Is Baptism required for a person to go to Spirit Paradise?

[webbles]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

Isn’t this a vision of the future though?  Weren’t there people in it that were still alive?  I need to check, but can’t right now.  If it is of the future, it could be after Alvin received proxy baptism.

Yes.  He says that he saw his mother who was very much alive at the time.  The revelation was given in 1836 and Lucy didn't die till 1856.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Good point about the timeline!

Can you provide the scripture where King Benjamin teaches about baptism so I don't have to try to find it.

Mosiah 26:1-4 (though this reference to baptism might pertain to those performed by Alma after he arrived in Zarahemla and received authority from King Mosiah to establish a church, and not that there were any performed in Zarahemla under Kings Mosiah I/Benjamin/Mosiah II prior to Alma's arrival); Mosiah 4:3, 4:26, and 5:6–15 in relation to remission of sins (though this may have reference to other covenants voiced by the people in Mosiah 4:2 and 5:2-5). But since the large plates were more about the acts of the kings than spiritual matters (though the kings were very spiritual! -- they may not have led the churches and performed the ordinances) until after they were placed into Alma's custody (who had been made high priest of the church), many ecclesiastical acts and records of the Zarahemla priests may be missing between Words of Mormon and Mosiah 28:20 (92 BC). Also, Mormon did the abridging. and we get a sense of his priorities from the war chapters!  

Because baptism was practiced (with a different but correlating understanding and purpose) among the Jews, this remnant may have practiced it in anticipation Christ, which was a very real expectation for them, including having a record of His form of baptism.

ETA: Ammon, a son of King Mosiah, taught baptism (yet considered himself unworthy to perform the ordinance, Mosiah 21: 33). This suggests baptism was taught under the reign of Mosiah, Benjamin before him, and Mosiah before him and before the people of Alma and Limhi joined Zarahemla. 

Edited January 21, 2025 by CV75

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Mosiah 26:1-4 (though this reference to baptism might pertain to those performed by Alma after he arrived in Zarahemla and received authority from King Mosiah to establish a church, and not that there were any performed in Zarahemla under Kings Mosiah I/Benjamin/Mosiah II prior to Alma's arrival); Mosiah 4:3, 4:26, and 5:6–15 in relation to remission of sins (though this may have reference to other covenants voiced by the people in Mosiah 4:2 and 5:2-5). But since the large plates were more about the acts of the kings than spiritual matters (though the kings were very spiritual! -- they may not have led the churches and performed the ordinances) until after they were placed into Alma's custody (who had been made high priest of the church), many ecclesiastical acts and records of the Zarahemla priests may be missing between Words of Mormon and Mosiah 28:20 (92 BC). Also, Mormon did the abridging. and we get a sense of his priorities from the war chapters!  

Because baptism was practiced (with a different but correlating understanding and purpose) among the Jews, this remnant may have practiced it in anticipation Christ, which was a very real expectation for them, including having a record of His form of baptism.

ETA: Ammon, a son of King Mosiah, taught baptism (yet considered himself unworthy to perform the ordinance, Mosiah 21: 33). This suggests baptism was taught under the reign of Mosiah, Benjamin before him, and Mosiah before him and before the people of Alma and Limhi joined Zarahemla. 

I don't think this Ammon is a son of King Mosiah, is he?  The scriptures say that he was a descendant of zarahemla.  But I agree that it does seem that baptism was known to Ammon and so taught at some point in Zarahemla.  Though apparently there was no one authorized to perform baptisms or organize a church in the city until Alma showed up?

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think this Ammon is a son of King Mosiah, is he?  The scriptures say that he was a descendant of zarahemla.  But I agree that it does seem that baptism was known to Ammon and so taught at some point in Zarahemla.  Though apparently there was no one authorized to perform baptisms or organize a church in the city until Alma showed up?

Ooops, that's right, this particular Ammon was a contemporary of King Mosiah (first mentioned in Mosiah Ch. 7 (121 BC) and returns to Zarahemla with the people of Limhi (who asked him to baptize them) in Mosiah Ch. 22 (120 BC). But since he taught baptism, and considered himself an unworthy servant to perform the ordinance, there must have been those in Zarahemla who did perform baptisms. Given the roles of the Zarahemla Kings Mosiah I/Benjamin/Mosiah II (another much bigger topic, I quickly Googled this: https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-mosiah-salvation-only-through-christ/priesthood-mosiah but there's more), it seems they regulated the state and the church, and delegated priesthood authority in both areas of governance (secular and ecclesiastical; they were priest-kings). For this reason, despite a casual reading that only Alma could baptize (and he did rightfully have the priesthood in King Noah's court), Alma had to be authorized by Mosiah to carry out the ordinances and regulate the church. It seems this was done in step-wise fashion between the time of Alma's arrival in Zarahemla and the end of the Book of Mosiah (91 BC).

I think that, since they were (Melchizedek) priest-kings, and it is mentioned that baptism was known and practiced among them (though not in every detail), this "tradition" passed down from before Mosiah I. This subject matter of governance by priest-kings would have been found in the large pates and perhaps even Mormon's abridgement of them which were lost (116 pages). Nephi's roles as Lehi's primary heir for being teacher and king / protector as described in the small plates hints at this.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Ooops, that's right, this particular Ammon was a contemporary of King Mosiah (first mentioned in Mosiah Ch. 7 (121 BC) and returns to Zarahemla with the people of Limhi (who asked him to baptize them) in Mosiah Ch. 22 (120 BC). But since he taught baptism, and considered himself an unworthy servant to perform the ordinance, there must have been those in Zarahemla who did perform baptisms. Given the roles of the Zarahemla Kings Mosiah I/Benjamin/Mosiah II (another much bigger topic, I quickly Googled this: https://rsc.byu.edu/book-mormon-mosiah-salvation-only-through-christ/priesthood-mosiah but there's more), it seems they regulated the state and the church, and delegated priesthood authority in both areas of governance (secular and ecclesiastical; they were priest-kings). For this reason, despite a casual reading that only Alma could baptize (and he did rightfully have the priesthood in King Noah's court), Alma had to be authorized by Mosiah to carry out the ordinances and regulate the church. It seems this was done in step-wise fashion between the time of Alma's arrival in Zarahemla and the end of the Book of Mosiah (91 BC).

I think that, since they were (Melchizedek) priest-kings, and it is mentioned that baptism was known and practiced among them (though not in every detail), this "tradition" passed down from before Mosiah I. This subject matter of governance by priest-kings would have been found in the large pates and perhaps even Mormon's abridgement of them which were lost (116 pages). Nephi's roles as Lehi's primary heir for being teacher and king / protector as described in the small plates hints at this.

Could be!

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, longview said:

Consider too how the "Brazen Sea" (a baptismal font or simply a very large basin used for cleansing) was set upon the backs of 12 brazen oxen at the time of Solomon's temple. The OT does not really shed much light on the ordinance of baptism. The Brazen Sea was situated in front of the temple porch (or off to the side). Was this area called the Court of the Gentiles? Eventually the Brazen Sea appears to have been pushed aside or discounted by later Judean kings. At one point it was even cut into pieces!

When Nephi mentioned having built a temple for his people, he said it was not as "opulent" like Solomon's. Did he include a "Brazen Sea" for his temple?

At the time of John the Baptist, he was very vigorously baptizing his followers. Leaders from Jerusalem came to the Jordan River to question him on what authority he had. Apparently the Pharisees were familiar with the ordinance of baptism but were NOT doing much with baptism (if at all) ? Nicodemus was NOT well versed about baptism.

Well, the Brazen Sea wasn't a baptismal font, it was too deep to stand in (6'), it was the reservoir for the mikveh (ritual bath) was used for purification, and maybe a source for the baptisms preformed elsewhere, for Gentile conversion into Judaism. Though the Christian Baptism rite is probably tied to the Royal Baptism, such as in the Gihon Spring where Solomon was anointed (1 Kings 1:38-40).

I know there is conflicting information, I think in the era of Davidic Kings, the king making ritual began at a craftsman's shop by a river, he's shown tools, like a compass and square, while he's told about Creation. From there he is Baptized in the river, assuming the identity of his ancient ancestor Adam, becoming a second Adam, whose Golem was formed of red clay from the riverside. He'd continue in a procession following the light of the menorah to the "king's pillar" of the temple, where they'll finish inducting him inside, and he'll marry the Queen in the Upper Chamber above the Holy of Holies. I believe Dr Raphiel Patai wrote about such things from Hebrew folklore. Like various ancient Near Eastern traditions (e.g., Egypt, Mesopotamia).

Edited January 22, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/20/2025 at 9:07 PM, bluebell said:

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

Third, though we do believe that baptism is necessary to enter the kingdom of God, the kingdom of God and paradise are not the same place. 

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

The Kingdom of God on Earth is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  What was the Kingdom of God in Jesus' day, or in Abraham's day?  Are there other kingdoms of God here or hereafter?

[Tony uk]

I raise the following, not to be questionable. Rather, as somebody from the outside looking. Anybody familiar with my posts, know that I am not LDS. 

 With regards to the Kingdom, and also baptism. What would the effects be on people born before Jesus came into this world. By this, I mean the everyday person.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Kingdom of God on Earth is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  What was the Kingdom of God in Jesus' day, or in Abraham's day?  Are there other kingdoms of God here or hereafter?

So if I’m understanding you correctly you’re saying that Abraham, Moses, etc had to have been baptized because that’s what our doctrine demands?

This is a side question, but what role did circumcision used to play in relation to the Kingdom of God?

[CV75]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

Could be!

FAIR of course might have something further to say on this topic. But if there were no legitimate baptisms performed among the children of Lehi before Alma exercised the proper authority, I believe the faithful souls (or those who have since become faithful) from among them are on a "work release" from spirit prison until they are baptized by proxy. Or, maybe the people in the translated City of  Enoch/Zion have been performing proxy temple work all along (whether in Zion or hidden upon the mountains of Earth), and it was only restored to us regular folk in this dispensation! In this case, their work was done already and those who accepted it are no longer on work release but full citizens with the saints. I suspect proxy temple work became widely available (from the City of Enoch) under the dispensation of Christ since He opened the way for those in the spirit world to preach and receive and the full gospel message and ordinances. The real question is, was 2,000 years enough time for the City of Zion to catch up, or are they slacking?  Maybe they need our help!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Tony uk said:

I raise the following, not to be questionable. Rather, as somebody from the outside looking. Anybody familiar with my posts, know that I am not LDS. 

 With regards to the Kingdom, and also baptism. What would the effects be on people born before Jesus came into this world. By this, I mean the everyday person.

Jesus arranged for everyone to hear the gospel message and have the opportunity to accept it and the ordinances. Everyday people born before Jesus came into this world are among them, as are those who lived during and after His time that died without this opportunity.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Kingdom of God on Earth is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  What was the Kingdom of God in Jesus' day, or in Abraham's day?  Are there other kingdoms of God here or hereafter?

It would seem to be one and the same kingdom of heaven*, expressed according to the requirements of the respective dispensations on earth. Adam, Enoch, Noah, etc. down the line to Joseph Smith, and perhaps some we haven't heard much or anything about.

* re: terminologies and contexts of the various combinations of words used to describe this, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/kingdom-of-heaven?lang=eng

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Kingdom of God on Earth is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  What was the Kingdom of God in Jesus' day, or in Abraham's day?  Are there other kingdoms of God here or hereafter?

I've been thinking about this and reading some things that BYU has published on it's Religious Studies Center this morning and I guess I would have to answer your question as "yes" there does seem to be other kingdoms of God than only the church on the earth.

In her paper "The Kingdom of God: God's Vision for Society in the Sermon on the Mount" Jennifer Lane talks about the different ideas and interpretations of the phrase both in the church and out of it.  She brings up how the scriptures also refer to the Celestial Kingdom as the Kingdom of God as well.

https://rsc.byu.edu/sermon-mount-latter-day-scripture/kingdom-god

Quote

In addition to acknowledging the Church on earth as the kingdom of God, we also frequently refer to the celestial kingdom as the “kingdom of God.” For example, “the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God” (1 Nephi 15:34). We know we are saved in the kingdom of God through repentance and faith (2 Nephi 9:23) and that through the grace of God we will be raised “from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that [we] may be received into the eternal kingdom of God” (2 Nephi 10:25). We also know that we must apply the Atonement in order to “have a place to sit down in the kingdom of God, with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob, and also all the holy prophets, whose garments are cleansed and are spotless, pure and white” (Alma 5:24). Both the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants repeatedly equate salvation and the kingdom of God: “If thou wilt do good, yea, and hold out faithful to the end, thou shalt be saved in the kingdom of God, which is the greatest of all the gifts of God; for there is no gift greater than the gift of salvation” (D&C 6:13).

The church in Abraham's day was very different than the church in our day of course.  There wasn't really a church as we understand the term, but the people existed in a society where the priesthood was patriarchal, circumcision was the mark of the covenant between Abraham's family and God while today it's baptism and temple ordinances, women didn't covenant with God like they do today, etc.  Could both the church today and Abraham's family have been considered the Kingdom of God on the earth?  

I don't know.  Maybe.  If the kingdom of God is allowed to look vastly different depending on time and place, then I don't see why they both couldn't be.

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I've been thinking about this and reading some things that BYU has published on it's Religious Studies Center this morning and I guess I would have to answer your question as "yes" there does seem to be other kingdoms of God than only the church on the earth.

In her paper "The Kingdom of God: God's Vision for Society in the Sermon on the Mount" Jennifer Lane talks about the different ideas and interpretations of the phrase both in the church and out of it.  She brings up how the scriptures also refer to the Celestial Kingdom as the Kingdom of God as well.

https://rsc.byu.edu/sermon-mount-latter-day-scripture/kingdom-god

The church in Abraham's day was very different than the church in our day of course.  There wasn't really a church as we understand the term, but the people existed in a society where the priesthood was patriarchal, circumcision was the mark of the covenant between Abraham's family and God while today it's baptism and temple ordinances, women didn't covenant with God like they do today, etc.  Could both the church today and Abraham's family have been considered the Kingdom of God on the earth?  

I don't know.  Maybe.  If the kingdom of God is allowed to look vastly different depending on time and place, then I don't see why they both couldn't be.

Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, so there must have some sort of priesthood organization and system that can be called by these various recognized appellations.

[Mfbnew]

On 1/20/2025 at 8:07 PM, bluebell said:

My disagreement with the lesson manuals is that it ignores the exceptions we do have and also ignores the messy questions about those who died who had already accepted the gospel, but just were not baptized as part of their beliefs.  

Agree completely- to me it is a problem of definitions and linguistic interpretation.

The word "Prison" connotes being locked up for something wrong someone did-while for us,it simply refers to those who have not yet known about, or are deciding to join,  the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

THAT is the large part of what causes the confusion!

Can one be in "Prison" for NOT doing something they were not even aware that would be the best path for them?

And then we have the assurance that "every knee shall bow" and accept Jesus as the Savior- we really are Universalists- so all who it applies to are those who have not YET been baptized.

To me, the whole issue is kind of irrelevant!

Maybe when the missionaries delivered the memorized "Mr.Brown" lessons- which were not exactly fun or stimulating as I recall- - it might have been seen by some to FEEL like being in a "prison"  while listening to the "lessons"- I know I kind of felt that way myself-  - but in reality it is NOT a "prison" in any real sense!

So it's kind of a confusing interpretation of words- as usual- that causes the alleged "problem" in my opinion!

 

 

 

 

[MiserereNobis]

25 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Agree completely- to me it is a problem of definitions and linguistic interpretation.

The word "Prison" connotes being locked up for something wrong someone did-while for us,it simply refers to those who have not yet known about, or are deciding to join,  the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

THAT is the large part of what causes the confusion!

Can one be in "Prison" for NOT doing something they were not even aware that would be the best path for them?

And then we have the assurance that "every knee shall bow" and accept Jesus as the Savior- we really are Universalists- so all who it applies to are those who have not YET been baptized.

To me, the whole issue is kind of irrelevant!

Maybe when the missionaries delivered the memorized "Mr.Brown" lessons- which were not exactly fun or stimulating as I recall- - it might have been seen by some to FEEL like being in a "prison"  while listening to the "lessons"- I know I kind of felt that way myself-  - but in reality it is NOT a "prison" in any real sense!

So it's kind of a confusing interpretation of words- as usual- that causes the alleged "problem" in my opinion!

 

 

 

 

Thank God your Picasso picture is back! It just wasn't you with that blank thing  

[Mfbnew]

5 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Thank God your Picasso picture is back! It just wasn't you with that blank thing  

Yes, thanks, I have kind of given up getting my real name back again.

[Mfbnew]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Kingdom of God on Earth is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  What was the Kingdom of God in Jesus' day, or in Abraham's day?  Are there other kingdoms of God here or hereafter?

It seems to me that the entire enterprise is not useful due to the ambiguities involved.   Some of our other Christian friends might just call it all a "mystery", accept it or reject it,  and look for a place to eat lunch.

Edited January 22, 2025 by Mfbnew

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek, so there must have some sort of priesthood organization and system that can be called by these various recognized appellations.

Agreed.  D&C 84 has a lineage of Melchizedek priesthood holders from Adam to Moses.  Melchizedek ordained Abraham.  Those a lesson on the priesthood says that the Melchizedek priesthood remained on the earth even though it was taken away from the children of Israel, and was held by different prophets after Moses and before Christ such as Isaiah, Elijah, Daniel, etc., I can't find anything that says who Moses ordained though that kept the line going.  Gramps shares on his website that Joseph Smith taught that all prophets were ordained by God (gramps says this reference is in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith but doesn't provide a link) so maybe Moses didn't ordain anyone before he died.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Agreed.  D&C 84 has a lineage of Melchizedek priesthood holders from Adam to Moses.  Melchizedek ordained Abraham.  Those a lesson on the priesthood says that the Melchizedek priesthood remained on the earth even though it was taken away from the children of Israel, and was held by different prophets after Moses and before Christ such as Isaiah, Elijah, Daniel, etc., I can't find anything that says who Moses ordained though that kept the line going.  Gramps shares on his website that Joseph Smith taught that all prophets were ordained by God (gramps says this reference is in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith but doesn't provide a link) so maybe Moses didn't ordain anyone before he died.

There was sill Jethro and his kin to pass along the Melchizedek Priesthood (D&C 84: 6 - 7). Verse 6 also indicates that Moses gave it to his sons. These sons may have also functioned concurrently under the auspices of the lesser priesthood with Aaron (verse 26) for Israel's' administrative temporal and worship needs under the law of Moses (see verses 18 - 28), though I'm sure many Levitical priests did not additionally hold the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Edited January 22, 2025 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

So if I’m understanding you correctly you’re saying that Abraham, Moses, etc had to have been baptized because that’s what our doctrine demands?

This is a side question, but what role did circumcision used to play in relation to the Kingdom of God?

I asked:  "What was the Kingdom of God in Jesus' day, or in Abraham's day?  Are there other kingdoms of God here or hereafter?"

Does the kingdom of God exist apart from any ritual considerations?  Are there multiple kingdoms of God?  Was Moses' "congregation of Israel" the kingdom of God?  Were the Israelites baptized in the Reed Sea?  I Cor 10:2

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

Agreed.  D&C 84 has a lineage of Melchizedek priesthood holders from Adam to Moses.  Melchizedek ordained Abraham.  Those a lesson on the priesthood says that the Melchizedek priesthood remained on the earth even though it was taken away from the children of Israel, and was held by different prophets after Moses and before Christ such as Isaiah, Elijah, Daniel, etc., I can't find anything that says who Moses ordained though that kept the line going.  Gramps shares on his website that Joseph Smith taught that all prophets were ordained by God (gramps says this reference is in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith but doesn't provide a link) so maybe Moses didn't ordain anyone before he died.

Both Moses and his brother Aaron were members of the tribe of Levi, and both exercised formal priesthood power.  Indeed, D&C 84:18,26,30-31, 107:13-17, make clear that the lineal priesthood of Aaron continues among the Jews to this very day.

[teddyaware]

As an addendum to my last post on this thread, I must say I’ve always believed that a truly just and loving God would never deprive a departed spirit the blessings that come with an acceptance of the gospel in the spirit world (such as entry into paradise) just because someone on earth hasn’t performed the vicarious saving gospel ordinances for them. I believe that since it’s a fait accompli that all who accept Christ and his gospel in the spirit world with inevitably be baptized and confirmed by proxy, the Lord has allowed some major provision to be made that allows these spirit world converts to enjoy the blessings of the gospel and church membership retroactively, prior to the eventual performances of the vicarious gospel ordinances in their behalf.

Just as the Nephites enjoyed the full blessings of the gospel retroactively, as though the atoning sacrifice of Christ had already taken place, I believe that those who accept the gospel in the spirit world enjoy a merciful and just divinely decreed provision that allows them to move forward in their spiritual progress without unnecessary arbitrary delays. Just as the Prophet Joseph Smith enjoyed a remission of his sins and great outpourings of the gospel’s blessings prior to his formal baptism and confirmation, I believe the believing converts in the spirit world are also mightily blessed in a similar manner.

The actual vicarious ordinances will indeed eventually have to be performed for all the dead who accept Christ and his gospel, but it would be ridiculous for God to hold back a spirit world convert’s spiritual progress due to the fact that some knucklehead member of the church on earth never bothered to engage in family history and temple work in behalf of his deceased family members! Common sense and the just demands of mercy tell me that this must needs be so.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

As an addendum to my last post on this thread, I must say I’ve always believed that a truly just and loving God would never deprive a departed spirit the blessings that come with an acceptance of the gospel in the spirit world (such as entry into paradise) just because someone on earth hasn’t performed the vicarious saving gospel ordinances for them. I believe that since it’s a fait accompli that all who accept Christ and his gospel in the spirit world with inevitably be baptized and confirmed by proxy, the Lord has allowed some major provision to be made that allows these spirit world converts to enjoy the blessings of the gospel and church membership retroactively, prior to the eventual performances of the vicarious gospel ordinances in their behalf.

Just as the Nephites enjoyed the full blessings of the gospel retroactively, as though the atoning sacrifice of Christ had already taken place, I believe that those who accept the gospel in the spirit world enjoy a merciful and just divinely decreed provision that allows them to move forward in their spiritual progress without unnecessary arbitrary delays. Just as the Prophet Joseph Smith enjoyed a remission of his sins and great outpourings of the gospel’s blessings prior to his formal baptism and confirmation, I believe the believing converts in the spirit world are also mightily blessed in a similar manner.

The actual vicarious ordinances will indeed eventually have to be performed for all the dead who accept Christ and his gospel, but it would be ridiculous for God to hold back a spirit world convert’s spiritual progress due to the fact that some knucklehead member of the church on earth never bothered to engage in family history and temple work in behalf of his deceased family members! Common sense and the just demands of mercy tell me that this must needs be so.

I agree, good thoughts.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I asked:  "What was the Kingdom of God in Jesus' day, or in Abraham's day?  Are there other kingdoms of God here or hereafter?"

Does the kingdom of God exist apart from any ritual considerations?  Are there multiple kingdoms of God?  Was Moses' "congregation of Israel" the kingdom of God?  Were the Israelites baptized in the Reed Sea?  I Cor 10:2

The church is called the kingdom of God, and the celestial kingdom is also often referred to the kingdom of God, but the church and the celestial kingdom are not the same thing of course (no unclean thing can be in the celestial kingdom, for example) so I guess there are multiple kingdoms of God depending on how someone is using the term.  I don't know if the term "kingdom of God" was used in Abraham's day or not.

I don't know if Israel was baptized in the red sea or not.  They could have been.  I know what 1 Cor. says but being in a cloud and walking between two pillars of water on dry ground are not what we would consider to be baptism.

In Jesus day He speaks of the Kingdom of God in the sermon on the mount, but in that specific address He seems to link righteous actions to who is a part of the kingdom of God and not ordinances.