Christians - the LDS christ

[Squirt]

Well, we can obviously expect that the apostles would have died eventually. Most prophets do ;-) And yes, their words were rejected but not by everyone.

Yes, they would have all died eventually, but it is a fact that most were martyred and there is no evidence that they were replaced. Interestingly, however, there do appear to be some pretty obvious clues that it was Jesus' intention for there to have been a direct line of succession, and that when an Apostle died, a new one would be called to take his place. Matthias was chosen to take Judas' place, and Paul said he had been called to be an Apostle. Barnadas was described as an Apostle in Acts and in Galations, Jesus' brother, James, was mentioned as an Apostle.

Saying that since the apostles were martyred the church foundation was destroyed is like saying, "Since Jesus was crucified, obviously no one believed him to be the Savior." I'm not understanding your logic.

You're right -- you're not. But that's probably my fault. I really didn't explain myself very well at all. What I meant was that Jesus gave certain individuals the authority to preside over His Church. He gave them the authority to act in His name once He was gone. He ordained them and set them apart to perform certain functions in the Church. Peter was His designated successor. As long as Peter lived, it would be through Peter that the resurrected Christ continued to direct the affairs of the Church. However, over time, we believe that the priesthood Jesus gave to His Prophets and Apostles was lost, leaving the Church with the scriptures to provide guidance, but with no continued direct line of authority. Without this foundation, men were unsure as to how to interpret doctrine and when questions arose, if no clear answer was found in the sacred writings, doctrinal errors crept in.

I will agree though that once Christianity became an 'official religion' a lot of true doctrine went out the window. That's why I believe it's important to immerse ourselves in scripture, rather than the traditional doctine of the church. I suppose we could digress about the birth of the canon, but I'm assuming LDS believes in the authority of NT scripture despite all that. If not, well then we have a problem.

And this would probably explain why you are not a Roman Catholic. Yes, we do accept the authority of the New Testament. The Bible has been described as "first and foremost among our Standard Works." We are not, however, Bible inerrantists. We do believe that, over time, errors crept in as the scriptures were copied and recopied and recopied. There are undoubtedly sacred writings that were not included and the Christian canon, as you undoubtedly know, has changed over time.

Oh man I feel dumb for that one. So sorry to associate your religion with Pocahontas!!!!

That's okay. I didn't even connect your mistake with that John Smith. It's funny but if Joseph Smith had had a really uncommon name, it would be much easier for people to remember it.

If we should be quick to accept alternate testimonies of Christ, why then don't we accept the Gospel of Thomas for example? *wink wink*

You've got a good point. I guess that's where the Holy Ghost comes in. I believe the Holy Ghost can be counted on to testify as to the truth of all things -- including what constitutes a valid additional testimony of Jesus Christ.

I understand what you're saying about prophets in the NT church, but scriptures in the NT talk more about false prophets than a need for living prophets. TONS more. This makes me automatically question any 'new' doctrine that is contrary to what is blatant in scripture.

Yes, they do talk of false prophets, but had Jesus not intended to continue to lead His Church through prophets, the warning would probably have read, "Beware of prophets" instead of "Beware of false prophets." I think Jesus knew that the Church was going to fall into apostasy. He knew that there were going to be a whole lot of false prophets before there were going to be any new true prophets!

So what makes JOSEPH Smith so authoritative, that he can add to the canon of scripture?

Obviously, I can't give you an answer to this question that you will find acceptable. The only answer I can give is the one I personally believe to be true: Joseph Smith was called by God to restore that which had been lost. I recognize that you believe the scriptures alone are sufficient to guide us and that all believers share in the priesthood of God. I don't see this being taught in the Bible at all. I see the need for the same organization and ordinances that existed in the early Church. I believe they have been restored as was prophesied would be the case.

The Book of Mormon came forth for the sole purpose of convincing the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ. It testifies of the divinity of Christ throughout its 500+ pages. There is little, if anything, in it that most Christians could find fault with. More problematic for most people are modern-day revelations given to Joseph Smith. None of these contradict what is said in the Bible, but they do provide us with additional information which we believe was known to the Christians of Christ's day. Many people are uncomfortable with these new revelations.

At any rate, that's what I believe. I respect your belief, as well and again thank you for the respectful way in which you have responded to my posts.

 

[dorcas3000]

Are you basically saying the Joseph Smith is the first in the reinstatement of the apostolic lineage that was supposedly dissolved so many years ago, and that the Mormon chuch is essentially the 'purest' chuch to what was originally intended by God?

Where, then, does that leave the rest of us in this grand scheme of things, according to mormon doctrine?

 

[Squirt]

Are you basically saying the Joseph Smith is the first in the reinstatement of the apostolic lineage that was supposedly dissolved so many years ago, and that the Mormon chuch is essentially the 'purest' chuch to what was originally intended by God?

Yes, I guess that's a pretty good way of putting it.

Where, then, does that leave the rest of us in this grand scheme of things, according to mormon doctrine?[/QUOTE]I'm no good at posting links to other posts on this forum, but if you will go to my post #31 on the "Scripturally, do believers go to heaven?" thread, you'll find my best attempt at an answer to your question. It under Biblical Debates. If you search through the active topics, you should be able to spot it quite quickly. (It's the first post on page 4 of the thread.)

 

[dan]

Mormonism is a tradition that is similarly marked by intolerance, murder, rape, theft, avarice and many of the greatest abominations that this earth has ever been witness to.

Very easy to say, but evidence is a different story all together. The Popes are the worst dictators that have ever lived. Show me where the leaders of my church had anything to do with any of those examples. Please do so or admit that this is a bold-faced lie. Whatever you bring up that is untrue I wil point out. After that I will show numerous examples of each in the church that spawned yours.

 

[dan]

Also, please address the facts that I pointed out in the earlier posts. You asked for historical and intellectual evidence and I provided it. Stand up for what you said or shut your mouth.

 

[dan]

I interpret the NT for a living.

Well, you do a poor job of it. You've actually shared a small handful of scriptures, and they just happen to coincide perfectly with our doctrine. Other than that you've just made blanket statements without any back-up whatsoever. Respond to my evidence, please.

 

[dan]

Do you have any evidence for this?

I was jsut coming to this, but you have yet to address my other posts, so I'll wait until we've gotten all that evidence out of the way.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Also, please address the facts that I pointed out in the earlier posts. You asked for historical and intellectual evidence and I provided it. Stand up for what you said or shut your mouth.

I will not respond with evidence for "umentionables" in Mormon history on this thread as it will go off topic. You didn't supply evidence for your little quib, so it is perfectly acceptable for me to do the same thing. However, it is not acceptable for us to continue on that issue here.

 

[dan]

So it's the "I'm above this kind of argument" method of evading the fact that you're grossly unprepared to defend the self-righteously indignant filth that you've been pawning off as truth?

It is perfectly on topic. You assert that our "Christ" is not biblical and that your beliefs are more historically and intellectually accurate. I provide you with plenty of information to show you beyond a reasonable doubt that your dogma is the spawn of a corrupt organization and your only response is "You offended me, so I'm not gonna answer." You're not used to dealing with Mormons who know what they're talking about and who aren't afraid to call you on your bull****, are you? You're a real credit to apostates everywhere.

 

[dan]

Here we have the acts of the great Catholic church, to whom all Protestant, Pentacostal, Evangelical and whatever else churches owe their heritage and allegiance. A righteous branch cannot spring from a dead root.

I am aware that the actions of common members of any congregation in no way represent the essence of said organization, so I will provide atrocities performed by the very heads of the Catholic church. Here come the Papal atrocities (If you're Catholic you might not want to read this):

We could start with indulgences, but that would be like beating a dead horse. The Catholic church sold forgiveness for cold hard cash. Very Biblical.

In 1309 the Papal chair was moved from Rome to Avignon, under the influence of Philip the Fair, king of France. French Popes took over and were in submission to the whims of the kings in France. In 1378 Rome retaliated by electing its own Pope. Two popes at the same time! Woo hoo! In 1409 the body of the church was questioning the infallibility of two Popes (as if anything the Popes did was ever valid) and came together in Pisa to elect Alexander V to replace both Popes. Neither Pope would step down and we now had three Popes! What a sight! I'm getting kinda doubtful of their divine sanctioning, but that's just the beginning!

Actually, let's go back in time. In 757 the Duke of Nepi fenagled his brother into the Papacy, only to irritate the rightful heir. Eleven years later he finally one the chair and had the old Popes eyes put out, cut out a bishop's tongue and threw him in a dungeon to die. In 795 Pope Adrian's cronies kidnapped Pope Leo III and tried to cut out his eyes and tongue. In 816 the Pope was driven from the city by the church. Paschal I was accused of blinding and murdering two ecclesiastics in the Lateran Palace. John VIII payed tribute to the Mohammedans (I guess God was too busy to fight their battles this time), while the Bishop of Naples (who was in cohorts with them) received much of that tribute. The Pope found out and told him to either become the church's assassin or be excommunicated. There was an ecclesiastical conspiracy to murder the Pope and let the Saracens into the city to steal treasures. Formosus, one of the conspirators, was excommunicated, but was then elected Pope anyway. Boniface VI was deposed because of his "immoral and lewd life". Stephen VII took Formosus' body from the grave, dressed him in his robes, propped him in the Papal seat and tried him before a council before cutting off three of the corpse's fingers and throwing it in the Tiber river. Stephen was the nthrown into prison and strangled. From 896 to 900 five popes were elected. Leo V took over in 904 and was imprisoned after two months by a conspirator who took the Papal chair and was subsequently driven from Rome by Sergius III, who used military force to take the Papacy. This Pope lived in "criminal intercourse" with the prostitute Theodora. She and her daughters controlled Sergius with an iron fist and later replaced him with another of her lovers, John X, in 915. The prostitute later grew to hate him, and threw him in jail and had him killed. One of her illegitimate sons, John XI, was then placed in the Papal chair. Another of her sons threw her and John XI in prison and took over at 19 years of age. This pope was charged with incest with one of his father concubines. He put out the eyes of an ecclesiastic and castrated another. He was a drunkard and a gambler. He worshiped Jupiter and Venus. Leo VIII was then elected pope, but after killing many, he was killed by a man whose wife he had seduced. John XIII was strangled in prison; Boniface VII imprisoned Benedict VII and killed him by starvation; John XIV was secretly killed in the castle of St. Angelo; Boniface's corpse was dragged through the streets; Benedict IX was eleven when made pope. One of his successors, Victor III, said his life was "so shameful, so foul, so execrable" that he shuddered to mention it. The people rose against Benedict, and he auctioned off the Papacy in 1045 to Gregory VI. We need not go into the crusades, slavery, Eugenics or the Papal acceptance of the Holocaust.

I grant that this is not your church, but you claim that the authority and doctrine continued uninterrupted from Peter to this church, and then to yours. Do you really believe that this church could be the vessel of anything good and wholesome? Do you really think that the doctrines these men voted on and changed year after year were in any way accurate? Do you really accept that these men were inspired in arranging the Bible and interpreting its meaning? When you tell me that "traditional Christianity" has a more solid grasp of Christ's gospel than ours you are condoning this church and everything it stands for. The preceding paragraphs contain the legacy of traditional Christainity. If that's your legacy then fine, but don't condemn me for not liking it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have argued that LDS follow a different Christ because their understanding of who Christ is is fundamentally different from Christianity.

We have different definitions of who Christ is. LDS are Christians, but are Christians of a different Christ. Orthodox Christians came first, there's more of us, and what LDS teach about Christ is different, so they have to choose a different name.

The OP:

What's wrong with the LDS christ? A_E keeps insisting that LDS and christians follow a different christ. Is this true? If so, which is following the "wrong" christ?

My response:

It depends on how you view history. We have a mutually exclusive definition of who Jesus Christ is. We know historically that the apostles of Jesus heard him teach, founded churches, and ordained bishops to continue their teachings. These disciples preserved the writings that eventually became the New Testament and formulated the creeds, defining who Jesus Christ and God of the NT are because there were multiple definitions, none of which meet LDS criterea.

1800 years later, Mr. Smith and his followers completely redefined all of theological definitions in the NT, creating a different religion. We can choose the new or stay with the old, but no one can deny that the definitions are drastically different.

IMHO, the one historically closer is more likely to be "correct," but you can believe whatever makes you warm and fuzzy (like me).

My proof:

I am trying to verify a quote attributed to President Hinkley:

"In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p.7 )

Any help from LDS friends would be appreciated. This is exactly what I am trying to say. I pulled this quote off of http://www.carm.org/lds/lds_jesus.htm, and by no means am I taking their word for it - can anyone verify this source?

Edit: I think that I found a Mormon site onlinethat may be able to verify the quote, but I can't access it for free. http://lds.about.com/gi/dynamic/off...Fcn%2Fhome.html. Subscribers to Desert Morning News or LDS Church News can...

EDIT #2 - I have looked and I don't have access to the LDS Church News in my library or in my pretty vast access to internet stuff. If someone else can't verify it, then I suppose that it may be worth $20 someday.

The homepage for LDS Church news is http://www.desnews.com/cn/. The 1998 issue will be in archives.

Assents:

when mainstream Christians accuse us of worshipping a "different Christ," they're probably right, to some extent.

We do follow a different Christ.

My solution:

Well I'm not insulting anyone if that's what you mean. You can be amused if you want to be, but that isn't my intent, either.

It's not my job to name the LDS Christ, they did it themselves. LDS follow the Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and not the Jesus Christ of traditional Christianity. The LDS Christ is who the LDS say that he is, and the Christ of Christianity is an entirely different person with a different role. Our theology is completely different, that's all, so it simply makes no sense to both be called "Christians" when the name denotes that the group holds similarities that simply are not there. BTW, I am perfectly happy with the title "LDS Christian" because it does denote devotion to someone other than the Christ of Christianity.

There are many Christian denomenations, but the denomenations at least share a traditional understanding of God and humans that differs drastically from LDS beliefs.

On to phase two of the OP ( which I understand as an assent as well):

Ok, now that we've got that settled, which of our christs is the more biblical?

My response:

The one that does not need further revelation from 20th century prophets and another testament. It is simply nonsensical to think that the LDS Christ is more biblical when you need two more documents that have no discernable historical, theological, or hermeneutical connection to the Bible to redefine and reinterpret it.

edit to clarify...
Disconnections:
1) Historical - there is no historical connection between Joseph Smith and the apostles. The interpretation of Jesus Christ of the Bible was put into creedal form by disciples of the apostles who wrote and preserved the New Testament. Later followers created later creeds, codifying what Christians believe about God.

2) Theological - Smith's revelations and later ones have no connection with any interpretation of the New Testament. That is, we just can't read the New Testament and learn that Jesus was a spirit child of a literal father, and early Christianity was not polytheistic.

3) Interpretative - Later revelations by LDS leaders are not interpretations of the NT or OT, and they can directly contradict these Scriptures. How can such revelations be "more biblical" when they aren't a product of interpretation, and then Mormons want to reinterpret the Bible based on these revelations?

I have no doubt that the LDS Christ can be found in the New Testament after every word is redefined. We've been reading the NT for 2000 years and we haven't found the LDS Christ in the NT.

My argument is simply this:

(1) We can't find the LDS Christ in the Bible unless we use extra-biblical sources that are disconnected by theology and history to find him.

(2) There were many different groups in early Christianity and none of them had a LDS view of Christ. See Walter Bauer's Orthodoxy and Heresy. (Bauer is not a repsentative of orthodox Christianity nor Mormonism, but a historical review of early Christianity) The so-called Great Apostacy is a LDS fabrication of the early church history is based on "revelation" that cannot be supported by any review of historical documents. In order to find evidence for an apostacy, we must first accept the LDS verison and then find it, just as we find the LDS Christ in Scripture. Such acceptance of a priori beliefs is intellectually irresponsible and wreckless because of the historical and theological disconnect from the objects of review: the Bible and the early church.

Conclusions:

(1) The LDS Christ can't be "more biblical" because it's not a product of the Bible, but clearly the product of 20th century revelations. That the LDS Christ can be found in the NT after we superimpose later revelation on it proves nothing because if it were biblical, then we would be able to find the LDS Christ without any foreign elements added to our interpretative technique.

(2) The LDS version of history simply can't be supported unless we add similar foreign elements. LDS can't argue that there was a great apostacy and later restoration because they can't establish that the early church held their views in the first place. We have to depend on later "revelation" for this as well, and it doesn't match history.

 

[michel]

O.K Guys, thread re-opened; stay on-topic. No rudeness, no name calling, or nasty old grumpy me will close the thread down for good.

Have clean fun!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In any case, I don't believe that any of the things I've listed that make our beliefs in Christ different from someone else's beliefs in Christ are part of following Christ. Following Christ is something in your heart and it has more to do with love and charity than with trinity and resurrection. When it comes down to what people follow, there is no difference.

I have to disagree with this statement. There is a quantitative difference in how we follow Christ, and it is related to the covanents made in the Mormon temple. The only covanent in the New Testament is the one that Jesus made with His disciples, and it is patterned after the Abrahamic covanent.

The only difference may be the level of commitment and understanding of what it really means to be a Christian.

This is a significant point.

 

[jonny]

The covenants made in LDS temples are directly related to what Christ asked us to do in the New Testament. Is it the idea that we make these covenants that leads you to believe that we follow Christ differently? If so, then I agree with you.

I believe what you are describing falls into the level of commitment and understanding. For example, one follower of Christ may believe that they need to follow Christ by being charitable, but endowed members of the LDS church have specifically covenanted that we would follow Christ by being charitable. That doesn't necessarily mean that the member of the LDS church is a better christian than the other follower of Christ, but, according to my beliefs, it does place more responsibility on the LDS member.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The covenants made in LDS temples are directly related to what Christ asked us to do in the New Testament. Is it the idea that we make these covenants that leads you to believe that we follow Christ differently? If so, then I agree with you.

Yes.

I believe what you are describing falls into the level of commitment and understanding. For example, one follower of Christ may believe that they need to follow Christ by being charitable, but endowed members of the LDS church have specifically covenanted that we would follow Christ by being charitable. That doesn't necessarily mean that the member of the LDS church is a better christian than the other follower of Christ, but, according to my beliefs, it does place more responsibility on the LDS member.

Are there emotional/spiritual penalties from breaking covanents?

Two thoughts: In the NT, the New Covanent is non-negotiable and an Abrahamic type. From the Christian POV, we don't make covanents with God, God made a covanent with us in Jesus Christ from the blessing of all humankind. We had nothing to do with it. God chose to bless us all with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and we are completely powerless to approach God on our own terms to receive his blessing or make a covanent. A covanent-making process with God has no basis in the NT. Our different understandings of the role of Christ and the nature of God does therefore lead to different ways of following Christ.

I think that we an affirm our differences here. I see nothing wrong with a person devoting him/herself to God, but I can see potential for spiritual and emotional harm if these covanents are not based on redemption (God does all the work), eg., that there are social, spiritual, and emotional consequences for breaking said covanents. Such harm would violate the nature of God in the NT.

Disclaimer: I will not agressively debate the nature of the covanents as I know that they are very sacred to LDS.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The covenants made in LDS temples are directly related to what Christ asked us to do in the New Testament. Is it the idea that we make these covenants that leads you to believe that we follow Christ differently? If so, then I agree with you.

I believe what you are describing falls into the level of commitment and understanding. For example, one follower of Christ may believe that they need to follow Christ by being charitable, but endowed members of the LDS church have specifically covenanted that we would follow Christ by being charitable. That doesn't necessarily mean that the member of the LDS church is a better christian than the other follower of Christ, but, according to my beliefs, it does place more responsibility on the LDS member.

Again, thanks for sharing. I know that we are on the borders here of what we can discuss.

 

[jonny]

Yes.



Are there emotional/spiritual penalties from breaking covanents?

There are no specific penalties for breaking covenants that I am aware of. Since every action results in a reaction, there will be consequences for breaking them though. What these consequences are may be different in every case.

Two thoughts: In the NT, the New Covanent is non-negotiable and an Abrahamic type. From the Christian POV, we don't make covanents with God, God made a covanent with us in Jesus Christ from the blessing of all humankind. We had nothing to do with it. God chose to bless us all with the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and we are completely powerless to approach God on our own terms to receive his blessing or make a covanent. A covanent-making process with God has no basis in the NT. Our different understandings of the role of Christ and the nature of God does therefore lead to different ways of following Christ.

From an LDS point of view, covenant making is part of the restoration of all things which is a foundation of our church. ALL covenants that are made by members of the LDS church are also performed for our ancestors in LDS temples.

The first covenant any LDS member makes is at baptism. This covenant is renewed weekly when we partake of the sacrament. At baptism we covenant to take the name of Christ upon ourselves, to always remember him, and to keep his commandments.

When LDS members receive the priesthood, they make another covenant. This covenant is to receive the priesthood in good faith and with honest intent and to magnify this priesthood.

The covenants associated with the endowment, which I have already mentioned, are performed only in the temples. The marriage covenant, or sealing, is also performed in the temple.

Covenant making is exactly what sets us apart from many other Christian churches. This is why we are so passionate about the need for authority.

I think that we an affirm our differences here. I see nothing wrong with a person devoting him/herself to God, but I can see potential for spiritual and emotional harm if these covanents are not based on redemption (God does all the work), eg., that there are social, spiritual, and emotional consequences for breaking said covanents. Such harm would violate the nature of God in the NT.

Disclaimer: I will not agressively debate the nature of the covanents as I know that they are very sacred to LDS.

A covenant, by definition, requires something from both parties. In all cases, covenants made by members of the LDS church require devotion to aspects the gospel on our part. In return for keeping these covenants, we are promised Redemption. Just as there are social, spiritual, and emotional consequences for breaking commandments, there are social, spiritual, and emotional consequences for breaking covenants. For example, if you cheat on your spouse and break your marriage covenant, you are going to have to deal with the social, spiritual, and emotional consequences. Are there any instances where we are promised freedom from the consequences of our actions?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Are there any instances where we are promised freedom from the consequences of our actions?

I cannot answer this question or address marriage until I have more information.

You said that covanents are needed for Redemption.

Are the covanents voluntary or compulsary (or both)? Which ones are voluntary or compulsary?

What are the social, emotional, or otherwise negative repercussions for breaking a covanent?

EDIT:
I realize that you did say this:

There are no specific penalties for breaking covenants that I am aware of. Since every action results in a reaction, there will be consequences for breaking them though. What these consequences are may be different in every case.

But you can imagine, as an outsider, how my mind just reels with possibilities. You gave marriage as an example, and violation of the marriage promise brings great destruction, with severe emotional, social, and psychological repercussions. Surely one will not be penalized so greatly for attempting to devote oneself to God and failing... are penalties like this honorable to a God who died on a Cross for our Redemption?

 

[jonny]

I cannot answer this question or address marriage until I have more information.

You said that covanents are needed for Redemption.

Are the covanents voluntary or compulsary (or both)? Which ones are voluntary or compulsary?

All covenants are voluntary. We perform proxy work in our temples for everyone so that they will have the opportunity to accept or reject these covenants.

What are the social, emotional, or otherwise negative repercussions for breaking a covanent?

Could be anything. Spiritually, there is the possibility of not being admitted into the Celestial Kingdom if you break your covenants and don't repent. In the end, if you break your covenants, you don't qualify for the associated blessings. In regards to the church, breaking your covenants could result in excommunication or disfellowship from the church. In minor instances, a member might be put on probation for a short time. In the later case, the member might be asked by the bishop not to partake of the sacrament to renew his covenants until he has fully repented of a specific sin. You might also be limited in your ability to exercise your priesthood. Socially and emotionally it would be different with each person. Guilt is probably the most common feeling when someone breaks a covenant. If someone breaks a covenant they have made to be charitable, it may result in the loss of a friend or damage a relationship. I guess I'm not sure exactly what you're asking on this one. Luckily, repentance is possible through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Even if we break a covenant we have made, we can always turn back.

 

[jonny]

But you can imagine, as an outsider, how my mind just reels with possibilities. You gave marriage as an example, and violation of the marriage promise brings great destruction, with severe emotional, social, and psychological repercussions. Surely one will not be penalized so greatly for attempting to devote oneself to God and failing... are penalties like this honorable to a God who died on a Cross for our Redemption?

I look at it a little differently. You know that LDS members believe that Christ has paid for all our sins and that the idea of Hell in LDS doctrine is limited to a select few who have commited extremely serious sins. Everyone else will receive some portion of the glory of God. For those who make and keep covenants, God has made promises that extend further than just redemption. Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom is one of these blessings. It isn't that we are punished for breaking our covenants. It is that we don't qualify for the blessings associated with that covenant when we break it. The blessing of the marriage covenant is eternal marriage. If you break that covenant, you will not quality for eternal marriage. If you are breaking your marriage covenants, you probably don't want to be married to the person for eternity anyway...