What constitutes changing an ordinance?

[SpiritDragon]

I have often been somewhat perplexed by this one. I remember on my mission teaching about how God is the same yesterday today and forever and that his ordinances are not to be changed. For instance Baptism is to be done by immersion and not sprinkling and has very clear wording... yet even the wording has been somewhat different in certain circumstances. For instance "having authority given me"(3 Ne 11:25) as opposed to "having been commissioned of" (current practice).

The slight change of wording here has never bothered me. But changes to other ordinances like the initiatory have troubled me at times. What exactly constitutes a change to an ordinance and what is okay to change/alter/amend/re-arrange if anything?

[The Folk Prophet]

This seems fairly straightforward to me. The ordinances are given to us by God. So if He says something is okay to change, then it's okay to change. He knows what the core of the ordinances are and which parts need remain unchanged. He knows what wording can change and which cannot (Though wording is an interesting subject because words are interpretive and subject to localized understanding, etc... but God understands this all better than any man). Therefore, the answer to your question lies in the principle of revelation, upon which this church is built.

[Sharky]

One of the things I always think of is that God has his ways ....

We are men (& women) trying to understand & interpret & practice & teach of God, though we do so by Man's understanding of God.

Sometimes changes to certain religious practices are necessitated by the ways of man, by potential threats of man, & even by the written laws of man. The LDS Church teaches abiding by local laws. We are not the only church that has encounter issues of needing to change certain "ceremonial aspects" due to societal changes.

To me, the Initiatory was & is largely symbolic. Even with the many changes, the symbolic aspect of the ordinance are still very present.

One of the best changes I have seen in the Temple Ordinances is that now one is no longer required to stand. Standing from a sitting position was always difficult for me & at times it is now near impossible ... use to be during the endowment that the workers insisted I stand even though they had to help me up at times. Now they accept it if I do not.

Did it ever really matter? Or was the importance of requiring standing one of those interpretations that man inserted?

church makes a very valid point .... this church is built upon revelation; however, wording (& even certain practices) can be very subjective because of localized meaning/understanding & the changing written laws of man.

[SpiritDragon]

This seems fairly straightforward to me. The ordinances are given to us by God. So if He says something is okay to change, then it's okay to change. He knows what the core of the ordinances are and which parts need remain unchanged. He knows what wording can change and which cannot (Though wording is an interesting subject because words are interpretive and subject to localized understanding, etc... but God understands this all better than any man). Therefore, the answer to your question lies in the principle of revelation, upon which this church is built.

How is it different to claim that God changed the ordinance so long as it goes along with LDS doctrine as opposed to say Catholicism deciding that God said baptism by sprinkling is okay?

Is there any hard and fast rule on what is acceptable? Or are we to rely on the mysteries of how an unchanging God can change ordinances which are not to be changed?

[The Folk Prophet]

How is it different to claim that God changed the ordinance so long as it goes along with LDS doctrine as opposed to say Catholicism deciding that God said baptism by sprinkling is okay?

Is there any hard and fast rule on what is acceptable? Or are we to rely on the mysteries of how an unchanging God can change ordinances which are not to be changed?

If the Catholic Church were indeed the true church, and God did indeed lead it by revelation, and had indeed revealed that baptism was to be performed by sprinkling, then there is no difference. The clear point is that the Catholic church is not the true church, God does not lead it by revelation, and the change to sprinkling was not given by revelation. That is the difference.

Anyhow, where does the "are not to be changed" philosophy come from? Who says they're not to be changed? If God says so, specifically, then one would reasonably expect that He won't change them. Otherwise, wherein does this idea that ordinances are not meant to be changed come from?

[MarginOfError]

The more symbolic an ordinance is, the more likely it is to undergo change. As societies and cultures change, the symbols they identify with change and old symbols begin to lose their meaning. This is, I am led to believe, a large part of the reason the temple ordinances were altered...the symbolism became so unfamiliar that it distracted and confused more than it taught.

I can see ordinances like baptism changing under some circumstances. If the world were to undergo some climactic event that left water difficult to obtain, and there was barely enough water available to support life, we might go to sprinkling baptism to conserve precious water. Such changes must be made by those with proper authority and with the approval and/or direction of God.

Symbols, by their nature, are arbitrary representations of a larger meaning. They carry meaning only because we say that they do. Ordinances are equally arbitrary and so while the principles they teach may be eternal, the form may be changed to suit the cultural conditions of the people they are meant to teach.

[The Folk Prophet]

....They carry meaning only because we say that they do.

And in the cases of ordinances, they carry meaning only because God says that they do. :)

[Just_A_Guy]

I think that as Mormons, we often get hung up on Isaiah 24:5:

The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

The thing is, the word "ordinance" in that verse comes from the Hebrew choq, which generally means anything ordered by the Lord--not just a ritual. So Isaiah's problem isn't necessarily the alteration of any particular rite; it's the fact that the people are no longer paying attention to the Lord's will.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think that as Mormons, we often get hung up on Isaiah 24:5:

The thing is, the word "ordinance" in that verse comes from the Hebrew choq, which generally means anything ordered by the Lord--not just a ritual. So Isaiah's problem isn't necessarily the alteration of any particular rite; it's the fact that the people are no longer paying attention to the Lord's will.

Right on. The problem is in changing something without authority. It's not in that ordinances cannot change. They clearly and obviously can.

[SpiritDragon]

Indeed Isaiah 24:5 is a key player in the thought process as is the teaching of Joseph Smith that changing of ordinances was a contributing factor leading to apostasy. Ordinance - Details

I'm confident I'm not the only member under the impression that "THE" correct form of ordinances needed to be restored because they had changed during the apostasy. This clearly seems like something that is not supposed to then go changing again after being restored to its correct form.

So while I agree that God knows what is the most important aspect and therefore could indeed reveal what seem to be changes or at the very least modifications to an ordinance while keeping the integrity of the ordinance intact I'm curious as to what criteria one would use to know when and what changes are okay and which are the inventions of men contributing to apostasy.

[Dravin]

The more symbolic an ordinance is, the more likely it is to undergo change. As societies and cultures change, the symbols they identify with change and old symbols begin to lose their meaning. This is, I am led to believe, a large part of the reason the temple ordinances were altered...the symbolism became so unfamiliar that it distracted and confused more than it taught.

And if one thinks of symbolism in terms of language then changes become less, "They changed the unchangeable!" and more, "They translated the ordinance into another language." They being those authorized by the Lord to do so.

So while I agree that God knows what is the most important aspect and therefore could indeed reveal what seem to be changes or at the very least modifications to an ordinance while keeping the integrity of the ordinance intact I'm curious as to what criteria one would use to know when and what changes are okay and which are the inventions of men contributing to apostasy.

Revelation. The same source that lets us know that the ordinances as they currently are have integrity and are efficacious.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Dravin

[NeuroTypical]

I remember on my mission teaching about how God is the same yesterday today and forever and that his ordinances are not to be changed.

could I get a source on that last part? I mean, I'm sure that's what you were taught, but I'm wondering if it's accurate.

Numbers 9 talks about "the ordinance of the passover". Exodus 13 talks about the ordinance of eating unleavened bread, followed by a feast. There's talk of ordinances of passover, ordinance of offering a tenth of an oil bath, ordinances of meat offerings to the Lord, etc, etc.

thus saith the Lord God; These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it, to offer burnt offerings thereon, and to sprinkle blood thereon.

Am I in trouble for having never done this one?

[SpiritDragon]

could I get a source on that last part? I mean, I'm sure that's what you were taught, but I'm wondering if it's accurate.

Numbers 9 talks about "the ordinance of the passover". Exodus 13 talks about the ordinance of eating unleavened bread, followed by a feast. There's talk of ordinances of passover, ordinance of offering a tenth of an oil bath, ordinances of meat offerings to the Lord, etc, etc.

Am I in trouble for having never done this one?

Hey LM I like where you're going with this (I think??). I can see how if the ordinances can be fulfilled with the law of Moses and therefore no longer required, or changed into something greatly different than surely ordinances can change. It just seems that I have always been taught that they cannot and should not.

The main justification I can see for it at this time is in the link I posted previously on ordinances. I'll post it here for easier viewing:

Ordinance

Summary

A religious rite.1 JS taught that ordinances were covenants between man and God, in which believers could affirm faith, gain spiritual knowledge, and seek blessings.2 Some ordinances were considered requisite for salvation.3 The manner in which ordinances were performed was typically given by revelation and generally administered by priesthood authority.4 JS taught that ordinances existed in all dispensations from the time of Adam and that the changing of ordinances contributed to the apostasy from Christ’s original church.5 The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, baptism, confirmation, blessing, anointing, endowment, and sealing were types of ordinances.6 Some of these were to be performed in temples.7 In August 1840, JS taught that baptism could be performed vicariously for one’s deceased relatives.8 An 1841 revelation directed that certain ordinances could be performed by proxy in temples.9 See also “Anoint,” “Baptism,” “Confirmation,” “Endow,” and “Seal.”

This appears to support the idea that changing ordinances is not good (ie leads to apostasy)

However I also found an interesting article here:Mormon Monastery » Mormon Temple Changes

The article discusses some of why people believe ordinances are not to change, and why the author does not agree.

Perhaps I have been mislead all along and it is fine for ordinances to change. This will be a re-evaluation of my beliefs about the church's doctrine. (to think I thought I knew everything... how disappointing)

[NeuroTypical]

I haven't given the issue much thought, but I've always just figured it made sense for God to change the ordinances as His children changed, and that we do ourselves a disservice when we try to change them from our ends.

[Dravin]

This appears to support the idea that changing ordinances is not good (ie leads to apostasy)

It doesn't follow that because the changing of ordinances contributed to the apostasy that all changing of ordinances leads to apostasy. For example, rain can contribute to flooding, that does not mean that all rain leads to flooding. The idea that the changing of ordinances contributed to the apostasy and that the Lord's authorized servants are empowered to make (or communicate) adjustments to ordinances in line with the will of the Lord are not at odds.

Edited January 14, 2014 by Dravin

[SpiritDragon]

It doesn't follow that because the changing of ordinances contributed to the apostasy that all changing of ordinances leads to apostasy. For example, rain can contribute to flooding, that does not mean that all rain leads to flooding. The idea that the changing of ordinances contributed to the apostasy and that the Lord's authorized servants are empowered to make (or communicate) adjustments to ordinances in line with the will of the Lord are not at odds.

Agreed.

I was mostly pointing out some of where the idea may come from. I am definitely starting to think that ordinances can change and there need not be any justification whatsoever.

I am however surprised at how no one else seems to share the original idea of ordinances being set and unchangeable. It is very pervasive in my experience.

[The Folk Prophet]

Agreed.

I was mostly pointing out some of where the idea may come from. I am definitely starting to think that ordinances can change and there need not be any justification whatsoever.

I am however surprised at how no one else seems to share the original idea of ordinances being set and unchangeable. It is very pervasive in my experience.

There most certainly needs to be justification. But that is the purview of the prophets and apostles. We trust them because of the witness of the spirit to us that they are prophets and apostles and because we know the church is true and led by revelation.

There does seem to be a bit of logical fallacy in the pervasive experience you've had. It should be commonly understood that ordinances should not be changed. Certainly not by us. But the idea that God cannot change ordinances through His prophets according to His will.... The logic does not reasonably follow to that conclusion.

[Just_A_Guy]

I am however surprised at how no one else seems to share the original idea of ordinances being set and unchangeable. It is very pervasive in my experience.

I agree with you that the notion of unchangeable ordinances is pervasive within the LDS Church. But the danger in getting too stuck on this view, is that the ordinances do change. LDS scripture gives us three or four variants of the baptismal prayer. The changes to the endowment in 1991, or the initiatory in 2006; were not the first times those rites were changed (the endowment as practiced in the red brick store lasted nearly six hours; and when the Salt Lake Temple was completed in 1893 construction trade journals noted the inclusion of several large bathtubs in the compartments intended for the administration of the initiatory ordinances).

An overly rigid approach to the immutability of ordinances can lead to a crisis of faith in a person who is confronted with these factoids.

[Guest]

3 The manner in which ordinances were performed was typically given by revelation and generally administered by priesthood authority.4 JS taught that ordinances existed in all dispensations from the time of Adam and that the changing of ordinances contributed to the apostasy from Christ’s original church.

I agree with you that the notion of unchangeable ordinances is pervasive within the LDS Church. But the danger in getting too stuck on this view, is that the ordinances do change. LDS scripture gives us three or four variants of the baptismal prayer. The changes to the endowment in 1991, or the initiatory in 2006; were not the first times those rites were changed (the endowment as practiced in the red brick store lasted nearly six hours; and when the Salt Lake Temple was completed in 1893 construction trade journals noted the inclusion of several large bathtubs in the compartments intended for the administration of the initiatory ordinances).

An overly rigid approach to the immutability of ordinances can lead to a crisis of faith in a person who is confronted with these factoids.

SpiritDragon, I don't think you were mislead. I think you simply misinterpreted what was taught. What JAG said here is perfect address to your dilemma.

But, your post actually contains the answer to your question. You can't just look at #4 in isolation. You can't forget #3. #3 states that we receive the manner by which Ordinances are performed through Revelation. #4 states that changing these ordinances can lead to apostasy.

Our Church is unique from all other Christian Churches in that we believe that we continue to receive revelation pertaining to the Church through our Living Prophets. Therefore, it is very easy to understand that #4 means we are not to change the ordinances unless through #3 we receive revelation.

This requires that we have a testimony of the authority of the living prophets as they receive revelation. #3 is what was missing in the early Church as they changed ordinances that led to apostasy.

Edited January 14, 2014 by anatess

[SpiritDragon]

There most certainly needs to be justification. But that is the purview of the prophets and apostles. We trust them because of the witness of the spirit to us that they are prophets and apostles and because we know the church is true and led by revelation.

There does seem to be a bit of logical fallacy in the pervasive experience you've had. It should be commonly understood that ordinances should not be changed. Certainly not by us. But the idea that God cannot change ordinances through His prophets according to His will.... The logic does not reasonably follow to that conclusion.

I appreciate you following through on this thread Church. For me the logic that God can't change the ordinances is that God is bound by the rules of Celestial law the same as any Celestial being. He doesn't make the rules as he goes, but they are in place and He must play by them... which he does perfectly and powerfully. That being said I do believe God can make symbolic or linguistic changes to help us better understand covenants that we are entering into.

In any event for the time being I am far more satisfied that rigid views on unchanging ordinances is not necessarily doctrinal at all, even though it seemed fundamental to me for some reason. I have always kind of put it the back burner every time it has come up to bother me, but this time I remembered to bring it up here.

[Vort]

I appreciate you following through on this thread Church. For me the logic that God can't change the ordinances is that God is bound by the rules of Celestial law the same as any Celestial being. He doesn't make the rules as he goes, but they are in place and He must play by them... which he does perfectly and powerfully.

I don't know that this is true. I don't know for sure that it is false, either, but it does seem to be a common belief among many Latter-day Saints. I remain unconvinced.

For my part, I suspect it is a reaction to the common non-LDS Christian belief of God as "I Dream of Jeannie", blinking his eyes to cause things to pop into and out of existence. We manifestly disbelieve such things. But it does not then necessarily follow that we believe God to be law-bound just as we are law-bound.

God is the lawgiver. God is the source of all Priesthood authority. God is all-knowing and all-powerful. These scriptural truths have all been attested to by modern prophets. Exactly what these things mean and imply, I am not sure, but I am pretty sure we aren't authorized to extrapolate from them for our own pet theories. We may have such theories, of course, and many do; but we should be careful never to represent such ideas as LDS doctrines.

[bytebear]

I think God works within the culture and standards of the saints. He doesn't force all Latter-day Saints to learn English to read the Book of Mormon. The church has re-translated it in various languages to make it more correct. The Book of Mormon itself was translated in King James English, not because that was the "correct" style but because it was the most appropriate for Joseph Smith and the church to understand and accept.

I think the same is for some ordinances. The wording of the sacrament prayer originally said "wine" but a later revelation clarified that it doesn't matter what you eat or drink, so it was changed to "water." So, that's one change brought through revelation. Did that change the meaning of the ordinance? According to the revealed change, it didn't matter as long as you committed to the covenant with an eye toward God.

Edited January 15, 2014 by bytebear

[The Folk Prophet]

I appreciate you following through on this thread Church. For me the logic that God can't change the ordinances is that God is bound by the rules of Celestial law the same as any Celestial being. He doesn't make the rules as he goes, but they are in place and He must play by them... which he does perfectly and powerfully. That being said I do believe God can make symbolic or linguistic changes to help us better understand covenants that we are entering into.

In any event for the time being I am far more satisfied that rigid views on unchanging ordinances is not necessarily doctrinal at all, even though it seemed fundamental to me for some reason. I have always kind of put it the back burner every time it has come up to bother me, but this time I remembered to bring it up here.

It's an interesting thought, and as Vort stated, we can really only speculate with our own pet theories. The reality is that we don't know if ordinances are eternal law or not. We don't know why God requires baptism. From a logical view point, in many ways, it seems sort of arbitrary. I mean, sure, there is symbolism. But there are many, many other ways that could have been set that could be symbolic in other ways. So why immersion in water? Why this act as an absolute requirement to enter into the kingdom of God? We only have one answer that is doctrinal. Because God commanded it. We should not infer from that command that it is an eternal law. Nor should we infer that it is not an eternal law. We do as God commands. It is as simple as that.

Whereas I can certainly see the logical validity behind the idea that God is bound by eternal laws (as in He cannot lie or He would cease to be God, etc...) we don't know why He is bound by them. We don't know that there is a higher power known as eternal law that He is accountable to. This is only presumption based on our mortal view, as that is how we see law. What we do know is that we can trust God without any shadow of doubt. That His word is law. That His promises are sure. That His commands are strict and His justice fair. We can trust this without reservation. This is wherein it is important to understand ideas like His never changing. We can trust that He won't change his mind and give up on mankind, or that He will change and not fulfill His promises. He will not turn away from perfect love and righteousness. He will not fail in His purposes. It has nothing to do with, as the naysayers like to argue, with policy and procedure.