- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I came across this article by Matthew Bowman in the Salt Lake Tribune: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/10/16/matthew-bowman-is-it-time-latter/ ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/10/16/matthew-bowman-is-it-time-latter/ I think Bowman is an OK guy and is willing to think outside the box, and I get what he’s trying to say. But Houston there is a problem.
Bowman says that most church members seem to view the covenant path as a “progressive series of obligations on members” through the ordinances (including the temple of course).
Quote:These leaders use the phrase to describe the series of ordinances church members make. Calling ordinances part of the covenant path emphasizes that baptism, the temple endowment and so on place a progressive series of obligations on members. As Nelson said, “Your commitment to follow the Savior by making covenants with him and then keeping those covenants will open the door to every spiritual blessing.” As the flood of covenant path knickknacks one can buy at Deseret Book shows, many Latter-day Saints seem to be moved by the idea. It feels regular and certain and predictable, and that can be empowering.
But what about those of us who don’t necessarily buy in?
Quote:For those Latter-day Saints who don’t find the notion of the covenant path compelling, it smacks of control and conformity; the dreary punching of a timecard. It is a mold into which you are expected to press your own individuality, tucking and folding, sucking in your stomach until you look like the sort of person who might appear on recruitment materials for Brigham Young University-Idaho.
Bowman proposes a different way to look at the covenant path, perhaps more like other churches/religions might:
Quote:One might be to emphasize the covenant path as a system of rites of passage, a common concept in anthropology. Baptism, temple endowment, marriage and so on — rites of passage mark transitions from one stage of life, responsibilities and relationships to another.
Many religious systems have similar systems. Muslim children begin fasting during the holy month of Ramadan in puberty. After their bar or bat mitzvahs, held usually at age 13, Jewish children are formally held responsible for understanding the law. All of this is, of course, not unlike how Latter-day Saints understand baptism or the temple endowment. But a rite of passage is as much about growth and an altered place in the world as it is about taking on obligations. One might think of covenants less as a mandate to do something and more as a new way to conceive of one’s relationship with the divine.
Another analogous system might be the Roman Catholic “sacramental economy.” Like covenant path, it is a phrase with roots in scripture. The Apostle Paul uses the word “economy” to describe God’s management of his relationships with humans. Roman Catholics speak of sacraments as covenants, and covenants less as forms of obligation than as varying ways of relating to other people and to God. The sacraments are routes to different sorts of spiritual fulfillment, avenues to distinct qualities of grace, not a set of rods to measure yourself against or a set of tasks to accomplish.
I think that’s all well and good, and probably more like how I see it (I actually don’t see the ordinances to be necessary but more as symbolic). However, I’m in a very small minority as far as I can tell and that point of view is certainly not something one talks openly about in SS/PH. And that is the problem I alluded to earlier – I can think/believe what I want but when the topic is being discussed (or lectured) by others at church they are not speaking the same language I am. IOW, it doesn’t matter that I might view the ordinances as rites of passage if everyone else in the room believes something different (obedience/commitment/etc.). I agree with Bowman that it is possible to look at the covenant path from different points of view or interpretations than the seemingly prevailing view, and I do the same thing all the time (particularly with scripture). But I don’t think this is a message that resonates with the general population.
I really like that view. Of course, it won’t resonate with the general population.
The general framing is the general framing specifically because it does resonate with the general population.🙂 I am fine with this as a framing that can work for many outside the general population. It is quite similar to how I view it.
Finally, I have a long enough time in my own journey to frame this in fluent Mormonese in order to say it in church without sounding (or being) heretical. In other words, I think this is a solidly Mormon concept and can be shared “faithfully” if done so intentionally and thoughtfully (meaning not in the spur of the moment/emotion without prior thought about how to do so in that setting).
For me covenant path is a motivational phrase that wore out its welcome several years ago. There have been several motivational phrases over the years.
Lengthen your stride.
Every member a missionary.
Hasten the work.
Once a new one comes along we have the tendency to repeat it ad nauseam until we run it into the ground, then we repeat it even more until it becomes maddening. I think “hear him” and “let god prevail” were attempts to retire “covenant path” but they never caught on, so here we are with covenant path… still.
I think it is important to ask what people are actually trying to communicate when they say covenant path. Maybe it’s down to personal interpretation by the person that hears it than the intent of the person that says it but when I hear covenant path I hear a more spiritual way of saying “check the boxes.” It also serves as shorthand for saying do what it takes to never go inactive.
There for a while, and likely still, one method used to reactivate inactive members was to look up what ordinances they were missing (endowment, sealing, child baptism, age appropriate PH) and use that as a motivational tool to reactivate. Come back and we can check off this box. There are covenants associated with those ordinances so someone got the bright idea to call it the covenant path.
Maybe it doesn’t resonate so well because people at church are preaching to the choir. The people that hear covenant path the most are people that have already ticked all the boxes and complied with all the rites of passage. They’re also people that would have followed along the prescribed path without any additional prompting.
The covenant path may be the only answer that leaders have to the question, “Why bother attending church?” Covenant path is essentially saying, “You gotta come to church because where else are you going to get the ordinances you need?” which I don’t find to be a very compelling reason to attend church.
Overuse is another reason it may not resonate. Surely I can’t be the only one tired of hearing the phrase all the time. Bottom line for me… we are at that point along the covenant path where it’s time to find a new motivational phrase.
I mainly complained about the overuse of the phrase. Sorry.
😳 I do enjoy the alternative viewpoint on what the phrase can mean.nibbler wrote:
The covenant path may be the only answer that leaders have to the question, “Why bother attending church?” Covenant path is essentially saying, “You gotta come to church because where else are you going to get the ordinances you need?” which I don’t find to be a very compelling reason to attend church.
I’ve heard this before and I heard it again yesterday in stake conference: You have to come to church to take the sacrament because 1) you renew your covenants when taking the sacrament and 2) the sacrament is an ordinance itself. I’m not saying that compels me, but it probably compels some people.Quote:Overuse is another reason it may not resonate. Surely I can’t be the only one tired of hearing the phrase all the time. Bottom line for me… we are at that point along the covenant path where it’s time to find a new motivational phrase.
There are at least two of us…
Old-Timer wrote:
Of course, it won’t resonate with the general population. The general framing is the general framing specifically because it does resonate with the general population.
I agree with OT. The message of covenant path is simple. There is a point A and a point B and a line that connects them. There is also the easy symbolism of the iron rod and the tree of life.I googled “rites of passage” and learned a little more about how they serve as transitions from one group to another. It is a little more to wrap my head around. That doesn’t make understanding the ordinances as rites of passage wrong – especially since they usually come along with hitting specified age milestones. It just means that as a marketing slogan it will have a more difficult time taking hold.
Thinking back to Richard Poll’s famous talk “What the church means to people like me.” He was comparing people who found more meaning in the Iron Rod and others that found meaning in the compass/Liahona. Seems to me that covenant path hits all the same notes as the Iron Rod and will probably resonate with the same types of individuals. As I recall, Brother Poll received some push back at the time from Apostle Harold B. Lee in GC 1971.
Quote:If there is any one thing most needed in this time of tumult and frustration, … it is an “iron rod” as a safe guide along the straight path on the way to eternal life, … There are many who profess to be religious and speak of themselves as Christians, and, according to one such, “as accepting the scriptures only as sources of inspiration and moral truth,” and then ask in their smugness: “Do the revelations of God give us a handrail to the kingdom of God, as the Lord’s messenger told Lehi, or merely a compass?”… Wouldn’t it be a great thing if all who are well schooled in secular learning could hold fast to the “iron rod,” or the word of God, … ?
IOW, this framing of the gospel as a more rigid pathway has been the dominant framing for at least 60 years and for just as long there have been individuals that have felt that other metaphors ring more true for their own spiritual journeys.
DarkJedi wrote:
I think that’s all well and good, and probably more like how I see it (I actually don’t see the ordinances to be necessary but more as symbolic). However, I’m in a very small minority as far as I can tell and that point of view is certainly not something one talks openly about in SS/PH. And that is the problem I alluded to earlier – I can think/believe what I want but when the topic is being discussed (or lectured) by others at church they are not speaking the same language I am. IOW, it doesn’t matter that I might view the ordinances as rites of passage if everyone else in the room believes something different (obedience/commitment/etc.). I agree with Bowman that it is possible to look at the covenant path from different points of view or interpretations than the seemingly prevailing view, and I do the same thing all the time (particularly with scripture). But I don’t think this is a message that resonates with the general population.
I think a contributing factor is that most people are focused on Richard Rohr’s “Stage 3” processes. They want the stability of definitions, the certainty of narrative. A lot of these individuals are also parents – who are trying to infuse the younger generation with wisdom.
“Stage 4” processes are happening – just in the corners, and just sometimes. When everything comes crashing down (which may or may not be related to a midlife crisis), stability goes out the window.
A side conversation. If ordinances become strictly “symbolic” and more like “rites of passage” then “the divine checklist” – then the ordinances for the dead are also “symbolic” and more like connective “rites of passage” – but we don’t know what they symbolize for those experiencing them on the other side (let alone on our side). But if ordinances for the dead lose their power to “bind heaven and earth”, then that makes one of the defining aspects of our religion moot.
nibbler wrote:
For me covenant path is a motivational phrase that wore out its welcome several years ago.There have been several motivational phrases over the years.
Lengthen your stride.
Every member a missionary.
Hasten the work.
Once a new one comes along we have the tendency to repeat it ad nauseam until we run it into the ground, then we repeat it even more until it becomes maddening. I think “hear him” and “let god prevail” were attempts to retire “covenant path” but they never caught on, so here we are with covenant path… still.
Right before covenant path we had “gathering Israel on both sides of the veil” because it was something RMN mentioned in one of his first talks as president. We still get it a bit because it dovetails with the covenant path on the temple end.
AmyJ wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
I think that’s all well and good, and probably more like how I see it (I actually don’t see the ordinances to be necessary but more as symbolic). However, I’m in a very small minority as far as I can tell and that point of view is certainly not something one talks openly about in SS/PH. And that is the problem I alluded to earlier – I can think/believe what I want but when the topic is being discussed (or lectured) by others at church they are not speaking the same language I am. IOW, it doesn’t matter that I might view the ordinances as rites of passage if everyone else in the room believes something different (obedience/commitment/etc.). I agree with Bowman that it is possible to look at the covenant path from different points of view or interpretations than the seemingly prevailing view, and I do the same thing all the time (particularly with scripture). But I don’t think this is a message that resonates with the general population.
I think a contributing factor is that most people are focused on Richard Rohr’s “Stage 3” processes. They want the stability of definitions, the certainty of narrative. A lot of these individuals are also parents – who are trying to infuse the younger generation with wisdom.
“Stage 4” processes are happening – just in the corners, and just sometimes. When everything comes crashing down (which may or may not be related to a midlife crisis), stability goes out the window.
A side conversation. If ordinances become strictly “symbolic” and more like “rites of passage” then “the divine checklist” – then the ordinances for the dead are also “symbolic” and more like connective “rites of passage” – but we don’t know what they symbolize for those experiencing them on the other side (let alone on our side). But if ordinances for the dead lose their power to “bind heaven and earth”, then that makes one of the defining aspects of our religion moot.
I agree, church members seem to love the checkboxes, and that’s probably at least in part because we’ve had so many over the years. There are still people in my own ward who don’t get the difference in ministering and home teaching and one in particular who vehemently complains (still) about the lack of “accountability” with ministering (no checkboxes).
Side conversation: I guess it depends on where one is with the nuanced point of view to begin with. I lean universalist (and I believe Joseph Smith was a universalist) and believe that almost all humankind will be in “heaven.” And I don’t believe the ordinances are the reason for that for the living or the dead. So for me that part is out of the equation from the start (thus the covenant path and temple work for the dead have little meaning to me anyway). I agree that puts a major hole in the church narrative, but that’s their problem, not mine.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.