Is there any external expression of faith that you consider sacred and unchangeable?

[JLHPROF]

On the other thread there's been a lot of discussion about presentation elements and spiritual superseding the physical or temporal.

So are there any of these elements that you would not be able to accept a continuing revelation to remove?
Some possible candidates:
- the wearing of the garment
- the anointing of the sick with oil
- baptism by immersion in water or raising the arm to the square
- laying on of hands for ordination or confirmation
- eating of food/drinking of liquid to remember Christ
- kneeling
- the sealing ceremony elements

Is there any physical, external expression that you consider key and vital and not easily replaced or removed since the "spiritual" element would remain?  Or is it all just window dressing for the changes inside or something like that?
Is pretty much all of it unimportant compared to the way we feel?

[JustAnAustralian]

From your list, the only one I can think of that we have scriptural evidence of Jesus having done to him was the immersion based baptism (to fulfil all righteousness).

I think that the physical aspects of baptism would be fairly difficult to remove from Christianity (even if some  denominations use the sprinkle as an infant method rather than immersion)

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

On the other thread there's been a lot of discussion about presentation elements and spiritual superseding the physical or temporal.

So are there any of these elements that you would not be able to accept a continuing revelation to remove?
Some possible candidates:
- the wearing of the garment
- the anointing of the sick with oil
- baptism by immersion in water or raising the arm to the square
- laying on of hands for ordination or confirmation
- eating of food/drinking of liquid to remember Christ
- kneeling
- the sealing ceremony elements

Is there any physical, external expression that you consider key and vital and not easily replaced or removed since the "spiritual" element would remain?  Or is it all just window dressing for the changes inside or something like that?
Is pretty much all of it unimportant compared to the way we feel?

Hmm, I'm not totally sure right now but I don't think there are any elements I would not be able to accept removing.

Some possible candidates:
- the wearing of the garment - no problem with me if our Lord told us we don't need to wear those anymore.  I don't expect to have to wear them forever, although the symbols would probably always remain in my heart
- the anointing of the sick with oil - nope, no problem with me if our Lord said we didn't need to use oil to heal someone who is sick
- baptism by immersion in water or raising the arm to the square - like when everyone who has ever lived on this planet has been baptized or had the ordinance done for them by proxy... we would not need to do that anymore.
- laying on of hands for ordination or confirmation - i like the personal touch but would be okay if our Lord told us there was another way we could do that
- eating of food/drinking of liquid to remember Christ - while it doesn't matter what we eat or drink?  i expect to be eating and drinking at least something forever
- kneeling - no problem with me when our Lord says that is not necessary
- the sealing ceremony elements - i would be okay if our Lord ever wanted to change the symbols 

[Fether]

38 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

 

I think that the physical aspects of baptism would be fairly difficult to remove from Christianity (even if some  denominations use the sprinkle as an infant method rather than immersion)

We do baptisms via proxy, meaning an individual being physically baptized is not essential. Not sure how that effects your response, but I would say it is something to keep in mind.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Fether said:

We do baptisms via proxy, meaning an individual being physically baptized is not essential. Not sure how that effects your response, but I would say it is something to keep in mind.

Yeah I've thought about that and to save time I was thinking it would be good for the baptism of one person to suffice for the baptism of more than one person.  Currently it's a 1:1 ratio but I don't see why that should mean it is the way it must be.

We would just need to witness the baptism of one person and then say that applied to however many people we have waiting in que.  Think of how much time that would save.  But then we would probably need to find more things for our youth to do.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Ahab

[bluebell]

I don't know.  I don't like the idea of drawing a line in the sand and saying "I will go this far and no farther" in my relationship with a Being whose ways are not my ways while I see through a glass darkly and He understands everything perfectly.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Fether said:

We do baptisms via proxy, meaning an individual being physically baptized is not essential. Not sure how that effects your response, but I would say it is something to keep in mind.

The individual being physically baptized isn't essential but an individual being physically baptized is essential, as we teach it.  Maybe that's what JAA is referring to.

[Rain]

If the spiritual aspects are there I can't think of one that of any that i would not be ok changing as long as I knew it came from God though I do think the body has to be involved some way.  There is too much in our teachings of combining the physical and spiritual and the importance of both, but there are a lot of possibilities of how those things could be carried out.

[rongo]

After the changes in the temple, I think there is literally nothing that couldn't theoretically be done away with and simply done "symbolically only." Even baptism by immersion. We criticize other churches for sprinkling, but changing it from immersion to sprinkling is no different. So, it becomes a matter of authority --- if the authority is there, then the change is authorized. 

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

After the changes in the temple, I think there is literally nothing that couldn't theoretically be done away with and simply done "symbolically only." Even baptism by immersion. We criticize other churches for sprinkling, but changing it from immersion to sprinkling is no different. So, it becomes a matter of authority --- if the authority is there, then the change is authorized. 

Okay, so I think everyone in the Church is up to speed with the idea that authority from God is absolutely essential.  I think the question for some is whether or not God must micro-manage every way we get something done or if our Church leaders can make their own decisions about how to do things.  So the issue really is what are the powers which the keys of the kingdom of God convey?

Is the President of the Church essentially the main CEO who God has authorized and appointed to lead the Church by making executive level decisions, or does he only do exactly what God tells him to do and only exactly the way God tells him to do it?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Blood sacrifice was instituted with Adam in the beginning ... and then replaced by a ritual meal of bread and wine (water).

Circumcision of the flesh, supposedly introduced to Abraham, was swapped for a far more spiritualised 'circumcised heart'.

There certainly seems to be ancient precedence ...

Edited January 30, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't know.  I don't like the idea of drawing a line in the sand and saying "I will go this far and no farther" in my relationship with a Being whose ways are not my ways while I see through a glass darkly and He understands everything perfectly.

I understand this.  But would a constantly changing, fickle deity be any better?

Joseph taught all must be saved on the same principles based in the premortal council.  If God could simply change the rules whenever he felt like I'm not sure I'd be able (or willing) to constantly try for moving goalposts.

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Blood sacrifice was instituted with Adam in the beginning ... and then replaced by a ritual meal of bread and wine (water).

Circumcision of the flesh, supposedly introduced to Abraham, was swapped for a far more spiritualised 'circumcised heart'.

There certainly seems to be ancient precedence ...

No law changed. No ordinance changed.

The required law to follow changed. A Levitical law was supplanted by a Melchizedek law.  The Levitical law was not altered nor were its ordinances changed.

In fact the Levitical ordinances were supplanted by Melchizedek ordinances.  Because as scripture says if you change the ordinance you change the priesthood authority.

But circumcision didn't change to mean getting your ears pierced.  Blood sacrifice is not gone forever.  And baptism isn't done by sprinkling infants.

[bluebell]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

I understand this.  But would a constantly changing, fickle deity be any better?

Joseph taught all must be saved on the same principles based in the premortal council.  If God could simply change the rules whenever he felt like I'm not sure I'd be able (or willing) to constantly try for moving goalposts.

If I saw it as Him being fickle I would agree.  But I wouldn't view it like that.

To the other issue I ask, how were people saved in Moses time?  Is it the same way we are saved today?  Same "rules" for both groups?  If yes, then that means that the changes between the gospel they were asked to live and the gospel we are asked to live (which changes are significant and many) don't actually matter.  

If no, then we must be misunderstanding what JS was saying (or, he was just wrong I guess).

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

But circumcision didn't change to mean getting your ears pierced.  Blood sacrifice is not gone forever.  And baptism isn't done by sprinkling infants.

Circumcision changed to not lopping off part of your penis and changed to a spiritual act performed by both men and women.  How is that any less of a change than the changes in the temple?

[AtlanticMike]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Circumcision changed to not lopping off part of your penis and changed to a spiritual act performed by both men and women.  How is that any less of a change than the changes in the temple?

There's a good chance I'm speaking for most of the men here. PLEASE DONT SAY LOPPING OFF!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣. You made me tear up, ouch😁

Edited January 30, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Circumcision changed to not lopping off part of your penis and changed to a spiritual act performed by both men and women.  How is that any less of a change than the changes in the temple?

Well, that was a change from Aaronic to Melchizedek and brought with it a change in order of priesthood.

When we are eliminating Melchizedek items what kind of priesthood do we expect to remain?

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If I saw it as Him being fickle I would agree.  But I wouldn't view it like that.

To the other issue I ask, how were people saved in Moses time?  Is it the same way we are saved today?  Same "rules" for both groups?  If yes, then that means that the changes between the gospel they were asked to live and the gospel we are asked to live (which changes are significant and many) don't actually matter.  

If no, then we must be misunderstanding what JS was saying (or, he was just wrong I guess).

Neither.  By living at a time without Melchizedek priesthood they were as unable to reach exaltation through their laws as those in the medieval period.  Endowments for the dead will be required for Moses day in the Millennium too.  Nobody gets exaltation without it.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

On the other thread there's been a lot of discussion about presentation elements and spiritual superseding the physical or temporal.

So are there any of these elements that you would not be able to accept a continuing revelation to remove?
Some possible candidates:
- the wearing of the garment
- the anointing of the sick with oil
- baptism by immersion in water or raising the arm to the square
- laying on of hands for ordination or confirmation
- eating of food/drinking of liquid to remember Christ
- kneeling
- the sealing ceremony elements

Is there any physical, external expression that you consider key and vital and not easily replaced or removed since the "spiritual" element would remain?  Or is it all just window dressing for the changes inside or something like that?
Is pretty much all of it unimportant compared to the way we feel?

What do you mean by not being able to accept, find contradictory to my personal witness/testimony and resign over? If so, "no," but it's not simply a matter of of how I feel, but how I think and what I've experienced as well. Kind of like the saints who chose to stick with Joseph and the Church, I guess.

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What do you mean by not being able to accept, find contradictory to my personal witness/testimony and resign over? If so, "no," but it's not simply a matter of of how I feel, but how I think and what I've experienced as well. Kind of like the saints who chose to stick with Joseph and the Church, I guess.

No, I don't necessarily think that driving to apostasy level is what I'm getting at.

But I do think there are elements of the gospel that if a change was announce you might say this is wrong and I don't think I'll go along.

For example if baptism by immersion were stopped I'd continue to baptize my children myself correctly.  If the garment was done away with I'd continue to wear mine and make my own if I had to.  Some things are from God and I wouldn't give them up.

[LDS Watchman]

It doesn't matter what any of us believe can and can't be changed. The only thing that matters is what the Lord says. 

This is what the Lord has said about changing his holy ordinances:

5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
 6 Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.

(Isaiah 24)

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;
 16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.

(D&C 1)

Destruction and burning are coming because the Lord's people have strayed from his ordinances and have broken the everlasting covenant the Lord made with them. 

 

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Destruction and burning are coming because the Lord's people have strayed from his ordinances and have broken the everlasting covenant the Lord made with them. 

 

I don't think we're quite to that point.  I think there are corrections the Lord will need to right his ship.  But that's his prerogative.  I don't see him heaping wrath on faithful, prayerful, believing saints over some errors.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Blood sacrifice was instituted with Adam in the beginning ... and then replaced by a ritual meal of bread and wine (water).

Circumcision of the flesh, supposedly introduced to Abraham, was swapped for a far more spiritualised 'circumcised heart'.

There certainly seems to be ancient precedence ...

To add to what @JLHPROF said on this:

Both circumcision and animal sacrifice were changed with the Dispensation of the Meridian of Time (Jesus' ministry and the New Testament Church). I would say that that right there is a big difference (going from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant). I don't think those examples apply across the board to significant changes every few years. 

[LDS Watchman]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think we're quite to that point.  I think there are corrections the Lord will need to right his ship.  But that's his prerogative.  I don't see him heaping wrath on faithful, prayerful, believing saints over some errors.

I agree that the Lord is not going to heap wrath on "faithful, prayerful, believing saints."

Of course the question needs to be asked if the majority of the church membership today constitute "faithful, prayerful believing saints," or not. 

Are most of us "faithful, prayerful, believing saints" or are most of walking in our own way, after the image of our own god, and worshipping the idols of Babylon instead?

Assuming that you are correct and "we're not quite to that point (destruction) yet," the scriptures are pretty dang clear that we aren't too far away. 

Rationalizing away all of the changes to the ordinances, doctrines, practices, and teachings from how they were originally instituted in the church is very foolish in my opinion. 

Why not look to the word of God in the scriptures to see what's really going on and what is on the horizon, instead of assuming that all is well and that each and every change in the church is approved of God. 

Edited January 30, 2021 by LDS Watchman

[Chum]

1 hour ago, LDS Watchman said:

or are most of walking in our own way, after the image of our own god, and worshipping the idols of Babylon instead?

I think most people are working a zillion hours a week to stave off homelessness. What are they worshiping? I dunno. Maybe dinner.