So How Do I Tell Which Parts Of Ordinances Are Sacred And Eternal?

[JLHPROF]

Ok, so I may be in a definite minority on this board.  In recent threads there has been a strong opinion expressed that certain changes to ordinances are acceptable and certain changes would not be.

I posted a poll concerning changes to the gospel, to which a large percentage of the members here voted that change was ok as it was generally accepted that revelation was involved.  The sacrament thread has a large discussion that certain things done with ordinances are just tradition and certain things are part of the ordinance proper.  The continuing revelation discussion pops up on almost every thread.  And several times the discussion of polygamy has seen it labelled as a non-necessary ordinance, or  a temporary trial, or many other things but never an eternal principle.

 

So here is my question for the board:  How do we know which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal, and which parts are just part of administrative necessity?

 

DISCLAIMER - I am not trying to start a discussion about the following, but about the principle behind these example changes:

We (mostly) know about the changes, eliminations, streamlining and adjustments made to the temple endowment.  We know about changes made to garments.  We know about changes made to priesthood quorums and methods of ordinations in the past.  We know about the elimination of certain ordinances - rebaptism, plural marriage, and virtual elimination of 2nd annointings.  We know about the elimination of women administering (outside of the temple anyway).  And it may very well be that these are the result of ongoing revelation and further light and knowledge, but that doesn't answer my question.

 

So I ask again, which ordinances and which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal and which parts are just administrative.  Can we administer baptism without immersion or raising our arms to the square?  Can we ordain without the laying on of hands?  Can we marry for eternity without certain things?  What is changeable and what is not and how do we know?

Edited October 19, 2013 by JLHPROF

[teddyaware]

Ok, so I may be in a definite minority on this board.  In recent threads there has been a strong opinion expressed that certain changes to ordinances are acceptable and certain changes would not be.

I posted a poll concerning changes to the gospel, to which a large percentage of the members here voted that change was ok as it was generally accepted that revelation was involved.  The sacrament thread has a large discussion that certain things done with ordinances are just tradition and certain things are part of the ordinance proper.  The continuing revelation discussion pops up on almost every thread.  And several times the discussion of polygamy has seen it labelled as a non-necessary ordinance, or  a temporary trial, or many other things but never an eternal principle.

 

So here is my question for the board:  How do we know which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal, and which parts are just part of administrative necessity?

DISCLAIMER - I am not trying to start a discussion about the following, but about the principle behind these example changes:

We (mostly) know about the changes, eliminations, streamlining and adjustments made to the temple endowment.  We know about changes made to garments.  We know about changes made to priesthood quorums and methods of ordinations in the past.  We know about the elimination of certain ordinances - rebaptism, plural marriage, and virtual elimination of 2nd annointings.  We know about the elimination of women administering (outside of the temple anyway).  And it may very well be that these are the result of ongoing revelation and further light and knowledge, but that doesn't answer my question.

 

So I ask again, which ordinances and which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal and which parts are just administrative.  Can we administer baptism without immersion or raising our arms to the square?  Can we ordain without the laying on of hands?  Can we marry for eternity without certain things?  What is changeable and what is not and how do we know?

At the risk of raising your ire, do I dare say the answer lies within yourself through the principle of personal revelation?

Edited October 19, 2013 by teddyaware

[cinepro]

Ok, so I may be in a definite minority on this board.  In recent threads there has been a strong opinion expressed that certain changes to ordinances are acceptable and certain changes would not be.

I posted a poll concerning changes to the gospel, to which a large percentage of the members here voted that change was ok as it was generally accepted that revelation was involved.  The sacrament thread has a large discussion that certain things done with ordinances are just tradition and certain things are part of the ordinance proper.  The continuing revelation discussion pops up on almost every thread.  And several times the discussion of polygamy has seen it labelled as a non-necessary ordinance, or  a temporary trial, or many other things but never an eternal principle.

 

So here is my question for the board:  How do we know which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal, and which parts are just part of administrative necessity?

 

DISCLAIMER - I am not trying to start a discussion about the following, but about the principle behind these example changes:

We (mostly) know about the changes, eliminations, streamlining and adjustments made to the temple endowment.  We know about changes made to garments.  We know about changes made to priesthood quorums and methods of ordinations in the past.  We know about the elimination of certain ordinances - rebaptism, plural marriage, and virtual elimination of 2nd annointings.  We know about the elimination of women administering (outside of the temple anyway).  And it may very well be that these are the result of ongoing revelation and further light and knowledge, but that doesn't answer my question.

 

So I ask again, which ordinances and which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal and which parts are just administrative.  Can we administer baptism without immersion or raising our arms to the square?  Can we ordain without the laying on of hands?  Can we marry for eternity without certain things?  What is changeable and what is not and how do we know?

 

Obviously, we don't and we can't.

 

Sorry.

[Storm Rider]

I am trying to understand the value of this line of questioning; it seems like asking why the sky is blue rather than red or why grass does not grow down into the soil rather than up.  

 

The ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ have very few requirements; extremely few exact words that must be said; in reality there is a flexibility that is available. However, we baptize by immersion in order to emulate the Savior's example and because we appreciate the symbolism also. When at all possible we should follow the mores of the Church and its teachings on how we should exercise the priesthood.  In situations of dire emergency, follow the Spirit and all will be well. 

[Tacenda]

To answer the OP...keep the ones from God and cut out the ones from the middle man.

[Stone holm]

This is a question virtually impossible to answer unless you see everything in a black and white lens and have a brittle testimony. I really don't like cliches for answers, but in this case it really depends on what God knows to be essential and I for one have no clue. If for some reason a full immersion at baptism would cripple or kill someone, the I suspect an alternative would be found...so I can't go with Stormrider.

[thesometimesaint]

Faith in the Lord Jesus the Christ; Sincere repentence of sin; Baptism for the remission of sin by one having the proper authority; The laying on of hands by said authority for the receipt of the Holy Ghost. Everything and anything else are merely appendanges there of.

[blooit]

I'm not sure there is a definitive answer to this, and in all honesty, I'm not sure it matters much. God speaks to us in our language. The ordinances are performed in the native tongue of the people receiving them. This clearly shows that he will adapt the ordinances to our personal understanding. This probably includes cultural sensitivity and tradition as well. When society shifts dramatically, it appears to me that He is willing to adjust those ordinances as well.

 

That being said, He has given us some pretty cool things to help us know what is "ordinance" and what is theater. For example, there have typically been two films. I believe that part of the reason there are two films is so that we can know what is the actual ordinance based on the commonalities between the two.

 

God has made significant changes over time. Those under the law of moses were required to live the law of moses. I believe that those who live in our generation must live the commandments as taught in our generation. We can't practice obedience in slices; that is what it means "to sustain." We accept that there may be changes, there may even be human errors, but we will sustain our current leadership nevertheless. I believe this includes ordinances.

Edited October 19, 2013 by blooit

[janderich]

So here is my question for the board:  How do we know which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal, and which parts are just part of administrative necessity?

 

So I ask again, which ordinances and which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal and which parts are just administrative.  Can we administer baptism without immersion or raising our arms to the square?  Can we ordain without the laying on of hands?  Can we marry for eternity without certain things?  What is changeable and what is not and how do we know?

 Ordinances show us the path back to God and teach us spiritual truths. They bridge the gap between the physical and the spiritual so that the humble may, overtime, use ordinances to enter into God's rest.  Yes, as some have said the Spirit may tell us the truth, but the problem is ordinances are for those who are still growing in the Spirit. They have not yet reached the end. Thus they are not yet capable of obtaining all truth on the matter. If they were, they would not need the ordinances! Thus I also see a dilemma.

 

When diligent humble men or women cannot find their way back to God through covenants and ordinances then they have failed. The symbols or covenants have been changed to such an extent that they no longer point the way to those who have qualified themselves to know.

 

The only way for one to know what can be changed is for them to have gone past the symbol and received the fullness to which these ordinances point. He or she is in a good position to tell which are necessary. I think the answer hinges on this point. Have those who administer the forms received the blessing? If so then I trust them to make changes.

[teddyaware]

Ok, so I may be in a definite minority on this board.  In recent threads there has been a strong opinion expressed that certain changes to ordinances are acceptable and certain changes would not be.

I posted a poll concerning changes to the gospel, to which a large percentage of the members here voted that change was ok as it was generally accepted that revelation was involved.  The sacrament thread has a large discussion that certain things done with ordinances are just tradition and certain things are part of the ordinance proper.  The continuing revelation discussion pops up on almost every thread.  And several times the discussion of polygamy has seen it labelled as a non-necessary ordinance, or  a temporary trial, or many other things but never an eternal principle.

 

So here is my question for the board:  How do we know which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal, and which parts are just part of administrative necessity?

 

DISCLAIMER - I am not trying to start a discussion about the following, but about the principle behind these example changes:

We (mostly) know about the changes, eliminations, streamlining and adjustments made to the temple endowment.  We know about changes made to garments.  We know about changes made to priesthood quorums and methods of ordinations in the past.  We know about the elimination of certain ordinances - rebaptism, plural marriage, and virtual elimination of 2nd annointings.  We know about the elimination of women administering (outside of the temple anyway).  And it may very well be that these are the result of ongoing revelation and further light and knowledge, but that doesn't answer my question.

 

So I ask again, which ordinances and which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal and which parts are just administrative.  Can we administer baptism without immersion or raising our arms to the square?  Can we ordain without the laying on of hands?  Can we marry for eternity without certain things?  What is changeable and what is not and how do we know?

Second thought: Whatever manner in which the Lord, through His living prophets, seers and revelators, commands the Church of a particular day and time to perform His ordinances, those ordinances are just as sacred and eternal for the people of that day as the ordinances, though performed somewhat differently, were for the saints of any other previous day and time. Therefore, the gospel ordinances, as performed in our day, are just as sacred and eternal for us as the authorized ordinances were in a previous era.

It's also important to understand that what might be viewed as changes to the ordinances may not be changes at all, but, rather, are truncations of the ordinances so as to minimize the possibility that sacred pearls would be given to members and converts who are too spiritually immature and unprepared or to receive the harder-to-digest meat of the gospel.

I believe this is what happened when the temple ordinances were seemingly changed in the late 1980's. I believe it was the Lord's will that the endowment ceremony be truncated or abbreviated so as to withhold sacred things from a new generation of members and converts who were increasingly misunderstanding and misconstruing sacred things that were far beyond their present capacity of understanding. So the Lord temporarily withdrew those sacred things, to be restored at a latter day and time, even a day when the Lord's people would be more fully prepared to accept the meat of the gospel. For that strong meat was already beginning to choke and give spiritual indigestion to a new generation of members who grew up -- not in the sequestered precincts of Mormondom in the Rocky Mountains -- but in the midst of modern Spiritual Babylon.

Beside this, the Lord knew the devil and his servants were about to rage in the midst of our modern, unbelieving, secular humanist society, so He withdrew some sacred things so as to minimize the spectacle of the proverbial swine who always delight in mocking and trampling sacred things under foot.

Edited October 19, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

Faith in the Lord Jesus the Christ; Sincere repentence of sin; Baptism for the remission of sin by one having the proper authority; The laying on of hands by said authority for the receipt of the Holy Ghost. Everything and anything else are merely appendanges there of.

No you left out marriage.

[CV75]

Ok, so I may be in a definite minority on this board.  In recent threads there has been a strong opinion expressed that certain changes to ordinances are acceptable and certain changes would not be.

I posted a poll concerning changes to the gospel, to which a large percentage of the members here voted that change was ok as it was generally accepted that revelation was involved.  The sacrament thread has a large discussion that certain things done with ordinances are just tradition and certain things are part of the ordinance proper.  The continuing revelation discussion pops up on almost every thread.  And several times the discussion of polygamy has seen it labelled as a non-necessary ordinance, or  a temporary trial, or many other things but never an eternal principle.

 

So here is my question for the board:  How do we know which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal, and which parts are just part of administrative necessity?

 

DISCLAIMER - I am not trying to start a discussion about the following, but about the principle behind these example changes:

We (mostly) know about the changes, eliminations, streamlining and adjustments made to the temple endowment.  We know about changes made to garments.  We know about changes made to priesthood quorums and methods of ordinations in the past.  We know about the elimination of certain ordinances - rebaptism, plural marriage, and virtual elimination of 2nd annointings.  We know about the elimination of women administering (outside of the temple anyway).  And it may very well be that these are the result of ongoing revelation and further light and knowledge, but that doesn't answer my question.

 

So I ask again, which ordinances and which parts of ordinances are unchangeable and eternal and which parts are just administrative.  Can we administer baptism without immersion or raising our arms to the square?  Can we ordain without the laying on of hands?  Can we marry for eternity without certain things?  What is changeable and what is not and how do we know?

The parts that are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise are unchangeable, once they are sealed.

 

In the meantime, we follow whatever instruction the First Presidency gives us, however the protocol might change from time to time.

 

I think baptism by immersion is unchangeable, since it is the same for both the living and the dead, according to D&C 128:12-13. I think the use of any appropriate, edible solid and liquid is unchangeable for the sacrament, according to D&C 27:2.

[janderich]

Second thought: Whatever manner in which the Lord, through His living prophets, seers and revelators, commands the Church of a particular day and time to perform His ordinances, those ordinances are just as sacred and eternal for the people of that day as the ordinances, though performed somewhat differently, were for the saints of any other previous day and time. Therefore, the gospel ordinances, as performed in our day, are just as sacred and eternal for us as the authorized ordinances were in a previous era.

It's also important to understand that what might be viewed as changes to the ordinances may not be changes at all, but, rather, are truncations of the ordinances so as to minimize the possibility that sacred pearls would be given to members and converts who are too spiritually immature and unprepared or to receive the harder-to-digest meat of the gospel.

I believe this is what happened when the temple ordinances were seemingly changed in the late 1980's. I believe it was the Lord's will that the endowment ceremony be truncated or abbreviated so as to withhold sacred things from a new generation of members and converts who were increasingly misunderstanding and misconstruing sacred things that were far beyond their present capacity of understanding. So the Lord temporarily withdrew those sacred things, to be restored at a latter day and time, even a day when the Lord's people would be more fully prepared to accept the meat of the gospel. For that strong meat was already beginning to choke and give spiritual indigestion to a new generation of members who grew up -- not in the sequestered precincts of Mormondom in the Rocky Mountains -- but in the midst of modern Spiritual Babylon.

Beside this, the Lord knew the devil and his servants were about to rage in the midst of our modern, unbelieving, secular humanist society, so He withdrew some sacred things so as to minimize the spectacle of the proverbial swine who always delight in mocking and trampling sacred things under foot.

Modifications to remove "sacred pearls" from unprepared saints would be significant in my book.

[teddyaware]

Modifications to remove "sacred pearls" from unprepared saints would be significant in my book.

They're significant to me as well.

Edited October 19, 2013 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

Modifications to remove "sacred pearls" from unprepared saints would be significant in my book.

How are the prepared saints going to get it, if not at the temple? It use to be that you needed to go often enough to learn truths along with making and keeping sacred covenants. Is this becoming more and more sanitized to the point it is like it is outside of the temple in our church? Is that we can become Gods going to be correlated out and only the very old members believe or remember it? If it is as you say.

[Stone holm]

How are the prepared saints going to get it, if not at the temple? It use to be that you needed to go often enough to learn truths along with making and keeping sacred covenants. Is this becoming more and more sanitized to the point it is like it is outside of the temple in our church? Is that we can become Gods going to be correlated out and only the very old members believe or remember it? If it is as you say.

Wow, consider myself old..but very old?

[janderich]

How are the prepared saints going to get it, if not at the temple? It use to be that you needed to go often enough to learn truths along with making and keeping sacred covenants. Is this becoming more and more sanitized to the point it is like it is outside of the temple in our church? Is that we can become Gods going to be correlated out and only the very old members believe or remember it? If it is as you say.

I'm still working this out in my mind. I do think the temple ordinances are a little more obscure. I think they have been changed in order to remove offensive or potentially offensive symbols and in so doing, some clarity appears also to have been removed. However, I do think the honest in heart can find God. They may have to look a little deeper, they may have to study changes in the ordinances, and they may have to separate the gospel from the church before they reach the end, but to my mind their faith will not be in vain. That is why I go every week, and I have not been disappointed. In fact I have marveled at what is there and the spirit in that place.

[mfbukowski]

Ordinances are not magic incantations which must be done perfectly to appease the gods into doing our bidding, they are symbolic gestures we do which help US to learn that there are prescribed ways of living our lives in obedience to him.

 

They are symbolic to teach US not because a certain gesture magically makes something happen.  Baptism is a ritual washing and a re-birth as a new person, hence we are submerged in water to both cleanse and show that as we were immersed in the womb and came forth from there, we come forth a new person. 

 

It's for us to learn- not because it is an unalterable magic spell.

 

Same for the sacrament.  The bread is broken in memory of the savior's body.  We take that bread into our own bodies, symbolizing the savior entering into us and sustaining our lives.  In turn, since we do it in a congregation, the congregation becomes one in action as we are to be one in spirit, and we become the "body of Christ"

 

The ordinances of the temple are exactly the same.  After time we can learn that each gesture has symbolic meaning relating to the covenants we have made, and these symbols enlarge our understanding of the covenants.

 

Of course they can change, just as different learning tools teach different principles to different generations. 

 

The bottom line is that ordinances are to teach us by the spirit that God has ways he wants us to do things.  What those things are are revealed by the spirit.

[mfbukowski]

I'm still working this out in my mind. I do think the temple ordinances are a little more obscure. I think they have been changed in order to remove offensive or potentially offensive symbols and in so doing, some clarity appears also to have been removed. However, I do think the honest in heart can find God. They may have to look a little deeper, they may have to study changes in the ordinances, and they may have to separate the gospel from the church before they reach the end, but to my mind their faith will not be in vain. That is why I go every week, and I have not been disappointed. In fact I have marveled at what is there and the spirit in that place.

A huge clue is to look at the shapes portrayed in the gestures, while keeping in mind the covenants made.

 

I had to go hundreds of times before it even started to gel.

[Stone holm]

Ordinances are not magic incantations which must be done perfectly to appease the gods into doing our bidding, they are symbolic gestures we do which help US to learn that there are prescribed ways of living our lives in obedience to him.

 

They are symbolic to teach US not because a certain gesture magically makes something happen.  Baptism is a ritual washing and a re-birth as a new person, hence we are submerged in water to both cleanse and show that as we were immersed in the womb and came forth from there, we come forth a new person. 

 

It's for us to learn- not because it is an unalterable magic spell.

 

Same for the sacrament.  The bread is broken in memory of the savior's body.  We take that bread into our own bodies, symbolizing the savior entering into us and sustaining our lives.  In turn, since we do it in a congregation, the congregation becomes one in action as we are to be one in spirit, and we become the "body of Christ"

 

The ordinances of the temple are exactly the same.  After time we can learn that each gesture has symbolic meaning relating to the covenants we have made, and these symbols enlarge our understanding of the covenants.

 

Of course they can change, just as different learning tools teach different principles to different generations. 

 

The bottom line is that ordinances are to teach us by the spirit that God has ways he wants us to do things.  What those things are are revealed by the spirit.

I don't know as I can completely agree with you some of the comments made by BY certainly make some, especially Temple Ordinances seem pretty "magical", and not sure the whole concept of ordinances for the dead makes sense without a certain "magical" quality to them.

[mfbukowski]

I think baptism by immersion is unchangeable, since it is the same for both the living and the dead, according to D&C 128:12-13. I think the use of any appropriate, edible solid and liquid is unchangeable for the sacrament, according to D&C 27:2.

But you have to understand WHY this is the case.  The savior comes into us and gives us nourishment.  He becomes us, part of our bodies.  In turn we become part of the Body of Christ in the congregation so we are all one with Him and He with us.  THAT message is conveyed by the "edible substance" and since he himself used bread to teach that principle, so do we.

[mfbukowski]

I don't know as I can completely agree with you some of the comments made by BY certainly make some, especially Temple Ordinances seem pretty "magical", and not sure the whole concept of ordinances for the dead makes sense without a certain "magical" quality to them.

The ordinances for the dead are exactly the same as the ordinances for the living.  They also need to learn.  One of our temple presidency encourages us to think of the dead as if you are their escort in the ordinance, mentally explaining it to them (and thereby learning more yourself) as you perform the ordinances.

 

And Brother Brigham was Brother Brigham.   I hope to have a good talk with him some day.  

[Stone holm]

But you have to understand WHY this is the case.  The savior comes into us and gives us nourishment.  He becomes us, part of our bodies.  In turn we become part of the Body of Christ in the congregation so we are all one with Him and He with us.  THAT message is conveyed by the "edible substance" and since he himself used bread to teach that principle, so do we.

That sounds somewhat Catholic in tone to me.

[JLHPROF]

Ordinances are not magic incantations which must be done perfectly to appease the gods into doing our bidding, they are symbolic gestures we do which help US to learn that there are prescribed ways of living our lives in obedience to him.

 

They are symbolic to teach US not because a certain gesture magically makes something happen.  Baptism is a ritual washing and a re-birth as a new person, hence we are submerged in water to both cleanse and show that as we were immersed in the womb and came forth from there, we come forth a new person. 

 

It's for us to learn- not because it is an unalterable magic spell.

 

Same for the sacrament.  The bread is broken in memory of the savior's body.  We take that bread into our own bodies, symbolizing the savior entering into us and sustaining our lives.  In turn, since we do it in a congregation, the congregation becomes one in action as we are to be one in spirit, and we become the "body of Christ"

 

The ordinances of the temple are exactly the same.  After time we can learn that each gesture has symbolic meaning relating to the covenants we have made, and these symbols enlarge our understanding of the covenants.

 

Of course they can change, just as different learning tools teach different principles to different generations. 

 

The bottom line is that ordinances are to teach us by the spirit that God has ways he wants us to do things.  What those things are are revealed by the spirit.

 

This goes against every teaching I understand concerning ordinances - Baptism isn't just a symbolic washing away of our sins and a new birth.  When we are baptised we ACTUALLY receive the remission of sins.

Likewise with the temple - from the very first mention to the full establishment it has always been referred to as an endowment of power, a gift of power.  If we gain no actual power from the ordinance then any spiritual gains are negated.  We feel good, perhaps understand God a little better, but we gain no external blessings, and that is not what we were taught concerning the endowment.  It is not just symbolic.

Taking the sacrament may be a symbolic rememberance of Christ but promising to take upon us His name is not symbolic -we are told he will seal us his and adopt us to him - thereby becoming his family in a very non-symbolic way.

 

The real bottom line is that while they may have symbolism and they may not be magic spells, completing ordinances correctly bring actual blessings and spiritual power from our Heavenly Father.  If not "performed" as he establishes them he has no reason to honor the connected blessings.

[mfbukowski]

This goes against every teaching I understand concerning ordinances - Baptism isn't just a symbolic washing away of our sins and a new birth.  When we are baptised we ACTUALLY receive the remission of sins.

Likewise with the temple - from the very first mention to the full establishment it has always been referred to as an endowment of power, a gift of power.  If we gain no actual power from the ordinance then any spiritual gains are negated.  We feel good, perhaps understand God a little better, but we gain no external blessings, and that is not what we were taught concerning the endowment.  It is not just symbolic.

Taking the sacrament may be a symbolic rememberance of Christ but promising to take upon us His name is not symbolic -we are told he will seal us his and adopt us to him - thereby becoming his family in a very non-symbolic way.

 

The real bottom line is that while they may have symbolism and they may not be magic spells, completing ordinances correctly bring actual blessings and spiritual power from our Heavenly Father.  If not "performed" as he establishes them he has no reason to honor the connected blessings.

No, they are "real" - there is a real washing away of sins and a real endowment of power but not because you took a bath or made some gestures in the temple.

 

Those blessings come because you have done what God wanted you to do.

If he wanted you to do some pushups or stand on your head, the results would be just as real.

 

If not "performed" as he establishes them he has no reason to honor the connected blessings.

 

Ordinances are not performances, but we try to do what God wants us to do as well as we humanly can.

 

I am a temple worker, and we are taught that if we make an error in good faith, not to worry about it, that it is made up by the atonement.  Unfortunately errors happen all the time.  We are even instructed not to be overly vigorous in instructing the patrons the "correct" way of doing the ordinances because that can detract from the spirit.

 

Communication with the spirit and the right intent is essential, and not much else as long as we are trying to get it right in good faith.

Edited October 20, 2013 by mfbukowski