Temples and the early Christians (FAIR articles)

[GoCeltics]

In a previous reply from @Stargazer  he shared links to two FAIR articles: “Case for Ancient Temple Ordinances” and “The Israelite Temple and the Early Christians.”

I had a question specifically regarding the purification rituals referenced in the latter article.

The apostle Paul was shown the door by a group of Jews from Asia (see Acts 21:27-30). It should be noted that before Paul was taken away he had submitted himself to rituals of purification (v. 26), thus demonstrating that even a leader of the Christian faith had no aversion to participating in some of the Israelite temple ordinances.

In all of this it can be seen that the first-century disciples of Jesus Christ attended the temple often, experienced purification rites there, prayed there, taught there, and received revelation from the resurrected Lord there.

 

The event is described in Acts 21:20-26 (this is from the NASB).

You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. So what is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Therefore, do as we tell you: we have four men who have a vow upon themselves; take them along and purify yourself together with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and then everyone will know that there is nothing to what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also conform, keeping the Law. But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we sent a letter, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. Then Paul took along the men, and the next day, after purifying himself together with them, he went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

 

Various other issues necessitated cleansing rituals, some involving animal sacrifices or waiting periods, notably childbirth, menstruation, nocturnal emissions, and contact with a dead body (Leviticus 15:1-33). Even inanimate objects that became unclean had to be purified (Leviticus 11:32-40).

Does FAIR suggest that these Old Testament cleansing rituals, including the incident involving Paul and the sacrifice (the only one recorded), applied to all Israelites after they became Christians?

I omitted Gentiles from the discussion of temple ordinances because these cleansing rituals were not obligatory for them, as mentioned earlier.

I encountered a teaching that suggests living people were baptized in the molten sea during Old Testament times.

“In Solomon’s Temple a large molten sea of brass was placed on the backs of 12 brazen oxen, these oxen being symbolical of the 12 tribes of Israel. (1 Kings 7:23–26, 44; 2 Kings 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chron. 18:8.) This brazen sea was used for performing baptisms for the living.”

 

Did the baptisms of living people conducted in the brazen sea or other washings in Old Testament times have an influence on other practices in Mormon temples?

[ZealouslyStriving]

24 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

Did the baptisms of living people conducted in the brazen sea or other washings in Old Testament times have an influence on other practices in Mormon temples?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but...

https://images.app.goo.gl/k2hWEQfiU45b6UJF6

 

 

 

[webbles]

40 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

Did the baptisms of living people conducted in the brazen sea or other washings in Old Testament times have an influence on other practices in Mormon temples?

People were "baptized for health" in the temple fonts - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664180

[Stargazer]

On 7/24/2024 at 3:33 PM, GoCeltics said:

In a previous reply from @Stargazer  he shared links to two FAIR articles: “Case for Ancient Temple Ordinances” and “The Israelite Temple and the Early Christians.”

I had a question specifically regarding the purification rituals referenced in the latter article.

The apostle Paul was shown the door by a group of Jews from Asia (see Acts 21:27-30). It should be noted that before Paul was taken away he had submitted himself to rituals of purification (v. 26), thus demonstrating that even a leader of the Christian faith had no aversion to participating in some of the Israelite temple ordinances.

In all of this it can be seen that the first-century disciples of Jesus Christ attended the temple often, experienced purification rites there, prayed there, taught there, and received revelation from the resurrected Lord there.

 

The event is described in Acts 21:20-26 (this is from the NASB).

You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. So what is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. Therefore, do as we tell you: we have four men who have a vow upon themselves; take them along and purify yourself together with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads; and then everyone will know that there is nothing to what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also conform, keeping the Law. But regarding the Gentiles who have believed, we sent a letter, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. Then Paul took along the men, and the next day, after purifying himself together with them, he went into the temple giving notice of the completion of the days of purification, until the sacrifice was offered for each one of them.

 

Various other issues necessitated cleansing rituals, some involving animal sacrifices or waiting periods, notably childbirth, menstruation, nocturnal emissions, and contact with a dead body (Leviticus 15:1-33). Even inanimate objects that became unclean had to be purified (Leviticus 11:32-40).

Does FAIR suggest that these Old Testament cleansing rituals, including the incident involving Paul and the sacrifice (the only one recorded), applied to all Israelites after they became Christians?

I omitted Gentiles from the discussion of temple ordinances because these cleansing rituals were not obligatory for them, as mentioned earlier.

I encountered a teaching that suggests living people were baptized in the molten sea during Old Testament times.

“In Solomon’s Temple a large molten sea of brass was placed on the backs of 12 brazen oxen, these oxen being symbolical of the 12 tribes of Israel. (1 Kings 7:23–26, 44; 2 Kings 16:17; 25:13; 1 Chron. 18:8.) This brazen sea was used for performing baptisms for the living.”

 

Did the baptisms of living people conducted in the brazen sea or other washings in Old Testament times have an influence on other practices in Mormon temples?

That's a good question, but I don't feel qualified to give a good answer.

But just to offer my own thoughts, take them or leave them, I believe that the neither the Prophet nor his successors would have been very knowledgeable about OT temple ordinances. I feel that he received the essential elements of the modern temple ordinances from the Lord via revelation. Not to get into much detail on a very sacred subject, but there are certain elements in the endowment (to include the initiatory ordinances) that are the consequential and the sine qua non elements. The endowment used to be much longer than today -- and I mean originally. But as I understand it, most of it was presentation and/or preparation. Over time, much of the presentation, which was perhaps superfluous detail, has been whittled away, leaving us with a more concentrated version. There are some LDS who are not happy with some of the whittling away, because they believe that it wasn't superfluous. I'm not one of them. Do those who received the endowment in, say, 1971, as I did, really want to go back to the endowment as it was presented in 1871 or earlier? Do they regard "live" endowments as more "authentic" than the audiovisual presentations of today? 

Aside from the endowment, which is a Melchizedek priesthood ordinance, the only Aaronic ordinance is baptism for the dead. No other Aaronic or Levitical priesthood ordinances are performed, for the simple reason that Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses and thus none of those sacrifices are necessary. Other baggage of the Mosaic law (purifications due to menstruation, touching dead things, and so on) were likewise done away with.

That the early Jewish Christians continued to adhere to the Mosaic Law after the Atonement was completed, in my opinion at least, was a matter not of doctrinal need, but of comfort, and in some cases, in order to maintain continuity with their community. For example, Timothy was a gentile, but Paul circumcised him because without that he could not use him as a missionary among the congregations of the Jewish diaspora. Circumcision was in that case nothing more than presentation for acceptability. In time, circumcision along with all other Mosaic Law appurtenances were laid to the side for all.

[GoCeltics]

On 7/24/2024 at 11:18 AM, webbles said:

People were "baptized for health" in the temple fonts - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664180

Thank you. I wasn't familiar with that concept.

What caused this practice to come to an end? Do these healing baptisms apply to people who don't have a temple recommend?

Edited July 27, 2024 by GoCeltics

[webbles]

22 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

Thank you. I wasn't familiar with that concept.

What caused this practice to come to an end? Do these healing baptisms apply to people who don't have a temple recommend?

I don't know the answers to those questions.  Sorry.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't know the answers to those questions.  Sorry.

I know they had healing baptisms without temples, so it seems likely a temple recommend was not required. Why would you refuse someone sick that opportunity because they came to Utah from England or elsewhere later and not through Nauvoo and there was no temple yet, so lacked a recommend. 

Originally any woman who was a member could give a healing blessing, then in 1884 Eliza R Snow shifted it to only women with a temple endowment (and maybe sealing, it says “temple liturgy”).  It was shifted back after her death. So there does seem to have been a shift to more temple centered for healing blessings for a time, so maybe for healing baptisms as well, especially as more temples were built.  (Info from link below)
 

I wonder when recommends were first used and in what form and when they became formalized. Probably just a letter from their bishop saying they were members in good standing. A good research project for someone if it hasn’t been done already.

Edited July 28, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-f-smith-reflections-man-his-times/last-old-school-joseph-f-smith-latter-day-saint-liturgy

On the ending…
 

 

Edited July 28, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

wonder when recommends were first used and in what form and when they became formalized. Probably just a letter from their bishop saying they were members in good standing. A good research project for someone if it hasn’t been done already.

https://wheatandtares.org/2019/05/22/temple-recommend-evolution/

In the comments it says Howard W Hunter is the first president who wanted all faithful members to have a current recommend whether or not they went to the temple, so it seems likely to me that recommends were not needed to receive healing baptisms, even perhaps in the temple…but I could be wrong. It wouldn’t take much effort to get a certificate or whatever they used for recommends back then I am guessing.  And rebaptisms for healing done in the temple were likely planned ahead. If it was needed quickly, a church font or pond would be used, I would think. 
 

Also from the comments it would seem originally recommends were not used at all (maybe they knew each other well enough…at least any involved in temple rituals at that point).

Edited July 28, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Another temple relevant topic…history of the one year wait for various temple rituals rules:

https://keepapitchinin.org/2015/06/12/the-temple-one-year-rules/

With the lack of concern over who goes to the temple, seems like a recommend would at least be very easy to get while rebaptism was an option.

Edited July 28, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Last post on the subject I think….recommends were supposedly first issued in 1856 but the original instruction doesn’t mention a letter or anything, but it makes sense it would be required in writing as no phone calls…

Quote

1856: In March, after the Endowment house opened leaders were instructed to give candidates a signed recommend and that candidates:

must be those who pray, who pay their tithing from year to year; who live the lives of saints from day to day; setting good examples before their neighbors. Men and women, boys and girls over 16 years of age who are living the lives of saints, believe in [plural marriage], and do not speak evil of the authorities of the Church, and possess true integrity towards their friends

Parowan Historical Record, 16 March 1856

https://uncorrelatedmormonism.com/a-history-of-the-temple-recommend/

Original:

https://mormonstudies.as.virginia.edu/princes-research-excerpts-temples-mormonism/year-1856/

Edited July 28, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Spoke too soon…one more:

Quote

1891: In November, due to the tremendous load of having to personally countersign all recommends, Wilford Woodruff, the President of the church at the time, delegated the responsibility to stake presidents. It was indicated that he personally signed over 3000 recommends that year.
– Messages of the First Presidency, 3:220

Same link above

Temple recommend from 1879

Edited July 28, 2024 by Calm
https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/EoM/id/4269

[GoCeltics]

On 7/28/2024 at 4:35 PM, Calm said:

https://rsc.byu.edu/joseph-f-smith-reflections-man-his-times/last-old-school-joseph-f-smith-latter-day-saint-liturgy

On the ending…
 

 

The conclusion wrote:

That Joseph F. Smith naturally supported baptism for health, female ritual healing and eighth day blessings is entirely consistent with his experience having been trained in the early days of the Church by the example of Joseph Smith and his trusted associates. It is perhaps also natural that as he, the last of these “old school” leaders, passed away, younger leaders without access to that history were less constrained in their approach to that liturgy. Both Smith’s tenure as Church President and his role as living receptacle of liturgical history mark a transition point in Latter-day Saint rituals and worship.

What happened to the historical records such that the new, younger leaders didn't have access?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

What happened to the historical records such that the new, younger leaders didn't have access?

Would they have kept official records of healing baptisms?  Seems unlikely to me, maybe in informal ones journals and such.  As far as I know they didn’t keep official records of healing blessings, these seem to fall into the same category.

Which means the younger leaders would have been searching historical for research or fun, correct?  Outside the appointed church historians who weren’t trained historians yet and who might have simply been caring for the older records and adding to them rather than studying them, few would have the inclination to do that given the issue of travel and time and lack of training.  Cars were of course around by then (Utah had over 42,000 of them in 1920***), but from the descriptions of my grandfather taking his dates on drives from Salt Lake to the Point of the Mountain with its frequent punctured tires and other issues around 1920 (Grant became President in 1916, rebaptisms for healing ceased in the 20s according to the Wright/Stapley article), roads in Utah and the ability of cars to travel weren’t yet that dependable.  Outside of Salt Lake Valley, I am thinking travel would have been an all day event and checking the records for whatever reason a stack of time as well since they weren’t organized by professionals at the time.

I also think the quote was talking more about personal experience when using “access” with healing baptisms, rather than access to records meaning they weren’t that familiar with healing baptisms.   Maybe most had only heard stories about them as it sounds they were quite uncommon by the 20s. Just like today for many women, where it never occurs to them to be even wistful for healing blessings from other women because even if they are aware such were done, they have managed fine without such blessings and have not experienced or heard related by other women what different benefits such blessings might yield, my guess is the younger leaders’ lack of emotional attachment (because they hadn’t been up close and personal to Joseph teaching about them and/or the actual performance of them) and the ease of and established faith in healing blessings from elders contributed to an easy acceptance of the ceasing of healing baptisms.

***https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/mv201.pdf

Edited July 30, 2024 by Calm

[GoCeltics]

On 7/30/2024 at 12:34 PM, Calm said:

Would they have kept official records of healing baptisms?  Seems unlikely to me, maybe in informal ones journals and such.  As far as I know they didn’t keep official records of healing blessings, these seem to fall into the same category.

D&C 107:58-60 appears to mandate the keeping of such records.

 

[webbles]

2 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

D&C 107:58-60 appears to mandate the keeping of such records.

 

I don't think that is the correct reference - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107?lang=eng&id=p58-p60#p58

Quote

58 It is the duty of the Twelve, also, to ordain and set in order all the other officers of the church, agreeable to the revelation which says:

59 To the church of Christ in the land of Zion, in addition to the church laws respecting church business—

60 Verily, I say unto you, saith the Lord of Hosts, there must needs be presiding elders to preside over those who are of the office of an elder;

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

D&C 107:58-60 appears to mandate the keeping of such records.

 

Perhaps—I am assuming you are referring to the various verses about keeping records (we don’t keep records of healing blessings given, seems like healing baptisms would fall into the same category), but it doesn’t mandate all the leaders reading and studying them. Just because the records are there doesn’t mean someone is reading them. 

Edited August 2, 2024 by Calm

[GoCeltics]

On 8/2/2024 at 12:43 PM, webbles said:

I don't think that is the correct reference - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107?lang=eng&id=p58-p60#p58

 

@Calm

I provided the wrong passage.   It's D&C 85:1-2.

It is the duty of the Lord’s clerk, whom he has appointed, to keep a  history, and a general church record of all things that transpire in Zion, and of all those who consecrate properties, and receive  inheritances legally from the bishop; And also their manner of life, their faith, and works; and also of the  apostates who apostatize after receiving their inheritances.

Edited August 4, 2024 by GoCeltics

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

@Calm

I provided the wrong passage.   It's D&C 85:1-2.

It is the duty of the Lord’s clerk, whom he has appointed, to keep a  history, and a general church record of all things that transpire in Zion, and of all those who consecrate properties, and receive  inheritances legally from the bishop; And also their manner of life, their faith, and works; and also of the  apostates who apostatize after receiving their inheritances.

Do you see this as directing records of all ordinances performed?  To me the “general” qualification indicates it’s the non routine church stuff, like once in a lifetime ordinances such as the original baptisms, etc.  The second part seems to refer more to the necessity of keeping property records as well as worthiness with the community living by the law of consecration.

https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/historical-context/dc-85/

If there were records to study of healing baptisms, I assume there would have been mentions of them by the few who studied such things in the past as well as now as it seems unlikely those would be restricted reading any more than baptismal records.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Doctrine and Covenants 128 addresses record keeping in regards to baptisms within a House of the Lord and seems to have baptism for the dead specifically in mind.

[GoCeltics]

On 8/4/2024 at 10:53 AM, Calm said:

Do you see this as directing records of all ordinances performed?  To me the “general” qualification indicates it’s the non routine church stuff, like once in a lifetime ordinances such as the original baptisms, etc.  The second part seems to refer more to the necessity of keeping property records as well as worthiness with the community living by the law of consecration.

https://doctrineandcovenantscentral.org/historical-context/dc-85/

If there were records to study of healing baptisms, I assume there would have been mentions of them by the few who studied such things in the past as well as now as it seems unlikely those would be restricted reading any more than baptismal records.

I would have thought maintaining a record of healing baptisms would be considered more important than keeping a list of those who apostatized after receiving their inheritances.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

I would have thought maintaining a record of healing baptisms would be considered more important than keeping a list of those who apostatized after receiving their inheritances.

People get sick all the time, why would healing baptisms which were not salvific but essentially healing blessings need to be recorded?  

Healing baptisms affect the person, committing to living the law of consecration and then withdrawing or just not acting in such a manner affects the community.

It makes sense that if someone receives property from the Church with the expectation that property’s excess will be contributed in part to the community and instead the person withdraws from the community (depending on how it was done, it may have been all the person’s own property that was consecrated and nothing was actually given to the person as I am not sure how the land was parceled out when they arrived in Missouri, been too long since I read about it), it would be a factor in planning, anticipating what resources were going to be available to the Church to aid the Saints, build chapels and temples and send off missionaries.  
 

Quote

I’m sometimes asked when the Lord will require us to live the law of consecration. The answer is never. It never has been coercive and never will be. Section 85 clarifies that Church leaders should simply keep track of who consecrates but not encroach on individual agency to obey or disobey. The Lord will judge as he deems best. The law is quietly kept by many people, and their names are recorded in appropriate places. The faithful whose names and deeds are documented will receive inheritances in Zion. Those “whose names are not found written in the book of the law . . . shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High” (D&C 82:7, 11).

From the above link…

If I understand it correctly, Saints were expected to consider the Church the owner of their property and themselves the stewards of that property if McClellin wasn’t abiding by the agreement when he bought his properties in his own name when he got to Missouri.

Edited August 6, 2024 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

I would have thought maintaining a record of healing baptisms would be considered more important than keeping a list of those who apostatized after receiving their inheritances.

Why?  We don't maintain records for healing blessings.

I mean I think there probably were records of baptisms for health but I don't necessarily think they'd have to just like administration to the sick.

In the first century of the Church people were baptized and rebaptized for many reasons. To me it's a pity the Church ended those ordinances.

[Calm]

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-3-no-2-2002/conquest-heart-implementing-law-consecration-missouri-ohio#:~:text=According to the Doctrine and,that are still perceptible today.
 

Quote

On 20 July 1831, Joseph Smith received a much-anticipated revelation wherein Jackson County was identified “as the place for the city of Zion” (D&C 57:2). The Saints began to gather to Missouri. Only those who were willing to live the law of consecration and stewardship could join the Saints in Jackson County.[26] In 1833, a man named Bates withdrew from the order and sued Bishop Edward Partridge, demanding that the land he had consecrated to the Church be returned. Even though binding contracts had been drawn, the frontier court ruled in favor of Bates. His land was returned.[27] As a result of this case, Church leaders determined that private ownership rights must be included in the process of consecrating properties and receiving a stewardship. Simply, the participant would consecrate all properties to the bishop of the Church. The bishop would then deed back to the steward properties, farm implements, and resources in sufficient measure according to needs and wants. The deed was legally binding, and the steward obtained ownership of the respective allocation.[28]

By the summer of 1833, about a thousand Saints were living in Jackson County. Parley P. Pratt noted that a Zion community was being forged because of the goodness of the Saints; therefore, the general practice of the law of consecration and stewardship was succeeding. He wrote that the Saints “lived in peace and quiet; no lawsuits with each other or with the world; few or no debts were contracted; few promises broken; there were no thieves, robbers, or murderers; few or no idlers; all seemed to worship God with a ready heart. On Sundays the people assembled to preach, pray, sing, and receive the ordinances of God. Other days all seemed busy in the various pursuits of industry. In short, there has seldom, if ever, been a happier people upon the earth than the Church of the Saints now were.”[29]

Unfortunately, these idyllic conditions did not persist. Selfishness and corruption crept in among some of the Saints, and internal strife ensued. Some members refused to acknowledge the directions of Church leaders in Missouri. Others made attempts to create their own “stewardship” independently of Bishop Partridge.[30] William W. Phelps requested that Joseph Smith come to Jackson County from Kirtland to mediate the downward spiritual spiral then occurring amidst the Missouri Saints. Orson Hyde and Hyrum Smith were appointed to respond to this request. They wrote: “We want to see a spirit in Zion, by which the Lord will build it up; that is the plain, solemn, and pure spirit of Christ. Brother Phelps requested in his last letter that Brother Joseph should come to Zion; but we say that Brother Joseph will not settle in Zion until she repent, and purify herself, and abide by the new covenant, and remember the commandments that have been given her, to do them as well as say them.”[31]

 

Seems like given the issues as described above, accurate records on who was and who wasn’t living the LoC were rather essential even if you removed the future spiritual blessing aspect.

[Dario_M]

Oh dear.. i also wanna injoy purification. Or am i allready purified every time i recieve the sacrament? 

Edited August 11, 2024 by Dario_M