Oath And Covenant Of The Priesthood

[Give It Time]

This is the VT lesson for April.

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2017/04/oat ... d?lang=eng

I have been a member my entire life. I read the D & C back in high school. I concentrated more on the BofM in my scripture reading. When I lived in Arizona and had a few mainstream Christian friends, I decided to jump into the Bible in order to not embarrass the church with our scant understanding of the Bible. In other words, I'm not a specialist on this Oath And Covenant Of The Priesthood. I don't remember hearing about it in classes and I may have heard it referenced in the temple, but the women don't covenant to it. I have to confess.

I have no idea what the fetch this is!

Now, my son hasn't been an enthusiastic home teacher. I told him he needs to do it, because he said he would and my end of the deal is I will do my VT.

I need honest, respectful information about this that I can give a thirty second elevator speech to my VT and about a minute and a half to the women I VT.

I can tell you, right now. Having read the scripture referenced in the lesson, it has me wanting to drive up echo canyon and scream expletives at the rocks. This one goes beyond standard honoring the priesthood.

Trigger warning: anyone who has had a priesthood holder, ever in their life, be a source of ongoing, unmitigated crap in their lives.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Every male in the priesthood acts like this O&C thing is some great mystery.

In a nutshell it's this:

If you don't choose to be ordained to the priesthood, you're screwed.

If you choose to be ordained and slack off, you're screwed

If you are ordained and endure to the end, you get your body renewed (whatever that means, nobody knows) and get all that God has.

That's pretty much it.

[Give It Time]

Every male in the priesthood acts like this O&C thing is some great mystery.

In a nutshell it's this:

If you don't choose to be ordained to the priesthood, you're screwed.

If you choose to be ordained and slack off, you're screwed

If you are ordained and endure to the end, you get your body renewed (whatever that means, nobody knows) and get all that God has.

That's pretty much it.

That's pretty good, actually. It's simple and straightforward.

I'll lhave you know. This wasn't as triggering for me as it has been in the past, but I still read that crap and it's

A) absolutely transparent that this is about power and control. Joseph Smith wanting it.

B) This is about his giving the men having it and the men being dominated and controlled.

C) define slacking off. I've seen some pretty bad examples of priesthood holders doing horrible crap and, guess what, they're still chosen. They're still God's own.

D) Bleh.

I think if I can word this in a way that blesses them, rather than me. It will be uplifting for them and we can go back to our lives.

I'm formulating a good response, thank you. I'm not going to write it, at this time. I'll wait until after the visits have passed, but I'm putting something together.

[Palerider]

It seems to me that the so called "oath and covenant" of the priesthood is one that is actually "understood" to be made rather than one that is actually vocalized by the recipient.

In the New Testament the Lord actually forbids swearing and oath making by those who would follow Him. But from an LDS apologists' point of view, the priesthood recipient would only "covenant" with the Lord to fulfill all of his responsibilities in the priesthood, while the Lord is the one who makes the unbreakable "oath" to give salvation and exaltation to the worthy priesthood holder. Women get to share in this exaltation by being attached to a worthy male.

The D&C scriptures regarding the oath and covenant were ostensibly given in 1832. The temple ordinances weren't revealed until 1843 in Nauvoo. Thus only then were the recipients of the priesthood and the temple ordinances actually required to vocalize a willingness to "covenant" to the Lord that they would obey the church (priesthood leadership) in all things.

To me just because they (TBMs, apologists) call it a "covenant" doesn't remove the fact that members are actually swearing with the uplifted hand that they will perform all that is required of them. It is in reality an "oath" being made. "A rose by any other name is still a rose". And it carries with it all of the inherent problems that have always accompanied oaths made by humans, e.g. they almost never perfectly fulfill their part of the bargain for the simple reason that they ARE human and they go right out and make minor or even major mistakes that disqualify them.

This is why the Lord prohibited such things as swearing oaths as a part of the New Covenant which He personally brought to earth and FULFILLED while He was here and continues to do so. He understands human nature much better than Joseph Smith gave Him credit for. So why add condemnation to oneself by swearing by God or our first born child and then not fulfilling? Is it not better to say, when asked, "Yes, I will do this." or "No, I will not do this"? It keeps us more honest that way.

Plus it allows the oft overlooked gift of Grace to enter into our lives. It means that we are not JUDGED on our works alone but on our heartfelt intentions. This in no way lessens our obligation to live a Christ-like life. Our works are important but we are not sanctified by them. Only Christ through His Mercy and Grace can do that.

[Give It Time]

It seems to me that the so called "oath and covenant" of the priesthood is one that is actually "understood" to be made rather than one that is actually vocalized by the recipient.

In the New Testament the Lord actually forbids swearing and oath making by those who would follow Him. But from an LDS apologists' point of view, the priesthood recipient would only "covenant" with the Lord to fulfill all of his responsibilities in the priesthood, while the Lord is the one who makes the unbreakable "oath" to give salvation and exaltation to the worthy priesthood holder. Women get to share in this exaltation by being attached to a worthy male.

The D&C scriptures regarding the oath and covenant were ostensibly given in 1832. The temple ordinances weren't revealed until 1843 in Nauvoo. Thus only then were the recipients of the priesthood and the temple ordinances actually required to vocalize a willingness to "covenant" to the Lord that they would obey the church (priesthood leadership) in all things.

To me just because they (TBMs, apologists) call it a "covenant" doesn't remove the fact that members are actually swearing with the uplifted hand that they will perform all that is required of them. It is in reality an "oath" being made. "A rose by any other name is still a rose". And it carries with it all of the inherent problems that have always accompanied oaths made by humans, e.g. they almost never perfectly fulfill their part of the bargain for the simple reason that they ARE human and they go right out and make minor or even major mistakes that disqualify them.

This is why the Lord prohibited such things as swearing oaths as a part of the New Covenant which He personally brought to earth and FULFILLED while He was here and continues to do so. He understands human nature much better than Joseph Smith gave Him credit for. So why add condemnation to oneself by swearing by God or our first born child and then not fulfilling? Is it not better to say, when asked, "Yes, I will do this." or "No, I will not do this"? It keeps us more honest that way.

Plus it allows the oft overlooked gift of Grace to enter into our lives. It means that we are not JUDGED on our works alone but on our heartfelt intentions. This in no way lessens our obligation to live a Christ-like life. Our works are important but we are not sanctified by them. Only Christ through His Mercy and Grace can do that.

This was really beautiful. I like it better than the original lesson. Thank you.

[asa]

My view is somewhat different. i think we typically misconstrue what the covenant and oath are and who is making them. The covenant is offered by God to some individuals under limited circumstances in connection with the bestowal of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Note Section 84:40 . Both the oath and covenant belong to [ ie come from ] God not visa versa. It has nothing to do with man swearing anything. God seals his covenant by offering an oath which has always been the way promises were made enforceable. As Hogarth can tell you treaties throughout the ANE follow a typical pattern . One potentate would promise to do something or covenant to do something and he would bind his undertaking with an oath which typically would involve listing all the awful things that would happen if he violated his covenant . These oaths often involve the shedding of blood . In fact covenant ' berit ' in Hebrew also means " cutting " as in cutting off an arm , foreskin ie circumcision etc. When God covenants with Abraham he speaks to him , makes a promise or covenant to him and swears or seals that covenant with an oath . Look carefully at Genesis 15 and read that very strange story . It is only after God has promised something and Abraham asks for proof the God cuts the animals in half . Note v 17. You see that this is all part of the covenant making ritual. The typical ordination of an elder has usually nothing to do with any covenant by God and certainly no oath by him to that individual. The Melchizedek Priesthood traditionally is delivered by the voice of God to the recipient . See Genesis 14 JSV ; Times and Seasons vo3 :951. That is how Moses and Joseph received it. In my view only someone who received it directly from God has the power to pass it on and only in limited circumstances. This is all to our benefit . If all you inactive Elders actually believed you received a covenant from God that was sealed with an oath from him you are in the deepest possible trouble because you would not have ' forgiveness in this life or the world to come " v 41. I readily acknowledge that this is a radically different interpretation from the traditional LDS narrative but as any one who actually reads Section 84 and especially v 39-42 can tell one can not believe that every 18 year old who receives his ordination is immediately and forever thereafter at immediate risk of eternal damnation . The present LDS church doesn't understand its own theology in the way Joseph taught it .

[Give It Time]

Thank you for reminding me of a few things about covenants. I had forgotten about God's covenant with Abraham. Also, I have to admit that I was bothered by the possibility that teen-aged young men were being placed in such a heavy bind.

[Corsair]

It has been my experience that any lesson or talk that focuses on "The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood" sheds very little light on it. This is because D&C 84 is just word salad and makes no real material claims, like much of LDS doctrine and culture. This subject is covered by so many prophets and apostles and it still makes little more sense than "obey God through the prophet and you will get some kind of awesome, unspecified reward." And, of course we always have dire threats against anyone that does not keep the commandments.

The teacher or speaker will simply ramble on about keeping the commandments and fulfilling your calling which is already imperative upon every member of the church, women included. The blessings of the OaCotP vaguely refer to receiving "all that my Father hath shall be given unto him" (D&C 84:38). But you still will not get license for your own planet.

[Give It Time]

The first time I read this passage (since long ago) I thought, "no wonder I'm scr%wed".

I just read it again another two times.

The first time, I caught how overbearing and coercive the language is.

The second time, frankly, it sounded like how I'm told Sidney Rigdon sounded. It was a very fiery, verbose, hellfire and damnation passage, but utilizing LDS imagery.

And, I have to admit, it sounded like word salad.

What I'm wondering, right now, because I caught it on my first reading, and Asa did mention it. What does it mean to turn from this covenant? Is it excommunication or something less? If it's "worthiness", I call bull on that. No longer believing could qualify, but that could also be seeing this passage as being a load of controlling "word salad" and simply stating the emporer has no clothes. This OandC has no hold on me, because it was never real in the first place.

Those are all the ways of truly disengaging from this OandC I can imagine. I'm wondering what you, brethren, were taught in regards to quantifying "turn away from".

[ulmite]

When I went through the MP ordination process as a NOM, our SP was very big on making sure everyone "understood" the OAC (oath and covenant).
The big secret is that nobody knows what the OAC is, and everyone is just ad-libbing, same goes for everything priesthood-related.
Saying that the covenant was to obey the commandments and to magnify one's calling(s) in exchange for eternal life and the spirit and that the oath was a promise we made to bring the negative consequences of eternal fire got me through the worthiness interview.
I think that JS was planning on weaving in some Masonic stuff into the priesthood and either got sidetracked doing something else or died.
Not believing in Hell makes the whole thing a much more positive experience.

[Give It Time]

When I went through the MP ordination process as a NOM, our SP was very big on making sure everyone "understood" the OAC (oath and covenant).
The big secret is that nobody knows what the OAC is, and everyone is just ad-libbing, same goes for everything priesthood-related.
Saying that the covenant was to obey the commandments and to magnify one's calling(s) in exchange for eternal life and the spirit and that the oath was a promise we made to bring the negative consequences of eternal fire got me through the worthiness interview.
I think that JS was planning on weaving in some Masonic stuff into the priesthood and either got sidetracked doing something else or died.
Not believing in Hell makes the whole thing a much more positive experience.

Strange how that eases a lot of anxiety, isn't it?

[Give It Time]

What I'm surmising, here, is that no one has really had turning from the OAC quantified for them. That you've been told things like "obedience", "righteous", "keep the commandments". Operating from the view that obedience to church = obedience to God, basically all those phrases are about loyalty. I'm not saying that's bad. Just making a pragmatic statement.

Bottom lining things and saying, turning away from means a person must meet these criteria: a, b, c; means you know where you stand. If they don't spell it out for you, they can move the goalposts wherever and whenever they want. From the language and the comments in the VT lesson, this is a pretty important oath and covenant. One would think while spewing all those threats, a loving Heavenly Father would spell things out for His sons so they would know what success looks like. Someone here is a jerk. I see three suspects:

Heavenly Father
Jesus Christ
Joseph Smith

Oy vey, guys. I know it's a pretty crap assignment being a woman in the kingdom. I'm just now seeing what kind of chokehold they have on you.

[moksha]

While perhaps this "oath and covenant" is not explicitly defined, its embodiment can be felt through this simple song which you can sing along to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nmYOQIidqo

[Give It Time]

Oh my Heck! We're not the only ones who do it. I knew that, but that was actually kind of scary.

[document]

Some days it seems that "priesthood" means "men". When my mother's sidewalks were shoveled the ward sent "the priesthood", which was four teenage boys. When our parish needed some help moving furniture due to a broken roof and extensive damage, lots of churches sent men to help, the LDS church sent "the priesthood". LDS women have a general conference "Women's Session" while men have a "Priesthood Session".

Some days it means presiding. The priesthood presides over the home, over the quorum, over the ward, over the stake, and over the church. Leadership positions are in the hands of the priesthood, and those leadership positions not under the priesthood are supervised by such.

Some days it means ordinances. The priesthood blesses the baby, the grave, and the sick. The priesthood prepares, blesses, breaks, and distributes communion. The priesthood baptizes, confirms, ordains, endows, initiates, and seals.

Priesthood is all of these things at different times, with great power comes great responsibility.

But that is where it all just sort of seems to break down. The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood doesn't actually place any greater responsibility or accountability on the men, it is essentially the same rules that women are governed by. Obedience, endurance, avoid temptation and sin, doing good works, etc. The consequences are the same as well, do everything we demand or be damned.

There isn't much more to it than that. Mormonism tries to bolster up the consequences to priesthood holders, but in reality women are held to the same standard as men. If priesthood holders truly had more consequences or were held to a higher standard, I would take greater stock in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. The only difference I can see is that a priesthood holder's disciplinary council is 15 men while a woman's disciplinary council is merely the bishopric.

[Give It Time]

Some days it seems that "priesthood" means "men". When my mother's sidewalks were shoveled the ward sent "the priesthood", which was four teenage boys. When our parish needed some help moving furniture due to a broken roof and extensive damage, lots of churches sent men to help, the LDS church sent "the priesthood". LDS women have a general conference "Women's Session" while men have a "Priesthood Session".

Some days it means presiding. The priesthood presides over the home, over the quorum, over the ward, over the stake, and over the church. Leadership positions are in the hands of the priesthood, and those leadership positions not under the priesthood are supervised by such.

Some days it means ordinances. The priesthood blesses the baby, the grave, and the sick. The priesthood prepares, blesses, breaks, and distributes communion. The priesthood baptizes, confirms, ordains, endows, initiates, and seals.

Priesthood is all of these things at different times, with great power comes great responsibility.

But that is where it all just sort of seems to break down. The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood doesn't actually place any greater responsibility or accountability on the men, it is essentially the same rules that women are governed by. Obedience, endurance, avoid temptation and sin, doing good works, etc. The consequences are the same as well, do everything we demand or be damned.

There isn't much more to it than that. Mormonism tries to bolster up the consequences to priesthood holders, but in reality women are held to the same standard as men. If priesthood holders truly had more consequences or were held to a higher standard, I would take greater stock in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. The only difference I can see is that a priesthood holder's disciplinary council is 15 men while a woman's disciplinary council is merely the bishopric.

Thanks for this. I was imagining EQ meetings as essentially brow beatings. I was beginning to think of this is just one more whip with which to keep men in line, maybe women do have enough on their plates. I got the impression from the men I've known in my life that priesthood meetings are either about how they are doing a sucky job or football.

[document]

Elder's Quorum (for me) was never a brow beat.

Now, general conference was a big circle jerk of "don't touch yourselves".

[ulmite]

There isn't much more to it than that. Mormonism tries to bolster up the consequences to priesthood holders, but in reality women are held to the same standard as men. If priesthood holders truly had more consequences or were held to a higher standard, I would take greater stock in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. The only difference I can see is that a priesthood holder's disciplinary council is 15 men while a woman's disciplinary council is merely the bishopric.

This playing up of the added "responsibility" keeps a lot of women from demanding access to this priesthood as well. I was in a lesson where they genuinely felt like it would be too much of a burden, and were perfectly happy to let the men do whatever it is they do to stay worthy. I piped up and said that it is no different, and that I felt no extra burden on being worthy, but as usual it seems that TBM auto-ignore is very strong.

[Give It Time]

TBM auto-ignore

Can we patent this term?

[nibbler]

This isn't going to be a good answer, it's kinda cynical, but here goes.

Rather than try to get into the official doctrine I wanted to take the approach of how I've heard OaCotP used in the past; the OaCotP in practice, not principle. I've only heard references to the OaCotP in a small number of circumstances.

• Shortly before being ordained to the MP. It was only referenced, not explained fully. The SP was trying to convey just how seriously I should be taking the responsibility of receiving the MP and he used the OaCotP to instill a little fear. Hey kid, this is serious business!
• People name dropping the OaCotP and mentioning D&C 84. That's usually the end of it, the name and the reference, nothing else. I don't know what that's about, maybe it's someone trying to advertise that they study scripture or know where things are in the scriptures?
• It will come up during lessons where the EQP or a visiting member from the SP gives an all too familiar "you suck at home teaching and you should feel bad" lesson. Usually the OaCotP is explained as PH holders having a "priesthood obligation" to do HTing.
• Unfortunately this is another overly-cynical me bullet point. We'll have a lesson where OaCotP is the subject and the person giving the lesson (usually someone in a high profile leadership position) will grill people about what OaCotP means, usually with the implication that there's a right answer and that the person giving the lesson knows it and has a much deeper knowledge of what that answer is than any of the participants of the class. The leader giving the lesson almost always takes on a demanding, authoritative tone.
  
  (asked loud enough to be heard through three partitions in the carpeted basketball court) WHAT'S THE OATH AND COVENANT OF THE PRIESTHOOD? ELDER!?!? [points to the most nervous looking person in the room]
  
  The "elder" sheepishly answers and the authority giving the lesson asks the exact same question again, even louder this time. Doing this both implies that the person that already answered didn't give a good enough answer and that the authority giving the lesson is privy to special knowledge. This repeats itself a few times until the authority giving the lesson clues everyone in with the answer they were looking for. THE answer... and it's usually something generic.
  
  That's only the slightest of exaggerations of what I've seen. Maybe this experience is atypical but I've seen it play out often.
  
  Same deal with priesthood keys. Everyone likes to pretend they are possessors of secret knowledge when it comes to certain subjects but truth be told keys and oaths really don't matter. It all boils down to respecting the chain of authority and doing what you're told.