Sequence of Ordinances?

[Carborendum]

I realize that our current "saving ordinances" are set in a specific order.  That leads us to believe all ordiannces MUST ALWAYS come in that particular order.  I'm wondering if that really is a requirement.

• It seems reasonable that the Laying on of Hands comes after baptism.
• It seems reasonable that the sealing to a spouse must require that they both be endowed prior to such sealing.
• Initiatories must come before endowments.

Quote

ASIDE: When I was a child, I was required to be baptized prior to sealing to my adoptive parents.  Yet, my brother who was adopted fresh out of the hospital (he was officially adopted a few days before he was born) was sealed to them while still an infant.  So, order for me, but not my brother.  BTW, this is the brother upon whom the whole family relies to be the rock of the family.

But specifically... are the ordinances of baptism and confirmation required before the initiatories?  Standard practice says yes.  But I'm wondering if that is just the procedure "under normal circumstances, where exceptions are made for extreme circumstances" or if it is set in stone.

Quote

A fourth reference to this idea is seen in the diary of Charles L. Walker on February 2, 1893. Walker wrote of hearing John Alger declare in “Fast meeting” that he had heard Joseph Smith relate the story of the vision, saying “that God touched his eyes with his finger and said, ‘Joseph this is my beloved Son, hear him.’ As soon as the Lord had touched his eyes with his finger he immediately saw the Saviour.”

https://rsc.byu.edu/exploring-first-vision/significance-joseph-smiths-first-vision-mormon-thought

Compare this with the Savior touching the stones from the Brother of Jared. 
Compare it with the Savior touching the eyes of the blind men.

While those others are not among those which we call saving ordinances, they were at least some sort of ordinance (i.e. a physical act by the power of God which has a physical and spiritual effect on us).

Is it far-fetched to believe that the Walker quote above "hints" that Joseph received the initiatories?  Perhaps a "proto-ordinance"?  I don't even know what that means.  Maybe I'm reaching for straws.  But I can't help but realize that there are so many allusions to other things I've read.

I was once led to believe that the finger of the Lord with the Brother of Jared as an endowment ceremony.  In fact, it was his calling and election made sure.  It was the ceremony to accompany his Sure Word of Prophecy.  At least that was what someone was selling.  He was a fairly knowledgeable person.  But he got  his share of things wrong as well.  So, I'm not sure about him as a source.  But it did pique my attention for a while -- enough to remember 35 years later.

What I do tend to believe is that there appears to be a link between all these things I mentioned above.  And it makes me wonder if Joseph received an endowment ceremony or at least the intiatories during the First Vision.

Edited September 16, 2024 by Carborendum

[laronius]

At the temple I work at we have been instructed that, though not ideal, ordinances for the dead do not have to be performed in order. They simply are not activated, spiritually speaking, until the prior ordinances are performed. Though admittedly this is not completely the same as God administering the ordinances out of order to a living individual.

Ordinances don't have any power in and of themselves. It is God who has the power and ordinances are the ordained way to access it. Even then, God has the final word in that the Holy Spirit of Promise must at some point seal that ordinance for it to be recognized in Heaven. So if God sees fit to change up an ordinance sequence because it better serves His purposes I think that is entirely within His purview.

[mikbone]

Joseph and Oliver received the Aaronic Priesthood prior to baptism.

[JohnsonJones]

I think it depends and what the current teachings are.

Teachings change.

For example, it used to be that the  REASON baptisms for the dead HAD to be performed by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the temple was that this was any ordinance that was done for the dead HAD to be done under the authority of the Higher Priesthood.  It was NOT the same ordinance as Baptism, as it was an ordinance by proxy and for the dead.  Hence, all ordinances for the dead HAD to be performed under the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Obviously, with how things are done now, we changed that teaching and no longer act upon it as such or do things as such. 

In that way, I think it would depend on who you talked to and how you referenced in how you saw the answer to your question.  There are some that feel that Mary was sealed in a marriage before the birth of our Lord, and thus probably before other ordinances were done (as it was during the time of the Jews with the Lower Order of Priesthood rather than the higher order).  Others would vehemently argue against that notion and that idea. 

John the Baptist supposedly had some ordinances done out of the order that we would see them done today.  Some ordinances are no longer performed (one of the biggest changes was due to the fulfillment of prophecy, rather than the doing away of them or the ordinances, they were replaced with a higher order of how things were to be done.  This was with the atonement of our Lord and the subsequent changes in the ordinances done in relation to sacrifice and the shedding of blood).

I think it depends on the time and what is the current situation. 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I am gravitating to the position that it is the covenants associated with the ordinances, not the physical act of the ordinances, that have eternal significance.  The ritual, I suspect, is primarily a pedagogical tool that God implements to ensure that the covenants are memorable and lead us to give the covenants their due weight.  In the Church we put a lot of emphasis on getting those rituals mechanically right—the right words, the right motions, doing everything in the right sequence, etc—but I am inclined to think that this is more of a token by which we show our allegiance to that God who gave us the underlying covenants, than because the rituals themselves have some mystical value that is erased if we inadvertently do them the wrong way.  It is certainly tremendously important for us to follow the patterns prescribed by God and get our ordinances as nearly perfectly right as we are able, every time.  But if God feels that in a particular case a person needs to make the covenants associated with the initiatory before making those associated with baptism—I don’t think there’s any eternal order that prevents Him from doing so.

I tend to look a bit skeptically at writers who take a particular scriptural episode and says “oh yeah, here’s where Nephi is getting his endowment; and here’s where John the Revelator gets his endowment; and here’s where the apostles get their initiatories; and here’s where Nephi son of Helaman gets his second anointing”.  The Gospel is saturated with a number of core principles that rear their heads again and again in a variety of theological, liturgical, instructional, and everyday-living contexts—divine love, creation, atonement, redemption and purification, mutual aid among the believers, obedience, sacrifice, holy living, chastity, consecration, priestly kingship/queenship over posterity, victory over/reversal of Adam’s fall, return to the presence of God, etc; and one could certainly find ways to relate each of those concepts to any and all of the priesthood ordinances we do in the Church today.  But that doesn’t mean that a scriptural account of a vision or dream or coronation or anointing should be interpreted as being “basically the same thing” as any of our modern temple ordinances.

Edited September 19, 2024 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I am gravitating to the position that it is the covenants associated with the ordinances, not the physical act of the ordinances, that have eternal significance.  The ritual, I suspect, is primarily a pedagogical tool that God implements to ensure that the covenants are memorable and lead us to give the covenants their due weight.  In the Church we put a lot of emphasis on getting those rituals mechanically right—the right words, the right motions, doing everything in the right sequence, etc—but I am inclined to think that this is more of a token by which we show our allegiance to that God who gave us the underlying covenants, than because the rituals themselves have some mystical value that is erased if we inadvertently do them the wrong way.  If God feels that in a particular case a person needs to make the covenants associated with the initiatory before making those associated with baptism—I don’t think there’s any eternal order that prevents Him from doing so.

I tend to look a bit skeptically at writers who take a particular scriptural episode and says “oh yeah, here’s where Nephi is getting his endowment; and here’s where John the Revelator gets his endowment; and here’s where the apostles get their initiatories; and here’s where Nephi son of Helaman gets his second anointing”.  The Gospel is saturated with a number of core principles that rear their heads again and again—redemption and purification, mutual aid among the believers, obedience, sacrifice, holy living, chastity, consecration, priestly kingship/queenship over posterity, victory over/reversal of Adam’s fall, return to the presence of God, etc; and one could certainly find ways to relate each of those concepts to any and all of the priesthood ordinances we do in the Church today.  But that doesn’t mean that a scriptural account of a vision or dream or coronation or anointing should be interpreted as being “basically the same thing” as any of our modern temple ordinances.

I think you're partially right. But I think there's also, perhaps, more significance to some of the things (physically, etc.) than we might think. To understand these things (which I don't...but have had some insights), takes a lot of time and inspiration and etc., etc.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 9/14/2024 at 7:03 AM, Carborendum said:

I realize that our current "saving ordinances" are set in a specific order.  That leads us to believe all ordiannces MUST ALWAYS come in that particular order.  I'm wondering if that really is a requirement.

• It seems reasonable that the Laying on of Hands comes after baptism.
• It seems reasonable that the sealing to a spouse must require that they both be endowed prior to such sealing.
• Initiatories must come before endowments.

But specifically... are the ordinances of baptism and confirmation required before the initiatories?  Standard practice says yes.  But I'm wondering if that is just the procedure "under normal circumstances, where exceptions are made for extreme circumstances" or if it is set in stone.

Compare this with the Savior touching the stones from the Brother of Jared. 
Compare it with the Savior touching the eyes of the blind men.

While those others are not among those which we call saving ordinances, they were at least some sort of ordinance (i.e. a physical act by the power of God which has a physical and spiritual effect on us).

Is it far-fetched to believe that the Walker quote above "hints" that Joseph received the initiatories?  Perhaps a "proto-ordinance"?  I don't even know what that means.  Maybe I'm reaching for straws.  But I can't help but realize that there are so many allusions to other things I've read.

I was once led to believe that the finger of the Lord with the Brother of Jared as an endowment ceremony.  In fact, it was his calling and election made sure.  It was the ceremony to accompany his Sure Word of Prophecy.  At least that was what someone was selling.  He was a fairly knowledgeable person.  But he got  his share of things wrong as well.  So, I'm not sure about him as a source.  But it did pique my attention for a while -- enough to remember 35 years later.

What I do tend to believe is that there appears to be a link between all these things I mentioned above.  And it makes me wonder if Joseph received an endowment ceremony or at least the intiatories during the First Vision.

FWIW, I think they are set in stone, and must be done in the correct order always. There's lots of reasons for that, many taught in the temple, per my best understanding.

[mikbone]

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, I think they are set in stone, and must be done in the correct order always. There's lots of reasons for that, many taught in the temple, per my best understanding.

Nah, circumstances change.

Adam was married to Eve in the Garden before he was even taught the gospel.  His baptism didn’t take place till Moses 6:64

Before the atonement there was burnt offerings then we changed to the sacrament.

Today’s temples are vastly different then the temple that Solomon built.

Edited September 19, 2024 by mikbone

[The Folk Prophet]

48 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Nah, circumstances change.

Adam was married to Eve in the Garden before he was even taught the gospel.  His baptism didn’t take place till Moses 6:64

Before the atonement there was burnt offerings then we changed to the sacrament.

Today’s temples are vastly different then the temple that Solomon built.

I think there may be some things you aren't aware of that I've been able to learn from some temple presidencies, etc., and various other sources. Mostly I cant talk about it because it directly deals with sacred temple things.

I have no doubt circumstances change. Obviously. I'm not saying nothing changes. But I think the order is pretty darned important. It's called the covenant path for a reason.

But I could be wrong. Like I said, "I think..." and "per my best understanding". Shrug.

Doesn't really matter.

I can say this much with absolute certainty. The order matters currently. Very much. If we find out someone did their endowment without having done initiatory the endowment is nulled and has to be redone. 

Edited September 19, 2024 by The Folk Prophet

[mikbone]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I can say this much with absolute certainty. The order matters currently. Very much. If we find out someone did their endowment without having done initiatory the endowment is nulled and has to be redone. 

Yup, and if the records are lost.  It all has to be done again.  This happed a few times in the early modern church.

And sometimes in the early church people were re-baptized if they needed healing.

Yes we are particular about the process now.

[Just_A_Guy]

18 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If we find out someone did their endowment without having done initiatory the endowment is nulled and has to be redone. 

This seems to contradict what @laronius says above.  Are you talking about proxy work, or living ordinances specifically? 

[The Folk Prophet]

45 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This seems to contradict what @laronius says above.  Are you talking about proxy work, or living ordinances specifically? 

I dunno. Maybe I'm wrong on the nulled and has to be redone side of things. But either way, I think, the comment from @laronius would imply that they are still applied as if in the correct order.

I think there's going to be an awful lot of cases in an awful lot of things where we, as mortals, messed something up but God will accept it as if we didn't mess it up.

But that's not really the question at hand I think, which is more whether the order of the ordinance path matters, and specifically whether baptism must come first. It's been shown that there are cases where baptism has come after other things. So that can happen.

This much is certain. I am no expert on the matter. Just a loud mouthed know-it-all who injects his view as if factual by habit.

[The Folk Prophet]

@Just_A_Guy  Hey, look what a little research will do:

"If ordinances for the deceased are completed out of sequence, they do not need to be performed again. They become effective when the prerequisite ordinances are completed."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/28?lang=eng

[Carborendum]

I think what I'm hearing (even if it wasn't directly in answer to my original question) is that there is a standard sequence of events.  And we do everything we can to abide by that sequence.  

But there will be times (like when a dispensation is just opening and authority hasn't been given to man yet) where exceptions by necessity are applied.  Interestingly, the formal phase would be, "They are given special dispensation."

So, back to the touching of Joseph's eyes.  This speaks to why the phrase in D&C 84:21-22 applying to Joseph Smith.

I've offered another explanation for how Joseph was able to see the Father in the face of these verses (i.e. referring to the endowment and seeing the face of God at judgment).  And I still consider it valid.  But it may be that there are multiple ways to read this passage.  And I'm wondering if there was some sort of ordinance performed by "touching his eyes that he might see" the face of God.

[JohnsonJones]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I think what I'm hearing (even if it wasn't directly in answer to my original question) is that there is a standard sequence of events.  And we do everything we can to abide by that sequence.  

But there will be times (like when a dispensation is just opening and authority hasn't been given to man yet) where exceptions by necessity are applied.  Interestingly, the formal phase would be, "They are given special dispensation."

So, back to the touching of Joseph's eyes.  This speaks to why the phrase in D&C 84:21-22 applying to Joseph Smith.

I've offered another explanation for how Joseph was able to see the Father in the face of these verses (i.e. referring to the endowment and seeing the face of God at judgment).  And I still consider it valid.  But it may be that there are multiple ways to read this passage.  And I'm wondering if there was some sort of ordinance performed by "touching his eyes that he might see" the face of God.

Frankly, I do not know.  He doesn't reference any particular ordinance (then again, it may be too holy to share as well).  We don't have references to ordinances for others who saw a glorified being either (such as Moses, or Paul).   I don't know, but maybe others have better knowledge in this.