A Gospel Of Change?

[CV75]

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the ordinances and are therefore corrupting the church and leading us into apostasy  because the ordinances are no longer valid, but the church is true and therefore the ordinances are eternal and will not change.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. 

Baptism by immersion in water, and baptism with fire and with the Holy Ghost are definitely eternal ordinances. But it would be interesting to hear the words John the Baptist used to baptize; whether the people referred to in 3 Nephi 9:20 had all been previously baptized in water; and, why the term “clapped his hands” is used in 3 Nephi 18:37 instead of “laid his hands” as in Moroni 2:1. It also seems the Lord used several methods to heal in the New Testament. And that proxy baptism was rightly performed outside the temple for a time. And that David rightly ate the showbread. Resurrection and judgement, I am sure, are other eternal ordinances but people are brought forth into different degrees of glory. There are many kingdoms and unto every kingdom is give a law (D&C 88:37, 38).

[JLHPROF]

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?

 

I am not arguing against this.  I am arguing against:

 

 

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

 

Of course God allows for people to progress at different rates.  But God doesn't change his doctrines and covenants for them.

 

If you want to enter the Celestial Kingdom you have to be baptized by immersion by someone holding authority.  Period.

If you want to hold the priesthood you have to have hands laid on your head by someone holding sufficient office and with permission from your head.

If you want to have an eternal companion you have to enter the marriage covenant through the sealing ceremony by someone holding the sealing keys.

If you want the blessings of the endowment you have to receive the elements contained therein as God has laid them out.  Why would it be any different?

 

D&C 130:19-20 tells us you cannot receive a blessing without living the corresponding law established before the foundations of the earth.  God doesn't change this law so that we can receiving blessings without living laws.  Of course God allows for each to receive them at their own pace, but he never changes the requirements.

Alvin Smith still needed baptism (by proxy).  He still needed his endowment (by proxy).  If he is to have exaltation he will need an eternal companion (by proxy).

The rules don't change either.  Adam was baptized.  Christ was baptized.  Joseph Smith was baptiized.  It's a requirement.  It's the whole reason we do work for the dead - because the rules are inviolable.

 

And if we change the ordinance from what God has commanded, I doubt its validity.

[Uncle Dale]

 

...

 

 

If you want to enter the Celestial Kingdom you have to be baptized by immersion by someone holding authority.  Period.

...

 

 

.

An interesting idea, that one.

 

After Sidney Rigdon was excommunicated at Nauvoo and had

moved back to his old home town of Pittsburgh, he set up a

latter day church there, preaching and teaching a religion

superficially very much like Mormonism.

 

Sidney had a very rigid view of covenants and priesthood

authority. Human beings could hold God to the purported

delegation, and (if I understand correctly) God Himself was

powerless to stop the "binding in heaven" of what his

priesthood-holders "bound on earth."

 

This understanding of covenants and delegated authority

had to be meliorated before the remaining Rigdonites could

be accepted into the Reorganization some years later -- but,

with them (and others) came also some of these very rigid

views of ordinances.

 

If one hair of a convert's head fails to be submerged during

baptism (even if detached during the immersion) God Himself

is prevented from accepting the conversion and bestowing a

remission of sins.

 

Even if a priesthood-holder were to murder an entire company

of people, his authority would remain in place, until the "keys"

were "turned" to remove that authority. Thus, if such a murdering

elder were to excommunicate a totally righteous and innocent

member, God Himself would be forced to honor the condemnation.

 

These sorts of opinions faded very slowly among the Saints I

knew, and could still be encountered (mostly in remotely located

branches, like the Rock Springs, Wyoming congregation) when

I was associating with some of the more elderly priesthood-holders.

 

Oh well...

 

UD

[mnn727]

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.

Sorry, those were not the ordinance, it was presentation. You might argue that we covenanted to do that thing if we ever did something, however that was an oath to ourselves and our fellow people in the group, not something God was to do.

Again, probably needed in the 1800's but not in the 2000's. frankly there are other parts I think are outdated but some people like them.I see them going away in the not too distant future. Again procedure/presentation having nothing to do with the Covenants.

[JLHPROF]

Sorry, those were not the ordinance, it was presentation. You might argue that we covenanted to do that thing if we ever did something, however that was an oath to ourselves and our fellow people in the group, not something God was to do.

Again, probably needed in the 1800's but not in the 2000's. frankly there are other parts I think are outdated but some people like them.I see them going away in the not too distant future. Again procedure/presentation having nothing to do with the Covenants.

 

So the covenants made are not the ordinances.  The actions performed are not the ordinances.  The doctrines taught are not the ordinance.

The blessings pronounced are not the ordinances.  The items received are not the ordinances.

I would really love to know what the ordinances are?

Let me guess - it's getting the check mark in your Church file confirming you are now endowed...that where the power comes from right?

Edited March 14, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Freedom]

An ordinance is a ceremony. It comes from the latin 'ordinare' which means to put in order or to act by authorization. Ordinances are meant to instruct through deep symbolism. It is rather difficult to teach with imagery that means nothing to the patron. 

 

It is true that Joseph Smith said the following:

"the ordinances of the Gospel…were laid out before the foundations of the world" and "are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles" (TPJS, pp. 367, 308). The problem is that if you interpret this absolutely literally, never mind the fact that this quote is not in our cannon of doctrine, you will have some problems. For example, if you have to baptize someone by immersion and in so doing, you must hold their hands as is commonly depicted in many LDS baptism pictures, then the person who does not have any hands will not be able to received this saving ordinance. Since you have never seen the original revelation on what the temple ordinances were to look like (no one has except perhaps the prophets and apostles), you would have no idea if what we are doing today is any different. The instructions given to Joseph may be quite vague and he was left to fill in the gaps on his own. You just assume that all that was instituted at the start was word for word, motion for motion exactly as God dictated. But since you are just assuming this, you are arguing from silence. Since the directions on how to perform a baptism is well laid out, it becomes clear that the unalterable ordinances is not so fully worked out as you suppose. 

 

It has not occurred to you that the brethren are constantly studying the reveled temple ordinances and are actively working to ensure that our performance is as close to the intended model as possible. You do not know if God instructed Joseph to make additions to the basic ordinances for instruction purposes. 

[janderich]

An ordinance is a ceremony. It comes from the latin 'ordinare' which means to put in order or to act by authorization. Ordinances are meant to instruct through deep symbolism. It is rather difficult to teach with imagery that means nothing to the patron. 

 

It is true that Joseph Smith said the following:

"the ordinances of the Gospel…were laid out before the foundations of the world" and "are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles" (TPJS, pp. 367, 308). The problem is that if you interpret this absolutely literally, never mind the fact that this quote is not in our cannon of doctrine, you will have some problems. For example, if you have to baptize someone by immersion and in so doing, you must hold their hands as is commonly depicted in many LDS baptism pictures, then the person who does not have any hands will not be able to received this saving ordinance. Since you have never seen the original revelation on what the temple ordinances were to look like (no one has except perhaps the prophets and apostles), you would have no idea if what we are doing today is any different. The instructions given to Joseph may be quite vague and he was left to fill in the gaps on his own. You just assume that all that was instituted at the start was word for word, motion for motion exactly as God dictated. But since you are just assuming this, you are arguing from silence. Since the directions on how to perform a baptism is well laid out, it becomes clear that the unalterable ordinances is not so fully worked out as you suppose. 

 

It has not occurred to you that the brethren are constantly studying the reveled temple ordinances and are actively working to ensure that our performance is as close to the intended model as possible. You do not know if God instructed Joseph to make additions to the basic ordinances for instruction purposes. 

Ordinances order our knowledge of the kingdom and help us understand God's character and consequently ourselves. As such, every detail is not set in stone. However, as one deviates too far, the symbolism is obscured. If this happens, even faithful saints may not understand the meaning of the symbols, and consequently how to approach God.

 

Now as to this notion that the brethren are constantly improving the ordinances I must put up a flag of warning. Yes, there appear to have been some instances where ordinances have been changed for clarity or to remove un-symbolic objectionable language, but in more recent times it appears they have been changed to accommodate the worlds standards at the detriment of the symbolism. Take for example the initiatory. The most recent changes helped to satisfy the worlds demands but in truth they have in some measure obscured the meaning of the ordinance. Important links between baptism, the coat of skins, and the endowment are more difficult to see. 

 

So does the temple need to accommodate the world? Well, the problem is even some saints are offended and refuse to return. Having not seen past the symbolism they think they know what the intent of the ordinance is and so they begin to believe the temple is sexist or some other non-sense. Having cut themselves off from understanding they now try to preach it to others. I for one care not about the outward forms but about the meaning behind them. If certain portions offend those who will not see past the symbolism then let them be offended. To the faithful the truth will be known and the temple will shine in all its glory.

[rongo]

I agree, janderich. I think that God sometimes has to "work with the hand He is dealt." Meaning, He sometimes has to impose a lesser law (a la children of Israel in the wilderness) than He would prefer because of the "lameness" of the mix on the earth at certain points. Another case in point would be the Martin Harris/Joseph Smith incident with the 116 pages. God sometimes allows changes because of our insistence or stubbornness. They are "God's changes" inasmuch as He countenances and allows them, but they aren't a preferred course of action. 

 

I think that recent (from 1990 to the present) changes to the temple ordinances are largely of this sort. The ordinances are authorized by God, but we have lost some things with them. The mix of personalities and temperaments we have in the world and in the Church at this time sort of impose a "lesser law" on us. The ordinances still have efficacy, but they are beneath our privileges.

[CV75]

And if we change the ordinance from what God has commanded, I doubt its validity.

OK so it’s an “on one hand / on the other” sort of thing. No big deal.

 

On one hand, perverting how the ordinances are performed is apostasy. On the other, changing how the ordinances are performed is God’s prerogative.

 

Because the various peoples live in different worlds and progress differently, God changes how the ordinances are performed. Some in real-time, some by proxy. Some in 8 hours, some in three. Some with wine, some with water. Some by clapping the hands, some by laying the hands. Some with spittle and ground, some with consecrated oil. Some according to the mores of one dispensation/generation, and some according to the mores of another. Some in one procedural order, others in another. Lots of examples.

 

The broken heart and contrite spirit drive the efficacy of any ordinance, not the format, and God can and does often change the format. I doubt John the Baptist said the same words that we say to today, but Jesus' baptism is still valid.

[janderich]

I agree, janderich. I think that God sometimes has to "work with the hand He is dealt." Meaning, He sometimes has to impose a lesser law (a la children of Israel in the wilderness) than He would prefer because of the "lameness" of the mix on the earth at certain points. Another case in point would be the Martin Harris/Joseph Smith incident with the 116 pages. God sometimes allows changes because of our insistence or stubbornness. They are "God's changes" inasmuch as He countenances and allows them, but they aren't a preferred course of action. 

 

I think that recent (from 1990 to the present) changes to the temple ordinances are largely of this sort. The ordinances are authorized by God, but we have lost some things with them. The mix of personalities and temperaments we have in the world and in the Church at this time sort of impose a "lesser law" on us. The ordinances still have efficacy, but they are beneath our privileges.

Yes. And when members cannot see how to approach the Lord through the ordinances then they have no effect. In other words, they are just forms, they become dead works as the Lord said, "Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the stait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works. For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up onto me, even as in days of old" (D&C 22:2-4). 

[mfbukowski]

 

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

There was an apostasy and restoration to change just that point.

There is no gulf between human and divine nature, God is our Father not an unchanging spirit, and can hear and answer prayer. He can respond to us, and even change what he taught us earlier because times have changed.

What's the point of an open Canon if things don't change?

[HappyJackWagon]

This whole question of change is easily settled when we realize that prophets sometimes get it wrong. It could be an original prophesy, ordinance, commandment uttered by a prophet or even found in scripture that is wrong, or it could be a current prophet's interpretation or change of a commandment, ordinance, prophesy etc. People always have the potential to be wrong and at best man will always be an intermediary in interpreting God's will which means there is always room for error.

 

According to Joseph Smith in the original word of wisdom revelation it was not given by way of commandment. Since then prophets have promoted the WoW to commandment. Which is correct?

 

Changes made by prophets is only a hang up if we expect perfection then or now.

Edited March 14, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[JLHPROF]

I think I will bow out of this particular discussion for the most part since I clearly have a different way of viewing the gospel and its ordinances.

I consider my view to be consistent with the scriptures and the prophets, as I have shown repeatedly.

But I can't agree with such relativistic subjective views of an eternal gospel system, so we will just have to disagree.

 

Thanks for the discussion.

[mfbukowski]

An ordinance is a ceremony. It comes from the latin 'ordinare' which means to put in order or to act by authorization. Ordinances are meant to instruct through deep symbolism. It is rather difficult to teach with imagery that means nothing to the patron. 

 

It is true that Joseph Smith said the following:

"the ordinances of the Gospel…were laid out before the foundations of the world" and "are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles" (TPJS, pp. 367, 308). The problem is that if you interpret this absolutely literally, never mind the fact that this quote is not in our cannon of doctrine, you will have some problems. For example, if you have to baptize someone by immersion and in so doing, you must hold their hands as is commonly depicted in many LDS baptism pictures, then the person who does not have any hands will not be able to received this saving ordinance. Since you have never seen the original revelation on what the temple ordinances were to look like (no one has except perhaps the prophets and apostles), you would have no idea if what we are doing today is any different. The instructions given to Joseph may be quite vague and he was left to fill in the gaps on his own. You just assume that all that was instituted at the start was word for word, motion for motion exactly as God dictated. But since you are just assuming this, you are arguing from silence. Since the directions on how to perform a baptism is well laid out, it becomes clear that the unalterable ordinances is not so fully worked out as you suppose. 

 

It has not occurred to you that the brethren are constantly studying the reveled temple ordinances and are actively working to ensure that our performance is as close to the intended model as possible. You do not know if God instructed Joseph to make additions to the basic ordinances for instruction purposes.

"All must be saved on the same PRINCIPLES" is not the same as "All must be saved with the same WORDS and GESTURES."

These are not magic spells or incantations. This is not Harry Potter, where if you say the wrong word you turn someone into a newt.

Errors in ordinances are made daily, and we are trained that the Lord honors the INTENT, not the words.

Do you know how often I have heard the word "patriotical" instead of patriarchal?

People actually think theses ordinances are about honoring the flag?

The level of understanding is appalling.

[BCSpace]

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.

 

 

It looks like the difference between the Western and Eastern styles of the trinity, that is to say, very little difference at all and maybe semantics.

[mnn727]

So the covenants made are not the ordinances.  The actions performed are not the ordinances.  The doctrines taught are not the ordinance.

The blessings pronounced are not the ordinances.  The items received are not the ordinances.

I would really love to know what the ordinances are?

Let me guess - it's getting the check mark in your Church file confirming you are now endowed...that where the power comes from right?

You said you were pre 1990, so you know exactly what I meant. If not go back and re-read exactly what I said.

[mfbukowski]

It looks like the difference between the Western and Eastern styles of the trinity, that is to say, very little difference at all and maybe semantics.

Imo totally semantics.