Immersion vs sprinkling; annointing head vs body

[_Buffalo]

Several years ago, anointing rituals in the temple were changed, from anointing all parts of the body directly mentioned in the ritual, to symbolically anointing them but only physically anointing the head only. Isn't this analogous to the Catholic practice of symbolically baptizing the entire body by means of sprinkling water on the head only? And if this is a key piece of evidence as to the reality of the great apostasy, isn't it likewise evidence for an LDS apostasy? Either ritual preservation is important, or it isn't.

[_Drifting]

Buff,

I've been thinking about your post for a few hours. Here's my take.
I think the baptism ordinance of the Mormon Church is specifically designed to be exactly the way Jesus was reportedly baptised and is one of the evidences used to claim 'the truth'.

The only way baptism could be changed would be if the Prophet received a revelation on the subject, which would subsequently be placed within the Doctrine & Covenants canon. As per polygamy and priesthood ban reversals.

Thus, we must believe that the original temple annointings etc were given by revelation. Except we have no record of any such revelation being given. Not only that, we also know for a fact that these and other temple rituals have been amended. Seemingly to move along with the improving standards of societies moral integrity with regards to what you can or can't do to another human being without being sued for indecent behaviour etc.
These changes, should also have been done on the back of a revelation to the Prophet which should also appear in the D&C.

The absence of revelatory evidence must mean the initial design of the rituals and their subsequent amendments have been decided upon by man, not God.

[Guest]

-

[_Buffalo]

I REALLY need to read The Great Apostasy again.