Changes In Ordinances

[Cal]

In noticing the changes in temple ordinances over the years, the thought came to me: Isn't that what the apostacy, in part a least, was supposed to have been all about in the first place?

We explain that a restoration of the true gospel was needed, partly, at least, because the early church began to change the ordinances and doctrines that were part of the "true" church. JS, supposedly, restored the true methodology of these ordinances. For example, baptism, was supposed to be done by emersion, not sprinking. This change was, supposedly, one of the great abomination of the apostacy.

But, how is changing the ordinances in the temple any different? If we were to say, well, some people in the church are uncomfortable with getting dunked under water, does that justify changing the ordinance so that people feel better about it.

We have been judgemental of the Catholic church for changing the baptismal ordinance to make it more convenient and less objectionable to the masses. But what have we been doing to our own ordinances.....same thing?

[Jason]

Cal,

You're not becomming a Mormon Fundamentalist, are you?

That's what they've been saying for 100 years now.

[Maureen]

Even though I am very familiar with many things "Mormon", I am still not sure about what is an 'ordinance'.

M.

[Jenda]

The general meaning of the word "ordinance" is something we are commanded to do (by Christ).

Things He commanded us to do would be the Lords Supper (do this in remembrance of me), blessing the children (suffer the little children to come unto me), baptism (he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved), etc.

[Snow]

Hi everyone,

Mod hat on

Please exercise restraint in talking about the temple ceremony. Talking very generally is fine but I am going to err on the side of caution when it somes to any specifics.

Thanks for understanding, I hope.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Snow@Jun 27 2005, 08:52 PM

Hi everyone,

Mod hat on

Please exercise restraint in talking about the temple ceremony. Talking very generally is fine but I am going to err on the side of caution when it somes to any specifics.

Thanks for understanding, I hope.

I can respect that, although I didn't see the use of certain words as being "specific" but quite general. To me specific is when you start defining those words. But I can still agree not to use "specific" words.

I guess in relation to "ordinances" in the Temple, without getting too detailed, would those in the know say that the Endowment session itself is an ordinance or would it be that "the meat" of the Endowment session is what is considered an "ordinance(s)"?

Now if I come back later and see my post has been revised, then I know even the words "Endowment session" are a no-no. :)

M.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jason@Jun 27 2005, 01:27 PM

Cal,

You're not becomming a Mormon Fundamentalist, are you?

That's what they've been saying for 100 years now.

Do you have an answer or response that addresses the issue?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Maureen@Jun 27 2005, 02:58 PM

Even though I am very familiar with many things "Mormon", I am still not sure about what is an 'ordinance'.

M.

An ordinance is a formalized act or set of acts (either verbal or physical) designed to symbolize some kind of commitment the fulfillment of which gives the participant some expectation of reward. Mormons are told that ordinances, such as baptizm, and temple rites are revealed from God as the "way" to qualify for some special blessing or reward.

[StrawberryFields]

This came from the churches website.

Temples and Ordinances

By Judy Edwards

“Let this house be built unto my name, that I may reveal mine ordinances therein unto my people” (D&C 124:40).

Judy Edwards, “Sharing Time: Temples and Ordinances,” Tambulilit, Mar. 1993, 6

The word ordinance has special meaning in the Church. An ordinance is a sacred ceremony. When we participate in an ordinance, we make covenants or promises to obey Heavenly Father’s commandments.

Sacrament

Baptism

Blessing a baby

Celestial marriage

Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost

Baptism for the dead

Sealing

1. Some ordinances are called saving ordinances. These ordinances are necessary for salvation. Jesus described two saving ordinances when he said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Being born of water means being baptized, and being born of the Spirit means the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. Other saving ordinances are sealings and celestial marriage. (See D&C 131:1–2.)

2. Some ordinances are performed only in holy temples. Some of these ordinances include baptism for the dead, celestial marriage, and sealings.

3. Many other ordinances are also performed in the Church, such as partaking of the sacrament, and the blessing of babies.

We are blessed to live in a time when we have holy temples upon the earth and can receive temple ordinances. Without temples, those ordinances would not be available for us or for our loved ones who have died. Because of temples, all people who have ever lived can have saving ordinances performed in their behalf.

Gospel topics: ordinances, temples

© 2005 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Maureen]

Thanks Jenda, Cal and especially SF that was very helpful.

M.

[Jason]

Ok, Cal.

Mormons used to baptise in the Temples for "health" purposes. They had to obtain a recommend, and they fully expected that this "ordinance" would restore the sick to a normal state.

This practice occured from the days of Joseph Smith untill the early 20th century, when it was done away.

IF this was a true ordinance (and I can't see how a Mormon could claim otherwise being approved by Smith, Young, Taylor, & Woodruff) then how can the Mormons change it?

That is exactly like the Roman Catholics and their inclusion of Pouring, Sprinkling, in addition to Immersion baptism.

So yes, Mormons are "changing" their ordinances. They claim it's a "legitimate development" just like the Catholics do. But for some reason, when the Catholics do it, it's apostate, when the Mormons do it, it's "continuous revelation".

How's that?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Jun 28 2005, 08:50 AM

IF this was a true ordinance (and I can't see how a Mormon could claim otherwise being approved by Smith, Young, Taylor, & Woodruff) then how can the Mormons change it? 

Cuz we wanted to. What's the problem?

JS clearly had an evolving understanding of the gospel. If he was capable of progressing in light and understanding, why should it be any different for his successors. If there is some core aspect of an ordinance that for some reason must remain constant, who's to say that said ordinance might not also contain other non-core aspects that could potentially be changed without affecting the core essentiality?

Personally I don't get how a physical act - completion of an ordinance - affects one's salvation or exaltation. I don't know what the eternal mechanics are but I think of such ordinance as a reflection of a life dedicated to Christ and though said reflections are mandatory, they are not the key drivers of salvation - the key drivers being faith and obedience and progression in light and knowledge...

[Lindy]

Personally I don't get how a physical act - completion of an ordinance - affects one's salvation or exaltation. I don't know what the eternal mechanics are but I think of such ordinance as a reflection of a life dedicated to Christ and though said reflections are mandatory, they are not the key drivers of salvation - the key drivers being faith and obedience and progression in light and knowledge...

and personally.... I don't either. I think that you are right about faith being a key factor in salvation....that's what keeps my hope alive! Obedience and progression ? I could be in trouble

[Traveler]

From my own understanding an ordinance is a ritual (outward manifestation) initiating or renewing a covenant. The intent of an ordinance is to unite the physical and spiritual commitment of a covenant. When we speak of changing ordinances as a sign of apostasy it is indication that ether the commandments and purpose of the associated covenant to the ordinance has become heresy or the proxy representation of G-d is not authorized. Because ordinances are symbolic, by nature, a cultural shift in symbolism can, and often does affect both the physical ordinance and the spiritual significance of the ordinance.

Part of an ordinance is the proxy representation of G-d. Because a covenant is between man and G-d it is necessary that an authorized proxy representing G-d be present. LDS understand the authorized proxy as an ordained priesthood holder (either by G-d or someone that is directly linked to someone ordained by G-d). If an authorized proxy representing G-d is not present then neither the “King” nor the “kingdom” is present or represented.

LDS believe that no man can change the symbolism of an ordinance unless they hold the keys of the ordinance, as Peter did in the absence of Christ. The LDS claim of the ordinances being changed is an indication of apostasy linked directly to the loss of keys to the ordinances. Without the keys there can be no authorization of proxy or ordinances, the infrastructure of the Kingdom being represented is not support by G-d.

The Traveler

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Jun 28 2005, 10:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jun 28 2005, 10:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jason@Jun 28 2005, 08:50 AM

IF this was a true ordinance (and I can't see how a Mormon could claim otherwise being approved by Smith, Young, Taylor, & Woodruff) then how can the Mormons change it? 

Cuz we wanted to. What's the problem?

JS clearly had an evolving understanding of the gospel. If he was capable of progressing in light and understanding, why should it be any different for his successors. If there is some core aspect of an ordinance that for some reason must remain constant, who's to say that said ordinance might not also contain other non-core aspects that could potentially be changed without affecting the core essentiality?

Personally I don't get how a physical act - completion of an ordinance - affects one's salvation or exaltation. I don't know what the eternal mechanics are but I think of such ordinance as a reflection of a life dedicated to Christ and though said reflections are mandatory, they are not the key drivers of salvation - the key drivers being faith and obedience and progression in light and knowledge...

I can't really disagree with this. However, we can't very well use the argument that there had to be a restoration of the "true" ordinances since the Catholic church changed them all, when we're doing the same thing again that apparently happened in the ancient church.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jun 29 2005, 10:07 AM

From my own understanding an ordinance is a ritual (outward manifestation) initiating or renewing a covenant. The intent of an ordinance is to unite the physical and spiritual commitment of a covenant. When we speak of changing ordinances as a sign of apostasy it is indication that ether the commandments and purpose of the associated covenant to the ordinance has become heresy or the proxy representation of G-d is not authorized. Because ordinances are symbolic, by nature, a cultural shift in symbolism can, and often does affect both the physical ordinance and the spiritual significance of the ordinance.

Part of an ordinance is the proxy representation of G-d. Because a covenant is between man and G-d it is necessary that an authorized proxy representing G-d be present. LDS understand the authorized proxy as an ordained priesthood holder (either by G-d or someone that is directly linked to someone ordained by G-d). If an authorized proxy representing G-d is not present then neither the “King” nor the “kingdom” is present or represented.

LDS believe that no man can change the symbolism of an ordinance unless they hold the keys of the ordinance, as Peter did in the absence of Christ. The LDS claim of the ordinances being changed is an indication of apostasy linked directly to the loss of keys to the ordinances. Without the keys there can be no authorization of proxy or ordinances, the infrastructure of the Kingdom being represented is not support by G-d.

The Traveler

So, we know there was an apostacy and therefore loss of priesthood because the ordinances changed, and the ordinances changed because there was a loss of priesthood. I smell a tautology.

[Jason]

Cuz we wanted to. What's the problem?

So if anything is subject to change, then why are you Mormon?

JS clearly had an evolving understanding of the gospel.

Understatement of the year.

If he was capable of progressing in light and understanding, why should it be any different for his successors. If there is some core aspect of an ordinance that for some reason must remain constant, who's to say that said ordinance might not also contain other non-core aspects that could potentially be changed without affecting the core essentiality?

And you're not a Catholic because?

Personally I don't get how a physical act - completion of an ordinance - affects one's salvation or exaltation. I don't know what the eternal mechanics are but I think of such ordinance as a reflection of a life dedicated to Christ and though said reflections are mandatory, they are not the key drivers of salvation - the key drivers being faith and obedience and progression in light and knowledge... 

So you're a Mormon because.....?

[Jason]

From my own understanding an ordinance is a ritual (outward manifestation) initiating or renewing a covenant. The intent of an ordinance is to unite the physical and spiritual commitment of a covenant. When we speak of changing ordinances as a sign of apostasy it is indication that ether the commandments and purpose of the associated covenant to the ordinance has become heresy or the proxy representation of G-d is not authorized. Because ordinances are symbolic, by nature, a cultural shift in symbolism can, and often does affect both the physical ordinance and the spiritual significance of the ordinance.

Part of an ordinance is the proxy representation of G-d. Because a covenant is between man and G-d it is necessary that an authorized proxy representing G-d be present. LDS understand the authorized proxy as an ordained priesthood holder (either by G-d or someone that is directly linked to someone ordained by G-d). If an authorized proxy representing G-d is not present then neither the “King” nor the “kingdom” is present or represented.

LDS believe that no man can change the symbolism of an ordinance unless they hold the keys of the ordinance, as Peter did in the absence of Christ. The LDS claim of the ordinances being changed is an indication of apostasy linked directly to the loss of keys to the ordinances. Without the keys there can be no authorization of proxy or ordinances, the infrastructure of the Kingdom being represented is not support by G-d.

The Traveler

You've written a fine repudiation of Talmage's "The Great Apostasy".

So, why are you Mormon?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal+Jun 29 2005, 12:10 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jun 29 2005, 12:10 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Snow@Jun 28 2005, 10:18 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jason@Jun 28 2005, 08:50 AM

IF this was a true ordinance (and I can't see how a Mormon could claim otherwise being approved by Smith, Young, Taylor, & Woodruff) then how can the Mormons change it? 

Cuz we wanted to. What's the problem?

JS clearly had an evolving understanding of the gospel. If he was capable of progressing in light and understanding, why should it be any different for his successors. If there is some core aspect of an ordinance that for some reason must remain constant, who's to say that said ordinance might not also contain other non-core aspects that could potentially be changed without affecting the core essentiality?

Personally I don't get how a physical act - completion of an ordinance - affects one's salvation or exaltation. I don't know what the eternal mechanics are but I think of such ordinance as a reflection of a life dedicated to Christ and though said reflections are mandatory, they are not the key drivers of salvation - the key drivers being faith and obedience and progression in light and knowledge...

I can't really disagree with this. However, we can't very well use the argument that there had to be a restoration of the "true" ordinances since the Catholic church changed them all, when we're doing the same thing again that apparently happened in the ancient church.

I don't think that is the real argument - that man changed the ordinances and therefore an apostasy occurred. Rather I believe the argument goes that very early on, within decades, an apostasy occurred, in large part because man turned away from the true gospel and towards Hellenistic philosophy, and therefore, and in conjunction with the deaths of the true disciples, the spirit of revelation was lost, and so changes that were made to doctrine and ordinance were man inspired, not God inspired.

[Jason]

I don't think that is the real argument - that man changed the ordinances and therefore an apostasy occurred. Rather I believe the argument goes that very early on, within decades, an apostasy occurred, in large part because man turned away from the true gospel and towards Hellenistic philosophy, and therefore, and in conjunction with the deaths of the true disciples, the spirit of revelation was lost, and so changes that were made to doctrine and ordinance were man inspired, not God inspired.

And your evidence is what? That the disciples of the Apostles hated their masters so much, that they purposely altered their teachings, and willingly died for their own lies?

Honestly, the "hellenic" argument is bogus due in large part that those who were trained in hellenistic philosophy and later converted to Christianity, simply spoke in the language that they understood. They attempted to describe theology in such a way that their peers and counterparts could understand. It didn't change the teachings of Jesus, but re-worded them in the language of the day.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Jun 29 2005, 03:08 PM

Cuz we wanted to. What's the problem?

So if anything is subject to change, then why are you Mormon?

...

If he was capable of progressing in light and understanding, why should it be any different for his successors. If there is some core aspect of an ordinance that for some reason must remain constant, who's to say that said ordinance might not also contain other non-core aspects that could potentially be changed without affecting the core essentiality?

And you're not a Catholic because?

Personally I don't get how a physical act - completion of an ordinance - affects one's salvation or exaltation. I don't know what the eternal mechanics are but I think of such ordinance as a reflection of a life dedicated to Christ and though said reflections are mandatory, they are not the key drivers of salvation - the key drivers being faith and obedience and progression in light and knowledge... 

So you're a Mormon because.....?

1. I didn't say anything is subject to change but I will accept that man's understanding, even a prophet's understanding of anything is probably not perfect and so is potentially subject to increased or improved understanding.

2. Just because I believe that perhaps ordinance may have core elements that should not be changed and other elements that might be change ddoes not mean that I accept that A. Catholics made proper changes or B. Catholics had the authority to administer such ordinances.

3. I don't think that Mormon doctrine is that ordinance have salvific properties in and of themselves

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Jun 29 2005, 06:04 PM

I don't think that is the real argument - that man changed the ordinances and therefore an apostasy occurred. Rather I believe the argument goes that very early on, within decades, an apostasy occurred, in large part because man turned away from the true gospel and towards Hellenistic philosophy, and therefore, and in conjunction with the deaths of the true disciples, the spirit of revelation was lost, and so changes that were made to doctrine and ordinance were man inspired, not God inspired.

And your evidence is what? That the disciples of the Apostles hated their masters so much, that they purposely altered their teachings, and willingly died for their own lies?

Honestly, the "hellenic" argument is bogus due in large part that those who were trained in hellenistic philosophy and later converted to Christianity, simply spoke in the language that they understood. They attempted to describe theology in such a way that their peers and counterparts could understand. It didn't change the teachings of Jesus, but re-worded them in the language of the day.

I think you are probably already somewhat aware of the evidence or at least the arguments (Talmage - The Great Apostasy / Barker - Apostasy From the Divine Church) without us hashing them out one by one here. It's worth noting that all Christians with the exception of the Orthodox and Roman Catholics think that, at minimun, a partial apostasy occurred.

It as bad faith reply on your part to suggest that I might believe that, or that the argument is, that the apostasy resulted from hatred from diciples who deliberately altered teachings. We both know that so such argument need be made to believe in an apostacy.

Honestly, the "hellenic" argument is bogus due in large part that those who were trained in hellenistic philosophy and later converted to Christianity, simply spoke in the  language that they understood.  They attempted to describe theology in such a way that their peers and counterparts could understand.  It didn't change the teachings of Jesus, but re-worded them in the language of the day.

Sure, that's one perspective but you having and expressing that opinion is hardly the same as presenting a persuasive argument for it.

[Jason]

I think you are probably already somewhat aware of the evidence or at least the arguments (Talmage - The Great Apostasy / Barker - Apostasy From the Divine Church) without us hashing them out one by one here.

Of course, I've read them both as Im sure you have.

It's worth noting that all Christians with the exception of the Orthodox and Roman Catholics think that, at minimun, a partial apostasy occurred.

Yeah, and it's worth noting that none of those Christians existed previous to the 15th century.

It as bad faith reply on your part to suggest that I might believe that, or that the argument is, that the apostasy resulted from hatred from diciples who deliberately altered teachings. We both know that so such argument need be made to believe in an apostacy.

How else would you explain the supposed corruption of the Church at the end of the 1st and beginning of the 2nd centuries? That they just didn't get it in the first place? Do you really believe that they just misunderstood, and that they would willingly change their errors at the apostles first correction?

Sure, that's one perspective but you having and expressing that opinion is hardly the same as presenting a persuasive argument for it.

I wasn't aware that we were trying to present an official argument. Would you like to begin with an attempt to prove a loss of Priesthood authority by the end of the 1st century?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jason@Jun 29 2005, 07:02 PM

It's worth noting that all Christians with the exception of the Orthodox and Roman Catholics think that, at minimun, a partial apostasy occurred.

Yeah, and it's worth noting that none of those Christians existed previous to the 15th century.

And what's the point of that observation? You could just as well say that the Catholic Church of Boise Idaho 2005 is so different from the Pope Urban's Roman Catholic Church of 1378 that the same argument applies. Besides, no Christian alive today existed prior to the 15th century.

Longevity is not a particularly strong argument with me. The TV show Dallas ran for 13 years.

How else would you explain the supposed corruption of the Church at the end of the 1st and beginning of the 2nd centuries?  That they just didn't get it in the first place? Do you really believe that they just misunderstood, and that they would willingly change their errors at the apostles first correction?

All their motives needn't be driven by deceit and none of their motive need have been driven by hate. People and institutions can stray drastically from an original path quite rapidly. Corrupt motives needn't even be present as the sole or key driver. It could simply be an absence of inspiration. Without inspiration and the original possessors of the truth gone man, left to his own devices, could deviate substantially. Look at the current difference, after just 170 years, between the CoC and the LDS Church. I don't have to believe that the RLDS/CoC was driven by corruption and hate (or vice versa) to get them where they are today.

Are you familiar with how the New Testament came to be compiled and canonized?m While we can both probably accept that God guided the process to wind up with what we have now but on the face of it, it's a study in politics, intrigue, confusion and human shortcomings.

I wasn't aware that we were trying to present an official argument.  Would you like to begin with an attempt to prove a loss of Priesthood authority by the end of the 1st century? 

I think the point is that for you to refute an opinion I made by simply stating another opinion isn't too persuasive. Granted I didn't make any argument to support my opinion but I know that you are somewhat familiar with the evidence anyway.

[srm]

Originally posted by Cal@Jun 27 2005, 11:27 AM

In noticing the changes in temple ordinances over the years, the thought came to me: Isn't that what the apostacy, in part a least, was supposed to have been all about in the first place?

We explain that a restoration of the true gospel was needed, partly, at least, because the early church began to change the ordinances and doctrines that were part of the "true" church. JS, supposedly, restored the true methodology of these ordinances. For example, baptism, was supposed to be done by emersion, not sprinking. This change was, supposedly, one of the great abomination of the apostacy.

But, how is changing the ordinances in the temple any different? If we were to say, well, some people in the church are uncomfortable with getting dunked under water, does that justify changing the ordinance so that people feel better about it.

We have been judgemental of the Catholic church for changing the baptismal ordinance to make it more convenient and less objectionable to the masses. But what have we been doing to our own ordinances.....same thing?

Because we feel that the changes are directed/approved via revelation from God.