Mormons believe baptism must be done by immersion, and view sprinkling for baptism as a sign of apostasy. It got me thinking about a recent change in the LDS temple ceremony called Washing and Anointing.
When the endowment was first administered in the Kirtland Temple, as part of the Washing and Anointing ordinance, initiates had their body ritually washed (some of the early washing included washing by alcohol.) The officiator would ritually wash and bless each body part to be healthy. Later, it was changed so that the officiator just dabbed a bit of water or oil on various body parts while pronouncing the blessing. About five years ago, the ritual was changed so that the officiator merely dabs the water or oil on the forehead, then places his or her hands on the patron’s head while pronouncing the blessing that each body part be healthy. On the one hand, these new changes are much easier for both the officiator and patron to perform. On the other hand, is this analogous to changing the baptismal rite from immersion to sprinkling? Is this change a sign of apostasy in the temple ordinances? (In light of the recent post about photoshopped images, should church censors put a shirt on Jesus?)
Wheat & Tares 
I think of the changes to the initiatory ordinances a response to the realities of modern life; in the nineteenth century (and even into the twentieth) the ordinance of washing had the very practical effect of cleaning the bodies of temple patrons for whom bathing was not a regular practice. As regular bathing became the norm, the practical need of immersive (no pun intended) temple washing prior to participation in the other ordinances became less pronounced.
I recall, prior to the annointing of head only, there would be notices pinned up in initiatory requesting that if you haven’t washed in the last 24 hours, to do so, before commencing initiatories. Not sure if it’s still there now touching different body parts isn’t required. I’d always assumed the notice was a hygiene thing.
As to baptism by immersion v. sprinkling, we have a fair amount of doctrine about it being going down into the grave, and being reborn. That kind of thing. I can see how sprinkling might have developed in the same way as initiatories though.
Sometimes it seems we adopt practices to differentiate ourselves from the norm, and come up with reasons for the practise afterwards. On the other hand.
Interesting thought! How much ritual is OK to sacrifice for the sake of convenience?
On the sprinkling though, I’ve always assumed that it was done because if everyone has to be baptized in order to be saved, then babies must be baptized, but it’s not OK to immerse babies who might drown, so we must apply the water in a non-immersive way. Religions that baptize later in life avoid the drowning babies problem and are free to choose immersion.
Sprinkling. Immersion. I’m having trouble with why water has some magical property to effect salvation.
Surely out relationship with the Redeemer, the power of the Atonement and the way we live our covenants are what make us worthy of the Celestial Kingdom. If someone aced all that and, for some reason, was never sprinkled with or immersed in water would they be excluded from glory?
Interesting post. I commented elsewhere that the temple ceremony does not attract the same type of internal focus that our other doctrines and practices attract due to the fact that they are broadly withheld from the world. In other words, the church leaders can change the temple ceremony without too much drama. The changes made to temple ceremonies do not need to be referenced to scripture or any other handbook. They are just made. Think about how difficult it might be for women to administer in the priesthood, or to change the baptismal ordinance or change the sacrament. These have published scriptural and policy precedents. The temple does not and changes can just be made far more easily.
The immersion thing has death symbolism, but it also has birth symbolism (think baby in utero). Baptism as a rebirth has a long history (Christ and Nicodemus).
The touching of various body parts has ties to prepping priests in Leviticus. I suspect some of the more recent changes may have to do with possibility of inappropriate touching (intentional or not) that could be seen as a liability. Also, as a culture we are just more sensitive now about people touching our bodies without permission.
Rather than sprinkling, I think the biggest change is the way the clothing ordinance is now done (it’s not!) While it certainly is MUCH more convenient (and more pleasant), I think the clothing ordinance has lost something of value. Instead of literally being clothed in the garment of the priesthood, now patrons wear it throughout, and are merely told about the garment. I think for those who are only familiar with the now 5 year old version, the significance of clothing is lost. To me this is a bigger issue than “sprinkling” with water or oil. (But I do like the new version much better than the old version.)
Of course water has no magical value. The “magic” is in believing whether the ordinance is performed with proper authority, as well as (as King Benjamin said) a sign “that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you.” Furthermore, King Benjamin said, “what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him?” See Mosiah 8:10.
“it’s not OK to immerse babies who might drown, so we must apply the water in a non-immersive way.”
Actually, I toured a Greek Orthodox church (during the Greek Festival) in SLC, and I saw this, shall we say, rather large vase in the chapel. I asked what it was for. They said that they perform baptism by immersion of an infant. I said, “I’ll bet some infants aren’t too fond of that”, and they responded, “yes, if you’re on the first few rows, you might get wet.” Check out this video!
This little girl wasn’t as happy.
I stand corrected, MH. That’s interesting. Now I’m wondering if I’ve ever had a bishop I’d trust to dunk my slippery wailing baby underwater three times!
This is an intriguing subject, because conservative Mormons (such as me) find it easy to talk about how the primitive church apostasized because they changed the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, yet we seem to be trusting when our leaders do the same thing. “Doubt your doubts,” right?
The scriptures seem to be far more clear cut on the issue: Isa 24:5 “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance..” which is repeated in the D&C as well.
OTOH, Peter et. al had no problem changing the “everlasting” covenant of circumcision.
Anarene, of course you wouldn’t need a bishop to baptize your infant, since LDS are a lay ministry. The real question: Would you trust your husband?
I’d say baptism has to be by immersion as the symbolism is such an important part of it – in this case symbolising death and resurrection. The temple washing, or dabbing now, is symbolising a full washing. The washing itself was a washing, and while part of the ordinance does not appear to be a symbol of anything else. That’s my two cents.