The Genius of Mormonism: Ordinances

September 15, 2009
By

This is the next installment in my series about what gives Mormonism staying power and makes it an effective religion at winning and retaining adherents.

Many churches have abandoned their exclusivity claims surrounding ordinances, if they ever had them in the first place (a little hard to claim for some sects, based on their foundation stories).  Many Christian sects will accept baptism from other sects, for example.  Catholicism considers Protestant sects to be part of Catholicism (even though the whole point of the sect’s schism was to declare Catholicism invalid), and now some of those sects’ ordinances are even considered valid in the world of Catholicism.

So, why are ordinances ingenious?  Here are a few reasons:

  • Ordinances are tangible.  An ordinance is an act or rite that solidifies personal religious commitment, and doing so through an organization means that that organization is the necessary facilitator of salvation.  You can sit at home and commit yourself to God, but an actual ritual that symbolizes your commitment can make that commitment more substantial.
  • Ordinances are products.  Cynics have suggested that ordinances such as temple access are “bought” through tithing.  It could just as easily be said that ordinances are bought by our commitment to the religious practices that precede the ordinance.
  • Ordinances reinforce authority claims.  If our religion is the only provider of a “legitimate” product that brings salvation, we corner the market on ordinances.  Sure, you can go down the street where they’ll baptize anyone, but that and a quarter will get you a cup of coffee, as the saying goes (well, that and $4.75 if you are going to Starbucks).
  • Ordinances are progressive.  At least in Mormonism they are.  You start with baptism (I’m not counting baby blessings because you are pretty much just laying there, and all it does is put you in the church’s record system).  Then, you move on to temple covenants, which require even more preparation and commitment.  Maybe this could be improved by adding more frequent ordinances, one every 10 years like renewing vows or something (proxy work for the dead is the best we’ve got).  But we’ve added other “soft” ordinances into the system already, and for PH, there are additional ones at different ages to reinforce commitment.

So, compared to other sects, Mormonism clearly uses ordinances more fully to create commitment and to reinforce the authority of the organization.  It is a far more effective approach than undermining authority or watering down ordinances by accepting them from competing sects.  What do you think?  Discuss.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Rico

    I think I am someone who naturally enjoys ritual, although I am not sure why. Even in the other Churches I have attended I find it inspiring, when I am not trying to understand everything and think about it all. I also think it is part of the genius that we see them as malleable to an extent. The patterns and practices of our rituals have and will change, meaning they can be adjusted to the context. It seems that the pattern is to reduce the complexity, but whether this will be reversed as they go too far we will see. I also agree that ordinances, from the Mormon perspective does provide strong social cohesion. I think I can agree with you, they are genius.

  • http://thirdwavemormon.blogspot.com Madam Curie

    Interesting post as always, Hawk.

    I have to do some more investigation into the matter, but being raised as Roman Catholic, I can firmly say that there are a lot more similarities between Mormon ordinances and Catholic “Sacraments” than the initial post would suggest. For instance, while it is true that the CC accepts some Protestant baptisms, the rules are actually pretty strict; baptisms must be performed in a very specific “manner, form, and intention” to be considered valid. In actuality, many converts are re-baptized into Catholicism if there is not “certitude” that the baptism was performed properly. However, it is true that since the 3rd century AD, the CC has taught that if a heretic performs a baptism properly, and with correct intent, then it is still considered valid. Its sort of like the Mormon “blessings are still valid even if the person giving the blessing is unworthy” claim.

    Many of the “sacraments” the CC sees as required for salvation also have their Mormon counterparts: In Confirmation, you are anointed with consecrated oil and given a “challenge”, and many of the aspects of Catholic Mass have distinct similarities to the temple ceremon(ies). The main difference here is that Mormons allow all worthy men to hold the priesthood. In contrast, CC priests have to go through special preparations and make special covenants (such as of poverty, chastity, etc.) to be ordained.

    Anyway, I guess my point is just that Mormons don’t really have a monopoly on ritual, as the CC is loaded with it. In addition, the CC makes many of the same “authority” claims as the Mormon church: the CC claims that they have their authority in an unbroken line from Peter, the Apostle of Jesus, through the papal succession. The upshoot? Both churches have significant “staying power”.

    On a person note, I’m actually not a ritual person at all, so the rituals of the CC didn’t keep me in, and it isn’t the temple that strengthens my individual testimony of the LDS church, either. I do agree that ritual can be a very salient and important aspect of religion, however.

  • Mytha

    Do temple ordinances keep people in or do they weed out the wavering and strengthen the already firmly committed? I know several people who were so turned off by the temple that they never went back. Some (like my parents) stay in the church at a lower level of participation, but others leave altogether. And if you don’t want to have a temple recommend it automatically makes you a second class citizen. I’d say the ordinances are a barrier to participation for many.

  • Ron M

    D&C 84: 20-21
    20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
    21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

    Experiences with ordinances has been a personal “staying power” in the covenant/faith for myself. Although rare for me personally, I have had two experiences (once when receiving and once when performing) where the power of god was made manifest in an overwhelming way. Why? Was it the faith of the Iranian man I was confirming in Christ? Was it the power of ritual? Was it God honoring that ordinance? THe reality of true priesthood? Not sure, but the power was made manifest and therefore, I was thankful then and on one other occasion for the ordinances in our covenant family.

  • Heber13

    I think the POWER of the ordinances are the covenants made for that person and with God, not the ordinances itself. The ordinances are formal and done by proper authority that are the vehicle that provide a spritual bond with the Creator, by way of covenant. There is nothing magic or special about the staying power of having the ordinance done if the person is not seriously thinking and living by the covenants made. Even the baptismal covenants I made at age 8 only have staying power for me now because I now understand my covenants, and renew them each Sunday, even if I didn’t comprehend them at age 8 when I made them (although they did make me feel special then too).

    The other thing to remember is ordinances are different than priesthood blessings. Ordinances are specific saving ordinances that God will judge us by, including baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, Priesthood (for men), temple enowments,and temple sealings. Baby blessings or sacraments are not ordinances.

    I think the use of ordinances is genius, in Mormonism and other religions.

  • SW Clark

    -#3 Mytha

    I think you’re right in that ordinances can go both ways. The Church has certainly recognized that many people (like my uncle & his wife) have been turned off by the temple and don’t feel the Spirit there. Hence the studies in the 1980′s of how people felt while attending the temple and subsequent changes to the endowment (and more recently initiatory) to get rid of the things most likely to cause concern or discomfort.

    I don’t think the intention of LDS ordinances was ever really to weed out the wavering, although this certainly has happened in addition to making some waver who weren’t previously. By making LDS ordinances more benign in the last two decades (along with the spread of temples more widely), the Church is certainly hoping to lower the barrier for participation. I think Hawkgrrrl’s observations are true, and the Church wants more people to participate in them in order to deepen their devotion. With ordinances both easier to accept and temples nearby (requiring less, if any sacrifice to attend), the risk however is that you have more people involved, but each with shallower devotion.

    But such is the price of growth beyond the narrow insular groups of the early Church. To be accepted more widely, one must have a broader message. Deep devotion may be slower in coming, but hopefully by getting more people in the door and insisting on a progressively stronger (but not overwhelming) gospel engagement, they’ll eventually come along enough and stick around.

  • Hawkgrrrl

    Mme Curie – I didn’t mean to imply that the RC was less focused on ordinances. On the contrary, it’s definitely a point we share, and for the same reason: authority claims. Their claim is broader (universal, “catholic”); ours is more narrow.

    The ingenuity of ordinances for the individual is creating muscle memory associated with religious commitment. The ingenuity of ordinances for the organization is having a “tangible” product exclusively offered by that authoritative source. I’m also not a fan of the topics of authority or ordinances which seem a little like trying to make something concrete that is not or trying to prove something that is unprovable (a matter of faith).

  • http://jacobprimo.blogspot.com Jake D

    Ordinances aren’t unique to Mormonism but the types of ordinances are. Ancient or modernt Jews wouldn’t recognize the LDS brand of temple worship. Ancient Christians that had initiation rituals and early liturgical rites wouldn’t see parallels in Mormonism.

    It’s due to the incorrect early beliefs that Masonic Ritual had ancients origins that LDS ordinance practice is unique. Taking Masonic ritual, signs, penalties, etc… and using them for new Mormon restoration initial practices is very unique. The very specific masonic names and penalties have mostly been removed but the framework remains.

  • Mike S

    Rituals are important as markers. They are prevalent in many groups. In Buddhism you take refuge. In Islam, you formally repeat a commitment. In a fraternity, you undergo initiation. In college, you get a rolled up piece of paper. The rituals themselves mean little in most cases. They serve as markers in our lives, however, as to stages on the path.

  • http://www.wesak.blogspot.com EBrown

    Catholics have seven Sacraments (not ordinances). They are Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist (Communion), Reconciliation (Penance), Matrimony, Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction), and Holy Orders. The purpose of the Sacraments is the dispensation of grace and communion with God and the Body of Christ , by virtue of the salvific work of Christ, and as a sign of the Everlasting Covenant. Three of the Sacraments can be received only once: Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders. The Sacraments are transformative of the individual, and while they may draw the individual closer to the communal life of the Body of Christ, their purpose is primarily personal, although the Sacraments of Matrimony and Holy Orders are identified by love and service for another.

    While the Catholic Church constantly affirms the necessity and validity of the Sacraments, it does not presume to place limits on the gift of Salvation nor on the wisdom and mercy of God, so that, because it teaches that Christ died to redeem all humankind, the fate of those who are not visible members of the Body of Christ is entrusted to the goodness of God.

  • David Stout

    Hawkgrrl:

    I think you’re estimation of the power of the physical in the spiritual is right on. As some of the posts have indicated, however, ritual is not as powerful for some as it is for others. Nevertheless, there is something about going through certain sacred acts that can make a lasting impression.

    BTW, did you really mean to refer to other churches’ baptisms as “watered down”? I mean what else is a baptism supposed to be, dry cleaning? :-)

  • http://www.clobberblog.com Bridget Jack Meyers

    Hawkgrrrl ~ It is a far more effective approach than undermining authority or watering down ordinances by accepting them from competing sects.

    Mormonism/Authority/Non-Watered-Down Ordinances ~ Started in 1830. Currently boasts about 13.5 million members (counting only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sect)

    Pentecostalism/Undermined Authority/Watered-Down Ordinances ~ Started in the mid-to-late 1800s. Currently boasts over 250 million members.

    I’m not sure if I would call that “far more effective.”

    I was thinking of something along these lines a few days ago though, Hawkgrrrl. I asked myself, if the LDS church were essentially just another Christian church—same rules, regulations and temple practices but with more traditional Christian theology and the qualifications that this is not God’s one true church and the other Christian churches are just as good—would I want to attend the LDS church? Would I have any interest in being a Mormon then?

    And the answer is, not a chance. Lack of women clergy, annual inquiries into my sex life, not allowed to drink coffee/tea/alcohol, stodgy music in Sunday morning services, King James Bible only, and a group of octogenarian males telling me how many earrings I can have, what clothes to wear, what underwear to wear and that I have to wear my bra over an undershirt? Holy pass on that, Batman. Who would do all that unless they thought that they had to?

    Which brings me to the conclusion that yes, the church’s claims to exclusive ordinances are effective. Effective at getting people to buy into the system in spite of having to accept drawbacks in other areas. In fact, without its claims to being God’s one true church, I think Mormonism would get slaughtered on the religious market.

    Makes me wonder how powerful Mormonism would be if it maintained its authority claims while opening its doors and converting to “big tent Mormonism”: a variety of Sunday morning worship styles available, different Bible translations welcome, softening some of the personal requirements, and offering women a larger role in ritual and leadership. I think us Protestants will just have to cross our fingers and hope you guys never figure it out.

  • http://www.clobberblog.com Bridget Jack Meyers

    Somebody is going to complain that I compared Pentecostalism as a movement to the LDS church as a single sect. So if you want a tighter comparison, the Assemblies of God was started in 1914 and currently has 60 million members.

  • http://thirdwavemormon.blogspot.com Madam Curie

    And the answer is, not a chance. Lack of women clergy, annual inquiries into my sex life, not allowed to drink coffee/tea/alcohol, stodgy music in Sunday morning services, King James Bible only, and a group of octogenarian males telling me how many earrings I can have, what clothes to wear, what underwear to wear and that I have to wear my bra over an undershirt? Holy pass on that, Batman. Who would do all that unless they thought that they had to?

    LOL!

  • Badger

    Hawkgrrrl:

    You start with baptism….Then, you move on to temple covenants…. Maybe this could be improved by adding more frequent ordinances…

    Between baptism and the temple, boys experience several ordinations which in my (male) experience seem significant in the way that baptism did. Patriarchal blessings might count as another ordinance experience, this one available to both sexes. But I know you were talking about adults:

    …one every 10 years like renewing vows or something (proxy work for the dead is the best we’ve got).

    In the nineteenth century there was a practice of rebaptism for the purpose of renewing covenants; see the references at the end of this wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebaptism_(Latter_Day_Saints). It was not done on a regular schedule, as I understand it, but at times of the members’ choosing when it seemed appropriate in view of recent experiences. I don’t know of any reason why the practice could not be revived, but it doesn’t seem ripe for a comeback.

  • Hawkgrrrl

    Bridget Jack Meyers – I think you and I are in total agreement about the specific value of ordinances. From an outsider’s perspective, they are probably (not incorrectly) viewed as a control mechanism. An insider might call that progressive self-mastery. With regard to the question of “effectiveness” I guess that’s a tricky question. As you point out, very validly, other sects have higher membership without ordinances. I think from a Mormon vantage point, converting to a sect with no ordinances feels suspect, due to being accustomed to the physical manifestation of spirituality that is not found in those sects. So, it is probably more effective in terms of retention. Perhaps ironically, Mormons are more likely to give up on church altogether than to convert to other Christian sects.

    To address your specific suggestions:
    - a variety of Sunday morning worship styles available. I think this is largely driven by what is easiest and most familiar to the lay clergy, so I don’t think a widescale change is practical.
    - different Bible translations welcome. This is mostly silly hand-wringing on the part of some members (I’ve pointed it out before). BYU encourages study of alternate versions, so it is not prohibited. The KJV is referenced in the lessons for practical reasons (JST was in KJV, BOM is consistent with KJV, footnotes and cross-referencing done by Ludlow and McConkie are all in KJV).
    - softening some of the personal requirements. Well, this is a sticking point – certain things I think are not going to change for TR interviews, for example. When changes come (and they do), they are usually not called out, just culturally adopted and the rhetoric softens. So you have to listen to what is NOT being said rather than what is.
    - offering women a larger role in ritual and leadership. I agree to some extent on this one, although women run essentially everything but the priesthood, and in many ways are more influential than the men who have a largely administrative role for the most part. However, dividing responsibilities along gender lines feels a bit limited as a concept. While it may result in some disengagement for women, and certainly in narrowing the perspectives of men, I also wonder if men would not disengage more if they were not viewed as necessary to run things through an all-male priesthood.

  • http://www.clobberblog.com Bridget Jack Meyers

    Mormons are more likely to give up on church altogether than to convert to other Christian sects.

    I think this is true. The anecdotal observations among Mormons, evangelicals and ex-Mormon groups seem to agree that ex-Mormons are more likely to become atheists, agnostic, deists, or other less-structured religions rather than a new form of Christianity.

    I also wonder if men would not disengage more if they were not viewed as necessary to run things through an all-male priesthood.

    Well, the LDS church already has one of the lowest ratios of men among Christian groups. Only the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the historically black denominations have lower.

    Probably couldn’t hurt at this point.

  • http://thirdwavemormon.blogspot.com Madam Curie

    The anecdotal observations among Mormons, evangelicals and ex-Mormon groups seem to agree that ex-Mormons are more likely to become atheists, agnostic, deists, or other less-structured religions rather than a new form of Christianity.

    I’ve been sort of dwelling on this observation today, and I think this is sort of a “once bitten, twice shy” response. I think back to a woman that I once taught with the missionaries. She had been baptized thrice already in three other denominations. When the missionaries brooked the question of baptism with her, her response was very visceral and negative. She had already been told by two other denominations that her baptism was of no worth unless it came from them; she didn’t want to “fall for it” again, it was too much of an emotional investment to her.

    I can understand that. Many people who leave the church do so in response to learning the “unscrubbed” church history. They don’t want to “fall for it again,” “it” being the promise of an organized religion that is headed by God. So, they avoid the more “structured” faiths and tend towards the unstructured ones.

  • BEMG

    Actually, a quarter and a about another $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. Don’t confuse the fancy creations with that basic cup of joe.

    Also, the whole ordinances reinforce authority seemed to pull itself up from the bootstraps. When you portend authority, it is easily reinforced by self-prescribed exercises.

    Finally, I have to quibble with your anecdotal observations (I found them self-serving). You probably spend to much time lurking at RfM. I’d invite you down to the Episcopal church any given Sunday. I swear 93% of the crowd consists of Ex-Mo’s, but that’s also an anecdotal observation.

  • http://www.clobberblog.com Bridget Jack Meyers

    BEMG ~ I have no idea if you’re directing your comments at me or Madame Curie. I don’t spend any time lurking at RfM, period. My observations are just honest ones from eleven years of regularly interacting with Mormons and ex-Mormons.

    I haven’t been to an Episcopal church in a long time. I went to an Anglican Mission in America church last week and I don’t know if they had any ex-Mormons. If you’re talking ECUSA, I can totally understand ex-Mormons gravitating toward that.

  • brjones

    I think ordinances are inevitable in any organized religion, even those that initially preach that salvation is to be worked out between the indiivdual and god. If there weren’t necessary saving ordinances, then ultimately why would people need a church organization? The LDS church (like most other religions) has set up the framework so that salvation can only be had through the church. I’m not saying this makes the church not true; I think it’s perfectly reasonable that god’s one true church on the earth would have saving ordinances that could only be performed by authority. At the same time, the church is a relative newcomer to this age-old strategy of getting and keeping people in the pews, so I think it’s fair to pose the question.

  • http://www.mindonfire.com John Remy

    Oooh, this is my kind of post! Can I add one more?

    “Ordinances reinforce teaching: this is a corollary to the tangible nature of ritual, but (according to a survey reported in The Mormon Culture of Salvation, by Douglas Davies) Mormons are much more likely than mainline Protestants to have strong convictions of core beliefs, including afterlife and the existence of God. I think that this is partly because of the physical reinforcement of these teachings in the temple. It’s easier to maintain a conviction in heaven if you’ve stepped through the temple veil into the celestial room. There is something to visualize, hugs from loved ones to remember, etc., and I think this embodiment of this teaching reinforces personal conviction.

  • http://thefirestillburning.wordpress.com FireTag

    Hawkgrrrl:

    Coming from the CofChrist, I find myself in agreement with the genius of sacraments as solidifying personal commitment, and have personal testimonies of those ordinances as being critical at times in my marriage, in my role as a parent, and at times when I needed individual healing.

    Yet I find the idea of using them to reinforce an institution’s authority appalling (even when my own denomination does it.) In my mind, ordinances were given to be present helps on the path — as gateways to experiencing Christ. When I am tempted to use them to be a gatekeeper to Christ, that feels like priestcraft and a defilement of my own priesthood. The ordinances have to be about the good of the recipient, or I don’t want to touch them with a 10-foot pole.

    Bridget Jack:

    My own denomination has many of the elements of “big-tent” you describe, and has been notably unsuccessful in growth. Of course, we’re liberal, not conservative, so that may not serve as a good control group — but the barriers that keep people out ARE the same barriers that keep people in if our experience is valid for the LDS.

    Madame Curie:

    Love your blog, but I (and I suspect, others) can’t seem to get to a comment page that works. You aren’t going unread, so keep sharing..

  • http://thirdwavemormon.blogspot.com Madam Curie

    FireTag: DOH! Thanks for pointing that out :-) Fixed now.

  • http://thirdwavemormon.blogspot.com Madam Curie

    Br. Jones:

    If there weren’t necessary saving ordinances, then ultimately why would people need a church organization? The LDS church (like most other religions) has set up the framework so that salvation can only be had through the church. I’m not saying this makes the church not true; I think it’s perfectly reasonable that god’s one true church on the earth would have saving ordinances that could only be performed by authority. At the same time, the church is a relative newcomer to this age-old strategy of getting and keeping people in the pews, so I think it’s fair to pose the question.

    I think there are many (including Christian) churches that do not have any sort of ordinance requirement, but that still have a strong congregational base. Specifically, I am thinking of the Protestant sects that teach that baptism is a “work” that is not required for salvation, or churches like the UU or Quakers that have relatively little structure. These groups have survived, despite lacking rituals that bind. In addition, many of these churches do not claim “one Trueness”. Yet, they have survived. Why?

    I think the answer lies in the fact that not all people access God through ritual. Sure, many do – hence the staying power of groups that do offer saving ordinances. However, many others access God primarily through interaction with others (fellowship). Those ritual-less groups offer that, without having the emphasis on the ritual, which can be appealing to those for whom ritual is actually off-putting.

  • rp

    One more point about ordinances. They are absolutely required for salvation for anyone, even those who lived without hearing about the gospel. This requirement makes it necessary for us to do work for the dead, and thus the hearts of the children are turned to the fathers.

  • BikerJoe

    Ordinances are not required for salvation.

    “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3: 16-18).

    “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from youselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do ” (Eph. 2:8,9).

    ” the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes . . . ” (Romans 1:16).

    ” he [God] purified their hearts by faith. . . .We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved . . . “(Acts 15:9, 11).

    ” If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved ” (Romans 10:9, 10).

    ” By this gospel you are saved, IF you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. OTHERWISE you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance, (1) that Christ died for our SINS according to the Scriptures, (2) that he was buried, (3) that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and (4) that he appeard to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more . . . . ” (1 Cor. 15:2-6).

    ” For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord ” (Jude 1-4).

    Ordinances only take people further away from the saving faith in Jesus Christ. He is the only way. Not ordinances, or religious rituals. “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)

  • Paul B

    I used to think about many aspects of Mormonism in terms such as “genius.” I came to realize, though, that it wasn’t anymore genius-like than what has occurred, and still does, in a lot of other secular and sacred enterprises, relationships, etc and their memes.

    Even the on the lowest rung of the latter, for example, in order for my neighbor across the road to accept me as being truly “in his group” he expects that I drink (alcoholic beverages) with him. Otherwise, like one other person once said to me, “I never trust a bastard who won’t drink with me.” It’s this particular “ordinance” or “sacrament” that I must subscribe or “enter into” if I am to avoid being ostracized. The Mormon church just makes aspects of inclusion and loyalty, etc, more compelling because, for one thing, they make sure that the whole family is impacted *for all eternity* if one doesn’t go along. I would question whether this is any more “genius” than something (although not comparable as per both of their raison d’être) to Mafiosi tactics of southern Italy (the notion of “omertà,” etc).

    Just my thoughts.