Baptism mentioned in Book of Mormon Isaiah passage

[clarkgoble]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I fully understood your reference, and it is still a bad analogy.

Speculative masonry came out of operative masonry, and they brought the signs, symbols, and degrees with them.  I did not suggest that circumcision was or was not among those elements, which is irrelevant in any case.

The history is much more complicated than that. The ties to operative masonry are pretty dubious although somewhat there. Many think it comes out of Bruno's particular renaissance philosophy although it then continued to evolve. David Stevenson's The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590–1710 is a must read in my opinion as is the more dated Yates Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. (There's a post-Stevenson argument that there are zero ties to operative masonry but that's irrelevant here) But I was referring to specific oaths that we share even though the context is quite different. To me that's pretty analogous to Arab/Jew disagreements.

Edited May 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The history is much more complicated than that. The ties to operative masonry are pretty dubious although somewhat there. Many think it comes out of Bruno's particular renaissance philosophy although it then continued to evolve. David Stevenson's The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Century, 1590–1710 is a must read in my opinion as is the more dated Yates Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. (There's a post-Stevenson argument that there are zero ties to operative masonry but that's irrelevant here) But I was referring to specific oaths that we share even though the context is quite different. To me that's pretty analogous to Arab/Jew disagreements.

Anything by Yates is good and dependable.  As for the best work on Masonry, see Douglas Knoop and G. P. Jones, The Genesis of Freemasonry (Manchester Univ Press, 1947), and Marsha K. M. Schuchard, "Freemasonry, Secret Societies, and the Continuity of the Occult Traditions in English Literature," doctoral dissertation (Univ. of Texas, May 1975).

However, again, this has nothing whatever to do with the biblical order to Abraham to circumcize his entire male retinue, including Ishmael.  Another branch of the family is Esau, who presumably also keeps Father Abraham's covenant, along with all his descendants.  When biblically commanded circumcision is so diffuse, it cannot function as a main covenant for a narrower group -- such as Israel.

Thus, although freemasonry has some signs which compare well with the LDS endowment, most people do not realize that both Bible and Book of Mormon also contain temple rites, along with virtually all of the secret rites of the ancient mystery religions.  The best work comparing the LDS and traditional masonic practice is by a mason, the late Mervin B. Hogan, whose writings on the subject are on deposit in the Univ of Utah Special Collections.

[Stargazer]

On 5/12/2017 at 9:23 AM, rongo said:

How common was the ordinance of baptism in Israel during the time of Isaiah?

We know that it existed in the time of Adam (i.e., from the very beginning), but there is none to very little indication that it existed under the Law of Moses --- including the time of Isaiah.

This change is one of only a literal handful of textual changes to the BoM that represent a substantial change. It wasn't in the 1830 edition of the BoM, either --- it was added by Joseph Smith in the 1837 edition. Or maybe the 1842. I agree that it is an inspired addition by Joseph Smith, but I'm not sure what to make of the "waters of baptism" in Isaiah.

From Wikipedia:

Baptism has similarities to Tvilah, a Jewish purification ritual of immersing in water, 
which is required for, among other things, conversion to Judaism,[36] but which differs 
in being repeatable, while baptism is to be performed only once.[37] (In fact, the Modern 
Hebrew term for "baptism" is "Christian Tvilah".)

As to how common it was at the time of Isaiah, I couldn't find anything to give that information.  But clearly John the Baptist didn't invent the practice.

[CV75]

On May 12, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

If one assumes, as I do, that "the waters of baptism" was added to the passage later by Joseph Smith acting under revelation from God, what is the reason for the later addition? 

I have suggested a possible one (it conveys a stern warning about backsliders in the latter days among those who have received the baptismal ordinance). Agree? Disagree? Can you suggest others?

I think it serves that purpose. It also might serve the purpose of demonstrating the continuity of the Lord's involvement in ancient and modern times, that He is at the root of both sets of ordinances and the priesthood by which they are performed. I think it references a legitimacy to the priesthood held my Joseph. Where both Israel and the modern Church prepare saints for the higher kingdom of Zion, a statement like this links them together with an eye toward the higher purpose.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yup. That's what I was alluding to earlier with the idea of the emulation of Jesus by Nephi. Again being purely speculative if Nephi saw in vision Jesus' baptism in the river then that passage of Isaiah may have come to have an additional meaning.

Interesting, and of course the River Jordan was also in Judah. And Jesus was praised by the Father when He came out of the water.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

From Wikipedia:

Baptism has similarities to Tvilah, a Jewish purification ritual of immersing in water, 
which is required for, among other things, conversion to Judaism,[36] but which differs 
in being repeatable, while baptism is to be performed only once.[37] (In fact, the Modern 
Hebrew term for "baptism" is "Christian Tvilah".)

As to how common it was at the time of Isaiah, I couldn't find anything to give that information.  But clearly John the Baptist didn't invent the practice.

As others have noted in this thread, baptism in the earlier part of this dispensation was somewhat repeatable. Some of the Church members were rebaptized during the reformation in the Utah period of Church history to signify their recommitment.

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

From Wikipedia:

Baptism has similarities to Tvilah, a Jewish purification ritual of immersing in water, 
which is required for, among other things, conversion to Judaism,[36] but which differs 
in being repeatable, while baptism is to be performed only once.[37] (In fact, the Modern 
Hebrew term for "baptism" is "Christian Tvilah".)

As to how common it was at the time of Isaiah, I couldn't find anything to give that information.  But clearly John the Baptist didn't invent the practice.

Pretty much we know very little about pre-exilic Israel since most of the texts, even ones that have older stratas, are post exilic. A lot of what gets postulated as ancient practice comes from surrounding regions like the Canaanites who often had very similar religious beliefs and practices. Most of the priests of surrounding regions had sacrifices, sacred spaces, and so forth reasonably similar to what are presumed to be pre-exilic texts in the Bible describe. Part of that were sacrifices and washings to produce ritual purity. So one famous text about King Keret describes a washing ritual for the King prior to offering a sacrifice. 

While much of the Torah is seen as developing over time, I don't think there's much controversy that as early as the 8th century the priestly washings were part and parcel of Hebrew religion.

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Anything by Yates is good and dependable.  As for the best work on Masonry, see Douglas Knoop and G. P. Jones, The Genesis of Freemasonry (Manchester Univ Press, 1947), and Marsha K. M. Schuchard, "Freemasonry, Secret Societies, and the Continuity of the Occult Traditions in English Literature," doctoral dissertation (Univ. of Texas, May 1975).

I confess I find Yates more of a mixed bag. There's a lot speculative in her work and a lot of it is pretty dated now. Although how she noted the influence of the art of memory is invaluable (IMO).

I can't comment on Schuchard as I've not read it. Koop and Jones are very dated and I think problematic in some ways -- although it's been so long since I read it I can't really defend that reading right now.

Quote

Thus, although freemasonry has some signs which compare well with the LDS endowment, most people do not realize that both Bible and Book of Mormon also contain temple rites, along with virtually all of the secret rites of the ancient mystery religions.  The best work comparing the LDS and traditional masonic practice is by a mason, the late Mervin B. Hogan, whose writings on the subject are on deposit in the Univ of Utah Special Collections.

The interspersion in Rev 2-3 with a combination of a merkabah/herkhalot heavenly ascent and a coronation rite is the best example. (Interestingly this used to be the example of interspersion for the Church's translation manual) The ordering of the ascent ends up being the same as other texts as well. (i.e. paradise in the third heaven) But there's other elements for sure. In the Book of Mormon I've often brought up Alma 13 although again there are many others. As I mentioned in this thread there's a lot of ritual mimicking of Jesus as key ritual in the Book of Mormon. My guess (and it's just that) is that Nephite baptism is transformed on the basis on Nephi's vision of Christ.

As for masonic parallels, I don't think there's a good one that covers everything. Joe Swick was working on one years ago but it never went anywhere. He's a bit idiosyncratic in his beliefs and takes more seriously what I'd term platonic mysticism than I'm comfortable with. He's both a mason and a Mormon. Back in the day we used to discuss a lot of the non-temple parallels with Mormonism. Even if his book may have ended up being problematic due to his views on such esoteric influences, I suspect it'd have significantly pushed the discussion forward a great deal. Nick Literski was writing a book for Kofford on it but he ended up leaving the Church over LGBT issues and more or less dropped his research.

The best contemporary book (IMO) is Melvin Homer's Joseph's Temples. It goes through a lot of the obvious influences including the place of adoptive masonry which gets ignored in many LDS discussions. Unfortunately it doesn't address as well the broader influences of renaissance philosophy, especially platonism in Iamblicus or the Corpus Hermeticum nor the influences of that tradition on masonry except in passing (and largely just by referencing Stevenson) So there's still a lot of scholarship to do in this area.

Quote

However, again, this has nothing whatever to do with the biblical order to Abraham to circumcize his entire male retinue, including Ishmael.

Well the analogy was more to how a practice can be the same between two traditions and even have mutual dependence yet be different rituals. But as they say, if you have to explain an analogy too much it's really not functioning as an analogy. So I'll drop it.

Edited May 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Interesting, and of course the River Jordan was also in Judah. And Jesus was praised by the Father when He came out of the water.

Just to make this explicit, since I don't think I did earlier, the following is the argument:

Rites in Alma 13. "...are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such." (13:3) "Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb." (13:3) Cleansing and purity is part of the ritual -- likely on part tied to the High Priest description in Lev 16. "...these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins..." (13:16) Rite involves looking forward. While this could just be how the Nephites interpreted Lev 16 and other parts of the Law of Moses as typology for Christ, it sounds like it goes beyond this. Also "entering into his rest" is typological of crossing the Jordan into Israel at time of Moses. // Ps 95:10-11.

Rites in 2 Nephi 31. Nephi emphasizes baptism as following Jesus "...if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!" (31:5) Tied to humbling self to Father (31:6-7) Importance is following Son "witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ by baptism" (31:13) 

Now parallel 2 Nephi 31 to Mosiah 15. There Abinadi talks about how Jesus is both father and son. Point is how we are Christ's seed and uses Isaiah 53 to make this point. Those who emphasize modalism to this passage miss Abinadi's whole point is that the relationship between Father and Son is the relationship between us and Son. The relationship of Alma 11-13 to Abinadi in Mosiah 15 is pretty pronounced too. 

As an aside, the way Abinadi uses this part of deutero-Isaiah makes me wonder if these passages were originally about the Exodus and became transformed to being about Babylon after the exile. See for example Isaiah 52:4 where we have the explicit tying of the Egyptian exile and the Assyrian influence. I could even see the original form of the Servant there being Moses. The idea of this being at a minimum typological of Moses is pretty common. Indeed Moses taking the sins of Israel and thus not being allowed into the land is in Deuteronomy 4:21-24 which some speculate arises around the time of Josiah. Also the prophecy in Dt 4:25-30 obviously could be read as about either Assyria or Babylon.

You then have by Alma (and potentially Abinadi) linking Benjamin's covenant-speech with baptism. And as others have noted Benjamin's speech has a lot of elements that makes people think it's a Sukkot or Feast of the Tabernacles. But of course that feast commemorates the Exodus -- see Lev 23:41-43 and Dt 31:10-13 The booths people set up are to remember the tents Israel lived in during the 40 years.

It's worth noting that one of the important parts of the Feast of the Tabernacle was drawing water out of the pool of Siloam and mixing the living water with the ashes of the red heifer that was sacrificed. This was often seen tied to Isaiah 44:3 where God pours out his spirit on all flesh. The waters of that pool were also used to anoint the King. At some reasonably early point Jews saw this as prophetic of the coming of the messiah and the outpouring of the spirit. (See Isaiah 12:3) 

Edited May 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

From Wikipedia:

Baptism has similarities to Tvilah, a Jewish purification ritual of immersing in water, 
which is required for, among other things, conversion to Judaism,[36] but which differs 
in being repeatable, while baptism is to be performed only once.[37] (In fact, the Modern 
Hebrew term for "baptism" is "Christian Tvilah".)

.......................................................

The Wikipedia article is in error:  tebila is the Hebrew for "baptism, immersion," and it is a one-time rite for conversion to Judaism.  You never repeat that initiatory baptism.  You may go to a mikveh or "font" and be immersed for other reasons (ritual purification, according to the rules of Judaism), but those are not initiatory.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Just to make this explicit, since I don't think I did earlier, the following is the argument:

Rites in Alma 13. "...are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such." (13:3) "Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb." (13:3) Cleansing and purity is part of the ritual -- likely on part tied to the High Priest description in Lev 16. "...these ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins..." (13:16) Rite involves looking forward. While this could just be how the Nephites interpreted Lev 16 and other parts of the Law of Moses as typology for Christ, it sounds like it goes beyond this. Also "entering into his rest" is typological of crossing the Jordan into Israel at time of Moses. // Ps 95:10-11.

Rites in 2 Nephi 31. Nephi emphasizes baptism as following Jesus "...if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!" (31:5) Tied to humbling self to Father (31:6-7) Importance is following Son "witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ by baptism" (31:13) 

Now parallel 2 Nephi 31 to Mosiah 15. There Abinadi talks about how Jesus is both father and son. Point is how we are Christ's seed and uses Isaiah 53 to make this point. Those who emphasize modalism to this passage miss Abinadi's whole point is that the relationship between Father and Son is the relationship between us and Son. The relationship of Alma 11-13 to Abinadi in Mosiah 15 is pretty pronounced too. 

As an aside, the way Abinadi uses this part of deutero-Isaiah makes me wonder if these passages were originally about the Exodus and became transformed to being about Babylon after the exile. See for example Isaiah 52:4 where we have the explicit tying of the Egyptian exile and the Assyrian influence. I could even see the original form of the Servant there being Moses. The idea of this being at a minimum typological of Moses is pretty common. Indeed Moses taking the sins of Israel and thus not being allowed into the land is in Deuteronomy 4:21-24 which some speculate arises around the time of Josiah. Also the prophecy in Dt 4:25-30 obviously could be read as about either Assyria or Babylon.

You then have by Alma (and potentially Abinadi) linking Benjamin's covenant-speech with baptism. And as others have noted Benjamin's speech has a lot of elements that makes people think it's a Sukkot or Feast of the Tabernacles. But of course that feast commemorates the Exodus -- see Lev 23:41-43 and Dt 31:10-13 The booths people set up are to remember the tents Israel lived in during the 40 years.

It's worth noting that one of the important parts of the Feast of the Tabernacle was drawing water out of the pool of Siloam and mixing the living water with the ashes of the red heifer that was sacrificed. This was often seen tied to Isaiah 44:3 where God pours out his spirit on all flesh. The waters of that pool were also used to anoint the King. At some reasonably early point Jews saw this as prophetic of the coming of the messiah and the outpouring of the spirit. (See Isaiah 12:3) 

Very nice! In these examples, we most clearly see the element of water; the element of Spirit is reflected in the participants (both the recipients, the priestly intermediaries and God) and perhaps by the sue of fire (Abinadi, heifer); and while the element of blood is found most obviously in the sacrifice of the heifer, wine would serve to symbolize blood among the mostly harvest foods that are consumed in the Feast of Tabernacles (very little meat is eaten as I understand it), and of course in the reference to “seed” such as the Only Begotten and our being begotten sons and daughters in Him through His sacrifice. The combined or inter-exchanged symbolism in the Exile and Exodus certainly keep us coming and going!

Edited May 15, 2017 by CV75

[Stargazer]

On 5/15/2017 at 11:14 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

The Wikipedia article is in error:  tebila is the Hebrew for "baptism, immersion," and it is a one-time rite for conversion to Judaism.  You never repeat that initiatory baptism.  You may go to a mikveh or "font" and be immersed for other reasons (ritual purification, according to the rules of Judaism), but those are not initiatory.

Very good!  

Perhaps you should go to that article and edit it!  And no, I am not kidding.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 5/15/2017 at 9:21 AM, clarkgoble said:

Pretty much we know very little about pre-exilic Israel since most of the texts, even ones that have older stratas, are post exilic. A lot of what gets postulated as ancient practice comes from surrounding regions like the Canaanites who often had very similar religious beliefs and practices. Most of the priests of surrounding regions had sacrifices, sacred spaces, and so forth reasonably similar to what are presumed to be pre-exilic texts in the Bible describe. Part of that were sacrifices and washings to produce ritual purity. So one famous text about King Keret describes a washing ritual for the King prior to offering a sacrifice. 

While much of the Torah is seen as developing over time, I don't think there's much controversy that as early as the 8th century the priestly washings were part and parcel of Hebrew religion.

Most of the religious practices and terminology which we see in the Bible were already in vogue among the Canaanites of the 2nd millennium BC, and in great detail.  The best source in which to see this demonstrated is Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit (Winona Lake, IN: Eisebrauns, 2004).  It covers liturgy (sacred times, places, and rites), myth and cult of royalty, funerary cult of palace, prayers & oracles, syntax of sacred texts, hermeneutics of cultic literature, and everyday religion.

We have no reason to attribute pre-exilic biblical religion to the post-exilic period.

[CV75]

The name "Jerusalem" seems close conceptually to the term, “waters of praise”:

“The verb ירא (yara' II) is a Aramaic-style by-form of the verb ירה (yara), and has the same meaning: to shoot (1 Samuel 11:24, 2 Chronicles 26:15) or to water (Proverbs 11:25).

“Perhaps the name Jerusalem was never changed, but only Hebraized, because it seems to mean Rain Of Peace.”

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Jerusalem.html

[clarkgoble]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We have no reason to attribute pre-exilic biblical religion to the post-exilic period.

Weird. My response I wrote this morning seems to have gone down a black hole.

I fully agree with the first part. Not quite sure what you're saying in the quoted part. Are you saying there's nothing in common between pre-exilic Judaism and post-exilic Judaism? 

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Weird. My response I wrote this morning seems to have gone down a black hole.

I fully agree with the first part. Not quite sure what you're saying in the quoted part. Are you saying there's nothing in common between pre-exilic Judaism and post-exilic Judaism? 

of course I am not saying that.  It is clear that there is some sort of continuity between pre- and post-exilic Judaism, just as there is continuity of sorts between the early Pharisaism of Beth Hillel and modern rabbinic Judaism.  However, in each case, there are major transformations taking place.  In the case of Rab Hillel and modern Judaism, for example, the transformation is no more extreme than the transformation from Beth Hillel to modern Christianity.  As Birger Pearson points out, "Out of a single matrix -– Second Temple Judaism -– had emerged two new religions: rabbinic Judaism and Christianity."  Pearson in Bible Review, 19/2 (April 2003): 50.

So too Hershel Shanks:  "Today, a more nuanced understanding of the two religions is fast gaining ground: that modern Judaism and Christianity are parallel heritors of a many-faceted ancient Judaism," and "modern Judaism and Christianity emerged from ancient Judaism -- fraternal twins born of the same womb." Shanks in Bible Review, 11/1 (Feb 1995), 2, 40.

That such streams of tradition changed through a period of four thousand years is not the issue.  Rather, we ought to realize that there is no basis for the bankrupt notion that post-exilic Judaism completely rewrote and revisioned pre-exilic Judaism -- that the religion was reinvented during the Exile in Babylon.  How do we know this?  By understanding that the religion of early Israel cannot be strongly distinguished from Canaanite religion of the 2nd millennium BC, as exemplified in the texts of Ugarit.  There is no way that the Jews of the Exile could have known that.