LDS: If Joseph Smith taught that Gospel ordinances are unchanging?

"We all admit that the Gospel has ordinances, and if so, had it not always ordinances, and were not its ordinances always the same?" (TPJS, p. 59)

Why have the temple ordinances changed, especially the major revisions made in 1990? This isn't meant to be a gotcha, but I'm very curious as to how the church explains this.

Thanks!
Except for the dire warnings, good answers.
@flairs- "Changing ordinances would be like changing baptism back to blood offerings according to the law of Moses. Christ himself established or set specific ordinances for us to follow, like baptism." What if the church decided that baptism by immersion were too much trouble and went to sprinkling. Would that classify as a changed ordinance?
@flairs- I'm an idiot for not completely understanding your reply and asking for clarification via PM? Nice, thank you.
@Joshsy- But isn't that exactly what happened during the apostasy? Ordinances were changed or 'improved' or streamlined? I'm sure they called it simply changes in the ceremony, but weren't the ceremonies given by revelation, as in Oceanwoman's quotes from the Ensign and others?

Joseph smith was a pretty cool dude

they probably wont but he wasn't a prophet...

Because the whole church is a system of control trying to get you sheep to pay them money and do as they command. Get out of the cult.

This points out the inconsistencies in the LDS faith.

It is a Cult and they teach a false gospel and a false Christ!!

I know the changes you refer to - but I don't see the basic ordinances themselves as changing - I think the removal of some unnecessary portions that have no bearing on the actual covenants were altered - and altered for the positive I must say. SO I don't know that the church felt the need to EXPLAIN anything. Outsiders of course use such instances to CRY WOLF - but most of the LDS Members were pleased with the change(s) as it made temple worship & attendance much more pleasant and so forth.

Bottom line - nothing of eternal significance changed.

Wow, that is very insightful. How were you aware that they have changed, are you LDS? In any case, it doesn't matter, here is my answer.

The ordinance itself didn't change but there were slight revisions in the wording. This is not new. We can look to the Bible for examples. Christ originally created the sacrament with Wine (grape juice in terms of today). Now it is understood in the Christian community that it is okay to use water in place of wine and the sacramental prayers have changed the wording to accommodate this. (I do understand that not everyone has made this change - but many have and nobody condemns them for it). There are other examples in the bible if you look for them.

In other words, the promises are the same, and the action or symbol is the same. The ordinance of the sacrament hasn't changed, just some of the words - it still means the same thing.

It is the same in this case. In the temple, the ordinances mean the same thing that they did all through out time even if the words have been changed (under authority).

I hope that answers your question. If you have further questions then please visit Mormon.org. You can chat on line with an authorized missionary by clicking this link:
http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/ask-a-question/chat-live

Good luck and have a great day!

Your reading it in the wrong context. Changing ordinances would be like changing baptism back to blood offerings according to the law of Moses. Christ himself established or set specific ordinances for us to follow, like baptism. He mentioned the same thing that Joseph Smith said. Those ordinances aren't going to change.

What major revisions are you talking about? There haven't been any.
We use any kind of bread now we want and can use any kind of drink we want. we use water.

Baptism has been outlined by the Lord in such a way that there is not room for "modification", for doing such would destroy its meaningful symbol isms with which it is associated. The endowment ceremony, however, was outlined in a way in which one could receive the endowment even if the ceremony is "modified" for the recipient's sake, such as through the advancement of technology, etc. In other words, there is room left in the endowment 'ceremony' to where changes can be made without changing the endowment in and of itself. If any symbolism had been destroyed amidst the changes, then I could see your point. However, the symbolism (and the actual endowment) is still the same.

What is sad is the Church doesn't answer these questions and if one were to ask, their membership would be called into question. What I find interesting,is that the changes that the Church made to the temple ceremony was done without any kind of revelation being reported. If, the temple ceremony was ordained by God,then wouldn't it only make sense that God would reveal to the President of the Church that He, God wanted these changes made? Where does the church authorities get off making any kind of change to something so important to their faith? Even back in 1978 when the revelation came out to allow blacks to hold the priesthood, a new revelation was announced but no word to any members concerning the temple ceremony. I do think that these changes were made because to many young women were being upset and shocked at the signs and penalties. The church needed to do something to tone down the ceremony or many young couples might not be married for time and all eternity. You should ask my wife how she feels about the temple ceremony since we were married in one. She never went back, I can tell you that. What a horrible thing to put a young woman through and this is supposed to be her wedding? No wonder she's never forgotten that day.

I think you first need to know what constitutes an "ordinance". Is it a set of unchanging words (even though the English language constantly changes and words that mean one thing in 1960s mean something else in the year 2000?)
or...
is it a promise between God and man?

God doesn't change. People and the world change.
Instead of looking at this as trying to disprove the faith, try looking at it from the other direction.

In order for it to be an unchanging ordinance, the promise/meaning stays the same, not necessarily the exact wording. I am tired of people trying to tell God what He can and can't do. "You can't change that word or else you can't make the same promises with mankind". No way. God makes the rules.

To me this is even more proof that Christ is the head of the church. If it was a false church, wouldn't they keep everything frozen and the same for fear of appearing fake? However, on the other hand, God doesn't care what people think, he expects us to have faith. And he will make adjustments to anything and everything He finds necessary to help us along our way to being saved. He is "with the times", not absent.

Though I'm glad to see you on another subject I must confess it's not one I know much about as I've never done any in depth study of Mormonism.

I do know that though they speak of grace and faith it's more of a works based religion. No drinking, smoking, etc (kinda like old time baptist, no offense meant) will get you into heaven. Christ's death and resurrection only being good for one time, then you're on your own.

I find it kinda strange using water for communion. Back in the times of Jesus wine was safer to drink than the water. If drinking is wrong I'd like to know why the first miracle of the Lord was changing water to wine. Wouldn't that be like saying smoking was wrong but changing weeds into tobacco? That would be hypocritical. God made everything and said it was good. It's not the use but the abuse that makes it a sin.

Christ didn't come to change the law. He came to fulfill it. I don't know what revisions they made but if they were major they're walking an awfully fine line between a new understanding & playing God. I not only wouldn't want to go there & become a member, if I was already there I think I'd leave unless I saw the wisdom as well through scripture, which is the final word on truth.

Jehovah Witnesses have played with the "truth" like this for almost 100 yrs. That's also why I'm not a Jehovah Witness.

Omitted temple ceremonies include symbolically slitting ones throat and bowels if temple secrets are revealed (gone in 1990), women being told that their husbands are their "lords" , and being totally naked under a thin white sheet for washing and anointing (gone in 2005), among others that involved the invasion of personal space. This is due to the church (cult) needing to do away with controversial rituals and doctrines in order to survive as an organization. It's called the principle of "social proof", or measuring what is acceptable by what society as a whole deems appropriate. Polygamy, denial of blacks receiving the priesthood, blood atonement (as taught by Brigham Young, killing people for their sins in order to save them), missionary teaching styles of using a script, among other things have also been omitted. The church doesn't desire to explain itself because usually members accept the concept of living revelation and are accustomed to their leaders simply changing things under the guise of God's will.



I'm surprised I don't see more of the Mormon regulars answering this question. I am personally horrified at the history of LDS omitted practices.

Mormons are the target here so I'll play along cause I love to pick on the religion that fooled me in my growing up years. Too bad my parents were in on it too. There is a problem with these Internet Mormons. They have apologist sites which they rely on to explain the inconsistencies with the church. The Internet Mormons know more than the regular church going Mormons but they also use the apologist answers to explain away the inconsistencies. The ordinances which were changed in the LDS church do what every religion does as we progress as a culture. Since they are man made and purely based on making a person believe something, it can be changed as society evolves to fit the circumstances. For instance, and this is purely hypothetical; if science found that circumcisions were more damaging than helpful to boys it would slowly but surely be phased out of the culture. Then religion would adapt to say it isn't necessary in some way. I don't know what they would say but the would start saying something.
Again, since the Mormon church, and all religion for that matter is a man made belief it could be changed.
The notion that god is all powerful, and all knowing would also mean god doesn't change, god already know how things should be, how things should be handled and how god should act. For god to change his mind would mean god isn't all knowing, all powerful. That's where men mess up. They say they are a prophet for an all knowing, all powerful, unchanging god.

Well if god was all knowing, all powerful, and unchanging given that god knows society will change, the ordinances can be changed. But they must be changed long before people start having problems with them. I mean, god knows people will have problems with it. Why does god wait until he upsets people with his ordinances before he tells his prophets to change them?

Then again who needs prophets? God needs prophets??? really, an all powerful, a knowing being needs men to speak for him? Or do men need prophets? Men need to claim they speak for god. Cause god can't speak for himself??? I wonder why? God doesn't tell us anything about rituals, ordinances or what we should believe... Men do.

People need to stop believing what men tell them to believe. Wipe away everything you believe and why you believe it, and start from scratch. Find your own faith and don't believe what one other person or book tells you to believe. Our all powerful and all knowing God will tell you what you should believe, either that or you'll come to a completely different conclusion.

I have my own beliefs about what this life is about and what happens after death. But I don't expect any of you to believe what I do. Beside it was my own personal experiences that led me to believe what I believe. No way would I let someone else influence my beliefs. Diagnose all your own personal experiences of the unexplainable or supernatural. Did you make your conclusions bases solely on the experience. Or did you make your conclusions based on your religion and the experience. If you used your religion in your experience, your religion is robbing you of the experience.

Since when does the LDS church practice the first Mormon church that Smith taught?
BUT taught that Quote:
From August 2001 Ensign (page 22), in big bold print above a large colorful portrait of Joseph Smith:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, "Ordinances 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."

Smith just did not cover his steps enough. As in the Nephi/Moroni issue.

With Brigham Young you have the Adam is God doctrine that was taught for over 30 years! (Young stated HIMSELF that God came to him and told him that HE (the Lord) was in fact Adam.
(was Young or God Lying?)
=false prophet.

AND
Young and others taught that plural marriage a requirement for Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, also the racist teaching on why men are born Black. (Curse of Cain)
See.. http://www.angelfire.com/planet/lds/CAIN.html

The LDS leadership makes the rules up as the go along. The have from the days of Smith, MANY made changes and twisting the religion as it went along.
QUOTE:
"We explained briefly the Apostasy and the Restoration: that there is vast evidence and history of an apostasy from the doctrine taught by Jesus and his Apostles, that the organization of the original Church became corrupted, and sacred ordinances were changed to suit the convenience of men..."
- Apostle David B. Haight, ?Joseph Smith the Prophet,? Ensign, Nov. 1979, 22

AND This quote about the temple is protected from tampering.
Quote:
"As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency. Thus, the temple is protected from tampering."
- W. Grant Bangerter, executive director of the Temple Department and a member of the First Quorum of Seventy, Deseret News, Church Section, January 16, 1982
AND
"No jot, iota, or tittle of the temple rites is otherwise than uplifting and sanctifying. In every detail the endowment ceremony contributes to covenants of morality of life, consecration of person to high ideals, devotion to truth, patriotism to nation, and allegiance to God."
- Apostle James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord, 1968, p. 84

MANY changes have been made within Mormonism. Hinckley wanted to seem normal and mainstream. He wanted to address the public, perhaps a little too much. He stated a few fibs.
Hinckley when asked about the reason why blacks were banned from the Priesthood and Temples for 130 years...(curse of cain doctrine and why people are black)
Hinckley said,
"I don't know what the reason for that was." (thats a lie)

Mormon Church leaders are highly embarrassed about the Curse of Cain legacy. They wish to avoid further embarrassment by publicly repudiating it. So, their choice has been to simply "deny it ever occurred". If they suspect a journalist "knows too much" (knows it did occur) they will say, "We'll get back to you on that" and never ever "get back."
That was a MAJOR change, but racism is still all over the Book of mormon.


USUALLY the reason is that the times are a changing and this is what the LDS church needs to do now. When in actuality people were uncomfortable with the death oaths in the LDS temple endowment prior to 1990.

*At that time An Anonymous SURVEY was taken and changes were made. Appearances are everything in the Mormon church.

Poof it was changed.
There was still bare nakedness (with a poncho on) and the temple worker reaching inside and blessing certain body parts was actually causing the attendance to be down in LDS temples.
Poof that was taken out.
*NOW the person wears a one piece garment (still no bra and underwear) and the worker only touches your head. (that's better)

*If the average only knew they extent of the other "changes" far back within the endowment.
AS IN (washing feet, men undressing and literally washing in a bathtub, THE oath of vengeance, The length used to be all day, five points of fellowship at the veil, priest accepting money from satan in the movie or live act, etc)
They might be a little put back?
**Thanks for reading

What you're quoting isn't LDS doctrine FYI.

The ordinances haven't been changed - changes to the ceremony isn't a change in an ordinance.

About your question to fall ism, changing a ceremony like baptism to sprinkling from immersion it would be a change in ceremony not a change in ordinance.