Baptism mentioned in Book of Mormon Isaiah passage

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Thinking said:

It doesn't matter who added it if it wasn't in the original manuscript. This raises the question, "Why not?"

Was its omission a mistake? Was the addition merely a clarification?

As I implied earlier, either explanation is possible and reasonable in my mind.

If the phrase "the waters of Judah" was meant to be understood as denoting baptism, I don't see a thing wrong with adding a parenthetical explanation indicating as much for readers who are not apt to understand it otherwise.

No translation is perfectly literal. Even the most literal translations allow some leeway to ensure that the meaning is accurately conveyed to the reader of the translation.*

Furthermore, it is the prerogative of the Prophet, acting under revelation in his divine role as a seer and a translator, to make subsequent clarifications to translations he has already made.

 

--

*Footnote: I have an illustration from my missionary days in Sweden. When some missionaries were meeting with the ward mission leader, one elder spoke of an appointment he and his companion had that "fell through," an idiom that sounded perfectly fine in English. But he spoke in Swedish and translated it literally, which sounded perfectly ridiculous. The point is, if one were to translate a document from English to Swedish, it would be absurd and unclear without explanatory content to translate "fell through" to "ramlade genom."

 

Edited May 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Do you believe that Adam was baptized?

Yes, although that doesn't mean the details of the symbolism and function of the rite aren't different. The version we have in the account of Enoch in the JST is highly Christianized. So it's hard to tell how much is commentary and how much reflects what Adam thought. But it seems there was some kind of of baptism that was in the name of Christ. My guess is that it's tied to a kind of priestly ritual purity. It doesn't appear to be focused on membership the way our baptism is.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, although that doesn't mean the details of the symbolism and function of the rite aren't different. The version we have in the account of Enoch in the JST is highly Christianized. So it's hard to tell how much is commentary and how much reflects what Adam thought. But it seems there was some kind of of baptism that was in the name of Christ. My guess is that it's tied to a kind of priestly ritual purity. It doesn't appear to be focused on membership the way our baptism is.

"Our" baptism is not focused on membership so much as on covenant. True, it makes one a member of the "covenant people of God" but that points the mind to the covenants one makes (which include the duties of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ).

I think it has always been so, as there has always been the concept of a covenant people.

 

[clarkgoble]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Our" baptism is not focused on membership so much as on covenant. True, it makes one a member of the "covenant people of God" but that points the mind to the covenants one makes (which include the duties of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ).

I think it has always been so, as there has always been the concept of a covenant people.

Becoming part of the covenant people is membership. Most of the washings in the OT don't have that role. The main sign is circumcision not baptism. As I said within later Judaism the last step of conversion is a mikvah. However the idea of a mikvah as making a covenant doesn't appear to be in the Old Testament. For the Book of Mormon looking at Alma as the archetype then it's a sign of having entered into a covenant with God (Mosiah 18:10) That aspect of a sign of the covenant doesn't appear in the earlier passages from the small plates of Nephi. The closest is 2 Ne 31:13 where we take the name of Christ by the baptism.

There was a paper by FARMS back in the day that our theology arises more out of Benjamin's sermon (likely taking place on the day of the feast of the tabernacles) and that it gets more amplified by Alma and then finally becomes part of our sacrament prayers. But in Benjamin's sermon proper the focus is on blood not water. The covenant part of the speech is Mos 5:5-12. Notice though that there's no Mikvah associated with the covenant making. So I tend to see the Mormon idea of baptism as a covenant arising out of the Book of Mormon which in turn might well be an innovation of Alma but making extensive use of Benjamin's speech. (Alma appears to get his ideas from Abinadi but Abinadi uses a lot of similar phrases to Benjamin) It's a unique development compared to say the Essenes and John. Figuring out the exact relationship between those who returned to the land of Nephi and those who remained in Zarahemla gets tricky. The whole appointing Alma as head of the Church by Mosiah, Benjamin's son in Mosiah 25, remains a bit unclear to me.  We know Limhi gets baptized and we know the people at Zarahemla prior to Alma did a form of baptism. This leads to the rise of a notion of church and baptism appears to be membership in the church. This in turn seems somewhat different from what Benjamin preached a generation earlier. So there's a lot going on in Mosiah 25-26 and I suspect we're just missing a sufficient enough account to understand it. It's after this that we start getting a division among the people of Nephi over religion. (Mosiah 26:4)

I suspect part of the problem is that Mosiah starts up with part of the translation lost with the 116 pages. So I suspect were we to have the lost 116 a lot of this would make more sense. But the way it sounds is that the mysterious Abinadi has some connection to Benjamin and for unknown reasons goes to the land of Nephi-Lehi. Alma, who appears to have been a priest in what's perhaps some weird variant of the religion of Benjamin, believes Abinadi but introduces this idea of the covenant being tied to baptism. Possibly it's tied to Abinadi's Christology since the early generation Nephites definitely had the notion of Christ being baptized. 

But there's a lot to unpack and I think much is ambiguous. I'd just note that in Nephi's writings baptism is either always about Jesus' baptism or is tied to repentance (more akin to the Law of Moses). The one exception in 1 Nephi 20:1 which quotes Isaiah 48 and which Joseph treats as metaphor for baptism. Interestingly this is about those who claim to be Israel but aren't really. The only place with anything like the later baptism is 2 Ne 31:13 but this seems to be more about emulating what Christ did. It's all about "following your Lord and your Savior down into the water." to "witness...ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ." Given Mosiah 15 quotes Isaiah about becoming sons of God the way Jesus is ("how beautiful on the mountaintops") I'd speculate that Abinadi is also teaching an idea of emulating Jesus.

Lots of speculation but if that's the case then it's Alma who mixes Benjamin's covenant language with Abinadi/Nephi's emulation of Jesus.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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

Relative to Isaiah 48 as others noted that was an expansion not even in the original version of the Book of Mormon.....

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

Although it is true that the phrase was not in the Original Manuscript, and did not appear until the 1840 edition in parentheses, it is merely one of two lines which are essential to the poetic scansion of that part of Isaiah 48 in 1 Nephi 20:

Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob,
who are called by the name of Israel,

and are come forth out of the waters of Judah,
or out of the waters of baptism,

who swear by the name of the Lord,
and make mention of the God of Israel, 

yet they swear not in truth
nor in righteousness.

Nevertheless, they call themselves of the holy city,
but they do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel,

who is the Lord of Hosts;
yea, the Lord of Hosts is his name.

I have put both the additional phrases in italics here so that all can see the parallel stichometry.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Although it is true that the phrase was not in the Original Manuscript, and did not appear until the 1840 edition in parentheses, it is merely one of two lines which are essential to the poetic scansion of that part of Isaiah 48 in 1 Nephi 20:

[...]

I have put both the additional phrases in italics here so that all can see the parallel stichometry.

It's definitely possible although I still favor the idea of expansion & commentary. Primarily because you can represent the poetry slightly differently

Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob,
    who are called by the name of Israel,
        and are come forth out of the waters of Judah,
    which swear by the name of the Lord,
        and make mention of the God of Israel, 

 

In any case given this is a deutero-Isaiah passage I tend to assume what we have is Joseph largely following the KJV with variants including the later added ones but that the underlying text is some proto-deutero-Isaiah that was compiled into Isaiah during the exile. So no matter what it's a kind of problematic text.

Edited May 13, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

Edited May 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[SamIam]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

True. I wonder if that might be due at least in part to many of "the plain and precious parts" having been left out of the ancient scriptures as they have been handed down to us.

That is interesting information. Thank you.

Perhaps I could mention that I approached my reading this morning with the intent in mind (even a prayer in my heart) that I do as Nephi says, to "liken the scriptures unto ourselves." I reiterate that the inclusion of that phrase in the Book of Mormon version of the Isaiah passage strikes me very strongly as a message to us living in the latter days.

 

 

In addition to the Ludlow reference provided earlier, a few others can be added to the mix.  Monte S. Nyman might be in agreement with your expectations.

 

Quote

 

The phrase "out of the waters of Judah" refers to those of Judah who are baptized into the Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith added the phrase "or out of the waters of baptism" to the text in the third edition of the Book of Mormon (1840). This clarifies the meaning of the term "waters of Judah."

Nyman, Monte S. Great are the Words of Isaiah. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1980.

 

Avraham Gileadi in his retranslation of Isaiah preferred an entirely different interpretation:

Quote

Who take oaths in the name of the lord and invoke the God of Israel though you stem from the lineage of Judah  Hear this, O house of Jacob. You who are named Israel (The Literary Message of Isaiah, Avraham Gileadi pg 368 )

Above is the Translation of Isaiah which Avraham Gileadi has published in several books, he emends the term which is translated in most instances as waters with a term which he interprets as loins.  Both words are very close in spelling in Hebrew.

mayim {mah'-yim}

Hebrew: noun masculine

Possible Definitions:

1) water, waters

   1a) water

   1b) water of the feet, urine

   1c) of danger, violence, transitory things, refreshment

           (figurative)

 

me'ah {may-aw'}

Hebrew: noun masculine

Possible Definitions:

1) internal organs, inward parts, bowels, intestines, belly

   1a) inward parts

   1b) digestive organs

   1c) organs of procreation, womb

   1d) place of emotions/distress/love (figurative)

   1e) external belly

 

This is the basis of the word from the traditional interpretations.  And the second one forms the root of the Gileadi preferred emended term.

When I did this research years ago.  I came away feeling that Gileadi should have been more thoughtful of Joseph's Smith translation.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, SamIam said:

 

In addition to the Ludlow reference provided earlier, a few others can be added to the mix.  Monte S. Nyman might be in agreement with your expectations.

 

 

Avraham Gileadi in his retranslation of Isaiah preferred an entirely different interpretation:

Above is the Translation of Isaiah which Avraham Gileadi has published in several books, he emends the term which is translated in most instances as waters with a term which he interprets as loins.  Both words are very close in spelling in Hebrew.

 

mayim {mah'-yim}

 

Hebrew: noun masculine

 

Possible Definitions:

 

1) water, waters

 

   1a) water

 

   1b) water of the feet, urine

 

   1c) of danger, violence, transitory things, refreshment

 

           (figurative)

 

 

 

me'ah {may-aw'}

 

Hebrew: noun masculine

 

Possible Definitions:

 

1) internal organs, inward parts, bowels, intestines, belly

 

   1a) inward parts

 

   1b) digestive organs

 

   1c) organs of procreation, womb

 

   1d) place of emotions/distress/love (figurative)

 

   1e) external belly

 

 

 

This is the basis of the word from the traditional interpretations.  And the second one forms the root of the Gileadi preferred emended term.

 

When I did this research years ago.  I came away feeling that Gileadi should have been more thoughtful of Joseph's Smith translation.

 

Thanks for this.

Needless to say, I prefer Nyman's interpretation as well. It's the one that resonates with me as I consider conditions of the latter days and as I ponder the fact that Joseph Smith thought it important to insert an explanatory phrase in a later edition of the Book of Mormon.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Thinking said:

It doesn't matter who added it if it wasn't in the original manuscript. This raises the question, "Why not?"

Was its omission a mistake? Was the addition merely a clarification?

The Book or Mormon in at least a couple of places allows that omissions may be made by anyone involved with its preparation and translation, so that could well be the case. Joseph Smith may also have then added something that he or anyone else had omitted earlier. And if he added it outside his divine prerogative, the Book of Mormon also allows that mistakes might be made. Regardless, it stands as a testament of the fulness of the Gospel (not necessarily doctrine, which is not realized until the end of this dispensation of the fulness of times) in that it is an unadulterated testament of Jesus and His mission.

It is interesting to me that Judah means "praised." which is what is done in referring the waters of Mormon (Mosiah 18:30). Maybe "Mormon" somehow means "praise." Also interestingly, the Lord seems to be praising those who entered the waters of Mormon as well (Mosiah 26:14-18).

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's definitely possible although I still favor the idea of expansion & commentary. Primarily because you can represent the poetry slightly differently

Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob,
    who are called by the name of Israel,
        and are come forth out of the waters of Judah,
    which swear by the name of the Lord,
        and make mention of the God of Israel, 

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

Such a limited scansion does violence to the parallel stichometry in Hebrew, where Beit-Yaakob and Shem-Israel go together, while Shem-YHWH and Elohei-Israel go together, thus leaving the waters of Judah out there alone and unaccounted for in the remainder of the poem.  The same applies throughout much of Isaiah and the other prophets, and the poetry enables many Israelis today to memorize whole chapters.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The Book or Mormon in at least a couple of places allows that omissions may be made by anyone involved with its preparation and translation, so that could well be the case. Joseph Smith may also have then added something that he or anyone else had omitted earlier. And if he added it outside his divine prerogative, the Book of Mormon also allows that mistakes might be made. Regardless, it stands as a testament of the fulness of the Gospel (not necessarily doctrine, which is not realized until the end of this dispensation of the fulness of times) in that it is an unadulterated testament of Jesus and His mission.

It is interesting to me that Judah means "praised." which is what is done in referring the waters of Mormon (Mosiah 18:30). Maybe "Mormon" somehow means "praise." Also interestingly, the Lord seems to be praising those who entered the waters of Mormon as well (Mosiah 26:14-18).

Well said. 

I strongly disagree with Thinking's contention that "it doesn't matter who inserted it." Of course it matters!

Joseph Smith had as one of his divine gifts the gift to translate ancient scripture by the power of God. And one of his divine mandates was to bring forth the Book of Mormon in latter days

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, SamIam said:

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

When I did this research years ago.  I came away feeling that Gileadi should have been more thoughtful of Joseph's Smith translation.

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

Nyman and Gileadi might better have looked at the plain meaning of the text and asked after the parallel use of Hebrew me-Yehuda and possibly me-tebila.  Comparison with Testament of Levi 18:7 helps to clarify how an eschatological text can be made to apply to a particular Messiah:

And the glory of the Most High shall burst forth upon him,
And the spirit of understanding and sanctification shall rest upon him [in the water en to hudati].

The Greek addition appears to be based on Isa 11:2, Matt 3:16, Mark 1:9-10, and John 1:31-33 (so Charlesworth, OTP, I:795n).

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Becoming part of the covenant people is membership. Most of the washings in the OT don't have that role. The main sign is circumcision not baptism. As I said within later Judaism the last step of conversion is a mikvah. However the idea of a mikvah as making a covenant doesn't appear to be in the Old Testament. .............................

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

Circumcision cannot be the main sign since it applies as much to the Arabs as to the Jews (both are children of Ibrahim).  It is required by the rabbis for men, but both men and women must undergo immersion (baptism) in a mikveh in order to be initiated into Judaism -- the same procedure which has ever since been a major Christian initiation.  And a witness must declare that the entire body, including hair, was completely immersed.  This was also the requirement for initiation into the Essene Jewish sect.

This was a purification ritual, not a making of covenant, even though today we speak of renewing our covenants (including baptism) each week as we take the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  Thus, the false impression left among Christians is that only the NT speaks of baptism.  That is true of the KJV English, in which the committees translating the OT were not the same as the committees translating the NT, and they did not use the same English terminology in their translations -- even though the English word baptize comes directly from the OT Greek baptein, baptidzen, which is in turn a Jewish translation (the LXX) of Hebrew tabal or tebila, referring to immersion in pure and living water:  Thus, Elisha the Prophet has Naaman the Aramean General immerse (baptize) himself seven times in the Jordan River (2 Kings 5:14), and such usage continues in the OT Apocrypha (Judith 12:7, Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 34:25).

I recommend a look at “Baptism, Baptize,’ in the LDS Guide to the Scriptures,[1] and the LDS Gospel Topics treatment of “Baptism.”[2]

---

[1] https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/baptism-baptize?lang=eng .

[2] LDS Gospel Topics section online at https://www.lds.org/topics/baptism?lang=eng .

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Circumcision cannot be the main sign since it applies as much to the Arabs as to the Jews (both are children of Ibrahim).  It is required by the rabbis for men, but both men and women must undergo immersion (baptism) in a mikveh in order to be initiated into Judaism -- the same procedure which has ever since been a major Christian initiation.  And a witness must declare that the entire body, including hair, was completely immersed.  This was also the requirement for initiation into the Essene Jewish sect.

This was a purification ritual, not a making of covenant, even though today we speak of renewing our covenants (including baptism) each week as we take the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  Thus, the false impression left among Christians is that only the NT speaks of baptism.  That is true of the KJV English, in which the committees translating the OT were not the same as the committees translating the NT, and they did not use the same English terminology in their translations -- even though the English word baptize comes directly from the OT Greek baptein, baptidzen, which is in turn a Jewish translation (the LXX) of Hebrew tabal or tebila, referring to immersion in pure and living water:  Thus, Elisha the Prophet has Naaman the Aramean General immerse (baptize) himself seven times in the Jordan River (2 Kings 5:14), and such usage continues in the OT Apocrypha (Judith 12:7, Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 34:25).

I recommend a look at “Baptism, Baptize,’ in the LDS Guide to the Scriptures,[1] and the LDS Gospel Topics treatment of “Baptism.”[2]

---

[1] https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/baptism-baptize?lang=eng .

[2] LDS Gospel Topics section online at https://www.lds.org/topics/baptism?lang=eng .

Thanks for these references. 

The concept of purification associated with baptism is just as present today as ever, as the scriptures teach of baptism "for the remission of sins."

And whether or not it is clear from Old Testament accounts, I believe that the idea of covenant making associated with baptism was present from the beginning. That is why the image of people backsliding or abandoning their faithfulness to God and his teachings after they have undergone baptism is so odious, as expressed in the Isaiah passage. 

The doctrine may have and likely did become corrupted during periods of apostasy in the history of the world, but doctrines, including baptism, have been restored in their purity in latter days. 

[Robert F. Smith]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

The concept of purification associated with baptism is just as present today as ever, as the scriptures teach of baptism "for the remission of sins."

And whether or not it is clear from Old Testament accounts, I believe that the idea of covenant making associated with baptism was present from the beginning. That is why the image of people backsliding or abandoning their faithfulness to God and his teachings after they have undergone baptism is so odious, as expressed in the Isaiah passage. 

The doctrine may have and likely did become corrupted during periods of apostasy in the history of the world, but doctrines, including baptism, have been restored in their purity in latter days. 

Yes, the general Old Testament concept is found repeatedly:

Jeremiah 4:14        Wash your heart of wickedness, O Jerusalem
                              That you might be saved
Psalm 51:2             Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity,
                              Purify me from my sin. 
Isaiah 1:16             Wash you,
                             Make you clean, . .
          1:18            Though your sins are like scarlet,
                             They shall be as white as snow;
                            Though they are red as crimson,
                            They shall be like wool.

 

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Such a limited scansion does violence to the parallel stichometry in Hebrew, where Beit-Yaakob and Shem-Israel go together, while Shem-YHWH and Elohei-Israel go together, thus leaving the waters of Judah out there alone and unaccounted for in the remainder of the poem.  The same applies throughout much of Isaiah and the other prophets, and the poetry enables many Israelis today to memorize whole chapters.

Well I don't know enough Hebrew to say much about that. I'd just note that books arguing the unity of Isaiah using poetry don't see a huge problem with how it forms, although they are divided on some of the emandations that Gileadi mentions. (Going here from Isaiah 46, 47 adn 48: A New Literary-critical Reading) I'm just not qualified to say much beyond looking at the scholars on the topic and not seeing it as a clear consensus. The main argument of that text is on the beat counts of the lines for a type of unity.

Again I'm just not qualified to say much at all so just acknowledge my ignorance here. From that ignorance I can just see it going either way. Further the bigger issue to me isn't whether those lines make sense in some version but the larger question of the KJV to deutero-Isaiah. I mean, heck, maybe those lines you mention were in an early pre-exilic version of the poem that were removed when deutero-Isaiah was added to Isaiah. I'm fine either way.

Quote

Circumcision cannot be the main sign since it applies as much to the Arabs as to the Jews (both are children of Ibrahim).

I don't quite understand this argument. It's like saying baptism can't be the main sign since Catholics baptize as well as Mormons.

Certainly I agree that in rabbinical Judaism a mikveh is required. Indeed I stated that several times. But that's centuries after the period in question.

Quote

This was a purification ritual, not a making of covenant...

Yes, I noted that and speculated the tying of a mikvah to the covenant is a post-Benjamin innovation by Alma.

Quote

And whether or not it is clear from Old Testament accounts, I believe that the idea of covenant making associated with baptism was present from the beginning.

It's possible. It's just not at all clear given the accounts we have. I always found it interesting that baptism isn't mentioned among the Jaredites. (It's mentioned by Moroni in Ether but speaking in terms of his times or ours) While the Enoch passages in Moses talk about it they don't tie it to covenant making. It seems a requirement of the Holy Ghost and apparently tied to repentance but nothing else.

I should also note relative to Alma tying covenant to baptism yet retaining a looking forward to Christ as an essential part that Alma 13 is always interesting. This is really about priests but also Christ. Verse 2 always struck me.

"And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption."

Given how Nephi looks forward it could be that baptism as a priestly activity is part of this. What we may have is that among the Nephites baptism is more closely tied to priesthood than it is for us. The counter-argument is Mosiah 18:18 where there's one priest for 50 people. So there's a lot to question. I think we assume pre-Christian Nephite baptism was identical to ours but I'm not at all sure that's the case.

 

Edited May 13, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I don't know enough Hebrew to say much about that. I'd just note that books arguing the unity of Isaiah using poetry don't see a huge problem with how it forms, although they are divided on some of the emandations that Gileadi mentions. (Going here from Isaiah 46, 47 adn 48: A New Literary-critical Reading) I'm just not qualified to say much beyond looking at the scholars on the topic and not seeing it as a clear consensus. The main argument of that text is on the beat counts of the lines for a type of unity.

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

David Noel Freedman was likely most correct to count syllables rather than beats, and I mention that in a major article on poetry in the Book of Mormon coming out later this year.  What I try to do is compare BofM poetry with the poetry found in Hebrew, Canaanite, and Egyptian traditions.

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't quite understand this argument. It's like saying baptism can't be the main sign since Catholics baptize as well as Mormons.

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

I simply wanted to point out that the Abrahamic covenant (berit milah) comes centuries before Moses, and that Abraham is father of more than Israel.  That is, circumcision is also an Arab as well as Jewish practice.  Therefore it is not exclusively indicative of Jewish ethnicity or religion.  And it does not apply to women.  That is why it is not the main covenant.

[CV75]

Another suggested connection between the waters of baptism and praise:

2 Nephi 31: 13, “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.”

This offers a new consideration for Isaiah 12 (especially verse 3, should the waters of the wells of salvation refer to the waters of baptism) in suggesting a connection between the waters of baptism and the waters of Judah/Mormon/praise.

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/12/2017 at 2:01 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

"Our" baptism is not focused on membership so much as on covenant. True, it makes one a member of the "covenant people of God" but that points the mind to the covenants one makes (which include the duties of membership in the Church of Jesus Christ).

I think it has always been so, as there has always been the concept of a covenant people.

 

In light of that, here's an interesting comment:

http://www.templeinstitute.org/day_in_life/ritual_purification.htm

https://www.templeinstitute.org/guide_to_ascending_the_mount.htm

Quote

desirous of performing the first service would rise up early and purify themselves by immersing iOn the morning of the day of ascent to the Temple Mount, all Jewish males, regardless of age (even under bar mitzvah) should immerse in a kosher mikvah. Gentiles, both men and women, who are equally welcome to visit the permitted places on the Temple Mount - "for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations" - are not required to immerse.

Those who must immerse in a mikvah should first prepare themselves by making sure that nothing is present on the body that would constitute a separation between the body and the water of the mikvah. It is customary to trim the fingernails and toenails before immersion. Any questions regarding the complex laws of what constitutes a separation (chatziza) regarding immersion, should be directed to a competent authority.

 

Edited May 14, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[clarkgoble]

On 5/13/2017 at 5:58 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I simply wanted to point out that the Abrahamic covenant (berit milah) comes centuries before Moses, and that Abraham is father of more than Israel.  That is, circumcision is also an Arab as well as Jewish practice.  Therefore it is not exclusively indicative of Jewish ethnicity or religion.  And it does not apply to women.  That is why it is not the main covenant.

Right. I'm more just saying how it's talked about at the time of Christ. It's circumcision that's the focus. Now in part that's almost certainly due to the Greeks really disliking circumcision. So with the Hellenization of Jerusalem after it's conquest by Alexander circumcision became very looked down upon. There are accounts of surgeries to actually try to undo the process. (I can't quite figure out how that'd possibly work) By the time of Jesus it may well have taken a form that it didn't have at the time of Jeremiah.

But the problem with the divide between Arabs and Jews is over who has the covenant as I understand it. In any case my point was simply that just because others used the same mark doesn't make it any less the mark of a covenant. After all we look at masons and don't think they have our covenant.

[clarkgoble]

On 5/13/2017 at 6:33 PM, CV75 said:

This offers a new consideration for Isaiah 12 (especially verse 3, should the waters of the wells of salvation refer to the waters of baptism) in suggesting a connection between the waters of baptism and the waters of Judah/Mormon/praise.

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.

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Right. I'm more just saying how it's talked about at the time of Christ. It's circumcision that's the focus. Now in part that's almost certainly due to the Greeks really disliking circumcision. So with the Hellenization of Jerusalem after it's conquest by Alexander circumcision became very looked down upon. There are accounts of surgeries to actually try to undo the process. (I can't quite figure out how that'd possibly work) By the time of Jesus it may well have taken a form that it didn't have at the time of Jeremiah.

But the problem with the divide between Arabs and Jews is over who has the covenant as I understand it. In any case my point was simply that just because others used the same mark doesn't make it any less the mark of a covenant. After all we look at masons and don't think they have our covenant.

However, those unwary stone masons were not ordered by God to adopt the sign of the covenant, so your example is unproductive:

Gen 17:23 "And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him."

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, those unwary stone masons were not ordered by God to adopt the sign of the covenant, so your example is unproductive:

Gen 17:23 "And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him."

Well the masons don't have circumcision, you're right. I'm not quite clear how that affects my analogy though since I was referring to different covenants with the analogy. 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well the masons don't have circumcision, you're right. I'm not quite clear how that affects my analogy though since I was referring to different covenants with the analogy. 

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.