Talk:Covenant in Mormonism

informal/formal categorization
I've been a member for 36 years and have never heard it explained that there are informal and formal covenants. Is there a reference for this that could be added? I see that there is some usefulness in classifying them this way, but I also think it might imply that formal covenants are somehow considered more binding than the "informal" ones, which I feel is misleading. --Will (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A web search of lds.org for "informal covenant" and "formal covenant" yields 0 and 1 (unrelated) result respectively. --Will (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Law of Chastity would not be considered an "informal" covenant. Also, how does the temple recommend interview figure into this as far as the "informal" ones being between the member and God? --Will (talk) 06:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Much laughter
JonasRichards (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)I've never heard of it being bad to have "much laughter" on the sabbath. I'm pretty sure that's wrong.JonasRichards (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See DC 59:15: "And inasmuch as ye do these things [referring to what to do on the Lord's day] with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, not with much laughter, for this is sin, but with a glad heart and a cheerful countenance— ..." Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring of article needed?
Clearly, there are some issues with this article. The formal/informal distinction, as noted above, is problematic and not supported by sources.

I think one of the problems is that the word "covenant" seems to be used in two different ways within Mormonism. The first way is that it refers to the promise between God and a person that is made in association with an ordinance.

The second way that it is used is more general. The idea is that people can make promises to God to keep commandments, and then God promises blessings in return. This is outside of any connection to an ordinance. Is this properly referred to as a "covenant" in Mormonism? It can be, in the sense that it makes up part of the "new and everlasting covenant" or the "covenant people" nature of followers of Christ. But how exactly to tackle this issue in the article I'm unsure of. Perhaps including any discussion of the latter type is too esoteric or bound to be misunderstood. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have tried to revise the article somewhat, emphasising the first kind and downplaying (though not eliminating) the second. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I made some changes that I believe clarify the issue of "formal vs informal" distinction that you have ( erroneously, in my opinion) tried to make. Nonmembers are not expected to obey the word of wisdom or to pay tithing. They have not made a covenant to do so. Members of the church have made a covenant to obey the commandments. This coven is made through the ordinance of baptism. Therefore these covenants are associated with the ordinance of baptism. It may not seem like it. And maybe it's not talked about in such a direct manner, but there's no other way that it can be. KeithDay (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, it wasn't me who made the "formal vs informal" distinction in the article. That was pre-existing; I was the one who changed it, as I outlined above. I think what you have written is likely "correct" from an LDS Church doctrinal standpoint. However, it's not exactly what the sources say. The Romney source draws no connection between the covenant of tithing or the covenant of the Word of Wisdom to baptism. Perhaps because he was speaking to a church audience, he thought it would be understood that this is linked to baptism, but he doesn't make that connection in the words he uses.
 * Also, from just an LDS scriptural context, it's unclear whether all covenants are accompanied by ordinances. (I know, I know – doctrinally they probably are, but you have to read between the lines to find any ordinance.) For instance, the covenant entered into in 2 Chronicles 34:29–32. There's no mention of an ordinance or ritual that accompanied this one. Doctrinally, we can say that there must have been, but one has infer that it exists—it's not mentioned in the text itself. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)