LDS want "apostate" Christians to call them Christian

[Mike Reed]

What I did was to clarify the intended meaning behind an earlier statement. Is a person not allowed to do that in your world? Ever hear the scriptural expression "making a man an offender for a word"?

You ever heard of accountability?

I noticed that you had to dig quite a ways back in time for your quote mining.

Well... the word NEVER allows me to "dig" as far back as I'd like to. (chuckle) Don't overlook that there are other more contemporary quotes that I also gave.

And nothing there reflects an institutional position that an incorrect doctrinal belief automatically invalidates a person's Christianity. Can you show anything that does?

Anything comparable to what sectarian anti-Mormons do to Mormons? You have a whole field of official curriculum at your fingertips with lds.org.

The quotes I gave are sufficient to contradict your initial false claim. "Mormons" have indeed claimed (on several occasions) that people were not Christian based on belief. And again... most of the quotes were given in General Conference.

Your own inference is not necessarily the implication.

Necessarily? How about Probability?

Nice apologetic posturing, btw. I am glad that I don't feel the need to do that anymore.

[Mike Reed]

It's just that it gets tiresome revisiting questions that have been raised over and over again with no recognition or cognizance of discourse that has gone on before.

Welcome to the world of apologetics, Scott.

[Mike Reed]

Thanks for the references. I asked, you delivered. Quite the story.

Regards,

Six

You are welcome Bsix.

[Scott Lloyd]

You ever heard of accountability?

I accept accountability for making my meaning clear -- which is why I clarified it when it was obvious you misinterpreted what I said. Such a thing happens quite often with the give-and-take of dialog. In civil discourse one party accepts another's clarification and does not continue to make a man an offender for a word, as you are doing here.

Well... the word NEVER allows me to "dig" as far back as I'd like to. (chuckle) Don't overlook that there are other more contemporary quotes that I also gave. The quotes I gave are sufficient to contradict your initial false claim.

It was not a false claim. It was a statement I made that you misinterpreted. I'm the world's foremost expert on what I meant by a statement I made.

Incidentally, a close examination of what I said might have yielded a better understanding. I didn't say "No Mormon has ever denied the Christianity of someone else based on incorrect doctrinal belief." I said, "Mormons never...", as much as to say, "As a rule, Mormons as a body don't deny someone's Christianity merely because he believes something that is incorrect."

"Mormons" have indeed claimed (on several occasions) that people were not Christian based on belief. And again... most of the quotes were given in General Conference.

What part of "institutional position" don't you understand?

Necessarily? How about Probability?

I'm not bound by your inferences.

Nice apologetic posturing, btw. I am glad that I don't feel the need to do that anymore.

Apostasy has its perqs, I suppose. Although, if it means you have to adopt the anti-Mormon practice of quote-mining and out-of-context citation, I'd call it a poor trade-off.

Welcome to the world of apologetics, Scott.

You mean "welcome to the world of anti-Mormonism"?

[Scott Lloyd]

I could care less whether other Christian churches agree with the theology i believe to be of God. When i desire for other denominations to speak of me as 'Christian' i'm not seeking an edorsement-i'm seeking accuracy.

All i want from them is to acknowledge that i worship Christ, the same Christ that is spoken of in the bible, and believe Him to be the Son of God and the Savior of the world. I want them to understand that i believe that Christ died for my sins, that He and His gospel are the only way to Heaven, and that i don't believe i can work my way to heaven.

If they can acknowledge all of that-and still believe i'm not a Christian, then that's fine. But they had better not purposefully and knowingly describe me as 'non-Christian' to someone who would believe that such a title precludes someone from believing as i do about Christ, or they are bearing false witness against me and my beliefs and will be held accountable (by the only Being who's opinion really matters anyway).

I always strive to use words, when speaking about the beliefs of others, that are not just 'technically' correct in my view but which honestly describe what those people actually believe. Since i'm a fan of the golden rule that Christ put forth, i expect the same treatment by anyone who would label THEMSELVES as followers of Christ as well.

This strikes me as a reasonable stance, Bluebell.

Those who think we are desperately seeking the approval/endorsement of non-LDS Christendom are not interpreting the facts correctly. All we really want is to not be misrepresented before a less-than-adequately informed public.

[Lightbearer]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

I think we, as Mormons, should admit that, to some degree, Mormons want to have it both ways; to call all other Christians apostate and their professors corrupt; but to say we want to be considered part of them; or at least by their same nom-de-plume.

It is an interesting paradox, and one which finds its way into Givens' recent publication regarding Mormons, "People of Paradox."

I think that, rather than denying that one or the other is true, when they both manifestly are true, we as Mormons might be able to learn a little about ourselves by investigating why it is that we hold to this particular paradox.

A paradox, a paradox,

A most ingenious paradox.

We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks,

But none to match this paradox!

All the Best!

--Sullivanieri

I really think it is quite simple. As for the definition of the word Paradox, I prefer:

"A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true."

As for it's application you are placing on it: First the assertion we call all other Christians "apostate" and their professors corrupt.

Second that we want to be considered part of them.

Well for one thing the term "Christian" has been given so much "baggage" to it much like "Anti-Mormon" or "Cult" it comes with it's own connotations, so it is hard to give a reasonable definition. We all place qualifiers on the term as do others such that some confusion may come about in it's usage. Now I do not doubt that we do look upon traditional christianity as espoused in RC and Protestant creeds are "apostate" or heretical in nature, apostate meaning divergent from what was initially believed and taught by Jesus and His apostles but which became corrupted by tradition and time and loss of current revelation. Many in the Church try to "soften" the sound of this position by admitting that there is truth found in all churches. It is not the best way to win friends and influence people to call them apostate... it may be emphasizing the positive to say yes we have common beliefs that include a belief in Christ as the Son of God. Also we can include many moral and ethical principles in which we also are in agreement But when people roll out the theological or doctrinal underpinnings of those statements it starts getting more complex. It may be considered by some to be hypocritical to proclaim ourselves "Christians" when we do have uniquely different "Mormon" doctrines. First I would ask why would we want to be considered "one of the many denominations" of Christianity? Especially when were not derived from that historical tradition? We did not come from the Catholic Church, we are not a reformation of those old traditions. We were not derived from a new or scholarly interpretation of the Bible... We are a restoration of the original Christian Church through angelic ministration and by revelation from God Himself. So the only paradox is in the minds of those who do not understand these facts. We do not seek acceptance from traditional Christianity as being "one of them" or at least I do not. I as Paul said wish all men would be like unto myself... accept the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. All old covenants are done away and we offer the New and Everlasting Covenant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are not saying "me too" to those who say they believe in Christ... we are saying "come and see" we have found the Lord's Church. Those in other "christian" churches:

(D&C 49:2) "Behold, I say unto you, that they desire to know the truth in part, but not all, for they are not right before me and must needs repent."

This is the lot of those who would not accept the Gospel but want to stay in their own "version" of Christianity. I do not desire to demean others beliefs, that is why I refer to them as traditional christians instead of apostate christians... but the fact is and I suppose this is the paradoxical part: You cannot stand for something without standing against something else. In fact the words of Jesus Christ in the first vision while they seem harsh spells it out rather plainly:

(Joseph Smith History 1:19-21) "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: â??they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.â? He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, â??Never mind, all is wellâ??I am well enough off.â? I then said to my mother, â??I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.â? It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy? Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them."

From the very beginning it seems that the restoration was attack and ridiculed by other "Christians" and why not? We are basically saying that their Church is not true, that they have an inferior brand of christianity... so it is hardly surprising that they want to deny us the status of being a Christian. The real problem is they are in a very difficult position, if they say yes you are a christian one of the "body of believers" then they must of necessity accept our message... NEW APOSTLES! NEW PROPHETS! NEW REVELATIONS! That would burst the old bottles with new wine! It is much easier to say: False Prophets! Polygamists! Deceivers! Gold Bible! Cult of the Devil! Much easier to brand us as non-christian heretics, the Anti-Christ! Than to consider a new day of revelation, a new dispensation of Christ! No more scribes and doctors of the law! Oracles of God, angels flying with the message of truth of the everlasting Gospel declaring repentance and making His paths straight! Yes little wonder that they want to label us as having "another gospel" or "another Jesus" it is far easier to deny this farm boy upstart than to accept his teachings. We are the Lord's covenant people, so we are "exclusive" we are the Saints of God and so it is impossible for us to be "friends of the world" so we are hated and reviled and persecuted, but we should rejoice and be exceedingly glad... for so did they the prophets and apostles and saints of old. We cannot afford to "keep a low profile" or to have communion with the world, we are to come forth out of obscurity and out of darkness to be as an army with banners. We also are to extend the hand of friendship and to have love and charity for our brothers and sisters who are not of our faith... this I suppose is a paradox, just as Jesus was called the prince of peace, and a man of war at the same time, Jesus had the same problem, although He did say "salvation is of the jews" but He also berated the chief priests and scribes as not following Moses and being "wrong and all their creeds an abomination" too! There were those among the jews that recognized Him but those chief priests and scribes rejected Him for the same reason that Joseph Smith was rejected... they both were unsetting the "apple cart" and so must be opposed. So no I do not want to be called a "part of traditional christianity" but instead a follower of Christ and His everlasting Gospel, if that makes me a Christian then I am a Christian, if not then so be it.

[Sentinus]

It's just that it gets tiresome revisiting questions that have been raised over and over again with no recognition or cognizance of discourse that has gone on before.

Scott do you read every thread? Just because it is old hat for you doesn't mean that the poster is intentionally rehashing. Perhaps you like many of us has spent waaaaay to much time on these message boards. If something is old news to you just let someone else carry the mantle. :good:Regards,Sentinus

Here are the threads: Thread 1, Thread 2

Thanks TTribe I appreciate it. I missed this thread.Regards,Sentinus

[Mike Reed]

I accept accountability for making my meaning clear -- which is why I clarified it when it was obvious you misinterpreted what I said. Such a thing happens quite often with the give-and-take of dialog. In civil discourse one party accepts another's clarification and does not continue to make a man an offender for a word, as you are doing here.It was not a false claim. It was a statement I made that you misinterpreted. I'm the world's foremost expert on what I meant by a statement I made.

You don't take accountability. You essentially blamed me for the misunderstanding, when YOU are the one who failed to qualify your remarks properly. And then to make matters worse... you immediately took potshots at me for not understanding you (yeah, "civil"). I can imagine you at a baseball game. "What do you mean that was a ball, umpire? I meant to pitch in the strike zone! Not only are you wrong in your call, umpire, but the batter should have swung where I intended to throw the ball! What a 'cherry-picker' he is! He won't swing at a single pitch unless I throw it in the strike-zone!" (chuckle)

Incidentally, a close examination of what I said might have yielded a better understanding. I didn't say "No Mormon has ever denied the Christianity of someone else based on incorrect doctrinal belief." I said, "Mormons never...", as much as to say, "As a rule, Mormons as a body don't deny someone's Christianity merely because he believes something that is incorrect."

Understood. But the responsibility for qualifying your remarks so that they can be propperly understood is YOURS.

What part of "institutional position" don't you understand?

Now on to your "revised" argument. I have not yet argued about what the Mormon institutional position may or may not be. Before we go down this path... just to be CLEAR so I don't "misunderstand" you again, 1) define what you mean by "institutional position" and explain how this "position" becomes such in the LDS Church; 2) define and explain (as above) what the "institutionalized position" (if there is such a thing) of the sectarians you compared Mormons to, when you said, "Contrary to many sectarians, Mormons have never asserted that having some incorrect doctrinal beliefs automatically renders one non-Christian"; and 3) compare and contrast the two institutional positions (about who is and is not Christian).

Apostasy has its perqs, I suppose. Although, if it means you have to adopt the anti-Mormon practice of quote-mining and out-of-context citation, I'd call it a poor trade-off.

You mean "welcome to the world of anti-Mormonism"?

What exactly is "quote mining", and how would it differ from a TBM apologist giving multiple quotes to support their case? I did a quick search through LDS Library 2006 and found several quotes that contradicted your initial unqualified statement. What is wrong with that? Would a better alternative be to simply throw out careless unqualified unsupported baseless declarations of absolutes, as you initially did? I don't think so.

[zerinus]

And yet there are many who see the LDS Church as doing exactly that--compromising its principles so that apostate churches will be "appeased," and would want to call us Christians.

If so, then the onus is on them to provide convincing evidence to prove it. I personally donâ??t see that. I think that is an odd way of trying to compromise your principles. If they wanted to do that, they could do it in a much more direct, forthright, and effective way.

How about when President Hinckley fudged on whether Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Would that count as a "compromise"?

You call that a fudge, I donâ??t. I donâ??t see Gordon B. Hinckley being the kind of person to â??fudgeâ? things.

Sorry to disappoint.

All I am saying is that it is a reasonable take on what President Hinckley said that he was fudging here in order to make Mormonism look more like mainstream Christianity.

That is your opinion, obviously. Are we allowed to disagree?

I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me.

Not so to me. The only thing that I take from that is that your faith and testimony of the Church is extremely lowâ??almost nonexistent. I suppose you think that abandoning polygamy and rejecting the Adam-God theory were also â??fudgesâ? to make Mormonism look more â??mainstreamâ?!

Perhaps then you could offer your interpretation of why he glossed over what is clearly a corner stone in LDS theology.

I made that subject the topic of this thread. My personal opinion is that Gordon B. Hinckley genuinely considered the King Follett hypothesis about the origin of God to be mistakenâ??hence his denial of it in his interviews to the public press.

zerinus

[ttribe]

Not so to me. The only thing that I take from that is that your faith and testimony of the Church is extremely lowâ??almost nonexistent. I suppose you think that abandoning polygamy and rejecting the Adam-God theory were also â??fudgesâ? to make Mormonism look more â??mainstreamâ?!

That was inappropriate. I may have been disappointed in consig's statement, but your accusation regarding his testimony is way beyond unacceptable.

[Notquitewetyet]

Not so to me. The only thing that I take from that is that your faith and testimony of the Church is extremely lowâ??almost nonexistent. I suppose you think that abandoning polygamy and rejecting the Adam-God theory were also â??fudgesâ? to make Mormonism look more â??mainstreamâ?!

Did someone call me?

[zerinus]

Did someone call me?

Did you have something to say?

zerinus

[bluebell]

Those who think we are desperately seeking the approval/endorsement of non-LDS Christendom are not interpreting the facts correctly. All we really want is to not be misrepresented before a less-than-adequately informed public.

Exactly.

So i don't see there being any paradox by LDS who wish for their belief in Christ (and so forth) to be acknowledged by those who are speaking about them.

[Notquitewetyet]

Did you have something to say?

zerinus

As I've said before, and as my poll thread shows, LDSs have no problem with double standards: They protest persecution, and it being unfair to not get in the Christian club (why they want in it I dont know, I was there for years and life never made sense until I found Mormonism), and then they turn around and bang the gates on "Mormon" and "Latter-day/Latter Day Saint" and "Brighamite" to those who have kept ALL of God's laws and covenants and ordinances. Not seeing the irony in this is proof that they're just the same as all these Bible thumping Christers who say we don't believe in Jesus. Joseph Smith would have been out of the church so fast if he lived today.

[Obiwan]

Mormons are often accused of paradoxically wanting to call traditional Christianity "apostate" while at the same time wanting their "apostate" Christian brothers and sisters to refer to Mormons as "Christian."

I think we, as Mormons, should admit that, to some degree, Mormons want to have it both ways; to call all other Christians apostate and their professors corrupt; but to say we want to be considered part of them; or at least by their same nom-de-plume.

It is an interesting paradox, and one which finds its way into Givens' recent publication regarding Mormons, "People of Paradox."

I think that, rather than denying that one or the other is true, when they both manifestly are true, we as Mormons might be able to learn a little about ourselves by investigating why it is that we hold to this particular paradox.

A paradox, a paradox,

A most ingenious paradox.

We've quips and quibbles heard in flocks,

But none to match this paradox!

All the Best!

--Sullivanieri

There is no "paradox" Consig..... You seem to be loosing your intelligence in some things.

1. We don't call other Christians "apostates", and 2. we want to be called Christian because it is he whom we worship, as other christians do.

Theological differences have never classified "who" was a Christian or not, becoming HIS did.

[Sentinus]

That was inappropriate. I may have been disappointed in consig's statement, but your accusation regarding his testimony is way beyond unacceptable.

Good call TTribe, I have found Consig in my limited experience to be a very strong believer in Christ and one who is open minded and reasonable to dialogue with. IMO noone here can accurately measure anothers testimony, most of us are bouncing thoughts and concerns off the wall to learn from others responses. Hence IMO why most of us use an alias while posting. We see only a small fragment of the whole person when posting here and elsewhere, it is my hopes that people remember this always. Like me for example, I am a very open minded and tolerant person regarding LDS, I attend a local ward occasionally and hold many of my LDS friends in high esteem. I am the only person in my immediate family that has "left the church", but I still love and honor my LDS family. I discuss these issues to try and understand better how people deal with the issues that are commonly discussed. At times I like others will push a little harder on a subject or play "devils advocate". In the end I know it all boils down to personal faith, and noone can debate/disprove that.

Zerinus your zeal and honesty are to be commended, but try and be less assumptive, there are many good people here LDS, and non alike.

TTribe, I read the links you gave and again thank you.

Regards,

Sentinus

[Obiwan]

And yet there are many who see the LDS Church as doing exactly that--compromising its principles so that apostate churches will be "appeased," and would want to call us Christians.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

There's "many" people out there who hate America and Jews, so what. Does that make their "arguments" of why VALID and TRUE? No it does not.

Over and over consig, I see your mind slowly going to the dark side of the force....

[bluebell]

Joseph Smith would have been out of the church so fast if he lived today.

Perhaps JS is more merciful and Christ-like than you give him credit for. To many church members have a warped sense of mercy and justice, so they assume that everyone else is the same way as well.

These are the people who want mercy for their weaknesses, but justice for everyone who suffers from a weakness they themselves don't struggle with.

I don't see JS as being such a person though.

[Notquitewetyet]

Perhaps JS is more merciful and Christ-like than you give him credit for. To many church members have a warped sense of mercy and justice, so they assume that everyone else is the same way as well.

These are the people who want mercy for their weaknesses, but justice for everyone who suffers from a weakness they themselves don't struggle with.

I don't see JS as being such a person though.

I meant he would have been excommunicated, in like 20 minutes, and would have been asked to never show up again at any LDS ward.

[zerinus]

As I've said before, and as my poll thread shows, LDSs have no problem with double standards: They protest persecution, and it being unfair to not get in the Christian club (why they want in it I dont know, I was there for years and life never made sense until I found Mormonism), and then they turn around and bang the gates on "Mormon" and "Latter-day/Latter Day Saint" and "Brighamite" to those who have kept ALL of God's laws and covenants and ordinances. Not seeing the irony in this is proof that they're just the same as all these Bible thumping Christers who say we don't believe in Jesus. Joseph Smith would have been out of the church so fast if he lived today.

Do you mind if I ask what is your own religious affiliation?

zerinus

[Notquitewetyet]

Do you mind if I ask what is your own religious affiliation?

zerinus

Sure. I was a cradle Catholic and went to a very liberal parish (ward) growing up. In high school, I attended a traditionalist Tridentine rite Catholic parish for about 2 years. I began investigating Mormonism a little over 2 years ago. I joined the LDS Church in Nov. of 2007, but soon left. I was deist/agnostic/apathetic for a while, and then I began learning about the fulness of the Gospel as taught by Joseph Smith. In regards to my current affiliation, I'm a lapsed Catholic, a resigned LDS, and somewhat of a sympathizer with fundamentalist Mormonism. I don't know which group has authority though, but I'd say I lean to the AUB or independent, because I really do think Joseph Musser showed that he understood gospel principles and had true Priesthood.

[bluebell]

I meant he would have been excommunicated, in like 20 minutes, and would have been asked to never show up again at any LDS ward.

I doubt that very much as well. You may believe that JS would belief such things or behave in such a way that he would be ex'd now, but as i see it, the JS i have studied would have been one of Pres. Monson's and the church's biggest supporters-probably because he knows what it's like to be on the other end, and have everyone believe they could do a better job of receiving revelation for the church than the Prophet of God and the called leaders could.

I don't think he would tolerate those who spoke evil of the Lord's annointed, or those who taught doctrine the Lord's annointed said not to teach-so i don't think he would have been ex-d

[Scott Lloyd]

You don't take accountability. You essentially blamed me for the misunderstanding, when YOU are the one who failed to qualify your remarks properly.

I stated the fact of your misunderstanding without assigning blame. Then, instead of accepting my clarification in good faith, you accused me of "posturing" and "moving the goal posts."

And then to make matters worse... you immediately took potshots at me for not understanding you (yeah, "civil"). I can imagine you at a baseball game. "What do you mean that was a ball, umpire? I meant to pitch in the strike zone! Not only are you wrong in your call, umpire, but the batter should have swung where I intended to throw the ball! What a 'cherry-picker' he is! He won't swing at a single pitch unless I throw it in the strike-zone!" (chuckle)

I took you to task for going after me for a message I never intended to convey but which grew out of your own misunderstanding.

Understood. But the responsibility for qualifying your remarks so that they can be propperly understood is YOURS.

Which is precisely what I did the moment it became clear to me you had misunderstood. When I made the initial statement, it never once dawned on me that someone would interpret it to mean "It is not now, nor has it ever been the case that in the history of recorded time any Mormon who has ever lived has ever denied the Christianity of someone based on that person's belief in incorrect doctrine." That would be an absurd position to take. The fact that you immediately ascribed it to me indicates that you weren't really reading for comprehension in the first place.

Exactly.So i don't see there being any paradox by LDS who wish for their belief in Christ (and so forth) to be acknowledged by those who are speaking about them.

Which is pretty much the point I made at the outset of this thread.

[Notquitewetyet]

I doubt that very much as well. You may believe that JS would belief such things or behave in such a way that he would be ex'd now, but as i see it, the JS i have studied would have been one of Pres. Monson's and the church's biggest supporters-probably because he knows what it's like to be on the other end, and have everyone believe they could do a better job of receiving revelation for the church than the Prophet of God and the called leaders could.

I don't think he would tolerate those who spoke evil of the Lord's annointed, or those who taught doctrine the Lord's annointed said not to teach-so i don't think he would have been ex-d

Joseph Smith was deadset against the changing of the ordinances-- in fact, that's how he described apostasy, was by changing the ordinances.

Here's some information from a relevant article:

The saving ordinances should not be altered

One of the visible outward signs of our our willingness to commit to the revelations of God and to accept itâ??s authority in our lives is to receive the ordinances of the Gospel. This shows God and witnesses to earth and heaven that we are willing to take steps forward, to show greater devotion, and take on more responsibilities. It also opens the way to receive greater blessings.

As we see in with the sacrament and baptism, many ordinances have specific words that must be spoken exactly to be considered valid. Baptism must also be performed in a certain way. Each of the words we use carries with it great meaning, and the actions we use to carry out the ordinance display a powerful symbolism. In performing an ordinance in its prescribed manner also shows we recognize the position of God to detail how we should perform it and that we are looking to Him to recognize our administrations.

Some would argue that such wording or symbolism is outdated and, that such ordinances should be updated, that we should conform to ways the world can more easily accept and understand. This is not a new argument. Doubtless some of the early Christian leaders with the best intent in the world realized the difficulties of sometimes performing baptism by immersion. They probably reasoned that some people lived too far away from enough water or that others might seem too old or sick to immerse in such a manner. So they began making exceptions for a few potential converts until it reached the point that it seemed so much more convenient to sprinkle everyone instead of baptizing them. Then someone may have suggested, â??why wait until people are adults to baptize them? Life is short, and it would be terrible for someone to miss the opportunity.â? Such views eventually took hold until a point was reach where the qualifications for, wording of, meaning and purpose of baptism were lost, along with any power or recognition from the heavens.

There are many other ordinances that require a specific pattern to be followed. The rites of the Endowment ceremony are included in this. Although the Prophet Joseph received these sacred temple ordinances and instructions â??line upon lineâ? as they were revealed unto him, he considered it absolutely essential that they be carried out as God intended them, so that they might be fully efficacious. During the last days of his life, with the Nauvoo temple still unfinished, Joseph realized that he would not be able to carry out the Endowment fully in line with Godâ??s designs, and so he put this responsibility upon his successor, Brigham Young, telling him, â??we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies.â?19

Despite this, there was no doubt that the Endowment - once carried out in its full form - was to remain unchanged, and in 1877 President Young finished recording the ceremony and pronounced it â??perfectâ?. There was also no argument at the time over whether it ever could be changed, the Prophet had made it clear that, â??The order of the House of God has been and ever will be the same, even after Christ comes â?¦â?20

Yet, less than fifty years later, Stephen L. Richards, a member of the Churchâ??s Council of Twelve, stating in General Conference, â??I hold it entirely compatible, with the genius of the Church to change its forms of procedure, customs and ordinances in accordance with our own knowledge and experience. I would not discard an old practice merely because it is old, but only after it has outworn its usefulness.â? He pointed out â? that some changes in the ordinances, forms and methods of the Churchâ? had been made and that some of these changes had â??disturbed some of the members.â? But, â??Personally, I approve of those changes and hope the general authorities will be led to make others as changing conditions warrant.â?21

He was speaking after some alterations had already been made to the Endowment, such as removing the Adam-God doctrine which holds the key to the identity of God, and taking symbols and parts away from the sacred Priesthood garment. His words went unchallenged publicly by any other General Authorities, and the changes to ordinances continued. Some ordinances were omitted completely. The most drastic changes to the Endowment occurring just over a decade ago, when the most sacred rite to bring us into the presence of God was taken away, along with many other â??keysâ?? to unlock the heavens. In the process sacred symbolism was also lost, along with it much of the understanding of what the Endowment was for and how it relates to our lives. Thus only those aware of this situation, and who know those with the knowledge and authority to administer the Endowment as revealed by God can receive it in its fullness, whereas many of the Saints only know rites and ordinances which carry lesser understanding, power, recognition and glory in heaven.

Joseph Smith taught, God â??set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever,â?22 and, â??Ordinances instituted in heaven before the foundation of this world in the Priesthood for the salvation of man, are not to be altered or changed.â?23 God may reward us for our faith and for those things we do with the right intent, but it will never be the same or a substitute for doing exactly as He expects us to in conforming specifically with His requirements. We cannot claim the same reward as those who have complied with all that God has restored, in the form and manner in which He restored it.

Sources:

19 L. John Nuttall Journal, Vol. 1, pp. 18-19

20 Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 91

21 Salt Lake Tribune, 10 April 1932

22 Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 168

23 Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 308

[Jeff K.]

Joseph Smith was deadset against the changing of the ordinances-- in fact, that's how he described apostasy, was by changing the ordinances.

Here's some information from a relevant article:

I think the proper context would be that Joseph Smith was against changing ordinances unless God Himself wanted them changed. Joseph Smith knew that he did not "own" the ordinances. It was not his place to change them or not. In fact Joseph Smith felt that no mortal man, including himself, should ever change the ordinances, for such a thing was surely apostasy. Much as the change of baptism from immersion, as proscribed by God, and later changed by man.