Melchizedek Priesthood - baptisms for the dead?

[nuclearfuels]

When Jesus came, He restored the Melchizedek Priesthood to the Jews and began to build up the Church among them. However, it was lost again by apostasy and was taken from the earth. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/melchizedek-priesthood?lang=eng

“Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1 Corinthians 15:29). (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2009/03/why-do-we-baptize-for-the-dead?lang=eng)

So - the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of Paul had proxy baptisms and the Melchezidek Priesthood which the Savior restored.

Was this ordinance also present in other Biblical times - like the Old Testament - when the M. Priesthood was on earth?

 

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

So - the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of Paul had proxy baptisms and the Melchezidek Priesthood which the Savior restored.

Not necessarily as that was operated by Levites.  Could have been done outside the temple.

[MiserereNobis]

12 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

So - the Temple in Jerusalem at the time of Paul had proxy baptisms and the Melchezidek Priesthood which the Savior restored.

Is this the LDS position? Or your thoughts/speculation? Was the LDS endowment also offered at the Jerusalem Temple?

[Pyreaux]

The Temple of Herod in Jerusalem was under the control of a body of seventy Jewish priests, the Sanhedrin, comprised of a majority of Sadducees and some Pharisees. The Christians as a new upstart sect in Judaism, claiming to possess an extinct priesthood, did not have the clout to have free reign of that temple. The Christians could only obtain access to the Temple of Jerusalem by submitting to the Jewish priests in charge there, like in the days of Paul who often worshiped at the temple but was forced to submit to the purification rites of the Jewish priests there if he wished to participate, they were imposed on him by Jesus' once non-Christian, maybe Essene, brother James (Acts 24:18). Small world. The Temple was likely inaccessible for the purpose of allowing rituals. John baptized on the deserty eastside of the Jordan River, the Essene monastery of Qumran also did baptisms there. John the Baptist, James the Righteous and Jude might be Essenes. The Essense might be the Biblical Rechabites, who vowed not to grow crops or build houses (much like how John lived off the land).

However, a Temple quintessentially is an artificially constructed mountain with an artificial golden tree grove at its summit. In the past, before the temple was built, the Patriarchs built up many other more literally mountainous and arboreal types of temples, utilizing the more natural and rural features of the areas rather than creating artificial ones.

During the day light hours, Christ utilized the Temple of Jerusalem and could be found there teaching the masses outside the Temple, while during the night, Christ taught only to his disciples on a mountain called the “Mount of Olives” (Luke 21:37-38) as was his “wont” or custom (Luke 22:39). This Mount was always a holy and distinguished mountain, it is where King David himself worshiped (2 Samuel 15:30, 32).

Its where the Garden of Gethsemane was, where Mary Magdaline lived, and where Jesus ascended into heaven. For the next 700 years, the Christians that lived there called the Mount of Olives, “the sanctuary of the Lord, that is, the Temple” which is to be built in the future. Thus, Emperor Constantine’s mother built a “sacred church and temple on the very summit”. On the Mountain of Olives was also a cave, “authentic history informs us that this very cave the savior imparted secret revelations to his disciples” (Philip Schaft, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Eusebias [1994], pg 531). 

There were other Rural Temples, there were Melchizedek ordinances were going on in the Building with the Upper Room on Mount Zion and the Cave in the Mount of Olives, though I think the Baptism for the Dead probably happened in a River, like the Jordon, as the Didache indicates Christian's ideal choice to preform baptisms is in living (naturally flowing) water sources. Even if they had free reign of the temple, the Temple font is a reservoir basin for ritual washing priests, but to was very deep, it's not thought people climbed into it. Nor would they use the 10 other basins which were for washing animals. The Melchizedek priests, the Kings of Israel was initiated by being taken to the spring Gihon then a procession lead him into the temple to be anointed and vestured and married there. Even the ancient Baptisms didn't take place at the temple.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Duncan]

 There wasn't any work for the dead in OT times. Christ hadn't organized work for the dead until he himself had overcome death and had organized it to be done, see DC 138 specifically verse 58

[Pyreaux]

26 minutes ago, Duncan said:

 There wasn't any work for the dead in OT times. Christ hadn't organized work for the dead until he himself had overcome death and had organized it to be done, see DC 138 specifically verse 58

Maybe not baptism, but Judas Maccabeus, the Levitical Priest, seemed to think ordinances like offerings could be preformed for the dead, "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (2 Maccabees 12:46)

Edited September 8, 2023 by Pyreaux

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this the LDS position? Or your thoughts/speculation? Was the LDS endowment also offered at the Jerusalem Temple?

No, it was given on the Mount of Transfiguration and in the Disciple's and Apostle's homes.

Edited September 8, 2023 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, Duncan said:

 There wasn't any work for the dead in OT times. Christ hadn't organized work for the dead until he himself had overcome death and had organized it to be done, see DC 138 specifically verse 58

Work for the dead began after Christ broke the bonds of death and began the resurrection.

[Pyreaux]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this the LDS position? Or your thoughts/speculation? Was the LDS endowment also offered at the Jerusalem Temple?

Eh, the following is radical non-LDS and LDS academia. The Davidic Kings and maybe others in his court were endowed LDS-like in Solomon's Temple. Zechariah, son of Jehoiadah the priest (2 Chr 24:20) and Amasal when he swore to King David (1 Chr 12:18). These were the white linen High Priestly initiatory robes (2 Chr 6:4) which endowed the Kings (1 Chr 15:27; Mt 6:29; Lk 12:27). But King Josiah's temple reform put down the other royal temples and the royal priests that were commissioned by the king. These royal priests refused to serve Jerusalem, and fought along side the Chaldeans, razed Jerusalem and the went to Arabia. Once Solomon's Temple was destroyed and end of the line of Davidic Kings, the Levites return from Babylon, with Persian money took over Jerusalem, killed any priests that didn't have record of their lineage, they would therefore kill Melchizedek priests, earlier remnants dwelt among the Ishmaelites after the fall of Jerusalem, some of very last ones went to Samaria after Ezra created the schism. Herod's Temple just had Levitical priests. Jesus was a heir to the line of David, he brought back the old ways, as a Melchizedek High Priest, having received the anointing myrrh oil from some nice royal magi (foreign priests) from Arabia (the East country, the source of incense and myrrh). Jesus dawned to white robe after an old school 8-day initiatory rite on top the Mount of Transfiguration. Its been 490 years since the end of the Davidic line of kings that were ordained Melchizedek priests at their coronation (Psalm 110:4). As we are told, Christ's priesthood was legally obtained. Not by right of an Aaronic lineage which Christ didn’t possess, but by the swearing of an “oath”, as we are told. The Melchizedek Priesthood was a type of priesthood far more ancient and powerful than the Priests of Levi, who depend on a Levitical lineage (Hebrews 7:6-10, 14, 27-28). 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this the LDS position? Or your thoughts/speculation? Was the LDS endowment also offered at the Jerusalem Temple?

1. No

2. Yes

3. No

Edited September 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Is this the LDS position? Or your thoughts/speculation? Was the LDS endowment also offered at the Jerusalem Temple?

Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_for_the_dead

"Early heresiologists Epiphanius of Salamis (Panarion 28) and Chrysostom (Homilies 40) attributed the practice respectively to the Cerinthians and to the Marcionites, whom they identified as heretical "Gnostic" groups, while Ambrosiaster and Tertullian affirmed that the practice was legitimate and found among the New Testament Christians (though Tertullian later recanted his original beliefs in his later life as he became associated with Montanism).^[2] The practice was forbidden by the Councils of Carthage in the last decade of the fourth century AD, and is therefore not practiced in modern mainstream Christianity, whether Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or any traditional Protestant churches."

Edited September 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The Melchizedek Priesthood was a type of priesthood far more ancient and powerful than the Priests of Levi, who depend on a Levitical lineage (Hebrews 7:6-10, 14, 27-28). 

The LDS belief, iirc is that Moses received this priesthood from Jethro the Midianite, his father in law.

There have been discussions on this topic in threads somewhere on this board 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

1. No

2. Yes

3. No

At what time period do you believe the endowment was offered there?

I assume you don’t mean an identical endowment, that you would see it as the mortal version of the eternal endowment that is best suited for teaching that culture what they need to learn and receive through the endowment.  But correct me if my assumption is off please.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

At what time period do you believe the endowment was offered there?

I assume you don’t mean an identical endowment, that you would see it as the mortal version of the eternal endowment that is best suited for teaching that culture what they need to learn and receive through the endowment.  But correct me if my assumption is off please.

I don't think it WAS offered there.

Is there evidence it was?

Paul mentions it, perhaps as a known practice, but I think he is talking about what others do.

Honestly, I have not thought much about it either way.  As you know I am not a His-Story guy.

Especially in an about "what really happened" context 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't think it WAS offered there.

Is there evidence it was?

Paul mentions it, perhaps as a known practice, but I think he is talking about what others do.

Honestly, I have not thought much about it either way.  As you know I am not a His-Story guy.

 

lol, I missed the second question, thought that was #2.  My bad.  Makes so much more sense now.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

The LDS belief, iirc is that Moses received this priesthood from Jethro the Midianite, his father in law.

There have been discussions on this topic in threads somewhere on this board 

Moses was among the last of the true Patriarchs before Jethro convinced him to delegate tasks to other priests, but Moses himself was also a “priest” (Psalms 99:1). He wasn’t one of Aaron’s sons, he was his brother. Aaron's Priesthood was much more inferior to Moses’ own authority. Philo says, Moses' authority was different from Aaron's, the priesthood is necessary to approach God (Philo, Abr., 122), while Aaron could only prepare himself once a year, there was a higher priesthood that was allowing Moses to endure it continually (Philo, Gig 52-55).

[mfbukowski]

On 9/8/2023 at 2:10 PM, Pyreaux said:

Moses was among the last of the true Patriarchs before Jethro convinced him to delegate tasks to other priests, but Moses himself was also a “priest” (Psalms 99:1).

When one considers simply the etymology of the English word "true", and then add that to ALL the perfectly coherent but conflicting philosophies of truth which have been put forward in Western Philosophy alone in the last 2500 years, it has to be one of the least precise words in the English language.

We really need to be more precise and think more in terms of the best hypothesis/paradigm for a particular purpose and throw out the term as it is often used 

Please compare and contrast, but only use one bluebook. 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/truth

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/