Isaiah 24:5

[SpiritDragon]

Quote

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.

@Traveler brought up some interesting points about Isaiah which lead me to seek out this scripture and I now have two questions to discuss:

1.) What is the everlasting covenant? Is it different from the new and everlasting covenant?

2.) What actually constitutes changing an ordinance? For example some of the wording for baptisms in the scriptures is different from what we use today, and the temple ceremonies have undergone several changes over the years, and even the sacrament has gone from using wine to water - so I'm curious with all the changes that are apparently okay what constitutes a change that implicates a problem?

 

[CV75]

8 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

@Traveler brought up some interesting points about Isaiah which lead me to seek out this scripture and I now have two questions to discuss:

1.) What is the everlasting covenant? Is it different from the new and everlasting covenant?

2.) What actually constitutes changing an ordinance? For example some of the wording for baptisms in the scriptures is different from what we use today, and the temple ceremonies have undergone several changes over the years, and even the sacrament has gone from using wine to water - so I'm curious with all the changes that are apparently okay what constitutes a change that implicates a problem?

 

1) I think they are the same from looking at many lds.org sources. The "new" is added only in three D&C references, two in relation to marriage and one in relation to the restoration (D&C 22:1), and I think only for emphasis that it is a new revelation in this dispensation.

2) I think in these cases it means to change without authority, as happened in institutional apostasy with every dispensation but this one.

[Guest]

Just follow the footnotes.  That pretty much explains exactly what @CV75 said.

[SpiritDragon]

@CV75 @Carborendum Thanks for your thoughts. I guess even following the footnotes it just doesn't seem clear to me - is the everlasting covenant simply a conglomeration of all gospel related covenants and ordinances. I get the sense it involves the baptismal covenant and temple/marriage covenants and seems to involve the oath and covenant of the priesthood as well - is it just a catch all covenant that we receive exaltation if we are faithful in entering into and keeping as many covenants as are age appropriate?

When the lord claims to be the same yesterday, today and forever and that he excuses not himself in deviating from that which he has spoken does this suggest that even he cannot change the ordinances? Perhaps the ordinances don't matter per se as much as the proper authority being used and the covenant being made? Certainly some changes were made going from the Old Testament or old covenant to the New Testament (covenant) going from animal sacrifice and so on to what we do now? Even at that it is interesting to ponder on what changes are within the context of not actually being changes, at least it seems to me that there must be some guidelines and that God doesn't just change how things are done at any given time simply because, if anyone does, he has the authority to do so. I suppose I'd be interested in attempting to explore those guidelines with anyone that would like to join in.

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

@CV75 @Carborendum Thanks for your thoughts. I guess even following the footnotes it just doesn't seem clear to me - is the everlasting covenant simply a conglomeration of all gospel related covenants and ordinances. I get the sense it involves the baptismal covenant and temple/marriage covenants and seems to involve the oath and covenant of the priesthood as well - is it just a catch all covenant that we receive exaltation if we are faithful in entering into and keeping as many covenants as are age appropriate?

When the lord claims to be the same yesterday, today and forever and that he excuses not himself in deviating from that which he has spoken does this suggest that even he cannot change the ordinances? Perhaps the ordinances don't matter per se as much as the proper authority being used and the covenant being made? Certainly some changes were made going from the Old Testament or old covenant to the New Testament (covenant) going from animal sacrifice and so on to what we do now? Even at that it is interesting to ponder on what changes are within the context of not actually being changes, at least it seems to me that there must be some guidelines and that God doesn't just change how things are done at any given time simply because, if anyone does, he has the authority to do so. I suppose I'd be interested in attempting to explore those guidelines with anyone that would like to join in.

There are many great articles and lessons on this topic, but basically the new and everlasting covenant is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, “new” because it has been revealed or restored in each dispensation, and it is “everlasting” because the Lord never changes. The covenant is also a contract between God and man (we agree to keep all the commandments and observe every ordinance of salvation, and God agrees to share with man eternal life in return).

“Ordinance” means two things: tangible rites (which we commonly call ordinances) and intangible decrees (principles and laws). For example, Joseph Smith taught (History of the Church, 5:423, 424):

Page 423: “It was the design of the councils of heaven before the world was, that the principles and laws of the priesthood should be predicated upon the gathering of the people in every age of the world. … Ordinances [principles and laws] instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.”

Page 424: “One of the ordinances [rites] of the house of the Lord is baptism for the dead. God decreed before the foundation of the world that that ordinance [that specific rite] should be administered in a font prepared for that purpose in the house of the Lord.”

The only rites (tangible ordinances) I can think of that aren’t subject to alteration by the Lord’s servants would be 1) baptism for the dead, since it is the only ordinance mentioned in scripture as “instituted from before the foundation of the world” (D&C 124:33); 2) marriage since it was instituted before the Fall and carried into this world; and 3) baptism since it is explicitly named as part of the “doctrine (which is a principle) of Christ.” The intangible laws, which on the other hand are many, were also instituted before the foundation of the world (D&C 132: 5)

Every other rite besides the three I mentioned seems to have been instituted according to the Lord’s instructions in this world according to the circumstances and demands of the dispensation, time and place; the objects and protocols involved are necessary only for that dispensation, time and place, and these are revealed through the prophets. The laws are observed by the prophets through the keys they possess, even though their form and manner of expression may change from time to time (with exception of marriage, baptism for the dead, and baptism).

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

is it just a catch all covenant

That may be accurate, but it doesn't have the right perspective.  All covenants build on the previous covenants.  None that I know of eliminate previous covenants.  When you take out your endowments and are sealed, you make the highest covenants which include all previous covenants.

[SpiritDragon]

Thanks guys... I have a long work day ahead but hope to resume discussion when the sun is down.

Edited July 21, 2017 by SpiritDragon

[Traveler]

12 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

@Traveler brought up some interesting points about Isaiah which lead me to seek out this scripture and I now have two questions to discuss:

1.) What is the everlasting covenant? Is it different from the new and everlasting covenant?

2.) What actually constitutes changing an ordinance? For example some of the wording for baptisms in the scriptures is different from what we use today, and the temple ceremonies have undergone several changes over the years, and even the sacrament has gone from using wine to water - so I'm curious with all the changes that are apparently okay what constitutes a change that implicates a problem?

 

 

I believe that marriage is a great candidate for the answer to question #1.  Even with the first man Adam and woman Eve marriage was an inclusive covenant – I do not believe that there is a recorded era of history where man did not covenant with G-d for marriage.

 

As to question #2.  I would suggest that ordinances performed without the priesthood are the most common change throughout history.

                                                                                                                                                                                    

The Traveler

[SpiritDragon]

@Traveler @Carborendum @CV75 So far what I'm getting from all of you (I think) is the idea that in regard to the ordinances the only change that really matters is if they are performed without priesthood authority which would obviously include the keys to direct the work and so on. With this being the case could hypothetically baptisms by sprinkling be okay if Thomas S. Monson said so while acting as the prophet? My understanding is that in Catholicism this very change took place under the auspices of having divine authority to make the change, perhaps @anatess2 could offer some insight on that particular perspective. Granted we don't believe that Catholics hold the actual priesthood of God, but they do (think so). Would changing the ordinance in and of itself be a problem, or is the authority really all that matters. Obviously, without the authority everything else can remain the same but the ordinance will still lack any authoritative power. 

Sorry, I just remembered cv75 mentioning baptism as one that specifically must not change - My question remains the same however, just substitute a different ordinance with the same idea.

Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

@Traveler @Carborendum @CV75 So far what I'm getting from all of you (I think) is the idea that in regard to the ordinances the only change that really matters is if they are performed without priesthood authority which would obviously include the keys to direct the work and so on. With this being the case could hypothetically baptisms by sprinkling be okay if Thomas S. Monson said so while acting as the prophet? My understanding is that in Catholicism this very change took place under the auspices of having divine authority to make the change, perhaps @anatess2 could offer some insight on that particular perspective. Granted we don't believe that Catholics hold the actual priesthood of God, but they do (think so). Would changing the ordinance in and of itself be a problem, or is the authority really all that matters. Obviously, without the authority everything else can remain the same but the ordinance will still lack any authoritative power. 

Sorry, I just remembered cv75 mentioning baptism as one that specifically must not change - My question remains the same however, just substitute a different ordinance with the same idea.

Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

Yes, baptism cannot change because it is explicitly part of the doctrine of Christ, "doctrine" being one of the kinds of ordinances and which specifically ties to the law of the redemption (which many times is mentioned as having been established "from the foundation of the world"). Alma ties the doctrine of Christ to the redemption in Mosiah18 (look for faith, repentance, baptism, pouring out His Spirit, keeping the commandments); Alma 19 also (in connection with 18:39).

I think the key is to identify those ordinances (i.e. rites, laws, principles, and decrees) which were instituted from or before the foundation of the world. These cannot change. Another one is the Priesthood (Alma 13:7; D&C 130:20; 132:28).

As indicated in the Old Testament, "everlasting covenants" can be implemented in this world and not have been established before the foundation of the world. Sometimes I think "an everlasting" covenant differentiates these (and sometimes is used to describe the source, as in D&C 19:7-10), from "the everlasting covenant."

This is why we often see change in certain rites (water for wine; temple particulars and clothing) and priesthood structures but not power (changes in the organization of the seventies over the years) that were not instituted from before the foundation of the world but yet require priesthood keys to administer.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

what I'm getting from all of you (I think) is the idea that in regard to the ordinances the only change that really matters is if they are performed without priesthood authority

No. I'm assuming this is in the context of "what changes are allowed and what are not allowed."

It is through proper channels that it is determined what changes to the ordinances do not constitute a change in doctrine.  Without that authority, we end up where sectarians are with baptism by non-immersion and elimination of baptism altogether.  That is where 1000 years of no priesthood authority gets you.

Are minor changes allowed?  Certainly.  But what constitutes "minor"?  It is through authorized leaders where we are assured that such changes do not change the doctrine or covenant behind them.

We had a new member at the Sacrament table.  He had trouble with one passage.  He skipped over a word.  The bishop asked him to repeat it.  But he then skipped another word but got that one right.  The bishop asked him to repeat it again. Another failure.  But the bishop said it was ok.

I believe some of his reasoning was that with the combination of all three attempts, all the words were said.  And the words he skipped were minor words like "that" or "in".  Overall, I think the bishop just had mercy on him because he was a new member just getting into the swing of things.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Guest

[anatess2]

In Roman Catholic history, the Church in the apostolic age was under persecution.  Conversion was punishable by death.  Conversion of entire tribes of people cannot just flock to a river or a Roman bath and immerse themselves and not garner suspicion.  And, as private bathtubs and swimming pools were not yet a thing for the masses, the bishops started baptizing by infusion (pouring water over the head) as they secretly meet in the catacombs.  When the gospel was preached to the people outside of the cities (in the desert), another problem came up... water was scarce and pouring water over one's head would sometimes mean no more water to drink.  So the bishops started baptizing by aspersion (sprinking).  Of course, those who are baptized on their deathbeds cannot be immersed, therefore, they get either infused or aspersed.  The council of Ravenna in 1311 made it official that baptism by immersion, infusion, or aspersion are valid forms of baptism for the entire Church.

In the LDS faith, the Church was restored in the modern era where water is abundant and persecution did not impede baptismal activity.  The restoration of temple ordinances of baptism also make it not as critical that people have to be baptized immediately even when only a glass of water is present.  Yes, these conditions are also available to the modern Roman Catholics and it is a constant debate within the faith that by Catholic tradition, Hippolytus of Rome stated that "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available." means that you only asperse or infuse when immersion is not possible.

But yes, if President Monson ever gets prophetic revelation that water will become very scarce, therefore a change in the ordinance is necessary, then his Apostolic Authority will be the means by which that change in the ordinance will be enacted.

Edited July 21, 2017 by anatess2

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

@Traveler @Carborendum @CV75 So far what I'm getting from all of you (I think) is the idea that in regard to the ordinances the only change that really matters is if they are performed without priesthood authority which would obviously include the keys to direct the work and so on. With this being the case could hypothetically baptisms by sprinkling be okay if Thomas S. Monson said so while acting as the prophet? My understanding is that in Catholicism this very change took place under the auspices of having divine authority to make the change, perhaps @anatess2 could offer some insight on that particular perspective. Granted we don't believe that Catholics hold the actual priesthood of God, but they do (think so). Would changing the ordinance in and of itself be a problem, or is the authority really all that matters. Obviously, without the authority everything else can remain the same but the ordinance will still lack any authoritative power. 

Sorry, I just remembered cv75 mentioning baptism as one that specifically must not change - My question remains the same however, just substitute a different ordinance with the same idea.

Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

 

I want to make a statement about ordinances and why ordinances are so important – even more important than doctrine concerning apostasy.  It has long been interesting to me how ordinances are related to divine law and covenant.   The first ordinance performed by Adam that is specifically documented in scripture was the ordinance of sacrifice.  Adam was instructed in great detail concerning how the ordinance was to be performed.  As it turns out there was a specific reason that blood musts be spilt from an animal sacrifice and that particular animals had to be used. 

Cane did not get it.  He thought that the sacrifice was basically an offering to G-d.  In essence he thought his logic to be greater than G-d’s.  So, he offered the best of his harvest from his field and his labors – but his sacrifice was unacceptable to G-d and Cane’s changing the ordinance was his initial step in apostasy.  If this account of Cane is 100% literal and factual or if the story is presented in symbolism – The scripture intent was to demonstrate that Cain’s apostasy began according to the prophesy Isaiah gave with changing the ordinance which in the case of Cane was the ordinance of sacrifice.

There ii a lot more to say about ordinances – @anatess2 is a little naïve in explaining Catholic history.  It is very obvious to me the Catholic church changed the ordinance of baptism because they, like Cain, did not understand and so they substituted their logic and reasoning for their own purposes rather than remain obedient and loyal to G-d.  A mistake made by so many (think King Saul).

There are conditions under which ordinances are changed.  Jesus demonstrated this at what we call Passover and the Last Supper.  The reason the ordinance was to be changed was because the law was changed when Jesus fulfilled the law.    – Questions?

 

The Traveler

[zil]

8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Cane did not get it.  He thought that the sacrifice was basically an offering to G-d.  In essence he thought his logic to be greater than G-d’s.  So, he offered the best of his harvest from his field and his labors – but his sacrifice was unacceptable to G-d and Cane’s changing the ordinance was his initial step in apostasy.  If this account of Cane is 100% literal and factual or if the story is presented in symbolism – The scripture intent was to demonstrate that Cain’s apostasy began according to the prophesy Isaiah gave with changing the ordinance which in the case of Cane was the ordinance of sacrifice.

I'm not entirely convinced Cain's offering was rejected because it was not an animal:

1) In the Law of Moses, there were times when fruit of the harvest was to be offered.

2) Genesis gives us no idea why Cain's offering was rejected (so it's logical to assume it was based on the only distinction we're given - animal vs harvest - but that's an assumption)

3) In Moses 5, we learn that "Cain loved Satan more than God.  And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord."  This seems like a certain reason for Cain's offering to be rejected.  But the account still isn't explicit as to the reason for the rejection.  All we know is that Cain didn't "do well".

4) In the Book of Jasher (yeah, not scripture, but interesting), chapter 1, verse 16, we learn that Cain had "brought from the inferior fruit of the ground".  If we go back to the Law of Moses, the sacrifices, whatever they were, had to be the first (in sequence) and the best (in quality).  Cain violated at least the second rule.  But, of course, we don't know if sacrifice in Adam's day was strictly animals, or also included a portion of the harvest.  (I can see rational arguments both ways.)

Anywho, just saying that all we really know is that Cain's sacrifice wasn't acceptable (and that the Lord is just, so it really wasn't), but we can't be 100% certain of why (unless why has been revealed someplace I'm not aware of).

Either way, Cain changed the ordinance somehow (brought the wrong thing, wrong quality, for the wrong reason).

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I'm not entirely convinced Cain's offering was rejected because it was not an animal:

1) In the Law of Moses, there were times when fruit of the harvest was to be offered.

2) Genesis gives us no idea why Cain's offering was rejected (so it's logical to assume it was based on the only distinction we're given - animal vs harvest - but that's an assumption)

3) In Moses 5, we learn that "Cain loved Satan more than God.  And Satan commanded him, saying: Make an offering unto the Lord."  This seems like a certain reason for Cain's offering to be rejected.  But the account still isn't explicit as to the reason for the rejection.  All we know is that Cain didn't "do well".

4) In the Book of Jasher (yeah, not scripture, but interesting), chapter 1, verse 16, we learn that Cain had "brought from the inferior fruit of the ground".  If we go back to the Law of Moses, the sacrifices, whatever they were, had to be the first (in sequence) and the best (in quality).  Cain violated at least the second rule.  But, of course, we don't know if sacrifice in Adam's day was strictly animals, or also included a portion of the harvest.  (I can see rational arguments both ways.)

Anywho, just saying that all we really know is that Cain's sacrifice wasn't acceptable (and that the Lord is just, so it really wasn't), but we can't be 100% certain of why (unless why has been revealed someplace I'm not aware of).

Either way, Cain changed the ordinance somehow (brought the wrong thing, wrong quality, for the wrong reason).

Perhaps I am confused - but I believe there is a difference between an "offering" and a "sacrifice".  For example - anyone could make an offering but only a priest or Levite could perform a sacrifice before the alter of G-d and then the sacrifice had to according to specifications.  For example, the ritual cleansing for the High Priest before entering the Holy of Holies required a “red heifer” that was sacrificed to the east of the temple and outside Jerusalem (Mount of Olives).  It is my understanding that that no outer creature could be used – let alone the fruit of the field.  Also the sacrifice could not be done anywhere else - even if it was inconvenient to leave the city.

 

The Traveler

[zil]

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps I am confused - but I believe there is a difference between an "offering" and a "sacrifice".  For example - anyone could make an offering but only a priest or Levite could perform a sacrifice before the alter of G-d and then the sacrifice had to according to specifications.  For example, the ritual cleansing for the High Priest before entering the Holy of Holies required a “red heifer” that was sacrificed to the east of the temple and outside Jerusalem (Mount of Olives).  It is my understanding that that no outer creature could be used – let alone the fruit of the field.  Also the sacrifice could not be done anywhere else - even if it was inconvenient to leave the city.

The Traveler

Genesis 4 doesn't say anything about sacrifice - it says offering, in both cases (Cain and Abel).

Moses 4 says offering, in both cases.

Jasher says offering, in both cases.

I'm not saying it wasn't supposed to be a sacrifice of an animal.  I'm saying I'm not convinced that Cain was supposed to be making an animal sacrifice, and that because he didn't his offering was rejected.  I think that's supposition.  It may be correct, but I think it may not be.  I find a lack of conclusive evidence to make a firm conclusion beyond the fact that Cain did not "do well".

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Cane did not get it.  He thought that the sacrifice was basically an offering to G-d.  In essence he thought his logic to be greater than G-d’s.  So, he offered the best of his harvest from his field and his labors – but his sacrifice was unacceptable to G-d and Cane’s changing the ordinance was his initial step in apostasy. 

The reason his offering was not acceptable was because he only did it because Satan told him to do so, not because he loved the Lord.

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

The reason his offering was not acceptable was because he only did it because Satan told him to do so, not because he loved the Lord.

Clearly, the Lord looks on the heart and could see that Cain's was not in the offering. Now we are required to offer a broken heart and contrite spirit - has this always been so, and the offering of animals or harvest and such was simply a means of outwardly expressing an inner conviction?

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Clearly, the Lord looks on the heart and could see that Cain's was not in the offering. Now we are required to offer a broken heart and contrite spirit - has this always been so, and the offering of animals or harvest and such was simply a means of outwardly expressing an inner conviction?

The animal sacrifice was a type and shadow of the sacrifice of Christ just as Isaac was.

Quote

6 And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.

7 And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a asimilitude of the bsacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of cgrace and dtruth.

8 Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou doest in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.

Moses 5: 6-8

 

[SpiritDragon]

54 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The animal sacrifice was a type and shadow of the sacrifice of Christ just as Isaac was.

 

Absolutely, but isn't it possible (even likely) that more important than the animal sacrifice to the Lord has always been the attitude of the one involved in the ordinance. So with animal sacrifice being done away with now, it would seem that the sacrament fills the place of remembering the final blood sacrifice of the lamb without blemish, the first born. More important than whether we use bread and water or crackers and wine is the thought and intent in the heart. Even so, though, there clearly is importance in the how and what of the ordinances, and not just the attitudes involved.

[SpiritDragon]

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

There are conditions under which ordinances are changed.  Jesus demonstrated this at what we call Passover and the Last Supper.  The reason the ordinance was to be changed was because the law was changed when Jesus fulfilled the law.    – Questions?

 

The Traveler

Did the law actually change or simply the way ordinances and practices concerning the law change. I ask because if the law itself actually changed then would that not be indicative of God changing the rules so that different people play by different rules on a fundamental level. Would this not violate the law of justice and god would cease to be God? So if the law did not change, but the application of the law did - what type of ground rules would need to be in place? For instance, Sabbath worship may have changed from the seventh day to the first day, but the concept of Sabbath observance was not done away or fundamentally changed, was it? Blood sacrifice was done away in favour of a broken heart and contrite spirit - that may also have always been required, while the symbolism of the Sacrament certainly still points to the savior just as the blood sacrifices have always done. I'd actually find this a very useful avenue for the discussion to look at what changes took place from the old testament to the new and from the new to the early restoration and on up until now. As changes occur is there a clear pattern of fundamental principles and guideposts that are unchanging, and if so what are they?

Edited July 22, 2017 by SpiritDragon