| 7 comments ]

David, my son, do not be so much in a rush to make what is a covenant into not a covenant just because you do not see something to your liking in the canon. And you, Ronan, and you J., and you Luthor. Such smart boys, how are you such noodnicks, such nuchshleppers!

David, there is no promise of salvation outside of my lineage, is there? No. You either have to be one of my literal children or adopted into my family in order to obtain the salvation of the Lord. My son Paul and my son Joseph both speak of this, as is is written. Oi! Gevalt! These kids today! Ongeblussen! And what about Peter! Oy! Schmo!

David, my son, you are missing the forest for the trees. Don't be so dogmatic. And quit it with the kvetching, would you? You say that the the Temple you make a covenant, when you are just redoing what I already did so you may make the same covenants I already made. Guess what? If you want to be in my family, you have to be baptised and take upon you the name of Christ, otherwise you are not going to the Temple in the first place! Taking upon you the name of Christ is not a covenant? David, if it is not a covenant, why do you need the Priesthood to administer it? Ach, if it is not a covenant, then what is it? A nice thing? A quick bath? A waste of water? David, such a nice boy, such a nice, nice boy. Don't be such a kuni leml, huh?

7 comments

LXX Luthor said... @ December 4, 2006 at 3:19 PM

Hey Abs, you missed the point entirely! Baptism is an ordinance, I'd hardly call that nothing. The uncontrolable desire to associate covenants with all ordinances is a mistake. The same is true of our washings and anointings: you get the blessings (conditionally, granted) before you promise anything. No promise, no covenant. It's a technical argument. And where do you take upon you the name of Christ in baptism? You don't. You agree to do it before hand and you actually do it when you take the sacrament. And whether a covenant is present in an ordinance or not, all ordinances need to be performed by the priesthood. Oy vey! I just shot down Father Abraham!

Father Abraham said... @ December 4, 2006 at 7:11 PM

Oy, Luthor, you are such a schlub! Don't you even click the links? Why should I type when you don't even click?

Gal. 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

D&C 20:37
and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ...shall be received by baptism into his church.

I should give you such a slap in the kopf you schmo! Shoot down father Abraham, come here you little darling, I have some rope and a knife I am wanting to show you. I tell you, these kids today, so crazy they make me!

David J said... @ December 4, 2006 at 9:21 PM

Abraham, father of anglo-Israelites! I greet you as a brethren! Forgive this evil sinner for ever misconstruing the Mormon concept of covenant, which imbues all doctrine and ritual, no matter how pointless, and cannot be escaped! Now that David J believes baptism has no Abrahamic value, does this mean he thinks baptism is utterly pointless? God forbid! But alas I must confess that in the end, we don't need you, Abe! We're saved by grace, right?

Who is grace, anyway? Is she pretty?

LXX Luthor said... @ December 4, 2006 at 10:14 PM

Oh great Snarkers, forgive this miserable blogging greenie. I have taken serious what was lighthearted and held sacred that which is profane. Please bestow thy snarking wisdom upon me. May I ever be a sclameel.

father abraham said... @ December 5, 2006 at 4:14 AM

Ach! I should give you two such a pinch!

Stephen said... @ December 6, 2006 at 5:30 AM

Now, if we only had more doctrinal arguments like this one ...

Anonymous said... @ December 6, 2006 at 10:22 PM

Only one way to settle this - just like that time when two rabbis were arguing a doctrinal point:

Said Rabbi #1:
"If I am right, let that nearby river be moved out of its course."

And God heard, and the river was moved from its course.

Said Rabbi #2:
"What does the river have to do with anything?! Move that river back!"

And God heard it, and the river returned to its original course.

Seth R.

Post a Comment