Alma18:14-15

[Doctrine 612]

What is alma doing here. I learned a few years ago about baptism for healing and renewing covenants in the temple do you think this is the same thing.

Mosiah 18:14-15

14 And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.

15 And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury himself again in the water.

[Bobbieaware]

23 minutes ago, Doctrine 612 said:

What is alma doing here. I learned a few years ago about baptism for healing and renewing covenants in the temple do you think this is the same thing.

Mosiah 18:14-15

14 And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.

15 And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury himself again in the water.

I believe in the title you meant to say Mosiah18:14-15.

 

[JAHS]

 I have heard it explained that Alma was not baptizing himself, but it was merely as a token to the Lord of his humility and full repentance. Alma would have already been baptized (and ordained) by someone else like his father or grandfather as a youth before he became one of the priests of Noah.

Edited May 14, 2016 by JAHS

[PeterPear]

1. “Both Alma and Helam were buried in the water” (Mosiah 18:14)

Use the statement below to explain how Alma had the authority to baptize and to show that Alma did not baptize himself when he baptized Helam:

President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “Alma was baptized and held the priesthood before the coming of Abinadi, but he became involved with other priests under the reign of the wicked King Noah, and when he baptized Helam, he felt he needed a cleansing himself so he buried himself in the water as a token of full repentance” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:336–37).

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-19-none-could-deliver-them-but-the-lord?lang=eng

sorry for the large type..it copied/pasted that way.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, PeterPear said:

sorry for the large type..it copied/pasted that way

If you have the option, do a right click and "Paste as plain text" 

[canard78]

12 hours ago, PeterPear said:

1. “Both Alma and Helam were buried in the water” (Mosiah 18:14)

Use the statement below to explain how Alma had the authority to baptize and to show that Alma did not baptize himself when he baptized Helam:

President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “Alma was baptized and held the priesthood before the coming of Abinadi, but he became involved with other priests under the reign of the wicked King Noah, and when he baptized Helam, he felt he needed a cleansing himself so he buried himself in the water as a token of full repentance” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:336–37).

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-19-none-could-deliver-them-but-the-lord?lang=eng

sorry for the large type..it copied/pasted that way.

This statement is very useful to me to understand the mind and approach of JFS.

Several of his statements that were in the 2014 Teachings of the Presidents were influential in my decision to create distance between myself and the church principles he (and, at the time, the modern church) were teaching. He is very absolute in his language.

When I read this quoted statement I find it useful. JFS is speculating about the actions and motives of Alma. There's no references at all in the text to this being Alma's actual motive. Despite this, JFS makes a statement using absolute language, as if the conclusion is not up for discussion at all. 

Knowing he used absolute language while speaking speculatively helps me feel a little more generous towards the other absolute, and sometimes unsupportable, things he said at other times. 

So thanks  

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, PeterPear said:

1. “Both Alma and Helam were buried in the water” (Mosiah 18:14)

Use the statement below to explain how Alma had the authority to baptize and to show that Alma did not baptize himself when he baptized Helam:

President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “Alma was baptized and held the priesthood before the coming of Abinadi, but he became involved with other priests under the reign of the wicked King Noah, and when he baptized Helam, he felt he needed a cleansing himself so he buried himself in the water as a token of full repentance” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:336–37).

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-19-none-could-deliver-them-but-the-lord?lang=eng

sorry for the large type..it copied/pasted that way.

Priesthood authority to perform baptism is unknown in the Book of Mormon.

This was a later development.

What Joseph Fielding Smith is doing here is reading the later development back into the Book of Mormon.

That is why he feels the need to create stories out of whole cloth that the Book of Mormon says nothing about; i.e., "Alma was baptized and held the priesthood before the coming of Abinadi."

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Priesthood authority to perform baptism is unknown in the Book of Mormon.

This was a later development.

What Joseph Fielding Smith is doing here is reading the later development back into the Book of Mormon.

That is why he feels the need to create stories out of whole cloth that the Book of Mormon says nothing about; i.e., "Alma was baptized and held the priesthood before the coming of Abinadi."

A few verses later in Mosiah 18 it says:

"And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." (Mosiah 18: 18)

So how did He get this authority if not having been ordained before becoming a priest of Noah or even after Abinadi came? Did God appear to him and lay hands on his head and ordain him? If someone did not ordain him it would be contrary to the way God operates; for example sending Peter, James, John, and John the Baptist to ordain Joseph Smith.

 

[Doctrine 612]

15 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I believe in the title you meant to say Mosiah18:14-15.

 

Sorry I was thinking of alma the person when I put that there 

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, canard78 said:

This statement is very useful to me to understand the mind and approach of JFS.

Several of his statements that were in the 2014 Teachings of the Presidents were influential in my decision to create distance between myself and the church principles he (and, at the time, the modern church) were teaching. He is very absolute in his language.

When I read this quoted statement I find it useful. JFS is speculating about the actions and motives of Alma. There's no references at all in the text to this being Alma's actual motive. Despite this, JFS makes a statement using absolute language, as if the conclusion is not up for discussion at all. 

Knowing he used absolute language while speaking speculatively helps me feel a little more generous towards the other absolute, and sometimes unsupportable, things he said at other times. 

So thanks  

JFS and his son in law protégé Bruce R. aways used absolutes and are very often associated with a major fundamentalist turn during the 50's and as a reaction to liberal trends in the 60's. For heaven's sake do not take that turn as representative of the theological history of the church!

"Generosity" is definitely generous

[Doctrine 612]

Have you heard of baptism of healing?

[canard78]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

JFS and his son in law protégé Bruce R. aways used absolutes and are very often associated with a major fundamentalist turn during the 50's and as a reaction to liberal trends in the 60's. For heaven's sake do not take that turn as representative of the theological history of the church!

"Generosity" is definitely generous

Yep. Unfortunately though, I'm the generation that was brought up in the 80s and 90s. My leaders were dyed in the wool McConkie-ites. Mormon Doctrine was a reference used as if doctrine.

It's not an easy paradigm to shake off. That's the church I can choose to either embrace or reject. Given they retaught JFS in 2014 is it reasonable to say that the church still supports and advocates his approach?

I see a similar absolutism in the approach of Elders Oaks, Nelson and Bednar. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

This statement is very useful to me to understand the mind and approach of JFS.

Several of his statements that were in the 2014 Teachings of the Presidents were influential in my decision to create distance between myself and the church principles he (and, at the time, the modern church) were teaching. He is very absolute in his language.

When I read this quoted statement I find it useful. JFS is speculating about the actions and motives of Alma. There's no references at all in the text to this being Alma's actual motive. Despite this, JFS makes a statement using absolute language, as if the conclusion is not up for discussion at all. 

Knowing he used absolute language while speaking speculatively helps me feel a little more generous towards the other absolute, and sometimes unsupportable, things he said at other times. 

So thanks  

Actually, Joseph Fielding Smith may have been thinking of the practice of rebaptism which was quite common among the early LDS after they had crossed the plains into the Great Salt Lake Basin.  Moreover, baptism (mikveh) has always been both a cleansing rite as well as a membership initiation among the Jews.  Just like anyone else, JFS certainly had the right to speculate as to why certain archaic practices were engaged in -- even if he might be wrong.  He is as fallible as anyone else in so doing.  The problem is that ignorance of history on his part as well as on the part of his readers can lead down an endless rabbit hole.

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, canard78 said:

Yep. Unfortunately though, I'm the generation that was brought up in the 80s and 90s. My leaders were dyed in the wool McConkie-ites. Mormon Doctrine was a reference used as if doctrine.

It's not an easy paradigm to shake off. That's the church I can choose to either embrace or reject. Given they retaught JFS in 2014 is it reasonable to say that the church still supports and advocates his approach?

I see a similar absolutism in the approach of Elders Oaks, Nelson and Bednar. 

I never used his book as a reference, nor did most of the Brethren.  It was certainly popular and widely used, however, much to the detriment of the Church.  I find that it is primarily the absolutists who are most likely to apostatize from the Church.  They set themselves up with impossible and even ridiculous expectations, and are crushed by reality later.

I see no similar absolutism in Oaks, Nelson, and Bednar.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Priesthood authority to perform baptism is unknown in the Book of Mormon.

This was a later development.

What Joseph Fielding Smith is doing here is reading the later development back into the Book of Mormon.

That is why he feels the need to create stories out of whole cloth that the Book of Mormon says nothing about; i.e., "Alma was baptized and held the priesthood before the coming of Abinadi."

Is that an example of a declaration of an a priori TRVTH?

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

A few verses later in Mosiah 18 it says:

"And it came to pass that Alma, having authority from God, ordained priests; even one priest to every fifty of their number did he ordain to preach unto them, and to teach them concerning the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." (Mosiah 18: 18)

So how did He get this authority if not having been ordained before becoming a priest of Noah or even after Abinadi came? Did God appear to him and lay hands on his head and ordain him? If someone did not ordain him it would be contrary to the way God operates; for example sending Peter, James, John, and John the Baptist to ordain Joseph Smith.

 

Your question presupposes the requirement of ordination to have authority to baptize.

This is the issue that has to be read back into the Book of Mormon.

It is an issue the Book of Mormon is not concerned with, and why it has to be read back into the text from a culture that believes such ordination is required.

[consiglieri]

28 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Is that an example of a declaration of an a priori TRVTH?

Just so I am being clear, I am not trying to be a gadfly for the sake of being a gadfly.

This is just one of the chestnuts of the Book of Mormon.

The text says Alma had authority, but does not say where he got the authority from.

And so we have to read back into the text a narrative that allows us to fill in the blank.

It is typical for readers to fill in the blank with a process that makes sense to the believers, and this is what I believe Joseph Fielding Smith has done here.

But we must remember that this type of exercise can yield less appealing results.  For instance, Mormons believe a person has to be married to be exalted.  But the New Testament says nothing about Jesus being married.  Hence stories have emerged over the years to the effect that Jesus was married, and that the wedding at Cana was actually the celebration of the marriage of Jesus.  I am sure you have heard that type of thing.

Going one step further, back when plural marriage was considered essential to exaltation, we have statements from leaders to the effect that Jesus had multiple wives . . . specifically that he was married to Mary and Martha.  You can see how this type of reading back into a text may be problematic.

I am just cautious about doing the same type of thing here.

 

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Is that an example of a declaration of an a priori TRVTH?

Absolutely.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

Yep. Unfortunately though, I'm the generation that was brought up in the 80s and 90s. My leaders were dyed in the wool McConkie-ites. Mormon Doctrine was a reference used as if doctrine.

It's not an easy paradigm to shake off. That's the church I can choose to either embrace or reject. Given they retaught JFS in 2014 is it reasonable to say that the church still supports and advocates his approach?

I see a similar absolutism in the approach of Elders Oaks, Nelson and Bednar. 

Prophets are fallible, and since joining the church I have always placed my own testimony over blind obedience.  If God can tell me to join the church in the first place, in spite of some concerns, I am sticking with that approach. Logically speaking, divorced from what I know is spiritual truth, If it was God or my gut that told me to join is unknowable and therefore irrelevant in my life. But whatever it was it is sweet to me and I will stick with Alma 32, also known as William James.

He's the guy who sold me on Alma before I even had heard of it.

[JAHS]

43 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Just so I am being clear, I am not trying to be a gadfly for the sake of being a gadfly.

This is just one of the chestnuts of the Book of Mormon.

The text says Alma had authority, but does not say where he got the authority from.

And so we have to read back into the text a narrative that allows us to fill in the blank.

It is typical for readers to fill in the blank with a process that makes sense to the believers, and this is what I believe Joseph Fielding Smith has done here.

But we must remember that this type of exercise can yield less appealing results.  For instance, Mormons believe a person has to be married to be exalted.  But the New Testament says nothing about Jesus being married.  Hence stories have emerged over the years to the effect that Jesus was married, and that the wedding at Cana was actually the celebration of the marriage of Jesus.  I am sure you have heard that type of thing.

Going one step further, back when plural marriage was considered essential to exaltation, we have statements from leaders to the effect that Jesus had multiple wives . . . specifically that he was married to Mary and Martha.  You can see how this type of reading back into a text may be problematic.

I am just cautious about doing the same type of thing here.

 

I understand what you are saying, but Alma didn't just baptize people he also ordained people to be priests, which in the order of Gods workings would require one to first be ordained himself.  "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit," (John 15: 16)

I guess it might depend on what was meant by the word ordain at that time. It is an assumption to say that having been given authority means the same as ordained, but in my opinion it's a pretty safe assumption. Perhaps the ritual we use today to ordain someone isn't the same as they did back then but in some way they were given authority. 

[canard78]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, Joseph Fielding Smith may have been thinking of the practice of rebaptism which was quite common among the early LDS after they had crossed the plains into the Great Salt Lake Basin.  Moreover, baptism (mikveh) has always been both a cleansing rite as well as a membership initiation among the Jews.  Just like anyone else, JFS certainly had the right to speculate as to why certain archaic practices were engaged in -- even if he might be wrong.  He is as fallible as anyone else in so doing.  The problem is that ignorance of history on his part as well as on the part of his readers can lead down an endless rabbit hole.

"...Joseph Fielding Smith may have been thinking..."

There you go, that's the appropriate language for speculation.

That's the problem JFS seemed to have had... a lack of language of speculation.

I wonder whether he didn't because he felt like it was unseemly or inappropriate for a prophet to speak in language of uncertainty or whether it was because he was so confident in his views that he didn't even realise that he was speaking speculatively.

"...JFS certainly had the right to speculate as to why certain archaic practices were engaged in -- even if he might be wrong..."

I didn't say he didn't. It would have been handy if he sometimes spoke in the language of such.   

[mfbukowski]

My understanding of how the church handles the problem of priesthood in the Americas in BOM times is that all prophets have the Melchizadek priesthood, either from a previous prophet or as bestowed by angels or supernatural means. So the authority was through the Melchizadek priesthood which as the higher priesthood also contains with it the keys to baptism.

In the bible, our belief is that Moses received the priesthood from Jethro, and his priesthood genealogy has been "deduced" through pretty sketch scholarship, as I recall through the Midianites. I am sure Robert Smith knows much more about this than I do

But the point is that this is never raised as an issue with Moses for some reason

My understanding of how the church handles the problem of priesthood in the Americas in BOM times is that all prophets have the Melchizadek priesthood, either from a previous prophet or as bestowed by angels or supernatural means. So the authority was through the Melchizadek priesthood which as the higher priesthood also contains with it the keys to baptism.

In the bible, our belief is that Moses received the priesthood from Jethro, and his priesthood genealogy has been "deduced" through pretty sketch scholarship, as I recall through the Midianites. I am sure Robert Smith knows much more about this than I do

But the point is that this is never raised as an issue with Moses for some reason, as it has been here.

But if you look in the bible to see how Aaron was ordained- it becomes clear

Quote

Leviticus 8 King James Version (KJV)


8 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Take Aaron and his sons with him, and the garments, and the anointing oil, and a bullock for the sin offering, and two rams, and a basket of unleavened bread;

3 And gather thou all the congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

4 And Moses did as the Lord commanded him; and the assembly was gathered together unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
5 And Moses said unto the congregation, This is the thing which the Lord commanded to be done.

6 And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed them with water.

7 And he put upon him the coat, and girded him with the girdle, and clothed him with the robe, and put the ephod upon him, and he girded him with the curious girdle of the ephod, and bound it unto him therewith.

8 And he put the breastplate upon him: also he put in the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim.

9 And he put the mitre upon his head; also upon the mitre, even upon his forefront, did he put the golden plate, the holy crown; as the Lord commanded Moses.

10 And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle and all that was therein, and sanctified them.

11 And he sprinkled thereof upon the altar seven times, and anointed the altar and all his vessels, both the laver and his foot, to sanctify them.

12 And he poured of the anointing oil upon Aaron's head, and anointed him, to sanctify him.

13 And Moses brought Aaron's sons, and put coats upon them, and girded them with girdles, and put bonnets upon them; as the Lord commanded Moses......

³⁶ So Aaron and his sons did all things which the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses.
 

So the way it was done in the Bible seems to be the way it was done in the BOM.

Sketchy priesthood genealogy- but Melchizadek priesthood officiates in what becomes the "Aaronic" priesthood.  But  in the BOM that last step was never necessary.

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

Have you heard of baptism of healing?

Yes.

It was a common practice in the early days of the Church.
Joseph baptized Emma for her health repeatedly (in Nauvoo I believe).  It's recorded.
Brigham Young is said to have been baptized over a dozen times, and one of the first acts he did when the saints arrived in the valley was to call for all members to be rebaptized to renew their covenants.

It was common to be baptized for health, to renew covenants, to prepare to enter new covenants (endowments, marriage, plural marriages, united orders).
It continued along with many other practices until...wait for it...around the 1920s/30s. 

It was under President Grant that so many practices of 1800s Mormonism were discontinued or changed.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

"...Joseph Fielding Smith may have been thinking..."

There you go, that's the appropriate language for speculation.

That's the problem JFS seemed to have had... a lack of language of speculation.

I wonder whether he didn't because he felt like it was unseemly or inappropriate for a prophet to speak in language of uncertainty or whether it was because he was so confident in his views that he didn't even realise that he was speaking speculatively.

"...JFS certainly had the right to speculate as to why certain archaic practices were engaged in -- even if he might be wrong..."

I didn't say he didn't. It would have been handy if he sometimes spoke in the language of such.   

It might be well for you to be more considerate of a much older generation (a hard-boiled generation) and allow them their foibles.  After all you have your own set of insensitive and intolerant attitudes, which you express here on this issue.  It is apparent to me, for example, that you do not really care about JFS' right to speculate.  A fair minded and tolerant person would simply shrug his strong language off as a cultural attribute from another era -- and unimportant in the long view.

JFS' father was the prophet Joseph F. Smith.  He constantly rubbed shoulders with giants of his generation, and even had wars with fellow apostles and with Seventy B. H. Roberts.  Though untrained in history or science as academic disciplines, he often thought that he had something meaningful to say, but his claims in those areas have not survived close scrutiny.  As far as I can tell, the only people exercised by his speculations are those convinced of prophetic infallibility.  When they find that their fairy faith was absurd they get quite upset.

[canard78]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It might be well for you to be more considerate of a much older generation (a hard-boiled generation) and allow them their foibles.  After all you have your own set of insensitive and intolerant attitudes, which you express here on this issue.  It is apparent to me, for example, that you do not really care about JFS' right to speculate.  A fair minded and tolerant person would simply shrug his strong language off as a cultural attribute from another era -- and unimportant in the long view.

JFS' father was the prophet Joseph F. Smith.  He constantly rubbed shoulders with giants of his generation, and even had wars with fellow apostles and with Seventy B. H. Roberts.  Though untrained in history or science as academic disciplines, he often thought that he had something meaningful to say, but his claims in those areas have not survived close scrutiny.  As far as I can tell, the only people exercised by his speculations are those convinced of prophetic infallibility.  When they find that their fairy faith was absurd they get quite upset.

Robert, if you want meaningful dialogue with people of different views to you, you really need to learn to not be so patronising. Maybe it's just a foible of your generation. In what way am I being intolerant? My first post on this thread was exactly the opposite. I'd said that the quote about something that could only be speculation was useful in helping me see how he would use strong and absolute language for something that could only be speculation. 

If you want to be considered as fair minded and tolerant, then perhaps calling other people's faith a "fairy faith" would be inadvisable. You're beginning to sound like Russell.

Nothing in the JFS quote uses the language of speculation. Despite that we both conclude he is probably speculating. Probably... in fact we can only speculate that he was!

What I also asked was whether he was aware he was speculating but had tendency to use absolute language for various possible reasons, or whether he was so certain in his conclusions that he didn't feel a need to use speculative language. 

Out if interest, do you consider the following absolute statements to be ones we should take literally or as speculation. Given they were taught only two years ago, should those with "fairy faith" accept them or reject the teachings?

To bring it back to the OP, JFS here states, "emphatically," that no ordinance or ceremony performed without priesthood authority is recognised by the Lord and that the united voice of the brethren can never send counsel that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.

Is this actually just more speculation in strong language? Are our prophets actually speculating about the keys and authority they hold? Are they speculating about the authority held by people in the scriptures like Alma? Are they speculating they speak the word of the Lord?

I'd willingly agree with the proposal that the entire quote that follows is nothing more than wishful speculation stated in "plain" and "emphatic" language.

When I sat through this lesson two years ago, I don't remember any of the quorum members discussing it that way. Maybe those doctors, professors, builders, high school teachers and retirees all just had "fairy faith" as well though.

The Lord does not recognize any ordinance or ceremony, even though it be made or performed in his name, unless it is in accordance with his will and done by one who is recognized as his authorized servant.

...

May I now say—very plainly and very emphatically—that we have the holy priesthood and that the keys of the kingdom of God are here. They are found only in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

...

...no father has the right, although he may hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, to baptize one of his own children without first obtaining the sanction of his bishop. When the sanction is obtained, the father is authorized to perform that ordinance for his child. Should any father take it upon himself to perform a baptism, or to ordain his son, without first obtaining the sanction of the presiding officer in the ward or stake, as the case may be, who holds the keys of authority, he would be in transgression.

...

I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.

An individual may fall by the wayside, or have views, or give counsel which falls short of what the Lord intends. But the voice of the First Presidency and the united voice of those others who hold with them the keys of the kingdom shall always guide the Saints and the world in those paths where the Lord wants them to be. …

I testify that if we shall look to the First Presidency and follow their counsel and direction, no power on earth can stay or change our course as a church, and as individuals we shall gain peace in this life and be inheritors of eternal glory in the world to come [see D&C 59:23].

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-joseph-fielding-smith/chapter-11-honoring-the-priesthood-keys-restored-through-joseph-smith?lang=eng