In my humble opinion, I am not sure if I would call it an ordinance, but I would definately say it is saving IF it is applied to the other saving ordinances in our eternal progression to become like our Heavenly Father. If an ordinance is then order in the Plan of Salvation… and as men were fore-ordained in the pre-mortal world to hold offices in the priesthood to administer saving ordinances for mankind that are life giving of an eternal nature…. then perhaps women were fore-ordained by an ordinance to be mothers, as in Eve, The Mother of All Living to administer life of an earthly or temporal nature.

Just as it is absolutely necessary for us to receive the ordinances of the Aaronic Priesthood, which are prepatory to the higher ordinances of the Melchezidik Priesthood, nonetheless, both are required to receive Exaltation.

Just as it is a commandment to partake of the Sacrament worthily each Sabbath to retain a remission of our sins, it is also a requirement for one to obtain a Temple recommend and enjoy the blessings of the Temple, no matter how worthy one remains.

The Lord honors women in the most incredible ways IF we but LOOK, it is everywhere around us. In all things we can see this pattern for these two priesthoods must be represented and one is never without the other in the Lord!

Moses 6: 59-60

59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;

60 For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;

1 Jn. 5: 6, 8

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
• • •
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Just my thoughts,
Kathryn

I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE your post! What a wonderful outline you have given and I HOPE that it will be recognized for the value that it is! THANK YOU for your inspired thoughts, for you have helped me put a few more things together. Maybe I can add a few back for you that might make some sense…

Elder Bednar shared with our Stake when he was visiting these words… “KEYS are EVERYTHING”! I took those words to heart:-) And of course this means, AUTHORITY, just as you have brought up. So add that in to your equation. I taught Doctrine & Covenants this last year in seminary and WOW, what an eye opener that was in regards to keys and key holders.

This has everything to do with the restoration of The Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Authority as the ONLY way to return back into the presence of The Father. Thus, the absolute need for the return of those who previously held those keys that would FIT (WORDS, ACTIONS, AUTHORITY). The number “three” is also the symbol for a “covenant”. Look for threes, it is everywhere in the church.

Order – ordinance. God is law. Keys,etc… open doors. If we do not have the correct key to open a door it will Not open. Just any key will not do. It must be exact.

The doors on the path back to God NEVER changes and once you have the right keys and keep them, the promise is SURE that when YOU are prepared the doors WILL OPEN UNTO YOU.

We must also distinguish between the ordinances that are considered SAVING ordinances, which are…

Baptism
Priesthood Ordination – Melchizidek/Elder
Endowment – Yes, this is an ordinance and the washing & annointing, etc.. is included with this as part of the whole experience.
Marriage Sealing for Time and Eternity

The receiving of ALL of these SAVING ordinances is referred to as “The New and Everlasting Covenant”.

One more thing I will throw into the pot to look for is the two parts of the priesthood. You will find it EVERYWHERE.

I really appreciated everyones comments on this topic. It is so fun to add all of these insights and have so many new thoughts. I hope these make sense to at least some of you.
Thanks,
kathryn

Anyway, this is less what I was trying to get at. BTW – the point about killing was less authority than how context determines the category of killing. So you took it in a tangent quite different than I intended. I just meant that the fact there are civil marriages needn’t be taken to imply much beyond the fact that an act’s meaning is context dependent. We see that with killing so why not sex? There’s no need to make civil marriages quasi-religious. Personally I think the Church recognizes them more out of practicality than anything else. Especially given how early members viewed civil marriage and authority.

Anyway, this is less what I was trying to get at. BTW – the point about killing was less authority than how context determines the category of killing. So you took it in a tangent quite different than I intended. I just meant that the fact there are civil marriages needn’t be taken to imply much beyond the fact that an act’s meaning is context dependent. We see that with killing so why not sex? There’s no need to make civil marriages quasi-religious. Personally I think the Church recognizes them more out of practicality than anything else. Especially given how early members viewed civil marriage and authority.

The problem I have with your view of ordinance is that it ignores the performative aspects. i.e. ordinance isn’t purely about words.

I recognize what you’re attempting to do with covenant. I just think it breaks down somewhat.

Let’s consider a more fuzzy example. Consecrating of oil. Is this an ordinance? Not according to your definition. Do most consider it an ordinance? Of course.

I’m sure you know this, but the original wording of the fourth article of faith had faith and repentance as ordinances, and it was only later that they were changed to principles.

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/How_Many_Articles_of_Faith_Were_There.html

While this fact has helped me in thinking about faith and repentance, I’m not sure what it does for your theory.

And of course I can provide definitions:

I define an religious ordinance as follows: Any group of statements, usually indicative statements, that are uttered according to some convention such that they are recognized as efficacious by God or by his designated representative.

I define worshipful ceremony as follows: the performance or observation of religious rituals that are fixed and that are conveyed using an authorized method.

Thus, the question of whether something is a religious ordinance is logically independent of whether they’re worshipful ceremony.

I think that you’re missing the boat on the marriage issue, too. The comparison to killing in self defense strikes me as a bit odd. Perhaps you’ve seen too many James Bond movies, but a license to kill is much harder to get than a license to marry. The family — even the ones that result from mere civil marriage — is a divinely ordained institution and consensual intercourse between a man and wife is a divinely sanctioned act, even when the legitimacy of the marriage comes from the Whore of Babylon, the Church of Satan, or a communist government.

In addition to the problems I pointed out above with Nate’s three principles, his prolegomena places far too much emphasis on the performance of the ordinances and not the receipt of blessings from them.

Take a patriarchal blessing as an example. This has the re-enactment aspect that goes back to the mythical blessings of Israel, but it contains no specific covenant. Just promised blessings that rely on other covenants — either those already made or those yet to be made. To the receiver of the patriarchal blessing, the text of the blessing is itself a blessing quite apart from the blessings enumerated within it. For this blessing, there is no covenant.

Moreover, those who partake of the sacrament receive blessings for doing so; viz., those enumerated in the sacramental prayers.

I wonder if a woman were to write a similar prolegomena, how likely would she be to have the same bias towards the performance of the ordinances? I think not likely. I’m surprised that none of the feminists here haven’t spoken up about it.