“Introduction” may not sound like an overly sexy podcast episode but you really don’t want to miss this information - it sets up the entire book well and, if you’re a careful thinker, it will give you plenty to ponder until the next chapter is released.
It really is a tough question. The book dives into it fairly deeply for a short read, but at the end of the day, I think it's important NOT to forget that not only did Isaiah prophesy that this would be a problem in the last days, but the early church leaders used to point at the Great Apostasy and ridicule them for changing the ordinances because that was prima facia evidence of their straying from the pure gospel.
What ordinances haven't been changed AT ALL in the mainstream church? Even baptism uses different words than what Joseph used (D&C 20 wording was changed by Oliver Cowdery who originally copied the words in 3 Nephi that were spoken by the Savior as the proper way to baptize). Sacrament no longer uses the signs and is "administered" by deacons which D&C 20 says are not authorized to "administer" unless that ONLY means "blessing," but that usage is contrary to all scripture and early Mormonism as far as I can tell. And we continue down the list.
However, the same is mostly true for most every other restoration community today so some conclude that "changes" must be "substantive" in order to not be valid ... so what are substantive versus non-substantive changes? We have no revelation from Joseph or any of the early brethren other than condemnation of Christians for not doing baptisms by immersion and examples like this ... that look a lot like what restoration groups have done.
So ... very tough questions with huge repercussions.
Makes sense... Why would the ordinance be considered valid if it is changed? Tough questions for us mainstream LDS members.
It really is a tough question. The book dives into it fairly deeply for a short read, but at the end of the day, I think it's important NOT to forget that not only did Isaiah prophesy that this would be a problem in the last days, but the early church leaders used to point at the Great Apostasy and ridicule them for changing the ordinances because that was prima facia evidence of their straying from the pure gospel.
What ordinances haven't been changed AT ALL in the mainstream church? Even baptism uses different words than what Joseph used (D&C 20 wording was changed by Oliver Cowdery who originally copied the words in 3 Nephi that were spoken by the Savior as the proper way to baptize). Sacrament no longer uses the signs and is "administered" by deacons which D&C 20 says are not authorized to "administer" unless that ONLY means "blessing," but that usage is contrary to all scripture and early Mormonism as far as I can tell. And we continue down the list.
However, the same is mostly true for most every other restoration community today so some conclude that "changes" must be "substantive" in order to not be valid ... so what are substantive versus non-substantive changes? We have no revelation from Joseph or any of the early brethren other than condemnation of Christians for not doing baptisms by immersion and examples like this ... that look a lot like what restoration groups have done.
So ... very tough questions with huge repercussions.