Oath and covenant of the priesthood question?

[martybess]

I just read this on Wiki (see link below) and I think it’s wrong. It says that both the priesthood holder and G_d make an oath. We do not make the unspoken oath as it say, we convenant to magnify the priesthood. Here’s what it says:

Priesthood (LDS Church) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“The church teaches that receiving the priesthood is a saving ordinance for males. Like all saving ordinances of the church, it is accompanied by the recipient making a covenant with God. In addition, the reception of the Melchizedek priesthood is said to constitute an "unspoken oath as well as [a] covenant".[2] The recipient of the Melchizedek priesthood promises by unspoken oath that he will "magnify" his assigned calling in the priesthood. In exchange, God promises by oath that the recipients will be "sanctified by the [Holy] Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies"; that they will become the sons of Moses and Aaron and the seed of Abraham; and that they will receive exaltation and ultimately receive all that God has.[3]”

I think this is correct. G_d is the one that makes an oath to the recipient of the melchizedek priesthood holder and not the holder as well. I’m sure I could find a better quote by an apostle if I had time.

S. Brent Farley - The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood

“President Romney defined an oath as "a sworn attestation to the inviolability of the promises in the agreement."21 President Joseph Fielding Smith explained that "to swear with an oath is the most solemn and binding form of speech known to the human tongue."22 In the oath and covenant of the priesthood, it is the Father who makes the oath. Elder McConkie taught that the oath is "that everyone who keeps the covenant made in connection with the Melchizedek Priesthood shall inherit, receive, and possess all things in his everlasting kingdom, and shall be a joint-heir with that Lord who is his Only Begotten. . . . God swore with an oath that Christ would be exalted, and he swears anew, at the time each of us receives the Melchizedek Priesthood, that we will have a like exaltation if we are true and faithful in all things."23 This oath is as eternal as the priesthood, and always accompanies it, signifying its validity in providing for the exaltation of God's faithful children.”

What do you folks think?

[MarginOfError]

I think this getting absurdly nit picky. The premise behind "it is the Father who makes the oath" is that God makes the oath and the priesthood holder makes the covenant. Essentially, separate terms are applied to designate directionality of the promises.

This is a bit of a forced distinction, and in the colloquial sense, oath and covenant are pretty redundant. So, if you really think wikipedia should be adusted to say, "the recipient of the Melchizedek priesthood promises by unspoken covenant," then go ahead and change it. But doing so does nothing to change the meaning of the sentence.

[Hemidakota]

Don't we make those convenants in the temple as part of endowment?

[martybess]

Don't we make those convenants in the temple as part of endowment?

Hemi, Did you mean to say "don't we make those oaths in the temple"? There is a bit of a distinction between the two words. We do not say "blood covenant". I think oaths are actions against ourselves such as a curse or even death.

[Wingnut]

We don't say "blood oath" with regards to the temple either.

[Hemidakota]

Semantics? It is still temple convenants..why? The everlasting covenant presented by the Savior to Joseph Smith is the eternal marriage.

Instance of the phrase usage by President Boyd K. Packer, wrote:

What is the new and everlasting covenant? I regret to say that there are some members of the Church who are misled and misinformed in regard to what the new and everlasting covenant really is. The new and everlasting covenant is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations, and I want to prove it. In the 66th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 2, I read:

"Verily I say unto you, blessed are you for receiving mine everlasting covenant, even the fulness of my gospel, sent forth unto the children of men, that they might have life and be made partakers of the glories which are to be revealed in the last days, as it was written by the prophets and apostles in days of old."

More definitely stated is the definition of the new and everlasting covenant given to us in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Now I am going to say before I read this that marriage is not the new and everlasting covenant. If there are any here that have that idea I want to say that right to them. Baptism is not the new and everlasting covenant. Ordination to the priesthood is not the new and everlasting covenant. In section 22 of the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says that baptism is "a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning." Marriage in the temple of the Lord for time and for eternity is "a" new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:156.)

As to why it is called a new covenant, President Smith wrote:

Each ordinance and requirement given to man for the purpose of bringing to pass his salvation and exaltation is a covenant. Baptism for the remission of sins is a covenant. When this ordinance was

158revealed in this dispensation, the Lord called it "a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning."

This covenant was given in the beginning and was lost to men through apostasy, therefore, when it was revealed again, it became to man a new covenant, although it was from the beginning, and it is everlasting since its effects upon the individual endure forever. Then again, whenever there is need for repentance, baptism is the method, or law, given of the Lord by which the remission of sins shall come, and so this law is everlasting. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:152.)

This covenant includes all ordinances of the gospel-the highest of which are performed in the temple. To quote President Smith again:

Now there is a clear-cut definition in detail of the new and everlasting covenant. It is everything-the fulness of the gospel. So marriage properly performed, baptism, ordination to the priesthood, everything else-every contract, every obligation, every performance that pertains to the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise according to his law here given, is a part of the new and everlasting covenant. (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:158.)

Holy Temple by Boyd K. Packer

Further reading in the Ensign [1787 related articles talking about temple convenants].

Personal Preparation for Temple Blessings

in Russell M. Nelson, Ensign, 2001, May

... to be sealed beyond the veil of death. Obedience to temple covenants qualifies us for eternal life, the ... keep them thereafter is the challenge of mortality.” 40 Ordinances of the temple relate to personal progress and to the redemption of departed ...

Prepare for Blessings of the Temple

in Russell M. Nelson, Ensign, 2002, Mar.

... is the authority of that priesthood. Consequently, the ordinances and covenants of the priesthood also transcend time. The first revelation given...only to those who obtain eternal life. Keeping a temple covenant is not constraining but enabling. It elevates...

Endowed with Covenants and Blessings

in , Ensign, 1995, Feb.

...; 1995 » February Endowed with Covenants and Blessings Next > < Previous ... Lord restored again to earth the holy ordinances of temple covenants and blessings. The following recollection of ...

The Restoration of Major Doctrines through Joseph Smith: Priesthood, the Word of God, and the Temple

in Donald Q. Cannon, Larry E. Dahl, and John W. Welch, Ensign, 1989, Feb.

... 21 The Lord promised that ordinances would be performed in the temple, where “a great endowment and blessing [will] be poured out.” ( ...Nauvoo Temple, faithful members could receive temple covenants and participate in baptisms for the dead and in the ...

Edited June 3, 2010 by Hemidakota

[martybess]

We don't say "blood oath" with regards to the temple either.

Yes I agree. I'm referring the oath the G-d makes with us in the Oath and covenant of the priesthood. Does not this oath go back to the oath that G-d made with Abraham? That Abraham will gain all that the Father has and if he the Father does not uphold his promise he swears with an oath that he himself will loose all that he has and thus will cease to be G-d?

Gospel Doctrine: God Will Provide Himself a Lamb : Lesson 9

"Modern-day revelation declares that “all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:40). The account of Abraham clarifies the terms and conditions of the priesthood oath and covenant; delineates the blessings that flow forth from the covenant; and instructs us on what is required to receive those blessings. A High Priest

Having grown up in an idolatrous home and having been the attempted sacrificial offering of heathen priests, Abraham recognized that there was greater peace and happiness to be found. Thus, he sought for “the blessings of the fathers,” which blessings he acquired being a “follower of righteousness.” As Abraham states, “I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers” (Abraham 1:2). The rights and privileges of the High Priest were accessed only through “the fathers.” It is important to note that the scriptural term “the fathers” has a very specific connotation. Abraham is careful to distinguish between his lineage through his fathers and “the” fathers, stating that “my fathers” had turned away from their righteousness.

As such, a High Priest according to the order of the fathers has specific reference to “the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me” (Abraham 1:3). In other words, patriarchal authority passes from father Adam to his sons. And as taught by Christ, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son” (John 5:19). Sonship is not therefore based on biological descent but rather behavioral imitation. I am a son of whomever I imitate. Speaking to the Jews of His own day, Christ said, “If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham” (John 8:29). [1]

Interestingly, this passage intimately links the responsibilities of the father (the priesthood) to the blessings of the firstborn. This will be further demonstrated through the account of Abraham.

The Oath and Covenant

The book of Genesis further clarifies the nature of the covenant that Abraham entered into in order to become a High Priest. However, before looking at this covenant, we will briefly consider the difference between an oath and a covenant. A covenant is a formal relationship of obligation between two parties sealed by an oath. While a covenant comprises the conditions, obligations, and promises of the agreement, an oath is the guarantee of the fulfillment of these terms [2] . A covenant is almost always centered on a two-party relationship, whereas the oath is the binding declaration of a single party. An oath was often sworn upon an object or individual; failure by the individual to comply with the terms of the covenant resulted in the cursing of the object that was sworn upon, be it the heavens, earth, altar, tree, or individuals own life.

The Oath: Genesis chapter 15 contains a reiteration of the covenantal blessings promised to Abraham along with the covenant’s binding oath. A basic understanding of ancient process of oath swearing is necessary to begin to understand this chapter. According to the ancient pattern, the subject bound himself to the master by passing between the separated parts of a dead animal. As he passed between the parts, he swore an oath, while pointing at the dead animal, that he would fulfill the terms of the contract. Failure to do so would invoke the same consequence that befell the animal. This type of simile cursing was common among the Hebrews in both the Old World and the New World.

In Genesis 15, Abram is concerned that the Jehovah’s covenantal promises will not be fulfilled. Speaking to Jehovah, Abram said, “Lord, God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (Genesis 15:8). Following which, Jehovah directs Abram to “take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat… and a ram… and a turtledove.” Abram then took these animals and “divided them in the midst” (Genesis 15:9-10) [3] . When the sun went down that night, “a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp…passed between those pieces.

In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram” (Genesis 15:17-18). Jehovah, here symbolized by the burning lamp, passed between the pieces of the carcass of the dead animal. We can only assume that as he did so, he pointed at the pieces of the animal and promised Abram that he would fulfill his part of the covenant or incur the curse of the dead animals.

In reference to this event, Paul states to the Hebrews, “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself” (Hebrews 6:13). The blessings of the priesthood covenant are sealed by God’s personal guarantee, and all the He is including His Godhood, that he would bring about the promised blessings conditioned on our worthiness. Therefore, as stated in modern-day revelation, “all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved” (Doctrine and Covenants 84:40)" - By David Hadlock

[Wingnut]

I have to agree with MOE on this. It's incredibly nit-picky and semantic without actually changing any meaning or importance.

[TVR80]

>> I have to agree with MOE on this. It's incredibly nit-picky and semantic without actually changing any meaning or importance.

I've been looking for an explanation like MartyBess's, and I have to say it actually clarifies a lot. There's some nuance in this doctrine, and it's refreshing to finally find something that makes sense.