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

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Continued for how long (sincere question)?   Will we be killing animals during the millennium?  

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Continued for how long (sincere question)?   Will we be killing animals during the millennium?  

For food, yes, but not as an ordinance to atone for our sins.  Our Lord's sacrifice of his mortal life put an end to the use of animals for that ordinance and the sons of Levi and all Aaronic priests now use bread and water for that ordinance.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Which means the revelation to add it to this Aaronic ordinance was almost certainly the revelation of the temple ordinances.
This is probably why it was once part of the Aaronic ordinance of the sacrament as well until it was removed in the 20th century.

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Continued for how long (sincere question)?   Will we be killing animals during the millennium?  

I have no idea.  Probably not forever since mortality will have an end.  But for more information you'd need to ask Joseph.  He's the one said it would resume as in Adam's day. 

 

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have no idea.  Probably not forever since mortality will have an end.  But for more information you'd need to ask Joseph.  He's the one said it would resume as in Adam's day. 

 

Better yet ask God if he inspired Joseph to say that and if he did what God meant, exactly.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Because we need to be exact for our own sense of sacredness, imo. Exactness creates a greater sense of ritual, which adds to the sense of sacred space in much the same way wearing white does.  And God knows this and therefore commands it. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Because the handbook is written by people who actually believe in continuing revelation and the authority of prophets to mandate current practice?

By the way, Alma's prayer included specific mention of covenants and blessings. Was Jesus withholding these from the Nephites, or dumbing down the ordinance, when he didn't include that language?

Edited February 2, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

• ... 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

So ordinances come and go without a 'change of law' as you previously asserted?

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So ordinances come and go without a 'change of law' as you previously asserted?

But not without a change of priesthood and blessings.

[MiserereNobis]

This is an interesting discussion because similar discussions are happening in the traditional Catholic world. The massive liturgical changes after the second Vatican council water down Catholic doctrine and theology. I believe the new liturgy is perfectly valid, but it is lacking much of what the old liturgy had, from aesthetics to the teaching doctrine through ritual. It makes me wonder how much grace has been lost, too. A valid liturgy doesn't mean it's the best liturgy.

And the changes were pretty huge. A coworker of mine was interested in attending a traditional Latin mass, so I took her and her family. Afterwards her teenage son said he didn't even recognize the traditional mass as Catholic.

The current Catholic solution is to allow both the old and new liturgies and then Catholics can choose.

Can you imagine a similar LDS situation, where there is an older temple rite that is sometimes offered for people like JLHPROF, and the current rite for most everyone else? Or does the current rite contradict the previous rites? Obviously I'm not asking for details, but I just find it an interesting parallel going on in your church and my church.

[Hamba Tuhan]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But not without a change of priesthood and blessings.

So what in your opinion was the priesthood change between Adam, Abraham and Moses versus Joseph, Brigham and Russell? And what blessings are we currently missing out on because we don't practice blood sacrifices and the removal of the preputial sphincter (actual Biblical circumcision)?

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So what in your opinion was the priesthood change between Adam, Abraham and Moses versus Joseph, Brigham and Russell? And what blessings are we currently missing out on because we don't practice blood sacrifices and the removal of the preputial sphincter (actual Biblical circumcision)?

Your mocking debate methodology makes it pointless to respond. 

But there are plenty of blessings missing in the Church today.  But it's ok because we just redefine them.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This is an interesting discussion because similar discussions are happening in the traditional Catholic world. The massive liturgical changes after the second Vatican council water down Catholic doctrine and theology. I believe the new liturgy is perfectly valid, but it is lacking much of what the old liturgy had, from aesthetics to the teaching doctrine through ritual. It makes me wonder how much grace has been lost, too. A valid liturgy doesn't mean it's the best liturgy.

And the changes were pretty huge. A coworker of mine was interested in attending a traditional Latin mass, so I took her and her family. Afterwards her teenage son said he didn't even recognize the traditional mass as Catholic.

The current Catholic solution is to allow both the old and new liturgies and then Catholics can choose.

Can you imagine a similar LDS situation, where there is an older temple rite that is sometimes offered for people like JLHPROF, and the current rite for most everyone else? Or does the current rite contradict the previous rites? Obviously I'm not asking for details, but I just find it an interesting parallel going on in your church and my church.

We're talking mostly changing some of the wording/words used and no longer showing/revealing particular hand signals at particular times while still showing/revealing the hand signals at other times in the ceremonial ordinances.  Changes in form but not really of substance since all of the substantial aspects are still shown/revealed and mentioned.  I don't see the changes as a big deal except maybe to those who are very stuck on traditions and "the way things used to be".

But then again, I am a convert from another church and went through some changes when I learned how things were done in this church.  Grape juice tasted better than city tap water and Matzo crackers were better, I thought, than pieces of white Wonder bread.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Your mocking debate methodology makes it pointless to respond. 

Mate, I'm not mocking. I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. I'm a political adviser, and before that I edited a history journal. Asking questions until I have clarity is just what I do.

Can you please specify what exact blessings are currently being withheld from me because I've never offered a blood sacrifice nor had any part of my male anatomy removed? We can start with that.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, I'm not mocking. I'm genuinely trying to understand your position. I'm a political adviser, and before that I edited a history journal. Asking questions until I have clarity is just what I do.

Can you please specify what exact blessings are currently being withheld from me because I've never offered a blood sacrifice nor had any part of my male anatomy removed? We can start with that.

Well circumcision was a sign that you had entered into the Abrahamic covenant.  You are as capable as I am of looking up and defining the blessings of Abraham.
As for blood sacrifice PRIOR to the Law of Moses.  Adam said it best - I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

Here's a better question.  What blessings are currently being withheld because of near total removal of the second anointings, the penalties necessary for temple prayer, the true veil ceremony, and the virtual elimination of Kings & Priests in the Church and now today more key parts of the endowment?
I'll give you a hint.  D&C 84:18-26.

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well circumcision was a sign that you had entered into the Abrahamic covenant.  You are as capable as I am of looking up and defining the blessings of Abraham.

So in your opinion, I haven't entered into the Abrahamic covenant and therefore have no right to the blessings of Abraham?

Quote

I'll give you a hint.

In my experience, people with clear answers don't have to give hints. Nevertheless, I read the verses you suggested (and quite a few thereafter) and can see no blessing therein that has been withheld from me.

Quote

33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;

36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

 

Edited February 3, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[JLHPROF]

40 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In my experience, people with clear answers don't have to give hints ...

Wasn't really a hint as much as a direct explanation but keep right on mocking.

Look, maybe I'm a bit crabby today but I'm going to say this point blank and I apologise for the length.

The endowment and its conclusion the second anointing are specifically designed to teach us how we may be permitted to commune with the Lord, directly, even face to face, through the veil and then bypass the sentinels and return to his presence.  Moses wanted to bring the Children of Israel into God's actual presence on the mount.  Jacob wrestled with God in the sacred embrace until he received his new name. Joseph wanted to make us a kingdom of priests and priestesses so that all who were worthy can see the Savior face to face in the solemn assembly and even have Christ visit them from time to time.  He wanted men to be Kings and Priests so they could talk to God on the mount.

The prophets have always had a main goal not just of bringing us back to heaven but of bringing us into the Lord's actual presence.  The endowment as restored to Joseph contained the methods by which we can see God and live.  The order of prayer, the veil ceremony, and the second anointings are all the way we receive actual revelation and even visitations. This is what being endowed with power means.

But we no longer follow these instructions.  Our leaders have banned temple prayer outside of endowment sessions preventing members using it personally.  They have removed the penalties preventing knowledge of the right way to pierce the veil being passed on.  They no longer teach the sacred embrace of the Lord.  And but very few are even aware of the priesthood office of King and Priest.

And then direct revelation in the Church is replaced with the same kind of fuzzy feelings and strokes of insight claimed by every Church.

I am a believing member of this Church but all I can think is we are the Children of Israel, having the higher laws withheld.  Perhaps that's all we are worthy of.  Unlike some posters I don't think anyone other than God will put us right and I am staying put with his priesthood and apostles. But I am also certain we have lost blessings restored through Joseph.

Edited February 3, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But I am also certain we have lost blessings restored through Joseph.

Thanks for the length, and I'm genuinely sorry if I've contributed to any crabbiness. Having read your list of blessings that you think we have lost access to, I am now more convinced -- on a very personal level -- that we haven't.

[Stargazer]

On 2/1/2021 at 8:45 PM, smac97 said:

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).

I recall the story of Mangal Dan Dipty of India being baptized by Elder Spencer W. Kimball in the Ganges River. On a trip to the Far East, Elder Kimball had been asked to stop to visit with Br. Dipty, who had been petitioning the Church for years for someone to come teach and baptize him. After determining that Br. Dipty was a genuine candidate, he donned his second best suit (not white) and took Br. Dipty into the water for the baptism. We don white clothing as a symbol of purity, I believe, but the symbol is surely not of the essence.

The question comes to mind: when John baptized Jesus was he dressed in white clothing? Was Jesus?