“Are we inconsistent when we insist that baptism be done by immersion, because Christ was, but substitute water for wine in the sacrament, though Christ did not? Because the ancient and early church didn’t require potential converts to attend church meetings before being baptized, but we do, do we have standing to point out ways other churches have strayed from the ways of the ancient church? In what ways do differences like these effect the force of our claim to be the same church of Jesus Christ, restored?”
The Millennial Star
Not at all. Our claims to be a restoration of the ancient church rest upon our claims to a restoration of the priesthood, not fidelity to some ritual standard.
I’m also not sure that our reason for insisting on baptism by immersion is that it emulates Christ’s baptism. Rather, it is because God commanded us to baptize in that manner.
However, I think that there are other grounds for raising the question you do; specifically, the hierarchical structure of the Church, particularly our understanding of the office of Seventy. Given that “we believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive church”, discrepancies between our organizational structure and the ancient church do seem to undermine this claim. But I think John C. is right that the primary content of the restoration claim is the restoration of divine authority, with the structure and ritual being secondary.
Elder Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, October 1916, p. 55. Quoted by Loren C. Dunn, in General conference, Ensign May 1976, p.65-66
Nice quote Ben!
I also agree with John and Christopher. We get ourselves in a mess by thinking we do the things we do because that’s what’s said in the bible, or in the book of Mormon, or even the common view of the way it was in Christ’s day. This is the same problem that pops up when people try and reason that the word of wisdom was given because of caffeine or tanic acid; it just isn’t the real reason. The real reason is always because of revelation to the leaders of the church.
I agree with John C. and all the other commenters.
However, I think there is a lesson for us in this: I have often encountered mormons who seem arrogant in dismissing the “apostate” practices of other churches. I think we should be more humble, since we also don’t always follow biblical practices ourselves. Furthermore, I think many of our policies and practices arise from the best judgement of our leaders, not from direct commands from God. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)
The key for me is priesthood authority. If the 1st pres said one day something like, it’s ok to sprinkle someone if handicaps preclude immersion although immersion is preferred being more symbolic of death/resurrection, the old person dying and the new person being born again, etc., such a statement wouldn’t bother me at all.
I was thinking about this very question yesterday. I came to the conclusion that if changes can be made in the Temple ceremony, than its quite possible that the mode of baptisim be changed. Like most people have said, how the ritual is done isn’t important, but the authority under which it is done is.
I rather like the Didiche which says that one ought to baptize by immersion in running (fresh) water if possible. If that’s lacking then use stagnant water. If that’s lacking (since they were in a desert) they allow for sprinkling. However sprinkling got out of hand and then became mainstream, missing the point of the baptism.
I suspect the reason for the water rather than wine is obvious, given the WoW. (Interestingly, I recall reading that the special sacrament among the 12 remained wine for many decades after regular ward meetings used water) I don’t see a problem with it, given that most people couldn’t handle the mixed messages.
But who knows. It may change again in the future.
On the wine in remembrance of the blood of JC, since the D&C says we can use wine of our own make, was there a time we did so? Kind of reminds me of a joke we had in one ward about which was worse, the Mormon tobacco farmer or the Mormon bartender, because we had both.
I believe that in the early Utah period wine was made locally. I don’t know for the various periods in Nauvoo or Illinois.
Thanks everyone for your comments. I’d like to push you further.
Most of you have probably seen a card titled something like “20 Signs of the True Church.” The assumption behind the card is that looking at the primitive church of Jesus Christ tells us something about the true church of Jesus Christ. While it is of course true the what really matters is that the church be Christ’s, and not that the church look like Christ’s primitive church, I think everyone would readily concede that the church’s name, it’s having 12 apostles, it’s acceptance of the bible, the ordinances of baptism and sacrament, and so on, help people to more seriously consider our claim to be THE Church of Jesus Christ. If the church were named the Church of Intergalactic Peace, was led by the Supreme Council of Justice, and new members had to memorize Rock Opera Tommy, we’d have a harder time convincing people that our church was the church of Jesus Christ, restored, and that all of the differences between our church and the primitive church had been instigated by Christ, even if the spiritual confirmations and priesthood were the same. No?
(I forget who, but one prominent early church convert — Parley Pratt or Wilford Woodruff? — said that the way they first knew the church was true was because the missionaries preaching the gospel baptized the converts immediately after they cried repentance, as was done in the New Testament, and didn’t require potential converts to first listen to a series of lessons before being baptized, like the established churches did!)
So, to rephrase my initial question, if big differences, like being named the Church of Intergalactic Peace, would be an obstacle to people’s ability to seriously entertain our claim to be Christ’s church, restored, how big of an obstacle are the small differences? How many more people would we attract were missionaries to baptize immediately after they had preached repentance? If they went without purse or scrip? Etc.
Matt — I have comments on another site against the WofW as a commandment that relates to what you’re saying/asking (Stephen L. Richards has become my patron saint). But as far as mimicry of the ancient church or a back to basics reformation of Mormonism impacting convert stats, I think it would in the long run, but not in the short. I say the long run, because a Mormonism reformed to its essence would be more easily taught, understood and grasped. I say not in the short run because we largely ignore or are locked out of the most populous parts of the world, and often those parts of the world don’t have a Christian tradition that might cause people to recognize the true church restored. Then you have the issue of the historical cradle of Christianity, Europe, having been in a post Christian era for generations now. When I served in the South of France a generation ago, most people we taught were unchurched and had no real religious tradition beyond the traditional infant baptism, marriage and funerals that constitute a profit center for the French Catholic Church, but not a serious religion.
“…………..new members had to memorize Rock Opera Tommy……..”
I’ve been thinking for a long time the Matrix Triogoly would make an excellent strating point for an updated endowment. They even have a Heavenly Mother in the script. Wouldn’t it be neat if HM creats Adam to her liking and the male diety creats Eve to his?
Matt, if the early LDS missionaries are any indication, thousands in England.
It’s hard to believe nobody else caught the irony in Orson F. Witney’s words:
“There is no book big enough or good enough to preside over this Church”
Apparently they didn’t have the General Handbook of Instructions back then 😎
I think the “20 points of the true church” is an effective tool for two reasons. First, it shows that we posses many of the traits that the former church does, which would most likely be true if it was the restored New Testament gospel. Two, it shows people a lot of things had in the ancient church, but which are not had in many churches, at least all of the points at the same time.
I remember I would use the cups visual aid to demonstrate the apostasy. Some of my cups were principals of the church, like Unpaid Ministry, Prayer, Sacrament, etc. Not once did I ever teach the lesson without someone commenting “unpaid ministry? No church has that!” which helped them realize that our church was different, and more true to Christ’s church.
All this in consideration, I always used it as a means to an end, that end being, getting them to feel the spirit enough, to get interested enough, to desire to know if Joseph Smith is a Prophet. Once they had that conviction all things fell into place, so these tools are effective, for the mind, but not as any sort of “proof” like some missionaries use it.
If our church did have some markedly different name than Christs, and was completely odd, then I probably would be cautious about it myself, especially if I didn’t have a testimony. I don’t think that’s such a great scenario though, since the church should resemble the former one if it’s the same church. Even the Old Testament church resembles the church today in many ways.
Unpaid ministry? Doesn’t the D&C say a Bishop should be paid for his services? I thought the unpaid local ministry was just an historical accident. And we do have a paid ministry anyway, just not at the local level. At BYU I always thought many religion teachers carried themselves like profession ministers, which they indeed were.
Some of the early Christians actually were paid for preaching the gospel, like Peter. It’s how they survived. The congregations they established supported them. Paul claims this right, but doesn’t make use of it. Perhaps this is more akin to going without purse or scrip, but the bottom line is that they received funds from the members of the Church.
Recent changes to the initiatory ordinances left my wife thinking that it would be consistent with those changes for converts’ previous baptisms to be authorized as valid.
[deleted per the comment writer’s request].
As has been said, authority is the key. In my final class at my Catholic High School, I seem to recall that the number of what is refered to as sacraments in the Catholic Church has varied through the years. I am not a scholar so do not have exact references and hope that my memory is serving me well. I also believe that the policy for giving what has been referred to as the “last rights” in the Catholic Church has changed. Catholics claim to have authority tracing back to Peter and if this were true, then their changes would be valid.
I also recall being told that a Catholic priest drank water instead of wine when blessing the wine for Communion as he received special permission given his problem with alchohol. I never heard this from any official source and never asked the priest specifically as I never spoke to priests generally except for confession.
Also, the rules for the requirements for confession before Communion have changed in the Catholic Church. At one time, I think you were pretty much expected to confess right before taking it. Later, they said that a part of the Mass would remove this requirement. There was a part of the mass that said,”Oh, Lord, I am not worthy to receive thee only say the word and I may be healed.” Being a literal child, I think I always wondered what the word was.
I guess my point for all this is that no Church of any denomonation can make a claim that there has not been changes from the earliest Christian Church to some degree. I realize that is stating the obvious in the sense that everyone knows that sprinkling is common in many Christian Churches with a few exceptions such as the Baptists.
I think there are certain things that cannot be changed. There is an order in the kingdom of God. At a baptism, a person has to be completely immersed. They cannot even have a foot out of the water. God knows what things are part of the order of his kingdom and essential symbolism.
Steve (FSF): I don’t know, and I don’t know anyone who knows precisely why those in authority decided to to what they have done.
However, as one of the permabloggers, we’d appreciate it if it weren’t discussed or speculated about here.
Thanks 🙂
Ben — You’re right. I was repeating some hearsay that made sense vs. other things told me over the years, but I was wrong to repeat it. Can my comment above be edited or deleted?
Steve (FSF) —
done.
To steve and Ben, I understand your comments and see what your point is, but really, can you compare being provided for as an apostle, or a bishop in the early days of the church to the paid, professional clergy of today? That’s what I mean by unpaid clergy, it’s not a profession.