Temple Talk Guidelines

[David T]

I personally currently think that modern Immersive Christian Baptism as the sign of the New Covenant came through Jesus appropriating John's ritual, which had its own eschatological significance,and perhaps even reference to temple purification ritual.

IE, John did prepare the way, but not in the literal "Aaronic Priesthood/Melchizedek Priesthood" way we generally explain it.

While I am certainly familiar with LDS scripture presenting even Adamic Christian Baptism, and even the Book of Mormon pre-Christ baptisms, I would not be shocked to learn that the modern understanding of Baptism as a specific sign of the covenant were overlaid onto earlier covenant ritual, with the significance 'translated' using details and language of Modern usage and ritual for didactic purposes.

I can see for teaching purposes introducing Baptism as the modern sign of the covenant, and then referring to the earliest signs of the covenant as Baptism for simplicity and continuity,even though it was a substantially different act or sign. It makes useful theology and praxis (the Church's priority), but not useful for historic purposes (not the Church's priority).

[Cobalt-70]

I personally currently think that modern Immersive Christian Baptism as the sign of the New Covenant came through Jesus appropriating John's ritual, which had its own eschatological significance,and perhaps even reference to temple purification ritual.

Technically, you could say that Mormonism has two baptisms, the second one being part of the Initiatory ritual. So it's not that we oppose sprinkling--it's just that we only do sprinkling for the second ritual washing.

[KevinG]

While some of the meaning of baptism and washings and annointings overlap they are different ordinances with different meaning and purpose. One requires immersion while the other does not. The wording of the washing and annointing ordinances (which you will experience in the Temple) makes the purpose prety clear.

[wenglund]

Your questions go from the assumption that the Nauvoo Temple was designed to replace the Masonic degrees, rather than add to, or surpass them.

That may be your assumption. It isn't mine. To me, my questions go to the issue of the extent to which the Nauvoo temple supposedly "borrowed" from the Masonic degrees. The intent of my questions is to test the hypothesis that proportionally there was very little that was borrowed, and what little was borrowed, some, if not all of it, was assigned different purposes and meaning.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

While some of the meaning of baptism and washings and annointings overlap they are different ordinances with different meaning and purpose. One requires immersion while the other does not. The wording of the washing and annointing ordinances (which you will experience in the Temple) makes the purpose prety clear.

I think the main difference is that in the baptism ceremony, the participant is being cleansed from their own sins. In the initiatory, the participant is being cleansed from the sins of "this generation."

I forgot to mention the third baptism in Mormonism, part of the Second Anointing, where the participant is ritually washed for burial.

[wenglund]

I think the main difference is that in the baptism ceremony, the participant is being cleansed from their own sins. In the initiatory, the participant is being cleansed from the sins of "this generation."

I forgot to mention the third baptism in Mormonism, part of the Second Anointing, where the participant is ritually washed for burial.

Evidently you are drawing a distinction between washing and anointing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

Even with baptism, there is some flexibility. The baptism ceremony described in Mosiah 18:13-14 is far different from the one that the LDS Church prescribes. It is immersion, but the prayer is completely different. Plus, Alma baptizes himself at the same time as he baptizes Helam. But that should not trouble Mormons. Baptism is a manifestation of faith marking one's entrance into the "new and everlasting covenant," not a magic ritual.

It's not far different at all- it cites authority to baptize and that the individual is being baptized- it is longer but has all the elements except calling on the entire Godhead individually. That is the only difference. It adds superficial words, and refers to "God" instead of each member of the Godhead, and refers to "Christ" instead of "Jesus Christ".

That's about it. All the same elements are there, in different words.

To me, it's only about as different as it would be if it were said in a different language- each version is essentially a "translation" of the other.

Edited October 14, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I think the main difference is that in the baptism ceremony, the participant is being cleansed from their own sins. In the initiatory, the participant is being cleansed from the sins of "this generation."

I forgot to mention the third baptism in Mormonism, part of the Second Anointing, where the participant is ritually washed for burial.

Maybe you should refer to each as a "washing"- one is Baptism, the other is in the Initiatory, and the other would be the Second Annointing, which is not only performed "for burial", but is performed while the person is living. I am sure you meant that, but the way you said it might lead someone who does not know to think that it was a ritual washing before burial, which it is not (necessarily), though it is performed today as a special ordinance not everyone receives.

[mfbukowski]

Evidently you are drawing a distinction between washing and anointing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There are of course also important differences between the washing for women and the washing for men, which few are aware of.

If someone here is not aware of that, the next time you do and your wife have the opportunity to do initiatories, discuss the difference in language later in the celestial room.

It is quite revealing.

[Cobalt-70]

Evidently you are drawing a distinction between washing and anointing.

The washing part is a type of baptism, but the purpose of the anointing is very different. The First Anointing is a type of pre-coronation. So in the Initiatory, you are first ritually purified from the sins of society, and then you are anointed "to become" a heavenly king or queen. (That coronation is sealed in the Second Anointing.)

[Cobalt-70]

It's not far different at all- it cites authority to baptize and that the individual is being baptized- it is longer but has all the elements except calling on the entire Godhead individually. That is the only difference. It adds superficial words, and refers to "God" instead of each member of the Godhead, and refers to "Christ" instead of "Jesus Christ".

That's about it. All the same elements are there, in different words.

To me, it's only about as different as it would be if it were said in a different language- each version is essentially a "translation" of the other.

But my point is that the precise nature of the ritual, from a theological perspective, is not as significant as the exactness to which the ritual must be performed according to current LDS Church policy. There are good reasons why it should be standardized in the LDS Church, but it is not a magic ritual. In other words. It is not like casting a spell, where flubbing one word will result in failure. Rather, it is a symbolic manifestation of faith.

I think the same is true of the Endowment. There is no magical significance to the specific symbols, words, and gestures. They could be changed--and they have been changed throughout history.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Maybe you should refer to each as a "washing"- one is Baptism, the other is in the Initiatory, and the other would be the Second Annointing, which is not only performed "for burial", but is performed while the person is living. I am sure you meant that, but the way you said it might lead someone who does not know to think that it was a ritual washing before burial, which it is not (necessarily), though it is performed today as a special ordinance not everyone receives.

Yes, it is not literally a washing for burial. The ceremony is intended to reenact the story of the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her hair soon before his death.

I think the ritual washing in the Second Anointing probably could not be called a baptism. It is a ritual cleansing, but not a cleansing from sin, as are baptism and the Initiatory washing.

[Ares]

Now this thread is really pushing the limits on what should be discussed on-line and what would better be discussed in Sunday School or the Temple itself.

I may be too concerned here but I think this discussion has reached its safe limit.