I think the temple ordinances have changed because they can. They're not written down in an authoritative source that's available to members. Most members who get them are already heavily invested. They're done in secret, so we don't (and can't) use their form to police the boundaries between our church and other Christian churches - just their existence.DarkJedi wrote: ↑05 Nov 2017, 11:28While I do love the symbolism of being buried and resurrected to new life etc., I can also see how sprinkling baptism have related symbolism. So I'm having a hard time reconciling why it's OK to perform and "preach" that sort of symbolism in the temple (at least that temple ordinance) and not baptism. Just saying.
On top of that, there's much more motivation. Every change I know of has addressed the fact that many members found the temple ordinances to be too long, too creepy, or too sexist. Our public ordinances have none of those problems.
So... I think motivation and ability drive the double standard w.r.t. changing the ordinances.