Changing ordinances

[Non Sequitur]

Notwithstanding the fact that I think Mormon attitudes towards sex are changing for the better (sorry PAC and LAUte - your generation sucked in a major way at this, whatever greatness you individually may have), I think this is a huge thing to deal with.

I don't think attitudes towards sex are changing, but I do think Mormons are doing a better job of coming to grips with the humanness of their leaders. It's like the attitude towards David. Everyone knows he was a bit of a philanderer, but they still regard him as a prophet. But I'm sure there was a time when his indiscretions were covered up and not talked about, lest they shake the resolve of the faithful. As time passes, the indiscretions of the Church's founders will become just another footnote. Fannie Alger will become our Bethsheba.

[Pheidippides]

I don't think attitudes towards sex are changing, but I do think Mormons are doing a better job of coming to grips with the humanness of their leaders. It's like the attitude towards David. Everyone knows he was a bit of a philanderer, but they still regard him as a prophet. But I'm sure there was a time when his indiscretions were covered up and not talked about, lest they shake the resolve of the faithful. As time passes, the indiscretions of the Church's founders will become just another footnote. Fannie Alger will become our Bethsheba.

Could be, although I really see attitudes towards sex and indiscretions as the same thing in this case. It's hard to accept the indiscretions (or at least practices, to the extent one doesn't believe them to be indiscretions) of JS under the current mindset. Or at least that's been my personal experience - and YMMV.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I wonder how much of the polygamy issue has to do with the fact that we are, as a whole, one of the most prude sexless bunch of Pharisees to ever walk the earth. We have sexual purity drilled into our heads until we're blue in the face - giving rise to absolutely asinine myths/statements like it's better to die than give up your virtue (when speaking of rape - I have many, many problems with this line of thinking, which I have seen a lot), you can't remove garments to have sex, oral sex is absolutely a no-no, contraception is inappropriate, sexual sin is next to murder, how dare you do anything but double date, etc. And that polygamy is an automatic excommunication, just like...well, what else is automatic excommunication these days. And then you find out that, wait a second, Joseph Smith was sexually involved with multiple women. Some of whom may have . (Save me the "but we don't know if he had sex" line; Fanny Alger was kicked out of the Smith home after Emma found them in flagrante delicto in the hay loft). There's a lot of baggage to deal with, right there.

Notwithstanding the fact that I think Mormon attitudes towards sex are changing for the better (sorry PAC and LAUte - your generation sucked in a major way at this, whatever greatness you individually may have), I think this is a huge thing to deal with.

While I agree with the overall premise of your post, I think the things in bold aren't as common as you are implying. I have only met a few LDS people that think that way and most of them are gray-haired or in the grave now.

[Solon]

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.

Interesting post and thread, Eddie.

I don't have much to add on changing ordinances via apostasy vs. changing ordinances via revelation. I do think, though, that LDS have an unhealthy and unproductive belief in continuity and timelessness when it comes to liturgical rites.

For example, although there is no argument that immersion in running water was the preferred method of baptism in the early Christian church, there is evidence to suggest that, in a pinch, pouring or sprinkling onto the head was an acceptable alternative. Consider Acts 16.33, where the text suggests that Paul and Silas baptized their jailer and his household in very quick order, hardly enough time to find a large body of running water or to fill a convenient mikvah. Similarly, Saul's baptism (Acts 9.18) suggests it was done in a private residence, which would be unlikely to contain a facility for full immersion. Finally, the seventh chapter of the Didache - one of the earliest Christian texts - lays out a series of preferences, the last of which is to pour water over the head three times.

Apparently, the only real requirement for ancient baptism was that the substance be water. Pouring, sprinkling, dunking didn't matter so much as the substance that was being used. Eventually in the western (Latin) church, because of the extremely vital purpose of baptism, emergency circumstances even validated baptisms performed by laypersons. Thus, it was the washing that was considered most vital, not the performing authority. This is why Catholics recognize baptism by immersion or by pouring. It's the water that makes the ordinance, not the immersion or non-immersion.

Interestingly (and, ironically given the topic of this thread), Catholics today anoint the recipient of baptism (on the breast and the shoulder as symbols of receiving true faith and of shaking off neglecting righteous duties) just before baptizing. I see a lot of similarities between baptism and LDS washing-and-anointings. Both hearken back to the need for symbolic cleansing in the sight of God and the subsequent consecration of the person to do God's work and receive his blessings.

I'm no authority on the LDS rites, but maybe there's a similar misunderstanding of the LDS washing-and-anointing ritual: that the important components aren't necessarily the actions or even all the words, but the substances (water & oil) in use and the overall intent of those performing and receiving the ordinance(s).

All of this brings me back to my original point - LDS seem (IMO) to have a strong tendency to attribute a certain "timelessness" to rites and rituals, implying that certain liturgical rites were always practiced in precisely the same way that they are today in the Spanish Fork, UT 32nd Ward. This probably isn't the case. There really was no baptism in the Old Testament. Certainly, there were ritual cleansings that were important parts of the Mosaic Law, best exemplified perhaps by the mikvah baths that dot Israel's archaeology, but these were different in practice than the baptism of John, which in turn was different from the baptism as taught by Christ. And even the baptism of Christ was varied in its performance (but not necessarily its meaning or significance) from (perhaps) the earliest Christian times.

[LogMafia]

While I agree with the overall premise of your post, I think the things in bold aren't as common as you are implying. I have only met a few LDS people that think that way and most of them are gray-haired or in the grave now.

I disagree, this way of thinking is alive and well (at least in Utah County).

For some reason young women in the church are very susceptible to the idea that their virtue is one of their most prized possessions, which if lost their value is lost as well.

[Pheidippides]

While I agree with the overall premise of your post, I think the things in bold aren't as common as you are implying. I have only met a few LDS people that think that way and most of them are gray-haired or in the grave now.

I can't say if that's the case, but I will agree that I've heard it a lot less over the last decade than I did growing up. The point isn't so much that that is the place we are right now but rather that that is the place from which we have come.

[Pheidippides]

I'm not sure why mormons focus so much on JS. This is clearly BY's church.

That, sir, is a concept I didn't bring up because it deserves its own lengthy thread.

[CardiacCoug]

For some reason young women in the church are very susceptible to the idea that their virtue is one of their most prized possessions, which if lost their value is lost as well.

Probably a few too many "chewed piece of gum" demonstrations in Seminary.

I remember a Seminary teacher showing a piece of gum and taking the wrapper off and chewing it and then asking if anybody wanted it.

When nobody wanted the piece of gum, he said it was an example of how nobody would want to marry someone who had lost their virtue.

[Pheidippides]

Probably a few too many "chewed piece of gum" demonstrations in Seminary.

I remember a Seminary teacher showing a piece of gum and taking the wrapper off and chewing it and then asking if anybody wanted it.

When nobody wanted the piece of gum, he said it was an example of how nobody would want to marry someone who had lost their virtue.

:rant:

Ignoring, for a minute, that the term "virtue" in such contexts has much more of a female application than male, what do you think the percentage of Mormons who engage in premarital sex is? I'm guessing at least 40%.

[Non Sequitur]

:rant:

Ignoring, for a minute, that the term "virtue" in such contexts has much more of a female application than male, what do you think the percentage of Mormons who engage in premarital sex is? I'm guessing at least 40%.

According to my research, the percentage for middle-aged Mormons is closer to 100%.

[ERCougar]

According to my research, the percentage for middle-aged Mormons is closer to 100%.

They might as well be murdering each other. Menace to society indeed.

[Shaka]

:rant:

Ignoring, for a minute, that the term "virtue" in such contexts has much more of a female application than male, what do you think the percentage of Mormons who engage in premarital sex is? I'm guessing at least 40%.

If you're talking single/divorced LDS folk between thirty and fifty the percentage is much higher.

[UtahDan]

Interesting post and thread, Eddie.

I don't have much to add on changing ordinances via apostasy vs. changing ordinances via revelation. I do think, though, that LDS have an unhealthy and unproductive belief in continuity and timelessness when it comes to liturgical rites.

Very interesting Solon. There certainly is a paradox within LDS theology which on the one hand is a restoration of "all things" and on the other hand accepts that those things can be changed by revelation as things move along. Are there any ordinances in the church that are practiced today as they were in Kirkland or Nauvoo? There may be, but certainly many things are quite different.

[Pheidippides]

According to my research, the percentage for middle-aged Mormons is closer to 100%.

If you're talking single/divorced LDS folk between thirty and fifty the percentage is much higher.

I don't doubt this at all.

[LA Ute]

Interesting post and thread, Eddie.

I don't have much to add on changing ordinances via apostasy vs. changing ordinances via revelation. I do think, though, that LDS have an unhealthy and unproductive belief in continuity and timelessness when it comes to liturgical rites.

For example, although there is no argument that immersion in running water was the preferred method of baptism in the early Christian church, there is evidence to suggest that, in a pinch, pouring or sprinkling onto the head was an acceptable alternative. Consider Acts 16.33, where the text suggests that Paul and Silas baptized their jailer and his household in very quick order, hardly enough time to find a large body of running water or to fill a convenient mikvah. Similarly, Saul's baptism (Acts 9.18) suggests it was done in a private residence, which would be unlikely to contain a facility for full immersion. Finally, the seventh chapter of the Didache - one of the earliest Christian texts - lays out a series of preferences, the last of which is to pour water over the head three times.

Apparently, the only real requirement for ancient baptism was that the substance be water. Pouring, sprinkling, dunking didn't matter so much as the substance that was being used. Eventually in the western (Latin) church, because of the extremely vital purpose of baptism, emergency circumstances even validated baptisms performed by laypersons. Thus, it was the washing that was considered most vital, not the performing authority. This is why Catholics recognize baptism by immersion or by pouring. It's the water that makes the ordinance, not the immersion or non-immersion.

Interestingly (and, ironically given the topic of this thread), Catholics today anoint the recipient of baptism (on the breast and the shoulder as symbols of receiving true faith and of shaking off neglecting righteous duties) just before baptizing. I see a lot of similarities between baptism and LDS washing-and-anointings. Both hearken back to the need for symbolic cleansing in the sight of God and the subsequent consecration of the person to do God's work and receive his blessings.

I'm no authority on the LDS rites, but maybe there's a similar misunderstanding of the LDS washing-and-anointing ritual: that the important components aren't necessarily the actions or even all the words, but the substances (water & oil) in use and the overall intent of those performing and receiving the ordinance(s).

All of this brings me back to my original point - LDS seem (IMO) to have a strong tendency to attribute a certain "timelessness" to rites and rituals, implying that certain liturgical rites were always practiced in precisely the same way that they are today in the Spanish Fork, UT 32nd Ward. This probably isn't the case. There really was no baptism in the Old Testament. Certainly, there were ritual cleansings that were important parts of the Mosaic Law, best exemplified perhaps by the mikvah baths that dot Israel's archaeology, but these were different in practice than the baptism of John, which in turn was different from the baptism as taught by Christ. And even the baptism of Christ was varied in its performance (but not necessarily its meaning or significance) from (perhaps) the earliest Christian times.

Great post, Solon. As usual I learned a lot. I wish you could post more often. The bad news is, you got me thinking and I have time to babble here!

What I am about to post is simply my own reflection based on my simple (but I hope not simplistic) approach to baptism, ordinances, and changes. We do have a timeless attitude about some principles and ordinances, and if we've learned anything from common experience and from the BofM stories, it's that tradition is powerful and can result in the "tail wagging the dog."

That said, I don't think we have that problem with baptism. From 3 Nephi 11:

22 And again the Lord called others, and said unto them likewise; and he gave unto them power to baptize. And he said unto them: On this wise shall ye baptize; and there shall be no disputations among you.

23 Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words, and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them—Behold, ye shall go down and stand in the water, and in my name shall ye baptize them.

24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:

25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

I get at least two insights from this (there are surely many other insights to be had). First, given this direction that on its face comes directly from Jesus Christ himself and appears in the book that is the "cornerstone of our religion," and which we claim to be "the most correct," etc., how on earth could we baptize any other way than by immersion?

Second, I notice that the baptismal prayer Jesus commanded is not exactly the same as the one we use now. And yet some other scripturally-mandated prayers are set in stone: If a word is slipped in the sacrament prayers we have to embarrass the officiator and make him do it over. We do the same thing when the (modified) baptismal prayer is misstated.

What to make of that, other than to conclude that some things can be modified and for whatever reason, others are not? I don't know what to say other than that what works for me is to accept the notion that we're led by men who, apart from being inspired, are authorized to make modifications.

Waxing somehwat more prolix, I'll add what I consider to be "the basics." As a full-time missionary I learned from my "white bible" what our message to the world is:

1. The divine sonship of Jesus Christ.

2. The divinity of Joseph Smith's mission.

3. The divinity of the Church today.

I think those elements are still accurate and valid today. To have a real "testimony" of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you need all three of those. And to me there is leeway, except for #1. Regarding #2, Joseph did not need to be perfect or lead a mistake-free life in order to have a divine mission and to have been the means by which divine knowledge and authority were restored and the last dispensation begun. Regarding #3, the Church today need not be perfectly managed and directed in order to be divine. There is room for disagreement and varied opinion and for anyone who wants to serve and seek discipleship.

Like I said, simple but not simplistic. It makes sense to me, anyway.

(BTW, Solon, buddy, I am not directing this all toward you or at anyone - you are just the one who got me going.)