Baptism - Doctrinal Evolution

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'd like to talk about the authority piece a little more.  As I understand the development of the priesthood doctrine within early Mormonism, priesthood authority did not come first, but rather the ordinance of baptism came before the priesthood authority theology.  This is evidenced in the earliest accounts and in the baptismal prayer as well where there are no references to priesthood, and in the BoM and early revelations.  This shows an evolution of the concept of authority and what is required for baptism specifically.  Thoughts?  

I'd like to know where you got that idea.
D&C 20 was recorded in 1830, the same year the Church was founded.
It contains the baptismal prayer, the requirement of office to perform baptisms, and the priesthood offices that had been revealed to that point.

This places it only a year after the first recorded baptism.  I can't imagine that too many baptisms with no reference or requirement to priesthood took place between May of 1829 and April 1830.
Curious to know your references.

[jkwilliams]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The way I see it, we're always getting things wrong, to err is human.   I do think you're right that some people probably have a hard time accepting the idea that a church leader got a doctrine wrong, but that comes from this concept that things don't change and never will which I find unrealistic.  

I've never understood the assumption that everything said by a general authority is the word of God. 

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'd like to know where you got that idea.
D&C 20 was recorded in 1830, the same year the Church was founded.
It contains the baptismal prayer, the requirement of office to perform baptisms, and the priesthood offices that had been revealed to that point.

This places it only a year after the first recorded baptism.  I can't imagine that too many baptisms with no reference or requirement to priesthood took place between May of 1829 and April 1830.
Curious to know your references.

Looking at the earliest writings, not later reflections, but the contemporary evidence.  So, the antecedent for D&C 20, is the Articles of the Church penned by Oliver Cowdery in June 1829.  Looking at the language here it doesn't reference priesthood in connection with authority.  The source of much of this content are BoM passages.  

Quote

And ye are also called to ordain Priests & Teachers according to the gifts & callings of God unto men & after this manner shall ye ordain them Ye shall pray unto the Father in my name & then shall ye lay your hands upon them & say In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a Priest or if he be a Teacher I ordain you to be a Teacher to preach repentance & remission of sins through Jesus Christ by the endurance of faith on his name to the end Amen And this shall be the duty of the Priest

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-3-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-june-1829/1

Authority in the BoM and in the early church was divine command authority, not authority conferred through priesthood in these earliest events.  Greg Prince talks about this in his book, "Power from on High" on the development of Priesthood, but an essay with a good historical timeline of evidences is here, starting on page 58.  http://www.jwha.website/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Journal_14-1.pdf

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I've never understood the assumption that everything said by a general authority is the word of God. 

Really liking this quote from J. Reuben Clark which I read recently.  Another GA, I know, but it seems so practical.  

Quote

I say it illustrates a principle – that even the President of the Church, himself, may not always be ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost,’ when he addresses the people. This has happened about matters of doctrine (usually of a highly speculative character) where subsequent Presidents of the Church and the peoples themselves have felt that in declaring the doctrine, the announcer was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ How shall the Church know when these adventurous expeditions of the brethren into these highly speculative principles and doctrines meet the requirements of the statutes that the announcers thereof have been ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’? The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

That's a difficult distinction to make. I don't understand the insistence that nothing important has changed. Maybe people think that acknowledging change means that earlier church leaders got something wrong. Unless we believe in functional infallibility, that shouldn't be an issue at all. 

Well-informed LDS members know by now that Black men were ordained in Joseph's day, then a new policy adopted by Brigham disallowed that practice until 1978.  Pres Uchtdorf readily admits that mistakes were made along the way, and Gospel Topics Essays have been written to explain some of the disjunctures.  There have likewise been changes in the Word of Wisdom application (wine to water in Sacrament; worthiness now based on), even though we still have Scriptural texts and hymns which include "wine."  Polygamy was abandoned, at least as a practice, though not as theoretical doctrine.  The real question is whether any of that represents real change -- in the fundamental sense -- or are those only ornaments on the tree which come and go with time?  Despite some changes in temple rites, for example, Fawn Brodie thought that they had remained fairly stable.  Was she in denial, or simply admitting the obvious?

One might more reasonably claim that Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith are far more fundamental.  In addition, from the POV of normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, there may be far more important differences, upon which the ground of the LDS faith is strictly at variance -- such that it is truly heresy:  Worshiping an anthropomorphic and naturalistic God who was once a man in a universe or multiverse with infinite gods and an infinity of worlds -- in which matter & energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and in which all humans are coeternal with the gods.  These considerations have much more far-reaching implications and should not be ignored.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well-informed LDS members know by now that Black men were ordained in Joseph's day, then a new policy adopted by Brigham disallowed that practice until 1978.  Pres Uchtdorf readily admits that mistakes were made along the way, and Gospel Topics Essays have been written to explain some of the disjunctures.  There have likewise been changes in the Word of Wisdom application (wine to water in Sacrament; worthiness now based on), even though we still have Scriptural texts and hymns which include "wine."  Polygamy was abandoned, at least as a practice, though not as theoretical doctrine.  The real question is whether any of that represents real change -- in the fundamental sense -- or are those only ornaments on the tree which come and go with time?  Despite some changes in temple rites, for example, Fawn Brodie thought that they had remained fairly stable.  Was she in denial, or simply admitting the obvious?

One might more reasonably claim that Joseph Smith's Articles of Faith are far more fundamental.  In addition, from the POV of normative Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition, there may be far more important differences, upon which the ground of the LDS faith is strictly at variance -- such that it is truly heresy:  Worshiping an anthropomorphic and naturalistic God who was once a man in a universe or multiverse with infinite gods and an infinity of worlds -- in which matter & energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and in which all humans are coeternal with the gods.  These considerations have much more far-reaching implications and should not be ignored.

No argument, Robert. I guess what I am questioning is a rigidity of thought that borders on dogmatism: nothing of consequence has changed, leaders have never made mistakes, and so on. I am much more comfortable with a religion that has an expanding and growing understanding of truth. In that case, change should be welcome. But as I said, it's a difficult distinction. People differ in their assessment of what is fundamental and what is ornamental. 

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well-informed LDS members know by now that Black men were ordained in Joseph's day, then a new policy adopted by Brigham disallowed that practice until 1978.  

Still not sure that's accurate.  But is does seem to have become the common belief.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Still not sure that's accurate.  But is does seem to have become the common belief.

My recollection is that the priesthood ban dates to the Missouri time period. 

[JLHPROF]

The most obvious example of doctrinal evolution would be the temple garment, endowment, and other temple ordinances.

As a rule people are generally correct that a lot of the changes are merely cosmetic.  Theatrical adjustments.
But items, practices, and doctrines that were once officially taught to have eternal significance were also changed. 

Whether that matters is one thing.  The fact that our temple practices have evolved is another.
Heck, there are even entire books on the subject - http://www.signaturebooks.com/the-development-of-lds-temple-worship-1846-2000-a-documentary-history/

 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

The most obvious example of doctrinal evolution would be the temple garment, endowment, and other temple ordinances.

As a rule people are generally correct that a lot of the changes are merely cosmetic.  Theatrical adjustments.
But items, practices, and doctrines that were once officially taught to have eternal significance were also changed. 

Whether that matters is one thing.  The fact that our temple practices have evolved is another.
Heck, there are even entire books on the subject - http://www.signaturebooks.com/the-development-of-lds-temple-worship-1846-2000-a-documentary-history/

I have a friend who was my zone leader in my mission. When he went through the temple the first time, the temple president assured him that the endowment was revealed by God and was the same as it had been in ancient times. The changes in 1990 were a huge shock to him and started him on the road out of the church. I couldn't--and still can't--understand what the big deal is about the ceremonies changing. If church teachings about the nature and roles of the Godhead can change, why not the endowment?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

My recollection is that the priesthood ban dates to the Missouri time period. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69304-attempt-to-reconcile-the-priesthood-ban/?do=findComment&comment=1209738498

During Joseph's lifetime only 5 men of black descent were rumored to be ordained, only 4 of them have an actual record or ordination, and only 2 of them had any significant interaction with him.
Jane Manning James arrived in Nauvoo in 1843 with male family members - 3 brothers, a brother in law, and her future husband age 23 was already living in Nauvoo.  There may also have been her oldest son, but I believe he was only around 8 or 9.  None are on record as receiving priesthood and none were slaves.  And we know how close her family was with Joseph Smith.  That's at least 5 black men in Nauvoo, faithful converts, with no ordinations on record.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I have a friend who was my zone leader in my mission. When he went through the temple the first time, the temple president assured him that the endowment was revealed by God and was the same as it had been in ancient times. The changes in 1990 were a huge shock to him and started him on the road out of the church. I couldn't--and still can't--understand what the big deal is about the ceremonies changing. If church teachings about the nature and roles of the Godhead can change, why not the endowment?

The big deal is simple.

• “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles."

Or perhaps the bigger deal

• The Priesthood is everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood.

So if the ordinances are changed, so is the priesthood.

Which always gets the same two responses:
1. Nothing actually changed of any significance
2. Continuing revelation and learning line upon line allows for any change
 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The big deal is simple.

• “Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles."

Or perhaps the bigger deal

• The Priesthood is everlasting—without beginning of days or end of years; without father, mother, etc. If there is no change of ordinances, there is no change of Priesthood. Wherever the ordinances of the Gospel are administered, there is the Priesthood.

So if the ordinances are changed, so is the priesthood.

Which always gets the same two responses:
1. Nothing actually changed of any significance
2. Continuing revelation and learning line upon line allows for any change
 

I guess I'm not as rigid in my thinking, as it never bothered me. 

[cinepro]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

Assuming you are using 1830 as a starting point, some things haven't changed about it such as the elements of proper authority, water and immersion; the remission of sins and the requisite ordinance for the baptism of fire have also been a constant theme. I'm thinking there might be some evolution in the liberality of its application, followed by refinement and return to basics, rather than in the actual doctrine of baptism.

But that's not what he's claiming.  Read the OP again.  "Evolving" necessarily retains some degree of semblance over time. No one is saying that baptism (or everything else) has totally changed.  Pointing out the way something hasn't changed isn't really a relevant argument in a discussion of how it has changed.  

 

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The most obvious example of doctrinal evolution would be the temple garment, endowment, and other temple ordinances.

As a rule people are generally correct that a lot of the changes are merely cosmetic.  Theatrical adjustments.
But items, practices, and doctrines that were once officially taught to have eternal significance were also changed. 

Whether that matters is one thing.  The fact that our temple practices have evolved is another.
Heck, there are even entire books on the subject - http://www.signaturebooks.com/the-development-of-lds-temple-worship-1846-2000-a-documentary-history/

 

The temple ordinance changes are interesting if you look at the way baptism has changed in the broader Christian tradition.  For those sects that don't practice baptism by immersion they may feel like their changes to the practice of baptism are only ornamental as Robert mentioned, but for Joseph Smith, departing from the practice of full immersion and the baptizing of young children were fundamentally flawed.

In Mormonism, some fundamentalists today believe that the mainstreams LDS church has changed the temple ordinances in ways that aren't merely ornamental as well.  I think its interesting to look this history and compare how parallels between the history of early Christianity and early Mormonism.  

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The way I see it, we're always getting things wrong, to err is human.   I do think you're right that some people probably have a hard time accepting the idea that a church leader got a doctrine wrong, but that comes from this concept that things don't change and never will which I find unrealistic.  

I agree.  Many refuse to acknowledge the changes from the past simply because they fear this means there will be change in the future (most specifically any acceptance of SSM from the church leaders).  To admit the doctrinal changes, changes in teachings from past leaders, and all the many policy changes over the years means an acknowledgement that more changes will very likely continue to occur.  

Then comes all of the debate over what really constitutes church doctrine.  But then, as far as I know, there is no official doctrine as of yet regarding the treatment of those involved in SSM.  That is still just a policy and those for sure have changed in the past.

Edited September 22, 2017 by ALarson

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Still not sure that's accurate.  But is does seem to have become the common belief.

What is inaccurate about it?  The Joseph part, the Brigham part, or the 1978 part?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

No argument, Robert. I guess what I am questioning is a rigidity of thought that borders on dogmatism: nothing of consequence has changed, leaders have never made mistakes, and so on. I am much more comfortable with a religion that has an expanding and growing understanding of truth. In that case, change should be welcome. But as I said, it's a difficult distinction. People differ in their assessment of what is fundamental and what is ornamental. 

President Dieter Uchtdorf:  

Quote

       Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past.  We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church History, along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events, there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.  Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience.  When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.
        Sometimes there’s a difference of opinion as to what the facts really mean.  A question that creates doubt in some, can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.
        And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
        I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.  October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

President Dieter Uchtdorf:  

I'm not disagreeing with you or President Uchtdorf but with those who are insisting there have been no changes and no mistakes. 

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What is inaccurate about it?  The Joseph part, the Brigham part, or the 1978 part?

My apologies.

When I said I wasn't sure that it was accurate, I was referring to the implication that I read in the statement concerning who originated the belief.
Phrase for phrase literally it is accurate.  I apologize if I read an implication into your statement instead of taking it literally.

Yes there were a few black men ordained in Joseph's lifetime.
Yes Brigham established a Churchwide ban that existed until 1978.
Yes, your statement was accurate.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

But that's not what he's claiming.  Read the OP again.  "Evolving" necessarily retains some degree of semblance over time. No one is saying that baptism (or everything else) has totally changed.  Pointing out the way something hasn't changed isn't really a relevant argument in a discussion of how it has changed.  

 

Comparing baptism to a life form, the things that haven’t changed about it are as essential to its survival as the anything that does. I don’t see any componential change in the doctrine of baptism of over the years, only an expansion and reduction in its application as brought up in the OP.

Changes in how a life form is purposed (whether for example for milk, hide, meat, etc.) is not dependent on changes in its constitution through evolution. Even when we breed and hybridize to improve our purposing, the fundamental elements remain the same (a cow is still a cow).

This is why I say the doctrine of baptism since 1830 has remained constant, no matter what it can be used for: “Baptism by immersion in water by one having authority is the first saving ordinance of the gospel and is necessary for an individual to become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to receive eternal salvation. All who seek eternal life must follow the example of the Savior by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.” https://www.lds.org/topics/baptism?lang=eng

That some have purposed it for recommitment, healing, etc. is not a departure from the doctrine of immersion in water, proper authority, membership, and the quest for eternal salvation (of which recommitment and healing blessings are subsets, being expressions of faith). The examples in the OP to me refer to an "evolution" of application rather than of doctrine, and in a way that evolution does not serve as the best analogy.

Edited September 22, 2017 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That some have purposed it for recommitment, healing, etc. is not a departure from the doctrine of immersion in water, proper authority, membership, and the quest for eternal salvation (of which recommitment and healing blessings are subsets, being expressions of faith). The examples in the OP to me refer to an "evolution" of application rather than of doctrine, and in a way that evolution does not serve as the best analogy.

I agree with what you say here up to a point.  But I think it ignores some clear changes in belief, not just in practice.

The doctrinal evolution is that we previously believed (for example) that being rebaptized was an acceptable and effective practice for restoring our health.  That is no longer believed.
We used to believe that a rebaptism of recommitment and renewal of covenant was necessary.  That is no longer believed.
We used to believe that certain washings and anointings (the higher form of baptism) would bring certain blessings, for example Mother's blessings.  That is no longer believed.

Nobody is suggesting the doctrine surrounding baptism by immersion for the remission of sins has changed or evolved.
But OTHER beliefs relating to baptism have evolved, and in some cases are now extinct.  Not just practices, but actual beliefs.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not disagreeing with you or President Uchtdorf but with those who are insisting there have been no changes and no mistakes. 

The ostriches?  

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The ostriches?  

More like 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree with what you say here up to a point.  But I think it ignores some clear changes in belief, not just in practice.

The doctrinal evolution is that we previously believed (for example) that being rebaptized was an acceptable and effective practice for restoring our health.  That is no longer believed.
We used to believe that a rebaptism of recommitment and renewal of covenant was necessary.  That is no longer believed.
We used to believe that certain washings and anointings (the higher form of baptism) would bring certain blessings, for example Mother's blessings.  That is no longer believed.

Nobody is suggesting the doctrine surrounding baptism by immersion for the remission of sins has changed or evolved.
But OTHER beliefs relating to baptism have evolved, and in some cases are now extinct.  Not just practices, but actual beliefs.

Does the statement from the First Presidency, assuming there is one, actually articulate what we are no longer to believe about baptism, or only what we are no longer are to do with it? If the former, it is a change in doctrine. If the latter, it is not a doctrinal evolution of baptism in my mind, but a change in practice.

I’m sure there are other, much better examples of doctrinal evolution in the Church than baptism. Many of them are right in the D&C and Book of Mormon.