One question that has arisen on some LDS groups on facebook is whether the Church can change, in some way, an ordinance (e.g., the wording; actions bringing about the effect of the ordinance, etc). There have been changes to the ordinances and other practices during the Church’s history. One example is that, during the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901-1918), he “changed the proxy ordination ritual of the temple to conform with his views to confer the priesthood first and then ordain the deceased man to the priesthood office” (Jonathan A. Stapley, The Power of Godliness: Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology [New York: Oxford University Press, 2018], 24) mirroring his views that one should be ordained to the priesthood first, and then ordained to a specific office therein, unlike the modern and historical practice (and yet, both forms of ordination, for both the living and the dead, were efficacious and “true” ordinances).
While reading a volume from 1905 on Catholic sacramental theology, I came across the following about changes to the Sacraments and changes to the matter (material used to bring about the sacrament [e.g., water is the matter for baptism]) and form (the wording of the sacrament) which is rather apropos, even for Latter-day Saint theology of ordinances and the level of appropriate changes one can make to the “matter and form” thereof:
The matter and form are absolutely necessary for the validity of a Sacrament, as also their application by one and the same minister, and to one and the same subject. And the application must be so simultaneous that, according to the ordinary mode of understanding amongst men, the form or words may affect the matter. If either matter or form be wanting, that which is done cannot be the sensible sign, instituted by Christ, but some other sign. If one place the matter and another pronounce the form, the words of the form are not verified. The matter and form ought to be one whole, and hence they should be simultaneous, according to the nature of each Sacrament may require; thus, in Baptism they should be so joined together that when the minister pronounces the words he may be morally said to wash by the pouring of the water. For the lawful administration of this Sacrament, the saying of the words should be neither before nor after the pouring of the water, but physically at the same time. In Penance the absolution may be differed in the same way as Judges sometimes differ the sentence after they have examined the cause. In Matrimony the consent of the one party is valid as long as the consent of the other remains, as in the case of other contracts.
The following conclusions may be drawn from the above teaching:
(1) Any substantial change either in the matter or the form would invalidate a Sacrament. The change is substantial when it affects the matter in such a way that it can no longer be said to be the same thing which Christ appointed, and the form is substantially changed when the words used mean something else, and do not convey the sense of the words of form ordained by Christ.
(2) An accidental change would affect the qualities of the matter and form, and not the essence. Such a change would not invalidate a Sacrament, but to make a change of this kind would be sinful, and the sin would be light or grave according to the nature of the change. If a notable change were made, it would amount to a grave irreverence; if only slight, the sin would be only venial. (Arthur Devine, The Sacraments Explained According to the Teaching and Doctrine of the Catholic Church [3d ed.; London: R&T Washbourne, 1905], 111-12)
