon our heads forever.

I have a few problems with this.  The primary one is that covenants require ordinances.  Ordinances require bodies.  This was part of the reason why we had to experience mortality -- to gain a body.

I found a purported quote from Kimball:

Quote

[In the pre-mortal life] you and I made . . . an oath that we would do all things whatsoever the Lord our God shall command us. While we do not remember the details, we made these covenants. We committed ourselves to our Heavenly Father that if he would send us to earth and give us bodies and give to us the priceless opportunities that earth life afforded, we would keep our lives clean and would marry in the holy temple and rear a family and teach them righteousness. This was a solemn oath, a solemn promise, an eternal commitment.

   -- "Be Ye Therefore Perfect,” address given at the Institute of Religion at the University of Utah, 10 January 1975

However, I couldn't verify this quote from the Church website.  I found another speech with the same title ("Be Ye Therefore Perfect") with a different date that was given at BYU, not U of U.  In that speech at BYU, he never said this or anything nearly like this.

Thoughts?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems pretty clear that we mortals do not have the same understanding of Time and Causality that God does.

We see this with people claiming the benefits of the atonement before Christ did the physical part... (given how we understand time).  Clearly God can accept it before it happens.

We know with work for the dead, the physical part of the ordinances, can be done by proxy.  While we do acknowledge some limit aka spirit prison vs paradise we don't fully understand how that breaks down.

So the idea that we might have made convents in the preexistence and gained the blessing of them, with the ordinances to be done later, does not strike me as out of line with limited stuff we already know and accept.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, my patriarchal blessing alludes to covenants made prior to birth (not trying to say that my patriarchal blessing should dictate your understanding of the subject; but just responding to your question about whether any of us had heard such a thing).

I’m not sure I’m prepared to accept the idea that all covenants require a physical ordinance performed through a mortal body; I’d be interested to hear you flesh that out (HA!) a little more.

Edit:  the Joseph F. Smith manual quotes a fragment of Kimball as saying something very similar, and attributes it to the Church News issue of January 18, 1975.  See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-138-vision-of-the-redemption-of-the-dead?lang=eng.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I have a few problems with this.  The primary one is that covenants require ordinances.  Ordinances require bodies.  This was part of the reason why we had to experience mortality -- to gain a body.

More specifically, covenants that we make here in mortality require a mortal physical body. I don't think that necessarily generalizes onto all covenants ever. On the contrary, the rebellion of the erstwhile Lucifer and those who followed him along with their consignment to a place of eternal damnation sound to my ears exactly like what one would expect from a broken covenant. The premortal Lord himself appears to have made covenants with Adam and the patriarchs, Melchizedek, Abraham, Isaac, Jared's people, and the hosts of Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abraham 3

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

The word prove in verse 25, to me, indicates a test that we all agreed to participate within.

If the word covenant perturbes you, then think of it as a special agreement between three parties (Mankind, Heavenly Father, and the Savior [see verse 27]).  

The pre-mortal existence in my mind is the zeroth estate.  

From Revelations 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth.

We learn that Satan’s followers are designated as a third part.  Many have suggested that this means that 1/3 of the hosts of our pre-mortal existence sided with Lucifer.  I think that is hogwash.  

It makes more sense to me that there were three different groups of pre-mortal souls.  God never forces anyone to do anything.  He gives us opportunities which have outcomes which we perceive as either blessings, consequences or a combination of the two.

I think the first group decided to stay as spirits and neither follow Jehovah nor Lucifer.  The second group agreed to come to Earth (First Estate) with the option to learn about sin and have the option to overcome the consequences of sin via the Savior’s atonement.  The third group, likely a small percentage, sided with Lucifer.

We learn that those who keep their second Estate will have glory added upon their heads forever.  To me this means much more than just partaking of all the ordinances within this life.  It alludes to gaining entrance to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom and then continuing to progress.  

 

David A. Bednar, Honorably Hold a Name and Standing, April 2009

“Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained that in renewing our baptismal covenants by partaking of the emblems of the sacrament, “we do not witness that we take upon us the name of Jesus Christ. 
[Rather], we witness that we are willing to do so. (See D&C 20:77.) The fact that we only witness to our willingness suggests that something else must happen before we actually take that sacred name upon us in the [ultimate and] most important sense” (“Taking upon Us the Name of Jesus 
Christ,” Ensign, May 1985, 81). 
The baptismal covenant clearly contemplates a future event or events and looks forward to the temple… the process of taking upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ that is commenced in the waters of baptism is continued and enlarged in the house of the Lord. As we stand in the waters of baptism, we look to the temple. As we partake of the sacrament, we look to the temple. We pledge to always remember the Savior and to keep His commandments as preparation to participate in the sacred ordinances of the temple and receive the highest blessings available through the name and by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, in the ordinances of the holy temple we more completely and fully take upon us the name of Jesus Christ.”

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I had an interesting doctrine brought up recently from a couple of different sources.  My opinion was that this was false doctrine.  But I was wondering if anyone else had heard of this or had a different opinion.

It goes like this:

Coming to Earth (keeping our first estate) was part of a "covenant" made in the pre-mortal existence.  And if we stayed true to that covenant (keep our second estate) then we'd receive glory upon our heads forever.

I have a few problems with this.  The primary one is that covenants require ordinances.  Ordinances require bodies.  This was part of the reason why we had to experience mortality -- to gain a body.

I found a purported quote from Kimball:

However, I couldn't verify this quote from the Church website.  I found another speech with the same title ("Be Ye Therefore Perfect") with a different date that was given at BYU, not U of U.  In that speech at BYU, he never said this or anything nearly like this.

Thoughts?

I don't know this person, but he provides some quotes on the topic: https://askgramps.org/covenants-made-premortal-life/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mikbone said:

If the word covenant perturbes you, then think of it as ...

Yes, it really is about the word.  If we can put that label on anything that we agree to, it cheapens the nature of the term "Covenant".  Do we make covenants with Amazon when we agree to pay money and Amazon agrees to give us something?  That would be absurd to couch it in such terms.

I do make the concession that I was perhaps conflating "ordinances" with "covenants" (an understandable mistake).  So, yes, ordinances require bodies.  Perhaps covenants do not.

That brings us to asking if "the Grand Council" was a covenant making process.  While the descriptions of a council may be very similar to, say, a sustaining vote for Church leadership, there is one thing that it lacks.  That can be summed up with the word "keeping".  I had thought that our participation in the Council was a single point decision (yes, with eternal consequences) rather than a commitment to "keep" certain promises.  (For brevity, I'm asking your indulgence on the vagueness of my wording.  Just think: single point action vs. a continuation to act/behave a certain way for a duration).  And I see nothing in scriptures that says otherwise.

However...  @Just_A_Guy's link confirmed that we are indeed "keeping" a commitment.

Quote

In the premortal life promises were made regarding the salvation of those who would not have the gospel in mortality. President Kimball said that in the premortal existence

“you and I made a solemn commitment, made an oath that we would do all things whatsoever the Lord our God shall command us

 -- Spencer W. Kimball

The Church News website search engine sucks.  I can't look it up to see the full context.  Anyone have a link?

Assuming this is all correct, I still wonder how such a commitment could have a possibility of being enforceable.  We'd have no memory of such a commitment.  Isn't part of a commitment remembering what we committed to?  How can we be held to a commitment we, by the nature of the process, can't even remember?

Because of the veil, I see it as a decision to "jump".  After that, all bets are off as far as we know.  After this life, we may have a "full recollection".  But how is our promise to obey in any way binding on us in this life?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

The Church News website search engine sucks.  I can't look it up to see the full context.  Anyone have a link?

“Be Ye Therefore Perfect” [devotional address at the Salt Lake Institute of Religion, Jan. 10, 1975],

I cant find the document either.  There is a similar address @ BYU with the same title but without the  text in question.  It is a great talk though.  Worth it just to see Dallin Oaks - with hair - introduce the Prophet.

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/spencer-w-kimball/ye-therefore-perfect/

I agree with your assessment that the agreement that we made was a “jump.”  Much like the Kimball statement found in the BYU address in question found below.

“One can touch a hot wire, but he cannot stave off the certain death that results. One can step in front of a powerful oncoming train, but he cannot set aside the mangling that will follow. One can jump from a skyscraper, but he cannot control the results and save his body from the crushing effects of the fall and the abrupt contact with the hard pavement below.”

Just because we have the opportunity to sin and be cleansed via the Savior’s atonement in this life.  It does not hold that we were able to receive absolute forgiveness before this mortal probation.  

Likewise after the final judgement, when everyone is sorted into their station of glory.  There will be requirements to live within the bounds of that kingdom.  If we sin or rebel contrary to the laws of that kingdom there will be consequences.

This mortal life is a special dispensation wherein we can experience sin and its consequences and yet still be cleaned of its effects.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The outcome of the second estate, from keeping our first estate, is a promise (covenant) between the Father and his sons and daughters. Part of a covenant meaning defined (Bible Dictionary), "God in His good pleasure fixes the terms, which man accepts."

One could then include "The Plan" as given by our Father in heaven is covenant based. We agreed to the terms as outlined by the Father, thus we are here seeking to keep our second estate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The outcome of the second estate, from keeping our first estate, is a promise (covenant) between the Father and his sons and daughters. Part of a covenant meaning defined (Bible Dictionary), "God in His good pleasure fixes the terms, which man accepts."

One could then include "The Plan" as given by our Father in heaven is covenant based. We agreed to the terms as outlined by the Father, thus we are here seeking to keep our second estate.

As an exact definition, I'd agree.  But what you're describing is actually far too vague in its potential application.  Such broad application of the word / concept cheapens the idea where EVERYthing can be an individual covenant.  When the alarm clock goes off, and I agree to get out of bed, that is a covenant?  Yes, this is an extreme example.  But there has to be some meaning to what a covenant entails other than an agreement that the Lord sets the conditions for.  Everything is governed by the Lord.  So, EVERY aspect of life is a covenant?  He created the functioning of our bodies.  So, is our waste elimination process a covenant?

Again, it goes to defining what a covenant is.  One might say (in fact someone once told me they believed thusly) that any time the Lord gives a commandment, he is offering a covenant.  When we decide to obey that commandment, we've basically accepted a covenant.  As I said before, this type of mentality cheapens the very concept of what a covenant means.  Does God's very speech establish a covenant?  Is that the nature of God and covenants respectively?  We can then forget the story of Pres McKay laughing in the temple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 3:32 PM, Carborendum said:

As an exact definition, I'd agree.  But what you're describing is actually far too vague in its potential application.  Such broad application of the word / concept cheapens the idea where EVERYthing can be an individual covenant.  When the alarm clock goes off, and I agree to get out of bed, that is a covenant?  Yes, this is an extreme example.  But there has to be some meaning to what a covenant entails other than an agreement that the Lord sets the conditions for.  Everything is governed by the Lord.  So, EVERY aspect of life is a covenant?  He created the functioning of our bodies.  So, is our waste elimination process a covenant?

Again, it goes to defining what a covenant is.  One might say (in fact someone once told me they believed thusly) that any time the Lord gives a commandment, he is offering a covenant.  When we decide to obey that commandment, we've basically accepted a covenant.  As I said before, this type of mentality cheapens the very concept of what a covenant means.  Does God's very speech establish a covenant?  Is that the nature of God and covenants respectively?  We can then forget the story of Pres McKay laughing in the temple.

The fact that that there are many definitions to the word covenant, and you wish to discuss only one very specific definition does not cheapen any particular idea. Please share what you mean by covenant and how that brings up issues with premortal covenants, since the first estate is without a body of element and the second estate is the spirit connected with a body of element, which is ushered in with mortality -- a point of error in the OP.

Please define what you understand or mean by "covenant" for the purposes of discussing your concern with false doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/27/2022 at 1:32 PM, Carborendum said:

As an exact definition, I'd agree.  But what you're describing is actually far too vague in its potential application.  Such broad application of the word / concept cheapens the idea where EVERYthing can be an individual covenant.  When the alarm clock goes off, and I agree to get out of bed, that is a covenant?  Yes, this is an extreme example.  But there has to be some meaning to what a covenant entails other than an agreement that the Lord sets the conditions for.  Everything is governed by the Lord.  So, EVERY aspect of life is a covenant?  He created the functioning of our bodies.  So, is our waste elimination process a covenant?

Again, it goes to defining what a covenant is.  One might say (in fact someone once told me they believed thusly) that any time the Lord gives a commandment, he is offering a covenant.  When we decide to obey that commandment, we've basically accepted a covenant.  As I said before, this type of mentality cheapens the very concept of what a covenant means.  Does God's very speech establish a covenant?  Is that the nature of God and covenants respectively?  We can then forget the story of Pres McKay laughing in the temple.

I'm not sure how recognizing the doctrine of first and second estates, and a potential covenant within those being vague, and that it would cheapen the word -- covenant. Keeping our first estate results in specific promises. Keeping our second estate (and the blessings attached) is also encompassed in covenants. If our second estate results in covenants it seems plausible our first estate also is the result of covenants.

It doesn't cheapen the word covenant. It doesn't make "EVERYthing" a covenant just because God governs everything. Would you be able to identify the ordinance God specifically did with Abraham for the Abrahamic covenant to be the Abrahamic covenant? There are ordinances within the Abrahamic covenant, but those ordinances also existed before Abraham. What ordinance are you aware of that Abraham specifically received for the Abrahamic covenant?

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I'm not sure how recognizing the doctrine of first and second estates, and a potential covenant within those being vague, and that it would cheapen the word -- covenant. Keeping our first estate results in specific promises. Keeping our second estate (and the blessings attached) is also encompassed in covenants. If our second estate results in covenants it seems plausible our first estate also is the result of covenants.

It doesn't cheapen the word covenant. It doesn't make "EVERYthing" a covenant just because God governs everything. Would you be able to identify the ordinance God specifically did with Abraham for the Abrahamic covenant to be the Abrahamic covenant? There are ordinances within the Abrahamic covenant, but those ordinances also existed before Abraham. What ordinance are you aware of that Abraham specifically received for the Abrahamic covenant?

First, as I said before, I recognize that I made a mistake when I conflated ordinances with covenants.  I now recognize that not all covenants necessitate a formal ordinance.  But it does raise the question "What constitutes a covenant?"

A primary axiom of our religion is:

Quote

Our eternal destiny depends upon our ability to make and keep sacred covenants.

Without a clear line, it would seem that the very act of God giving a commandment would constitute a covenant. If that is so, then how are we any different than any other faith?

I had thought that "we are a covenant people" meant something.  But what does it mean?  While I'm ok (now) with saying that we made "covenants" in pre-mortality, it does blur the lines about what a covenant is.  And as important as covenants are in this faith, it is not as trivial as one might think.

I had wondered why all the covenants we appeared to make were basically "obey the Lord and He'll bless you."  I wondered what was the difference between baptismal covenants, the oath & covenant of the priesthood, and temple covenants.  Obviously, sealing is quite different.  But the rest?  Why were they all the same?

When I knew that covenants had a high bar, I could see why they were necessary.  But when it seems to be a pretty low bar after all, I have to wonder if there is any difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Gospel Extremism

Another sign of spiritual immaturity and sometimes apostasy is when one focuses on certain gospel principles or pursues “gospel hobbies” with excess zeal. Almost any virtue taken to excess can become a vice.

Certain members have wanted to add substantially to various doctrines. An example might be when one advocates additions to the Word of Wisdom that are not authorized by the Brethren and proselytes others to adopt these interpretations. If we turn a health law or any other principle into a form of religious fanaticism, we are looking beyond the mark.

Some who are not authorized want to speak for the Brethren and imply that their message contains the “meat” the Brethren would teach if they were not constrained to teach only the “milk.” Others want to counsel the Brethren and are critical of all teachings that do not comply with their version of what should be taught.

The Lord said regarding important doctrine, “Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me” (D&C 10:68) and “That which is more or less than this cometh of evil” (D&C 124:120). We are looking beyond the mark when we elevate any one principle, no matter how worthwhile it may be, to a prominence that lessens our commitment to other equally important principles or when we take a position that is contrary to the teachings of the Brethren.

-Elder Quentin L Cook, Looking Beyond the Mark, Ensign, March 2003.

It is best to avoid mixing the philosophies of men with scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

You think the topic of covenants is a "gospel hobby"?  If we don't hold covenants with our Father to be an important topic, then what is an important topic?

No, I think that trying to figure out what happened before this world, something we can't remember or know about, can be a gospel hobby. We need to stop trying to think outside the box when it comes to gospel topics and stick to what has been revealed in the scriptures and modern revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2022 at 3:39 PM, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

No, I think that trying to figure out what happened before this world, something we can't remember or know about, can be a gospel hobby. We need to stop trying to think outside the box when it comes to gospel topics and stick to what has been revealed in the scriptures and modern revelation.

Funny, that had nothing to do with the substance of the specific post that you were responding to.

I agree with your statement which I quoted here.  In fact, that was one reason why I objected to the idea in the first place.  But I've moved on (per my more recent posts) to something very much in the here and now.  The question can be summed up with this question:

Quote

What is the difference between a "Covenant" vs "Obedience to a commandment"? 

Part of that discussion must include this idea that all of us disobey (sin).  After some thought I began realizing something.  It was about our relationship with Deity.

Other faiths have their way of dealing with Divinity.  It is all about a "relationship". 

  • Jews simply know that they are God's Covenant People.  That settles it.  
  • Muslims simply state their belief sincerely.  That settles it. 
  • Most Christian faiths simply state their belief sincerely and "Accept Christ".  That settles it... unless you're a Mormon because they all know we don't really accept Christ.
  • In our faith, we establish relationships with the Lord through covenants.  We are his modern Covenant People.  But it is in no way settled.

By keeping covenants, we develop the relationship with the Lord. It's not a one-and-done thing.  It is growth into the relationship with the Lord that determines our eternal destiny.  Hence, "making and keeping" covenants is what settles it.  Thank the Lord that part of our covenants is the availability of repentance.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2022 at 10:09 PM, Carborendum said:

First, as I said before, I recognize that I made a mistake when I conflated ordinances with covenants.  I now recognize that not all covenants necessitate a formal ordinance.  But it does raise the question "What constitutes a covenant?"

A primary axiom of our religion is:

Without a clear line, it would seem that the very act of God giving a commandment would constitute a covenant. If that is so, then how are we any different than any other faith?

I had thought that "we are a covenant people" meant something.  But what does it mean?  While I'm ok (now) with saying that we made "covenants" in pre-mortality, it does blur the lines about what a covenant is.  And as important as covenants are in this faith, it is not as trivial as one might think.

I think most of Christendom feels that after Christ, the relationship of God to His People changed—it was no longer a two-way relationship characterized by mutual obligations and benefits and outward performances; it was that God gives a gift (Christ) and His people received it—end of story.  A person’s receipt of the gift is often viewed as inevitably leading to reconciliation and loyalty and good works, but that’s a byproduct of the deal, not the deal itself. 

We Latter-day Saints, though, still consider the reconciliation and loyalty and good-faith striving towards good works, as part and parcel to the whole relationship.  It’s not the cold legalism or cynical transactionalism that our detractors like to envision.  But there are expectations; there is some give and take; the relationship between Master and disciple has more “oomph” than many mainline Christians are comfortable acknowledging.  An imperfect analogy may be to compare the relationship between a parent and a toddler, versus the relationship between the two parties to a marriage.  

I don’t mean to deny the significance of any particular covenant or ordinance.  But in a very real sense, what defines us today as a covenant people may well have less to do with the terms of the covenant itself, and more with the fact that we thought it proper to make any covenant with God at all.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
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