A Gospel Of Change?

[Freedom]

JLHPROF and I were having a discussion on another thread and JLHPROF agreed to continue the discussion with a dedicated discussion. JLHPROF, please forgive the title, I was struggling what to call the thread. As a brief overview, here is the conversation that leads us to this point. 

 

I said:

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. 

 

 

 

To which JLHPROF responded

Thank you for clarifying.  I don't agree, but then I suppose I don't have to.  I find this mindset in conflict with the gospel principles laid down by the earlier prophets and the scriptures, but then I suppose we'd disagree on that too.  So we can just agree to disagree. 

 

 

To which I responded:

What do you mean? What mindset? 

 

 

Which lead to this:

 

This one:

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.

 

And this one:

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.

 

 

So I hope I am not misrepresenting J's point of view, but I think it sits like this: the church has changed a number of procedures over the decades but the substance has remained the same. From my perspective, these changes have been subtle but consistent with historical prophetic patters. 

 

I will let JLSPROF present his position. We may be talking past each other. 

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF and I were having a discussion on another thread and JLHPROF agreed to continue the discussion with a dedicated discussion. JLHPROF, please forgive the title, I was struggling what to call the thread. As a brief overview, here is the conversation that leads us to this point. 

 

I said:

 

 

To which JLHPROF responded

 

To which I responded:

Which lead to this:

 

 

So I hope I am not misrepresenting J's point of view, but I think it sits like this: the church has changed a number of procedures over the decades but the substance has remained the same. From my perspective, these changes have been subtle but consistent with historical prophetic patters. 

 

I will let JLSPROF present his position. We may be talking past each other. 

 

I am not sure my responses would serve much purpose, but I can if you wish.

 

I can easily show numerous quotes from scripture, prophets, apostles, etc to show that the gospel and its ordinances cannot be changed.

To which you will either come back with 9th Article of Faith/Follow the Living Prophet arguments or you will do as you did in the other thread and dismiss the changes as insignificant or symbolic only.

 

What ALL of this really comes down to in the end is "Which parts of the gospel are actually eternal and unchanging?"

I don't think any two members on this board could come to a 100% agreement.

 

Now if it is your desire to debate some of the changes made, I'm game, but I think we will just end up agreeing to disagree.

Your call.

[Freedom]

So your position is that the doctrine does not allow for change, but change there is? Therefore, the changes were not of God?

[JLHPROF]

So your position is that the doctrine does not allow for change, but change there is? Therefore, the changes were not of God?

 

Since God does not change, any changes to the things OF GOD are not of God.

The age of missionaries for instance I don't think is a thing of God and can be changed to suit our needs.

The ordinances were revealed from God to man and are described as existing from before the foundation of the world.  Changes to ordinances should not be made.

 

That is my position.  Anything of God doesn't change.  Anything of man can.

[williamsmith]

The restored Gospel hasn't "changed" at all.

The doctrines, ordinances and power are the same.

 

Symbols that teach doctrine sometimes change, things like practices in the Temple, etc.

But Doctrines and ordinances are and will always be the same.

 

The only things that has changed in the LDS church that "relate" to doctrine, are the Priesthood and Polygamy.

Both however have scriptural precidents of being given and taken away according to the Lords will.

The doctrines have remained the same (like we still believe in the Priesthood and Plural Marriage), but these specific practices change, are practiced or not practiced in various degrees according to the lords direction.

[JLHPROF]

The restored Gospel hasn't "changed" at all.

The doctrines, ordinances and power are the same.

 

Symbols that teach doctrine sometimes change, things like practices in the Temple, etc.

But Doctrines and ordinances are and will always be the same.

 

The only things that has changed in the LDS church that "relate" to doctrine, are the Priesthood and Polygamy.

Both however have scriptural precidents of being given and taken away according to the Lords will.

The doctrines have remained the same (like we still believe in the Priesthood and Plural Marriage), but these specific practices change, are practiced or not practiced in various degrees according to the lords direction.

 

Disagree.  But then, that's the entire point of this thread.  The doctrines, ordinances, and as a result, power, HAVE changed.

[Freedom]

So then the changes in the temple ceremony from what they were at the time of Moses? Changing the Sabbath day? Allowing gentiles to receive the gospel? Are these false directions written to convince us that they come from God? The change from using water instead of wine? 

[JLHPROF]

So then the changes in the temple ceremony from what they were at the time of Moses? Changing the Sabbath day? Allowing gentiles to receive the gospel? Are these false directions written to convince us that they come from God? The change from using water instead of wine? 

 

1. The Temple at the time of Moses was directly related to the old covenant, as was the Sabbath.  The Temple today corresponds with the New and Everlasting Covenant.  Not a change.  When Moses received his endowment we would assume it to be the same signs, tokens, penalties, covenants etc as we receive(d).

Christ didn't change the Old Covenant.  The ordinances of the Old Covenant are still exactly the same.  If you want to follow the law of Moses, you still have to do all those ordinances and sacrifices.  Didn't change a bit.

Neither can we change the ordinances of the New Covenant.  Nothing was changed.  God doesn't change.

 

Additionally, the Law of Moses is a temporal law, as in temporary, not eternal.

 

2. We never changed water into wine.  God specifically said it didn't matter.  We can still use wine any time we want.  Heck, we can use OJ if we want.  (Although I believe wine to be more correct than water or OJ).

 

This really isn't that complicated.

Edited March 13, 2015 by JLHPROF

[rongo]

Disagree.  But then, that's the entire point of this thread.  The doctrines, ordinances, and as a result, power, HAVE changed.

This sounds like Denver Snuffer's position. Wherein do you differ from him, JLHPROF?

[JLHPROF]

This sounds like Denver Snuffer's position. Wherein do you differ from him, JLHPROF?

 

In that I sustain our leaders authority, even if I disagree with some of their actions.

Denver Snuffer has placed himself above the Church.  I sustain the Church, even in its mistakes.

I also believe in scriptural prophecy which tells us in the last days that the Church will get out of order and be set in order by God before the return of Christ.  Kind of fun to witness that.

[Coreyb]

This sounds like Denver Snuffer's position. Wherein do you differ from him, JLHPROF?

Actually I think JLHPROF diverges a lot from Denver Snuffer on this. From what I have read of Snuffer, he doesn't find the ordinances (by this I mean the physical movements done by the bodies, objects, substances involved) to be all that important. I think JLHPROFs argument is that these prescribed movements are critical.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Coreyb

[mnn727]

The Gospel has not changed.

The ordinances have not changed.

The presentation and they way mankind perceives or relates to the Gospel and ordinances have changed. 

[Coreyb]

I think the crux of this issue might be the definition of the word ordinance.

[mnn727]

Actually I think JLHPROF diverges a lot from Denver Snuffer on this. From what I have read of Snuffer, he doesn't find the ordinances (by this I mean the physical movements done by the bodies, objects, substances involved) to be all that important. I think JLHPROFs argument is that these prescribed movements are critical.

That would be the presentation, not the ordinances themselves.

[JLHPROF]

That would be the presentation, not the ordinances themselves.

 

Then I'd like to know what constitutes an "ordinance" if it is not the God prescribed outward act representing the inward.

 

God set the outward acts.  God doesn't change.  Why should the outward acts?

[JLHPROF]

The Gospel has not changed.

The ordinances have not changed.

The presentation and they way mankind perceives or relates to the Gospel and ordinances have changed. 

 

Utter nonsense, or semantic manipulation.  One or the other.

 

- 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

 

[CV75]

That is my position.  Anything of God doesn't change.  Anything of man can.

So because God is inviting a people to become like Him, and that people must change to accept, God's doctrinal and covenantal dealings with them must begin according to the world in which they live, and change as they progress (or don't). Because the various peoples live in different worlds and progress differently, God changes His expectations for them, and the respective doctrines and covenants, accordingly. Not all of this takes place in the "kingdom proper," though the aim is to lead people into the kingdom. I think He even, in most cases, inspires His authorizd servants to make policy changes accordingly.

[JLHPROF]

Because the various peoples live in different worlds and progress differently, God changes His expectations for them, and the respective doctrines and covenants, accordingly.

 

I find this completely unscriptural.  There is only one expectation.  We may progress at different rates but we are all held to the same expectation to receive a blessing.  That is seen all through scripture and prophetic teaching.

[Ahab]

I'd use the Sacrament ordinance as an example.

What's important that shouldn't change is that we "do it in rememberance" of he who told us to do it. Later through inspiration his prophets/messengers told us that we should do it often, and also said it didn't really matter what we ate or drank as long as we "do it in remembrance of him". And we are also told what words we should pray to our Father.

The essential part is still the same. We do it in remembrance of him. I'm still wondering if there will someday be a day when we will no longer be told to do it or if it will always be something we do on Sundays.

[JLHPROF]

Later through inspiration his prophets/messengers told us that we should do it often, and also said it didn't really matter what we ate or drank as long as we "do it in remembrance of him". And we are also told what words we should pray to our Father.

 

These are key words - "we are told" by God.  We have the revelation.  We can reference it, study it, understand it.

 

There have been other changes to the sacrament that have no such revelation attached.  Are we to assume that God just forgot to mention those?

[CV75]

I find this completely unscriptural.  There is only one expectation.  We may progress at different rates but we are all held to the same expectation to receive a blessing.  That is seen all through scripture and prophetic teaching.

I think it is consistent with what is said directly in:

Alma 29:8

Alma 12:9

Acts 17: 26, 26

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2005/04/the-light-of-christ?lang=eng

 

For most people, the expectation (exaltation) you refer lies somwhere far beyond the veil and into the afterlife. But in the meantime, He gives us line upon line and precept upon precept on both an individul and group basis, and if we meet His expectations along the way, He takes us further.

 

On this basis, are you saying that Alvin Smith is any more or any less saved than you?

[mnn727]

Then I'd like to know what constitutes an "ordinance" if it is not the God prescribed outward act representing the inward.

 

God set the outward acts.  God doesn't change.  Why should the outward acts?

The ordinance is the Covenants made.

The presentation is how those Covenants are presented.

Edited March 13, 2015 by mnn727

[mnn727]

Utter nonsense, or semantic manipulation.  One or the other.

Yes, but I won't hold that against you.  

Edited March 13, 2015 by mnn727

[Freedom]

Since the validity of the ordinance is dependent upon the existence of divine authority and therefore a prophet of God, we are compelled to accept that the fundamentals of the ordinances have remained and that non-essential components have been done away. If the prophets were in error by simplifying the ordinances, then the prophets are not prophets at all the how the ordinances are performed are irrelevant. So it becomes a circular argument. The ordinances cannot be changed, prophets follow Gods instructions, the prophets changed/corrupted the ordinances and are therefore corrupting the church and leading us into apostasy  because the ordinances are no longer valid, but the church is true and therefore the ordinances are eternal and will not change.

 

It comes down to either being willing to consider that God can change the ritual as he sees fit and therefore the ordinances are still in their original form, or God is not willing to make changes and the prophets have defiled the ordinances and therefore they no longer provide salvation and therefore the church is in apostasy. I do not see how it can be any other way. 

If you read the Old Testament, however, where the endowment ceremony is clearly laid out, you will see that it was very different from the one Joseph Smith instituted. And we have a revelation instructing the saints to use water instead of wine for the sacrament. So, since an ordinance cannot be changed, then this revelation is false which puts them all into question. 

[JLHPROF]

The ordinance is the Covenants made.

The presentation is how those Covenants are presented.

 

So what of changes made to the covenants?  And don't say there haven't been any because there have.

Start with the law of obedience and the oath of vengeance for your first two and go from there.