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

[LDS Watchman]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Why would God visit destruction on the Church? 

Because he says he's going to, and the reason he gives is because most of us have rebelled against him. See for example:

24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord. (D&C 112)

2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.

3 The ox knoweth his owner, and the [donkey] his master’s crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.

4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward.

5 ¶ Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint.

6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.

8 And the daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city.

9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah. (Isaiah 1)

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes the scriptures say that God will visit judgement on the church but what that judgement is is not described.

The judgement is described quite clearly in the scriptures, such as the two I provided above. The judgment is destruction, death, and captivity. I can quote more scriptures about this if you would like. There are many.

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The church is a world wide church.  It is not like all are gathered in one place and a volcano will erupt and wipe most of it out.  Also members are gathered among non-members so any violent judgement on the church will also will hit those outside of the church. 

I suggest reading the last days prophecies in Revelation and Daniel. Then move on to the ones in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and the 12 prophets. There is a final great empire coming. The Great Beast/Anti-Christ/King of Assyria/Little Horn will conquer the whole earth. The wicked in the church will be turned over to him as well. Most of the members who are not called out first will be slain and others will be taken captive. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by LDS Watchman

[AtlanticMike]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

So anyone saying society's ways (turned away from the Lord at a constant level) and the Lord's ways (advancing in righteousness at an accelerated pace) are moving further apart is absolutely correct, rendering the world relatively more wicked than it was before.

This is where I disagree. I personally think we are very lucky to live at this time. First off, There has been wars, rumor of wars, nations fighting nations, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, famines, poor/rich, slaves, over sexed, pornagraphy, sex slaves, pandemics, epidemics, and a host of other problems for how long, 5000 years? 

      I think some perceive the world being more wicked today because we're in the information age. For example, if there's a school shooting in California, us east coasters will hear about it within an hour. That wouldn't of happened 40 years ago, the world seems alot smaller today because of how quickly we recieve information. 

     Maybe I'm  naive, but considering the medical, communication, travel, science, engineering advancements, if think we're living a pretty cushy life comparatively. So I'm guessing your talking about spirituality and morally the world is more wicked than it was before. Personally I dont see it. I dont need alot, but would you mind giving me 1 or 2 examples?

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

So I'm guessing your talking about spirituality and morally the world is more wicked than it was before. Personally I dont see it. I dont need alot, but would you mind giving me 1 or 2 examples?

I know this question wasn't for me, but one huge example is the wholesale murder of the unborn via abortion. All throughout the world the most innocent blood is shed by the millions for the sake of convenience. While there are a few small groups who protest this great evil, most people go along with the murder of the innocent or participate in it directly or in directly. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

This is where I disagree. I personally think we are very lucky to live at this time. First off, There has been wars, rumor of wars, nations fighting nations, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, famines, poor/rich, slaves, over sexed, pornagraphy, sex slaves, pandemics, epidemics, and a host of other problems for how long, 5000 years? 

      I think some perceive the world being more wicked today because we're in the information age. For example, if there's a school shooting in California, us east coasters will hear about it within an hour. That wouldn't of happened 40 years ago, the world seems alot smaller today because of how quickly we recieve information. 

     Maybe I'm  naive, but considering the medical, communication, travel, science, engineering advancements, if think we're living a pretty cushy life comparatively. So I'm guessing your talking about spirituality and morally the world is more wicked than it was before. Personally I dont see it. I dont need alot, but would you mind giving me 1 or 2 examples?

Just because JS and BY said that the world (society) is wicked, and has always been wicked, doesn’t mean it isn’t getting more wicked from the perspective I described with the ratio. And just because society is getting more wicked from that perspective doesn’t mean there is no reason to be grateful to be here from another perspective.

Advancements in “medical, communication, travel, science, engineering” etc. affect everyone regardless of their spirituality and morality. In addition to STEM, there are a host of advancements in other areas, such as the Restoration, religious and scriptural scholarship (of all kinds), the arts, and other stuff.

Some people/groups share, and some deny the benefits of these advancements to others according to their spirituality and morality. Sometimes Mother Nature helps or hinders everyone benefitting. Hence the value of the ratio I shared in demonstrating that advancing societal wickedness is a function of time left, not of quantified incidents of wickedness and righteousness which are givens. The ratio supersedes any pile-up / pile-on of evidence, pro and con.

[AtlanticMike]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Hence the value of the ratio I shared in demonstrating that advancing societal wickedness is a function of time left, not of quantified incidents of wickedness and righteousness which are givens. The ratio supersedes any pile-up / pile-on of evidence, pro and con.

Thank you answering me back, I love your post. Like you said, " function of time left". That's what I personally struggle with right now. I look at the name, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, not only as a name, but also a statement. The "latter day Saints" part, means, as you point out, we're on a time schedule. And now that I'm questioning everything in my life there's a few things that bug me about that time schedule. First, is 51 temples built in 3 years. I have a hard time justifying in my mind why that was done at the 2nd millennium.who was expecting what to happen? 2nd is, food storage isn't talked about nearly as much as it used to be, atleast not in my area, Why? If we're getting closer to the end shouldn't we be pushing harder for people to store what they need? No need to answer sir, just voicing my concern. Thank you again. 

 

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Thank you answering me back, I love your post. Like you said, " function of time left". That's what I personally struggle with right now. I look at the name, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, not only as a name, but also a statement. The "latter day Saints" part, means, as you point out, we're on a time schedule. And now that I'm questioning everything in my life there's a few things that bug me about that time schedule. First, is 51 temples built in 3 years. I have a hard time justifying in my mind why that was done at the 2nd millennium. who was expecting what to happen? 2nd is, food storage isn't talked about nearly as much as it used to be, atleast not in my area, Why? If we're getting closer to the end shouldn't we be pushing harder for people to store what they need? No need to answer sir, just voicing my concern. Thank you again. 

 

I’m going to take a small step back on the bolded part. Of all the “everythings,” what is your #1?

I do see a connection between the rapid expansion of temples and self-reliance initiatives well beyond home storage alone, both addressing a growing social complexity to prepare for the Second Coming (spiritual and temporal fortification).

[smac97]

On 1/29/2021 at 1:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

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

I'm not sure what you mean by "external expression of faith" and "unchangeable."

On 1/29/2021 at 1:47 PM, 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?

In my view, there is no "continuing revelation" I "would not be able to accept."

There are absurd hypotheticals, like "Denial of Jesus Christ as the Son of God" or "Abandonment of the Book of Mormon and declaration of it as a fraud," but I don't take such things seriously.

On 1/29/2021 at 1:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

Some possible candidates:
- the wearing of the garment

I'd be open to a revelation discontinuing that.  I don't think it'll happen, though.

On 1/29/2021 at 1:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

- 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

Same as above.

On 1/29/2021 at 1:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

- kneeling

Sure.  

On 1/29/2021 at 1:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

- the sealing ceremony elements

Not sure what you mean here.

On 1/29/2021 at 1:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

Is there any physical, external expression that you consider key and vital and not easily replaced or removed since the "spiritual" element would remain? 

I think the physical administration of and participation in ordinances is "key and vital."  

On 1/29/2021 at 1:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

Or is it all just window dressing for the changes inside or something like that?

I think the ordinances are a lot more than window dressing.  Consider D&C 19:22:

19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

This is more than just "window dressing."  "For without this {administration of the ordinances} no man can see the face of God..."

On 1/29/2021 at 1:47 PM, JLHPROF said:

Is pretty much all of it unimportant compared to the way we feel?

I'm not sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

 

On 2/1/2021 at 6:32 AM, AtlanticMike said:

This is where I disagree. I personally think we are very lucky to live at this time. First off, There has been wars, rumor of wars, nations fighting nations, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, famines, poor/rich, slaves, over sexed, pornagraphy, sex slaves, pandemics, epidemics, and a host of other problems for how long, 5000 years? 

      I think some perceive the world being more wicked today because we're in the information age.

I don't perceive the world more wicked because it is the information age.  I think the world is more wicked because the readily available technology spreads it more easily.

Take pornagraphy.  In the past I would have to go buy it at the store.  Because of embarrassment I might go somewhere further away.  Then I might need to figure out where to hide it.  While lots of people might be tempted to look at it, there are many who won't want to go to the trouble.  

Now with technology you have to be careful not to see it accidentally.  It is there to see all the time.  Not only that there are a lot of online voices saying "this isn't bad.  It's healthy!"

And it's not just porn.  You can be anonymously cruel to people online.  Set up to get drugs or weapons.  

You can even pay to have someone killed a lot more easily than you could in the past.

The easiness allows people to act in evil ways more often.  

And yes it also allows for people to be good more often too, but that doesn't mean it will be overtaking the increase of growth of evil. 

Quote

For example, if there's a school shooting in California, us east coasters will hear about it within an hour. That wouldn't of happened 40 years ago, the world seems alot smaller today because of how quickly we recieve information. 

     Maybe I'm  naive, but considering the medical, communication, travel, science, engineering advancements, if think we're living a pretty cushy life comparatively. So I'm guessing your talking about spirituality and morally the world is more wicked than it was before. Personally I dont see it. I dont need alot, but would you mind giving me 1 or 2 examples?

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by Rain

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "external expression of faith" and "unchangeable."

In my view, there is no "continuing revelation" I "would not be able to accept."

There are absurd hypotheticals, like "Denial of Jesus Christ as the Son of God" or "Abandonment of the Book of Mormon and declaration of it as a fraud," but I don't take such things seriously.

I'd be open to a revelation discontinuing that.  I don't think it'll happen, though.

Same as above.

Sure.  

Not sure what you mean here.

I think the physical administration of and participation in ordinances is "key and vital."  

I think the ordinances are a lot more than window dressing.  Consider D&C 19:22:

19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

This is more than just "window dressing."  "For without this {administration of the ordinances} no man can see the face of God..."

I'm not sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

One day I'll get used to your post parsing...

You seem to be contradicting yourself but I'm not entirely sure given the format.
You say that the physical elements of the ordinances as we perform them are not just window dressing but are necessary for a valid ordinance.
At the same time you say you would be open to continuing revelation changing any of them.

Let's make it simple.  Baptism.  You believe baptism is necessary, required.  But what elements are actually required and what can be changed without invalidating the ordinance?  How much could baptism be altered before you no longer consider it the same necessary ordinance?

 

 

[Ahab]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

One day I'll get used to your post parsing...

You seem to be contradicting yourself but I'm not entirely sure given the format.
You say that the physical elements of the ordinances as we perform them are not just window dressing but are necessary for a valid ordinance.
At the same time you say you would be open to continuing revelation changing any of them.

Let's make it simple.  Baptism.  You believe baptism is necessary, required.  But what elements are actually required and what can be changed without invalidating the ordinance? 

Do you mean now, based on what our Lord has told us, or do you mean later if he were to tell us something else?

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

How much could baptism be altered before you no longer consider it the same necessary ordinance?

What criteria do you expect smac to use to make that determination?

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Do you mean now, based on what our Lord has told us, or do you mean later if he were to tell us something else?

What criteria do you expect smac to use to make that determination?

1.  Sometimes I think I may be the only one that believes God doesn't change his laws and ordinances, only command and revoke along with the blessings.
In my opinion I don't believe God will tell us something now and something else later, not where eternal ordinances are concerned.

2. The same criteria anyone would.  Is it still baptism without water?  Without immersion?  Without priesthood of an Aaronic priest or higher?  Without the exact wording?  Without raising the arm to the square?
How much could be changed without "changing the ordinance"?

Edited February 1, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

1.  Sometimes I think I may be the only one that believes God doesn't change his laws and ordinances, only command and revoke along with the blessings.
In my opinion I don't believe God will tell us something now and something else later, not where eternal ordinances are concerned.

2. The same criteria anyone would.  Is it still baptism without water?  Without immersion?  Without priesthood of an Aaronic priest or higher?  Without the exact wording?  Without raising the arm to the square?
How much could be changed without "changing the ordinance"?

Baptism is an interesting ordinance to focus on because we can see some changes which were made over time.  At one time we were told that a person had to be baptized (immersed) in water to be baptized but then later we were told that a person could be baptized by accepting another person getting baptized (immersed) in water, which we now refer to as baptism by proxy.  So we now have 2 valid forms of baptism which our Lord has authorized, 1) personally being baptized (immersed) in water, and 2) baptism by proxy, where another person is baptized in behalf of someone else who accepts that ordinance work.  With the words of proxy baptism adapted to signify that the ordinance work is done for and in behalf of that other person for whom the one who is getting baptized is getting baptized.

So what if later our Lord told us that it no longer needed to be limited to a 1:1 ratio?  What if our Lord told us a person could be baptized as a proxy for 2 or 10 or even 100 other people, and all at the same time?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

One day I'll get used to your post parsing...

I tend to be a bit more precise than the average fellow in my online comments.

Quote

You seem to be contradicting yourself but I'm not entirely sure given the format.

In what way?

Quote

You say that the physical elements of the ordinances as we perform them are not just window dressing but are necessary for a valid ordinance.

I'm saying the physical performance of the ordinances are necessary.  So the "laying on of hands" referenced in AoF 1:4 (re: gift of the Holy Ghost) and 1:5 (re: callings) "are necessary for a valid ordinance."  

I'm not sure what you mean by "physical elements."  Perhaps you could elaborate. 

Quote

At the same time you say you would be open to continuing revelation changing any of them.

I am "open to continuing revelation" as to all sorts of things.

Quote

Let's make it simple.  Baptism.  You believe baptism is necessary, required. 

Yes.

Quote

But what elements are actually required and what can be changed without invalidating the ordinance? 

Well, I'd say the baptismal ordinance must

• A) be a volitional act, freely consented to by both the individual (3 Ne. 11:23, D&C 20:37) and the Church,
• B) be preceded by appropriate preparation, including study, pondering and prayer, the exercise of faith (Mark 16:16), repentance (Matt. 3:8, Acts 19:14, Alma 6:2, Alma 7:14), a "broken heart and a contrite spirit" (Moro. 6:2), an understanding of the covenant (Mosiah 18:10), proper disclosures/confessions (Mark 1:5, Mormon 9:29), and so on,
• C) be authorized by those in authority (AoF 1:5, D&C 20:73, 3 Ne. 11:25-26), and performed by one with authority (AoF 1:5, D&C 20:73, 3 Ne. 11:25-26),
• D) be "by immersion" (AoF 1:4, D&C 20:74, 3 Ne. 11:25-26), have both the individual and the officiator in the water (D&C 20:73, 3 Ne. 11:25-26), include the baptismal prayer and otherwise comport with D&C 20:73-74, 
• E) be thereafter recorded in the records of the Church (Mal. 3:16-18, Rev. 20:12, D&C 128:9), and
• F) be thereafter sealed/ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise (D&C 132:7).

As for "what can be changed without invalidating the ordinance," I think some of the added-but-not-necessary details.  For example, I don't think dressing in white is mandatory (that is, wearing non-white clothing would not, in and of itself, negate the ordinance).

A few years ago I attended a baptism where the person officiating raised his left hand to the square, rather than his right.  I noticed it and notified the bishop.  The bishop thought there was no problem, but then the first counselor in the stake presidency came over and asked what we were saying.  The counselor instructed the bishop to have the person officiating re-do the ordinance.

Was the ordinance "invalid?"  Dunno.  On balance, I'd say it probably was valid, but that re-performing the ordinance was a "good, better, best" kind of thing.

Quote

How much could baptism be altered before you no longer consider it the same necessary ordinance?

I don't think of ordinances in that way.  It's not for me to adjudicate such things.  I'll leave such concerns to the Church and the Lord.  I would not "alter" any ordinance, and would instead act in accordance with instructions from the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2021 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm saying the physical performance of the ordinances are necessary.  So the "laying on of hands" referenced in AoF 1:4 (re: gift of the Holy Ghost) and 1:5 (re: callings) "are necessary for a valid ordinance."  

I'm not sure what you mean by "physical elements."  Perhaps you could elaborate. 

Yes, physical elements like laying on hands, anointing with oil, or immersion in water.

Quote

I am "open to continuing revelation" as to all sorts of things.

Well, I'd say the baptismal ordinance must

A) be a volitional act, freely consented to by both the individual (3 Ne. 11:23, D&C 20:37) and the Church,

B) be preceded by appropriate preparation, including study, pondering and prayer, the exercise of faith (Mark 16:16), repentance (Matt. 3:8, Acts 19:14, Alma 6:2, Alma 7:14), a "broken heart and a contrite spirit" (Moro. 6:2), an understanding of the covenant (Mosiah 18:10), proper disclosures/confessions (Mark 1:5, Mormon 9:29), and so on,

C) be authorized by those in authority (AoF 1:5, D&C 20:73, 3 Ne. 11:25-26), and performed by one with authority (AoF 1:5, D&C 20:73, 3 Ne. 11:25-26),

D) be "by immersion" (AoF 1:4, D&C 20:74, 3 Ne. 11:25-26), have both the individual and the officiator in the water (D&C 20:73, 3 Ne. 11:25-26), include the baptismal prayer and otherwise comport with D&C 20:73-74, 

E) be thereafter recorded in the records of the Church (Mal. 3:16-18, Rev. 20:12, D&C 128:9), and

F) be thereafter sealed/ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise (D&C 132:7).

And if a continuing revelation said baptism element D above was no longer necessary and sprinkling would suffice? Or physically laying hands on someone were no longer needed?

This is exactly what has happened in the temple repeatedly.  Makes me think of the changes to the ordinances by the presiding authorities in the early Christian Church.

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And if a continuing revelation said baptism element D above was no longer necessary and sprinkling would suffice? Or physically laying hands on someone were no longer needed?

This is exactly what has happened in the temple repeatedly.  Makes me think of the changes to the ordinances by the presiding authorities in the early Christian Church.

The crux for me would be two fold:

1) whether the change was personally authorized by the Lord through revelation vs only the decision of men who thought for themselves that it was okay to make that change, and

2) whether or not having the keys in the kingdom of God means those who have the keys can make executive level decisions overseen by the CEO President of the Church vs only the authority to do exactly what the Lord has said about how to do things

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The crux for me would be two fold:

1) whether the change was personally authorized by the Lord through revelation vs only the decision of men who thought for themselves that it was okay to make that change, and

2) whether or not having the keys in the kingdom of God means those who have the keys can make executive level decisions overseen by the CEO President of the Church vs only the authority to do exactly what the Lord has said about how to do things

1) You have no way to know.  You have to take that on faith.
2) That's adminstrative vs doctrinal

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

1) You have no way to know.  You have to take that on faith.

And by the power of the Holy Ghost as he gives me his assurance/faith on what is true I can know the truth of all things.

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

2) That's adminstrative vs doctrinal

There isn't necessarily any opposition between what is administrative and what is doctrinal, so there isn't necessarily any vs.

Do you think you understand the administrative powers which the keys of the kingdom of God convey?  I understand to a certain degree but I am still waiting to receive more knowledge from our Father in heaven about it.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, physical elements like laying on hands, anointing with oil, or immersion in water.

Okay.  I thought you meant authorized embellishments, like hand to the square, wearing white clothing, etc.

Elements like "laying on hands, anointing with oil, or immersion in water" are all revelatory, and so a revelation would be needed to remove them, I think.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

• A) be a volitional act, freely consented to by both the individual (3 Ne. 11:23, D&C 20:37) and the Church,
• B) be preceded by appropriate preparation, including study, pondering and prayer, the exercise of faith (Mark 16:16), repentance (Matt. 3:8, Acts 19:14, Alma 6:2, Alma 7:14), a "broken heart and a contrite spirit" (Moro. 6:2), an understanding of the covenant (Mosiah 18:10), proper disclosures/confessions (Mark 1:5, Mormon 9:29), and so on,
• C) be authorized by those in authority (AoF 1:5, D&C 20:73, 3 Ne. 11:25-26), and performed by one with authority (AoF 1:5, D&C 20:73, 3 Ne. 11:25-26),
• D) be "by immersion" (AoF 1:4, D&C 20:74, 3 Ne. 11:25-26), have both the individual and the officiator in the water (D&C 20:73, 3 Ne. 11:25-26), include the baptismal prayer and otherwise comport with D&C 20:73-74, 
• E) be thereafter recorded in the records of the Church (Mal. 3:16-18, Rev. 20:12, D&C 128:9), and
• F) be thereafter sealed/ratified by the Holy Spirit of Promise (D&C 132:7).

And if a continuing revelation said baptism element D above was no longer necessary and sprinkling would suffice?

I'd be fine with that.  It's the revelation that matters.  If the Lord wants to change things, that's His prerogative.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Or physically laying hands on someone were no longer needed?

Ditto.

I don't think either of these will ever happen, tho.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

This is exactly what has happened in the temple repeatedly. 

I'm not sure about that.

If the Brethren are out of the way with the Lord as to administration of the ordinances, I'll leave that to Him to sort out.  But I don't think they are.

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Makes me think of the changes to the ordinances by the presiding authorities in the early Christian Church.

Whether such changes were authorized, or were done with proper authority, seems to be open for discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I thought you meant authorized embellishments, like hand to the square, wearing white clothing, etc.

Elements like "laying on hands, anointing with oil, or immersion in water" are all revelatory, and so a revelation would be needed to remove them, I think.

I'd be fine with that.  It's the revelation that matters.  If the Lord wants to change things, that's His prerogative.

Ditto.

I don't think either of these will ever happen, tho.

I'm not sure about that.

If the Brethren are out of the way with the Lord as to administration of the ordinances, I'll leave that to Him to sort out.  But I don't think they are.

Whether such changes were authorized, or were done with proper authority, seems to be open for discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

I actually think the arm to the square is not an embellishment given its use in the temple for a corresponding purpose.

But the rest is about what I figured.  I also agree that we should leave these things in the hand of God.  It's up to him to correct.  I just don't have an issue saying I think something is wrong.  I don't expect anyone to fix it except God.

[rongo]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

But the rest is about what I figured.  I also agree that we should leave these things in the hand of God.  It's up to him to correct.  I just don't have an issue saying I think something is wrong.  I don't expect anyone to fix it except God.

People often insist that we don't believe in infallibility, but when asked for any examples, they refuse to give any. 

Some of us have some examples we can come up with.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 1/30/2021 at 11:38 AM, JLHPROF said:

No law changed. No ordinance changed.

The required law to follow changed. A Levitical law was supplanted by a Melchizedek law.

So are you arguing that Father Adam, wielder of the Melchizedek Priesthood, because he performed blood sacrifices instead of partaking of bread and wine, was subject to Levitical Law?

Or that the great patriarch Abraham, father of the covenant and great-grandfather to Levi, was under Levitical Law because he practised circumcision?

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Is it still baptism without ... the exact wording?

We have in the scriptures multiple versions of words to be spoken when baptising. Which one must I get exact?

The baptismal prayer used by the prophet Alma: 'I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world'.

The baptismal prayer taught by Jesus to the Nephites: 'Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen'.

The baptismal prayer in the 1833 Book of Commandments: 'Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen'.

The baptismal prayer in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants: 'Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen'.

I'm guessing that, since you don't accept that God is allowed to update anything, you would go with Alma and just tolerate that Jesus and Joseph both introduced a little apostasy into the Church?

Edited February 2, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[smac97]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

Okay.  I thought you meant authorized embellishments, like hand to the square, wearing white clothing, etc.

Elements like "laying on hands, anointing with oil, or immersion in water" are all revelatory, and so a revelation would be needed to remove them, I think.

I'd be fine with that.  It's the revelation that matters.  If the Lord wants to change things, that's His prerogative.

I actually think the arm to the square is not an embellishment given its use in the temple for a corresponding purpose.

Maybe so.  It's not mentioned in D&C 20:73.

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But the rest is about what I figured.  I also agree that we should leave these things in the hand of God.  It's up to him to correct.  I just don't have an issue saying I think something is wrong.  I don't expect anyone to fix it except God.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We have in the scriptures multiple versions of words to be spoken when baptising. Which one must I get exact?

The baptismal prayer used by the prophet Alma: 'I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world'.

The baptismal prayer taught by Jesus to the Nephites: 'Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen'.

The baptismal prayer in the 1833 Book of Commandments: 'Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen'.

The baptismal prayer in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants: 'Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen'.

I'm guessing that, since you don't accept that God is allowed to update anything, you would go with Alma and just tolerate that Jesus and Joseph both introduced a little apostasy into the Church?

Well gosh, then why does the Church handbook require a do-over if the wording is wrong?

[JLHPROF]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So are you arguing that Father Adam, wielder of the Melchizedek Priesthood, because he performed blood sacrifices instead of partaking of bread and wine, was subject to Levitical Law?

Or that the great patriarch Abraham, father of the covenant and great-grandfather to Levi, was under Levitical Law because he practised circumcision?

No, because these things were not part of Levitical law but predated it.  Nor are those things completely done away with forever.
 

• These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchisedic Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the holy Prophets be brought to pass? It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the Prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses' day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.  - Joseph Smith