The "ancient" Apostles...

[mfbukowski]

I think we have folks who could do it, the problem is there are so many interesting stories and documents how do you decide what not not to include? Also, many of the major players are still alive, so you might embarrass somebody.

Teryl Givens book "Wrestling the Angel" is a doctrinal history of the church tracing how doctrine has evolved over time, and he has another in the works about the practices of the church- the cultural mores etc and how they have changed.

 

The first book is a major major contribution and the second will be as well.  I highly recommend it.  No one can read that through without understanding that doctrine like all else changes and has changed historically to meet the times, as it should if we really do believe that modern day prophets are here to help us deal with new problems as they arise.

 

Yes, we already have a Bible but unfortunately the problems that face mankind have changed a tad in the last couple of thousand years and so has the way we must deal with them

[mfbukowski]

The changes to the temple ordinances are significant, and these were changes to the ordinances, not just the mechanics.  I was there pre 1990, so I do know. 

Obviously this is a delicate area to discuss on an open forum, but yes there were major changes which I well remember as well.  There have been other major changes more recently- in the last 10 years or os- in the initiatory ordinances and how they are performed.

 

But there are always semantic ways to take either side on whether or not the "ordinances" were changed.  The endowment itself differentiates between the endowment and the PRESENTATION of the endowment.

 

One could argue that the endowment itself is - as it is termed- an endowment of blessings and covenants exchanged with God, and so has never changed.  Many specifics also have not changed, and many specifics HAVE changed as well.

 

One could argue that the endowment has not changed but the "presentation" of the endowment has.  That is the way Catholics handle changes to the mass- supposedly the mass never changes, just the "outward signs" change.

 

So really it all comes down to semantic terminology and however each individual wants to define what is what.   So this is a frustrating question and it becomes an unsolvable riddle because it all depends on how one wants to define things.

[Gervin]

 

Yes, we already have a Bible but unfortunately the problems that face mankind have changed a tad in the last couple of thousand years and so has the way we must deal with them

(my bold)

Types of problems have changed ("where did I park my Tesla?") but I don't believe that the problems facing mankind have changed a bit.  What problems are you talking about?

[JLHPROF]

But there are always semantic ways to take either side on whether or not the "ordinances" were changed.  The endowment itself differentiates between the endowment and the PRESENTATION of the endowment.

 

One could argue that the endowment itself is - as it is termed- an endowment of blessings and covenants exchanged with God, and so has never changed.  Many specifics also have not changed, and many specifics HAVE changed as well.

 

 

I completely agree with what you are saying about semantics and perspective.

However, (and not to derail my own thread) it is pretty clear that more than "presentation" changed.  However we cannot (and should not) discuss that on this board.

 

I completely agree that presentation method and choice have changed and will always changed.  Some believe that Moses for instance in the Book of Moses was recording his endowment, that he got to see the film in real time as it were.  Presentation can change.

 

But more than that was changed.  The elements taught to the person being endowed were altered.  The method of delivering some of the blessings was altered every bit as much as if we switched to Baptism by sprinkling.  In short, the elements that God presumably revealed to perform that deliver the "endowment of power" were changed.  Pretty significant.

 

But to return to the topic of the thread - each prophet that succeeds to the office of president has their own take on things and their own way of doing business.  That is why a rapid succession as we are likely to see over the next few years could bring with it rapid changes, both insignificant and significant.

[JLHPROF]

Well, you tend to make mountains out of grains of sand. Changing the design of the garment is an insignificant change. Now, not requiring the garment, that I would consider a significant change. Not requiring a temple recommend to enter the temple, that I would consider a significant change. Adopting the doctrine of the trinity, or abandoning the word of wisdom would be significant, but changing the design of the garments? Really? Sure, some people were surprised, but it had zero affect on how we worship, to the world at large it was not even a  blip on the radar of religious events. 

 

Please identify some changes to ordinance. The ordinances have remained the same since they were instituted. They have made changes to the ceremony in the temple but that is entirely different: 

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Changes

 

You KNOW I cannot discuss the specific changes to ordinances that I believe were significant.

Please see my response to mfbukowski.  I actually agree with the Fairmormon link concerning the differences between Presentation and Ordinance.  However, both were altered as anyone with eyes can see.

 

As for the garments - and to return to the original point of prophetic changes - Pres. Joseph F. Smith taught that the pattern was revealed from heaven and could not be altered.  His successor President Grant taught that there was no revealed pattern and we could alter.  You claim "Changing the design of the garment is an insignificant change."  The prophet Joseph F. Smith would vehemently disagree with you.  The prophet Heber J. Grant would agree with you.  Prophetic changes.

 

That's a clear difference between prophets.  And since we are looking at a possible rapid succession of prophets in the next 20 years, that COULD mean a rapid succession of differences too, both significant and insignificant.

[Freedom]

The changes to the temple ordinances are significant, and these were changes to the ordinances, not just the mechanics.  I was there pre 1990, so I do know. 

Me too and no the ordinances have not changed at all. the covenants and signs and tokens have remained the same. 

[Freedom]

You KNOW I cannot discuss the specific changes to ordinances that I believe were significant.

Please see my response to mfbukowski.  I actually agree with the Fairmormon link concerning the differences between Presentation and Ordinance.  However, both were altered as anyone with eyes can see.

 

As for the garments - and to return to the original point of prophetic changes - Pres. Joseph F. Smith taught that the pattern was revealed from heaven and could not be altered.  His successor President Grant taught that there was no revealed pattern and we could alter.  You claim "Changing the design of the garment is an insignificant change."  The prophet Joseph F. Smith would vehemently disagree with you.  The prophet Heber J. Grant would agree with you.  Prophetic changes.

 

That's a clear difference between prophets.  And since we are looking at a possible rapid succession of prophets in the next 20 years, that COULD mean a rapid succession of differences too, both significant and insignificant.

Differences of opinion does not constitute significant change. 

[rongo]

 

 

 The method of delivering some of the blessings was altered every bit as much as if we switched to Baptism by sprinkling. 

 

 

That was my very thought when the change you are referring to happened. I no longer criticize the Catholic Church for baptizing by sprinkling (that change was done by them for practical reasons ---- infant baptism or emergency baptism being deemed theologically necessary). It is the authority that is all-important. With that authority (really and truly having it, not just thinking you have it), major changes in ordinances are authorized. If the Catholic Church has the authority, then Mormon reasons against baptism by sprinkling don't matter. If the LDS Church has the authority, then major changes to the temple ordinances are authorized, even when they bother us.

[Freedom]

 

 

But to return to the topic of the thread - each prophet that succeeds to the office of president has their own take on things and their own way of doing business.  That is why a rapid succession as we are likely to see over the next few years could bring with it rapid changes, both insignificant and significant.

But again, there is a huge difference between a prophet having his own way of doing things (allowing for changes in the garments) and the significant earth moving changes that you are suggesting. 

[JLHPROF]

That was my very thought when the change you are referring to happened. I no longer criticize the Catholic Church for baptizing by sprinkling (that change was done by them for practical reasons ---- infant baptism or emergency baptism being deemed theologically necessary). It is the authority that is all-important. With that authority (really and truly having it, not just thinking you have it), major changes in ordinances are authorized. If the Catholic Church has the authority, then Mormon reasons against baptism by sprinkling don't matter. If the LDS Church has the authority, then major changes to the temple ordinances are authorized, even when they bother us.

 

I would argue only God has the "authority" to change an ordinance, and any assumption of revelation on that is just that, an assumption.  Joseph taught that ordinances could not be changed.  He also taught that any change in ordinances resulted in a change in that "authority" or priesthood.

[rongo]

If God authorizes the changes, then it doesn't matter what Joseph Smith said or thought about making changes. It all centers around where God stands on the matter, ultimately.

[JLHPROF]

Me too and no the ordinances have not changed at all. the covenants and signs and tokens have remained the same. 

 

- the initiatory blessings - changed

- the covenants - changed

- the signs - changed

- the tokens - unchanged

- temple prayer - changed

- the veil ceremony - changed

- garments - changed

- temple clothing - unchanged

- teachings on Adam & Eve - changed

 

Yeah, the presentation is the least significant of the changes.  Presentation is what Joseph told Brigham to systematize.

[JLHPROF]

But again, there is a huge difference between a prophet having his own way of doing things (allowing for changes in the garments) and the significant earth moving changes that you are suggesting. 

 

Wow.  Just Wow.

You really think changing the ordinances is just "a prophet having his own way of doing things".

 

I will repeat myself for the 3rd time.

The Prophet Joseph F. Smith said the garments were revealed from heaven and could NOT be altered.

The Prophet Heber J. Grant said there is no fixed pattern and they could be altered.

 

How is that just "his own way of doing things"?  That is a doctrinal disagreement that resulted in a change for the membership.  And if we get a rapid change of prophets we could easily see that again.

Wow.

Edited March 13, 2015 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

If God authorizes the changes, then it doesn't matter what Joseph Smith said or thought about making changes. It all centers around where God stands on the matter, ultimately.

 

Agreed.  Where is the authorization?  Or are we talking the circular proofs again (that mfbukowski hates so much?

 

You know, I know the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true...

I know the leaders received revelation to change the temple because the leaders say they received revelation to change the temple (which they never actually said).

 

Or are we just assuming the authorization of God in every decision now...

[rongo]

No. It is up to us as individuals to receive our own confirmation about these things (if/when they bother us). 

[mfbukowski]

I completely agree with what you are saying about semantics and perspective.

However, (and not to derail my own thread) it is pretty clear that more than "presentation" changed.  However we cannot (and should not) discuss that on this board.

 

I completely agree that presentation method and choice have changed and will always changed.  Some believe that Moses for instance in the Book of Moses was recording his endowment, that he got to see the film in real time as it were.  Presentation can change.

 

But more than that was changed.  The elements taught to the person being endowed were altered.  The method of delivering some of the blessings was altered every bit as much as if we switched to Baptism by sprinkling.  In short, the elements that God presumably revealed to perform that deliver the "endowment of power" were changed.  Pretty significant.

 

But to return to the topic of the thread - each prophet that succeeds to the office of president has their own take on things and their own way of doing business.  That is why a rapid succession as we are likely to see over the next few years could bring with it rapid changes, both insignificant and significant.

Well I don't want to derail your thread here either, so if you want to take this elsewhere I am game, but maybe one more reply will kill the topic and we can quit altogether- that's up to you.

 

Here's where we differ, and what I would do to fix it if I were dictator of the universe. 

 

 

But more than that was changed.  The elements taught to the person being endowed were altered.  The method of delivering some of the blessings was altered every bit as much as if we switched to Baptism by sprinkling. 

 

I would ask myself what the purposes of "ordinances" are in the first place.

 

I see the function of baptism as being a ritual- we all need rituals and rites of passage- which separates us from others into a new group way of life which involves symbolic death of the old person, and a rising again as a new person.  Most importantly it includes a commitment to become a new person and also shows obedience to the new way of life.

 

To me THAT is the importance of baptism.  If it were to be changed tomorrow to sprinkling but the commitments stayed the same- if the obedience was still there, if the change in life was still there- to me, it would have no pragmatic difference in my life or anyone else's.   Six of one half dozen of the other.  No difference.  Different vocabulary.  It's all presentation.

 

Yes, immersion "says it better" and is more graphic.  It is also more intrusive - you can get water up your nose, you can get cold and shiver a little.  That is part of the "initiation" part- the trial- the examination- that is part of the ritual.   Something you have to overcome to get into the club.  Step over this line and you are on my side.  Step over this line, climb this wall and jump through this hoop, and now you are REALLY one of us.   Yes there is that element as well.  We will let you into the tree house.

 

This is the part where our disagreement intensifies and where I would suggest that you really re-think this approach.  Just a suggestion- obviously I have no right to say that to you, but I think it is important to consider.

In short, the elements that God presumably revealed to perform that deliver the "endowment of power" were changed.  Pretty significant.

 

If you actually believe in "revelation" you must realize what it is.   It is God speaking to the minds of humans.  That is it's wonder- and that is its limitations.

 

 

God presumably revealed...

What does that mean???

 

It means that God put it into the mind of Joseph- a human being who was a "prophet" - to use these teaching devices to move God's people closer to Christ.

 

That is what it means.

 

Joseph was human. God needed a way to teach his people, and God put it into Joseph's feeble human brain the way to do that.

 

We all have feeble human brains, and receive revelations.  We are prophets in our own sphere.  We can receive revelation for our families, our home teaching families, for our callings, etc.   We are not prophets for the church.

 

But the prophet of the church is just as human as we are.   I can tell you with absolute certainty, because I have personally experienced a mantle of leadership and know it is real.  Absolutely real.  Of course I have never experienced anything close to what an apostle or prophet experiences, but I HAVE been called and set apart to be able to look out at a congregation and SEE what is going on in people's hearts.   People will "pop out" at you.  This person needs to be called here, that person needs an interview, you have nuances of impressions of what needs to be done. It's like a glow around them- not physical, but just something you sense.  And then you call them in and the first thing is "Well I've been meaning to get together with you for awhile but...."

 

And when your time in that calling goes away, the mantle goes away.  You sit on the stand to give a talk or whatever, and you see a bunch of faces.  Familiar faces, family faces, but just faces.    No popping out, no impressions, just faces.

 

Joseph was unquestionably one of the greatest spirits this earth has ever seen.  He was a religious genius.  He was an Einstein - more of a genius in a religious sphere than Einstein was a genius in physics.   Joseph was one or two perhaps in world history with his abilities, and at the moment I am not able to come up with a second.   Maybe Zoroaster or who we know as "Buddha" - it's hard to say.

 

But Joseph was human.  He was extremely close to the spirit, but he was human.  He could lose it.  Christ himself was human.   He grew from principle to principle.  There is something about these bodies we carry around that dumbs us down.  That is what they are supposed to do I guess, to make it all a test.

 

So if "God presumably revealed...." something that worked to teach his children to Joseph- God cannot reveal something else to his prophet today which teaches better for today??

 

If the temple ordinances are eternal and never to be changed- do you think that would be something the prophets themselves would know?

Do you think that they would just change things and think that no one would notice the change and NOT raise this exact question?????

 

I prefer to trust in the prophets to know at least what can and cannot be changed- if anything- and to do so as needed.

 

I think they can decide what is "preference" and what- if anything- is "eternal" and not worry about it.

 

As i see it, what is "wrong" here is not understanding that prophets are human and receive revelation and know what needs to be done.  If Joseph create the endowment, other prophets can modify it.

 

The ceremonies are here to teach us and if something in them is distracting because times have changed, it can be removed.

 

When the world is frozen over due to global warming maybe it will be ok to sprinkle for baptism. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Freedom, it seems like you're purposely trying to ignore the obvious here. Many have answered your questions and have shown significant changes but for some reason you refuse to accept that anything has changed.

 

Maybe some of these changes to ordinances are significant changes in your mind.

 

- Regular repetition of baptismal ordinance

- Baptism for the dead- Men being baptized for women and vice versa

- Initiatory- women officiating for other women

- Endowment- Adam/God theory taught as part of the endowment

- Sealing- Many changes about who can be sealed to whom; Live polygamous sealings, adoptive sealings of adults, language of sealing.

 

These are all significant changes to ordinances and doesn't even scratch the surface.

 

Changes happen all the time and the person with the mantle of prophet is a significant factor in those changes. Otherwise God could just create an Ap to do his will instead of calling individuals as prophets,.

[mfbukowski]

That was my very thought when the change you are referring to happened. I no longer criticize the Catholic Church for baptizing by sprinkling (that change was done by them for practical reasons ---- infant baptism or emergency baptism being deemed theologically necessary). It is the authority that is all-important. With that authority (really and truly having it, not just thinking you have it), major changes in ordinances are authorized. If the Catholic Church has the authority, then Mormon reasons against baptism by sprinkling don't matter. If the LDS Church has the authority, then major changes to the temple ordinances are authorized, even when they bother us.

If prophets can "receive" the endowment then prophets can "receive" what changes need to be made.   Simple as that, in my book.

 

Ordinances are to teach us.  Are the ordinances made for us, or are we made for the ordinances?

 

"Oh no- new math!!!   The old math is eternal and unchanging- how can this be??"  

[mfbukowski]

The key is do you think maybe the prophets know something more about the purpose of the endowment than we do?

 

A simple yes or no will do. 

[JLHPROF]

The key is do you think maybe the prophets know something more about the purpose of the endowment than we do?

 

A simple yes or no will do. 

 

Not a fair question - too many prophets.

[mfbukowski]

- the initiatory blessings - changed

- the covenants - changed

- the signs - changed

- the tokens - unchanged

- temple prayer - changed

- the veil ceremony - changed

- garments - changed

- temple clothing - unchanged

- teachings on Adam & Eve - changed

 

Yeah, the presentation is the least significant of the changes.  Presentation is what Joseph told Brigham to systematize.

But here is the question- are the things unchanged magical incantations or are they to teach us something symbolically?

 

I vote for the latter.   And we both know you are not mentioning the elephant in the room and neither am I

[mfbukowski]

Not a fair question - too many prophets.

Huh?   What- some know and some don't??   Like maybe some are "real" prophets and others aren't?

[JLHPROF]

Huh?   What- some know and some don't??   Like maybe some are "real" prophets and others aren't?

 

Wilford Woodruff:

 

I consider that if there ever was any man who thoroughly understood the principle of the Endowments it was Brigham Young. He had been with Joseph Smith from the beginning of the Endowments to the end; and he understood it if any man did. And before his death he required me to write in a book every Ordinance in the Church and Kingdom of God, from the first to the last; beginning with Baptism to the last Ordinance performed through every department of the Endowments. I was several weeks doing this writing, and President Young corrected it all until he got through. Then he said to me, "Now, there you have a pattern of all the Ordinances and Endowments for every Temple, we shall build, until the coming of the Son of Man." Now if I ever have anything to do, or to say, in any Temple on the earth, concerning Endowments, I would say: follow the pattern that President Young has set us; and not deviate from it one iota. And if we do that, we may have a hundred Temples at work, and all the work and ceremonies will be alike in every Temple.

 

Not all prophets understand equally  - Abraham 3:19

[Freedom]

Freedom, it seems like you're purposely trying to ignore the obvious here. Many have answered your questions and have shown significant changes but for some reason you refuse to accept that anything has changed.

 

Maybe some of these changes to ordinances are significant changes in your mind.

 

- Regular repetition of baptismal ordinance

- Baptism for the dead- Men being baptized for women and vice versa

- Initiatory- women officiating for other women

- Endowment- Adam/God theory taught as part of the endowment

- Sealing- Many changes about who can be sealed to whom; Live polygamous sealings, adoptive sealings of adults, language of sealing.

 

These are all significant changes to ordinances and doesn't even scratch the surface.

 

Changes happen all the time and the person with the mantle of prophet is a significant factor in those changes. Otherwise God could just create an Ap to do his will instead of calling individuals as prophets,.

Let me give you an analogy. If Honda adds a mat to the back seat in addition to the front as a standard feature on their new cars, this makes a significant difference to the appearance of the back seat floor but makes no significant difference to the car whatsoever. Yes, there have been subtle changes to how ordinances are performed, and this does make a difference to that isolated ritual, but in terms of the church as a whole, it is not significant. If UCLA changed a course on the history of Europe in the 20th century and added material from the 80's and 90s. that would be, arguably, a significant change to that course, but would have little if any impact on the university as a whole. In fact, it would only affect one or two teachers because they now have to incorporate new material. The students would have had no idea anything changed because those who already took the course do not have to take it a second time, and those now taking the course would not have been aware that it was missing before. 

 

What has been argued is that new prophets have brought significant change to the church but other than polygamy and who can receive the priesthood, there have not been any significant changes to the church other than subtle changes to practices and procedures. Just because one person says something will never change and another considers that such a change is possible does not make that change earth shattering. Changing the garments has had no material (excuse the pun) effect on the church whatsoever. 

 

So again, I have never said there have not been changes, I am saying that other than two examples, there have not been significant changes to the church. Consider the depth and breadth of the churches' doctrines and practices and put these items into perspective. My calling as a bishop, stake president, elders quorum instructor, home teacher or any other duty has not been affected at all by a little change on how we perform a temple ordinance. It does not affect what scriptures I read, how i prepare a talk, who I home teach, where my child will go on a mission, what age my child can start going to dances, or what types of foods I eat. It does not affect my clothing, my sacred language, the time I start church, or where the church headquarters are located. It is an insignificant and subtle adjustment for convenience sake. Changing the temple recommend from one year to two years freed up 10 minutes of my live this year. Not a big change. Removing references to Adam God, whoopdeedoo.  

[Freedom]

Another important point to consider about changes, is that the purpose has remained the same. As our society changes, the delivery has to change to maintain the same purpose. The purpose of the ordinances have never changed. The covenants have remained the same. Let me give some examples of what I would consider a significant change:

1) removing 'redeeming the dead' from one of the three pillars

2) accepting non-lds baptisms as valid and thereby voiding the need for priesthood authority

3) Changing one of the 9 fundamental doctrines such as the nature of the godhead, ordinances, or the plan of salvation

4) Removing the bible from the standard works

5) making the sealing ordinance about getting access to rare documents

 

These, to name a few, would be significant changes. Adjusting the placement of a hand, the length of a cloth, the use of a metaphor or the age for a calling? These are equal to arranging some of the chairs in a banquet hall.