Changing ordinances

[Moliere]

As a youth I remember hearing the story of how the baptismal ordinance was changed by the ancient church from one of immersion to sprinkling. I have no idea the validity of this story but suffice it to say that the point was that the ordinance was changed due to the inability of some government official not being able to get into the water to be immersed. He instead elected to have the water brought to him and sprinkled on him. Many liked this idea as it was less invasive and thus the baptismal ordinance was changed. I'm sure this story has been told many times in Sunday School and I'm sure it varies greatly from what I recounted.

Fast forward to a couple years ago (I can't remember exactly when but it was something like 5 or 6 years ago) when the initiatory ordinance was changed. I remember how happy many people were with the changes, mostly because it was less invasive and easier to perform. I've also noted that the initiatories that were performed back in the early days fo the church were much more invasive than what I experienced on my first trip through the temple.

So what is the difference between the changing of the baptismal ordinance as noted in the first (mostly fictional story) and the changing of the initiatory ordinance? I honestly see the two as pretty much the same thing. I don't struggle with too much in the church, but this has bugged ever since the initiatory was changed.

[Portland Ute]

As a youth I remember hearing the story of how the baptismal ordinance was changed by the ancient church from one of immersion to sprinkling. I have no idea the validity of this story but suffice it to say that the point was that the ordinance was changed due to the inability of some government official not being able to get into the water to be immersed. He instead elected to have the water brought to him and sprinkled on him. Many liked this idea as it was less invasive and thus the baptismal ordinance was changed. I'm sure this story has been told many times in Sunday School and I'm sure it varies greatly from what I recounted.

Fast forward to a couple years ago (I can't remember exactly when but it was something like 5 or 6 years ago) when the initiatory ordinance was changed. I remember how happy many people were with the changes, mostly because it was less invasive and easier to perform. I've also noted that the initiatories that were performed back in the early days fo the church were much more invasive than what I experienced on my first trip through the temple.

So what is the difference between the changing of the baptismal ordinance as noted in the first (mostly fictional story) and the changing of the initiatory ordinance? I honestly see the two as pretty much the same thing. I don't struggle with too much in the church, but this has bugged ever since the initiatory was changed.

I know it's bothered other people for similar reasons.

[byu71]

I know it's bothered other people for similar reasons.

It only bothers me when other members tell me that something I happen to "disagree" with in the church, will never change and I had better get my head straight.

[ERCougar]

It's a good point, but I find it a little funny that of all the changes the Church has undergone, this is the one that bothers you the most. Polygamy? Blacks and the Priesthood? Radical changes to the endowment ceremony? How about even switching from water to wine in the sacrament? Why is the change to the initiatory any more troubling than these?
I also think that it's strange that there are still people trying to knock on Catholics for changing ordinances. Let's see where we are in 2000 years--then we can start bragging about having the pure and undefiled gospel.

[Moliere]

It's a good point, but I find it a little funny that of all the changes the Church has undergone, this is the one that bothers you the most. Polygamy? Blacks and the Priesthood? Radical changes to the endowment ceremony? How about even switching from water to wine in the sacrament? Why is the change to the initiatory any more troubling than these?
I also think that it's strange that there are still people trying to knock on Catholics for changing ordinances. Let's see where we are in 2000 years--then we can start bragging about having the pure and undefiled gospel.

Fair question and I'd respond by saying this is the one change that I lived through. I went through the temple after the significant changes to the endowment and before the significant changes to the initiatory. It's easier to rationalize changes that happened 100 years ago.....ironic as that sounds.

[creekster]

I think it is a matter of authority and revelation. If you think the church has both, it doesn't matter if there is a change. If you think the church has neither, then the ordinances don't matter no matter how they are performed.

[Moliere]

I think it is a matter of authority and revelation. If you think the church has both, it doesn't matter if there is a change. If you think the church has neither, then the ordinances don't matter no matter how they are performed.

You pulled out the Deus Ex Machina a bit early in this thread.

There is a bunch of symbolism intertwined with a baptism by immersion. There is a reason that ordinance isn't changed. If you no longer get baptized by immersion you lose the symbolism and frankly the very act of the ordinance.

I draw a parallel with initiatories. There was symbolism wrapped up in the washings and annointings. That symbolism may be there still but it is only spoken and not performed. To me this is akin to us "symbolically" baptizing children by sprinkling them with water or dropping a bit of water on their forehead after saying the baptismal prayer. In any case, the whole symbolic nature of the ordinance was changed.

It seems that the changes to both the baptismal ordinance in the Catholic church and the initiatory ordinance were driven more by the lack of public acceptance than it was by revelation.....which then lends some validity to the changes in doctrine related to blacks and the PH and polygamy.

[creekster]

You pulled out the Deus Ex Machina a bit early in this thread.

There is a bunch of symbolism intertwined with a baptism by immersion. There is a reason that ordinance isn't changed. If you no longer get baptized by immersion you lose the symbolism and frankly the very act of the ordinance.

I draw a parallel with initiatories. There was symbolism wrapped up in the washings and annointings. That symbolism may be there still but it is only spoken and not performed. To me this is akin to us "symbolically" baptizing children by sprinkling them with water or dropping a bit of water on their forehead after saying the baptismal prayer. In any case, the whole symbolic nature of the ordinance was changed.

It seems that the changes to both the baptismal ordinance in the Catholic church and the initiatory ordinance were driven more by the lack of public acceptance than it was by revelation.....which then lends some validity to the changes in doctrine related to blacks and the PH and polygamy.

You suggest that the symbolism of baptism, for example, is what makes up the purpose or essence of the ordinance. Really? Where does that come from? We only know that the symbolism is important for the ordinance because we are told so by our leaders through revelation and scriptural analysis. Catholics, for example, would disagree with your description of losing baptism as an ordinance by losing immersion.

IOW, becasue you are losing symbolism that you personally find important you feel you have lost the ordiannce. I cant dispute your personal feelings, but if you are asking what is the difference between what the catholics did and what the Mormons did the only meaningful distinction is that those who did it for the LDS had authority and inspiration, whereas those who did it for the catholics did not.

[All-American]

You pulled out the Deus Ex Machina a bit early in this thread.

There is a bunch of symbolism intertwined with a baptism by immersion. There is a reason that ordinance isn't changed. If you no longer get baptized by immersion you lose the symbolism and frankly the very act of the ordinance.

I draw a parallel with initiatories. There was symbolism wrapped up in the washings and annointings. That symbolism may be there still but it is only spoken and not performed. To me this is akin to us "symbolically" baptizing children by sprinkling them with water or dropping a bit of water on their forehead after saying the baptismal prayer. In any case, the whole symbolic nature of the ordinance was changed.

It seems that the changes to both the baptismal ordinance in the Catholic church and the initiatory ordinance were driven more by the lack of public acceptance than it was by revelation.....which then lends some validity to the changes in doctrine related to blacks and the PH and polygamy.

Hard to pull it out too early when it is the correct answer. The changes to the baptismal ordinance were unauthorized. The changes to the initiatory ordinances were done through authorized channels by those authorized to speak on God's behalf.

I should note, too, that there have been so many different kinds of ordinances involving washing that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if one of them were a de facto stand in for baptism. The golden lever of solomon's temple invites a direct comparison to baptism, given our use of the twelve oxen in our temple baptisms, but it was unlikely that the ordinances for which it was used involved full immersion. That these ordinances are also analogous to the washing ordinances in the temple seems less to distinguish baptism and initiatories and more to analogize them, such that the initiatory ordinance ought to call to mind the event of one's baptism.

[Moliere]

You suggest that the symbolism of baptism, for example, is what makes up the purpose or essence of the ordinance. Really? Where does that come from? We only know that the symbolism is important for the ordinance because we are told so by our leaders through revelation and scriptural analysis. Catholics, for example, would disagree with your description of losing baptism as an ordinance by losing immersion.

IOW, becasue you are losing symbolism that you personally find important you feel you have lost the ordiannce. I cant dispute your personal feelings, but if you are asking what is the difference between what the catholics did and what the Mormons did the only meaningful distinction is that those who did it for the LDS had authority and inspiration, whereas those who did it for the catholics did not.

I guess my knowledge on the subject comes from the correlated lessons that tell me that God is an unchangeable God and that baptism other than by immersion is improper because that is the way it has been performed for millenia.

Honestly I view the actual immersing the person in the water as part of that ordinance. Are you saying it is not? Could a person just say the baptismal prayer and then just say that the candidate for baptism is symbolically immersed in the water and then drop some water on their head? Similarly I view the washing part of the initiatory as part of the ordinance. Maybe my view is just incorrect.

I should note, too, that there have been so many different kinds of ordinances involving washing that it wouldn't surprise me in the least if one of them were a de facto stand in for baptism. The golden lever of solomon's temple invites a direct comparison to baptism, given our use of the twelve oxen in our temple baptisms, but it was unlikely that the ordinances for which it was used involved full immersion. That these ordinances are also analogous to the washing ordinances in the temple seems less to distinguish baptism and initiatories and more to analogize them, such that the initiatory ordinance ought to call to mind the event of one's baptism.

Not only this but the washing ordinance is so different now than it was back in the times of the Nauvoo temple. It just bugs me when I hear many people in SS and PH mention how unchanging God is with one breath and then these same people mention how great it is to have the changes to the initiatory ordinance.

[TripletDaddy]

Eddie Jones, you are suffering symptoms of Infallibility withdrawals brought on by long term exposure to the Innoculation virus.

Do yourself a favor and stop believing that God doesn't change and that the Church doesn't change. Also, do yourself an even bigger favor and base very little of your testimony on doctrinal interpretations made by local Church leaders. Sometimes they are right, but sometimes they are wrong, so it is best to come to your own conclusions.

This simple paradigm shift would totally eliminate the need for this thread and make all these disconnects bearable.

[All-American]

I guess my knowledge on the subject comes from the correlated lessons that tell me that God is an unchangeable God and that baptism other than by immersion is improper because that is the way it has been performed for millenia.

Honestly I view the actual immersing the person in the water as part of that ordinance. Are you saying it is not? Could a person just say the baptismal prayer and then just say that the candidate for baptism is symbolically immersed in the water and then drop some water on their head? Similarly I view the washing part of the initiatory as part of the ordinance. Maybe my view is just incorrect.



Not only this but the washing ordinance is so different now than it was back in the times of the Nauvoo temple. It just bugs me when I hear many people in SS and PH mention how unchanging God is with one breath and then these same people mention how great it is to have the changes to the initiatory ordinance.

An elder's quorum lesson last week celebrated the unchanging nature of the sacrament. I had to hold my tongue, especially when one brother gave the observation that being "filled" by the sacrament obviously had to mean "filled with the spirit". There is good reason to believe that in early christianity, the sacrament was in fact a communal meal, and people probably did get filled. In fact, Paul felt the need to rebuke those who saw in the sacrament only the food.

If President Monson were to announce tomorrow that for the sake of convenience, baptisms were to be done by sprinkling, it would be no different than the changes to the initiatories. Members ought not get hung up on the forms of symbology; what matters is that we are doing what we have been commanded to do.

[Moliere]

Eddie Jones, you are suffering symptoms of Infallibility withdrawals brought on by long term exposure to the Innoculation virus.

Do yourself a favor and stop believing that God doesn't change and that the Church doesn't change. Also, do yourself an even bigger favor and base very little of your testimony on doctrinal interpretations made by local Church leaders. Sometimes they are right, but sometimes they are wrong, so it is best to come to your own conclusions.

This simple paradigm shift would totally eliminate the need for this thread and make all these disconnects bearable.

An elder's quorum lesson last week celebrated the unchanging nature of the sacrament. I had to hold my tongue, especially when one brother gave the observation that being "filled" by the sacrament obviously had to mean "filled with the spirit". There is good reason to believe that in early christianity, the sacrament was in fact a communal meal, and people probably did get filled. In fact, Paul felt the need to rebuke those who saw in the sacrament only the food.

If President Monson were to announce tomorrow that for the sake of convenience, baptisms were to be done by sprinkling, it would be no different than the changes to the initiatories. Members ought not get hung up on the forms of symbology; what matters is that we are doing what we have been commanded to do.

Seeing these two posts together made me smile. I'm not concerned with ordinances that change as much as I'm in the same boat as All American where I struggle with the majority of members saying one thing and really believing another. I can handle the performance of ordinances being changed, but when an unchanging God is discussed openly in SS and no one mentions how many changes we have been trhough in only 190 years it saddens me. The discussion would be so much richer if we could discuss the changes instead of inventing rationalizations for why the new method is no different than the old method.

[Green Monstah]

The day that I applied the same level of scrutiny to our church as I did the Catholic Church was a watershed moment for my testimony. In a way, it hurt to realize that maybe we weren't as perfect or near-perfect as I had originally thought. In another sense, it gave me a lot of hope, since it brought everyone (prophets, GAs, etc.) down to the same level as me--trying to figure out God's will and acting accordingly...deciphering what matters and what doesn't.

[clackamascoug]

At my house we're old school.

When we were told that our Home is "like the temple" we took that literally. We've cordoned off a couple of rooms, and do our ordinance work for the dead, right there in the large master bathroom. As far as the initiatories, we still do it the old way, as it works for us.