Water Baptisms - Why two different venues?

[prisonchaplain]

This question just struck me this week, while watching LDS films on baptism, at Temple Square: Water baptism serves the same purpose, whether it is experienced by the 8-year old brought up in the church, by the adult convert, or by one who has already passed away. Yet, baptisms for the living are done at Wards, or in local bodies of water. Those for the dead are done in a Temple. Why is this? Is there a spiritual significance to the different venues?

Thus far, I've heard two answers. The sister-missionary I asked said she really did not know, she just assumed that the place for baptisms had been revealed, and so they took place where God wanted them. Made sense to me, though I still wondered why.

The second answer agreed with my guess...since baptism for the dead is an earthly ordinance carried out for those in the spirit realm, they take place in the place of highest spirituality.

Any thoughts or insights? I know it's an obscure question, but sometimes I'm an obscure thinker.

[skalenfehl]

Your second answer pretty much nailed it right on the head. Baptisms in the temple are ordinance performed for the dead. Such ordinances have been performed since biblical times and are alluded to both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, particularly in 1 Corinthians 15, which explains the need for it. Here's some more info:

LDS.org - Topic Definition - Baptisms for the Dead

Edited June 29, 2008 by skalenfehl

[Moksha]

Is there anything that ties them solely to the Temple?

[xXTekXx]

This helps explain a little too: Doctrine and Covenants 124:33-35

33 For verily I say unto you, that after you have had sufficient time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the world, your baptisms for your dead cannot be acceptable unto me;

34 For therein are the keys of the holy priesthood ordained, that you may receive honor and glory.

35 And after this time, your baptisms for the dead, by those who are scattered abroad, are not acceptable unto me, saith the Lord.

36 For it is ordained that in Zion, and in her stakes, and in Jerusalem, those places which I have appointed for arefuge, shall be the places for your baptisms for your dead.

[prisonchaplain]

Sounds like the sister-missionary hit the nail on the head, too, Tekx.

[prisonchaplain]

Your second answer pretty much nailed it right on the head. Baptisms in the temple are ordinance performed for the dead. Such ordinances have been performed since biblical times and are alluded to both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, ...

I'm familiar with the NT reference in 1 Cor. 15, but not any from the OT. I'll check your article, but can you give me some specific passages? The LDS.org site offers the following:

Malachi 4 , but I don't see the relation to baptism for the dead, or proxy baptism.

Edited June 29, 2008 by prisonchaplain

[skalenfehl]

The OT is spotted with hints and references to temples, temple ordinances, garments of skin, etc throughout and some things, I couldn't really detail too much without going into the specifics of the ordinances themselves. I'd have to do a little research as I have yet to formally put together something as one of my studies. I'll try to get to it asap. The reference in Malachi has to do with genealogy and temple work for our deceased ancestors. The way I understand this, we are all to be sealed to our parents, their parents and their parents all the way back to Adam and Eve, who are sealed to our Father in Heaven thus creating the chain of family ties as one heavenly eternal family.

Edited June 29, 2008 by skalenfehl

[Vanhin]

I'm familiar with the NT reference in 1 Cor. 15, but not any from the OT. I'll check your article, but can you give me some specific passages? The LDS.org site offers the following:

Malachi 4 , but I don't see the relation to baptism for the dead, or proxy baptism.

The connection with Malachi, is the nature of temple work for both the living and the dead in general in the latter-days.

¶ Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse. (Malachi 4:5-6)

It's obviously not specific enough to prove anything, but is an example of how our temple work is in fulfillment of prophecy. Through the sealing power the living are blessed and their posterity is blessed because of children born "in the covenant". Thus, "the hearts of the fathers have turned to the children." And through our genealogy efforts, and the performance of temple ordinances on behalf of our kindred dead, "the hearts of the children have turned to their fathers."

On April 3, 1836 Elijah appeared at the Kirtland temple and restored the keys of temple worship and the sealing power to Joseph Smith. He was the last one to hold them before the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, when they were bestowed upon Peter, James, and John. (See Guide to the Scriptures: Elijah)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

And welcome back prisonchaplain. :)

Vanhin

[inquirer_Jn1717]

open question to all:

Why do you think protestant Christians (and even Catholics for that matter) do not see any reason to perform proxy baptisms for the dead? What is their rationale?

[Palerider]

open question to all:

Why do you think protestant Christians (and even Catholics for that matter) do not see any reason to perform proxy baptisms for the dead? What is their rationale?

first thing that comes to mind....they don't believe in it....

[inquirer_Jn1717]

no kidding ;-) ...now seriously, what do you think that they think?

[john doe]

open question to all:

Why do you think protestant Christians (and even Catholics for that matter) do not see any reason to perform proxy baptisms for the dead? What is their rationale?

I think that's a question better asked of them, not us. As far as I know, they don't believe in it, and see no reason for us to believe in it either.

[prisonchaplain]

open question to all:

Why do you think protestant Christians (and even Catholics for that matter) do not see any reason to perform proxy baptisms for the dead? What is their rationale?

As this string has shown, minus the LDS revelations, the scriptural references (including 1 Cor. 15) are cryptic. There is no passage in the Bible that lays out for us how proxy baptism might look. Most scholars consider the fleeting reference in Corinth to be a local practice, rather than an ordinance that the whole church was supposed to take up. We have no liturgies, nor any detailed descriptions of how the proxy baptisms were conducted, and what their intent was.

The closest example I can think of would be footwashing. A few Protestant churches practice it, and none of us condemn it. Yet most have not seen Jesus' action towards his disciples as establishing a church-wide practice.

[Islander]

open question to all:

Why do you think protestant Christians (and even Catholics for that matter) do not see any reason to perform proxy baptisms for the dead? What is their rationale?

The most simple explanation; for the same reason that many of the Christian fellowships do not believe baptism is relevant or necessary today. With the passage of time and the demise of the Apostles of the Savior the order and purity of the doctrine was lost. Rationalization, revisionism and ignorance permeated religious practices. The same happened to Judaism. They no longer desire a temple, they feel it is not necessary.

[Vanhin]

prisonchaplain,

Thinking about this topic reminded me about one of my favorite publications of the Church. It's a full length movie called "The Mountain of the Lord". I just now finished watching it again. :) The narrative is about the building of the Salt Lake Temple, but it's really about what temples mean to us, and why we build them. The movie covers a good bit of Church history as well. I think you will really enjoy it.

Here are the links to the movie on youtube. It's split into 8 parts. I would really like to hear what you think about it. That goes for anyone else that wants to check it out.

YouTube - Mountain of the Lord: Mormon Temple Movie - 1

YouTube - Mountain of the Lord: Mormon Temple Movie - 2

YouTube - Mountain of the Lord: Mormon Temple Movie - 3

YouTube - Mountain of the Lord: Mormon Temple Movie - 4

YouTube - Mountain of the Lord: Mormon Temple Movie - 5

YouTube - Mountain of the Lord: Mormon Temple Movie - 6

YouTube - Mountain of the Lord: Mormon Temple Movie - 7

YouTube - Mountain of the Lord: Mormon Temple Movie - 8

Regards,

Vanhin

[inquirer_Jn1717]

The most simple explanation; for the same reason that many of the Christian fellowships do not believe baptism is relevant or necessary today... They [the Jews] no longer desire a temple, they feel it is not necessary.

Are you sure about those two statements?

If by "[un]necessary" you mean that many fellowships do not practice baptism as a step in the process of of Salvation, but the obedient response to it and an initiation into a new family, then yes, I believe you would be correct. Otherwise, you might as well tell a fish he doesn't need gills, or that faith is not shown by works.

Yes, there are many Jews who have lost faith (you can sometimes meet them at the mall, selling Dead Sea Ointments from a kiosk), but there is a determined movement to restore temple worship. They have remade all the Temple Instruments according to Biblical instructions (most of which are solid gold), and last I heard there are still trying to breed to proper kind of animals for the sacrifices.

God bless History Channel and the "Naked Archeologist!"

[VisionOfLehi]

The answer to the OP has been given, I think?

Allow me to intrude with my own question:

Why do some churches baptize with a "sprinkling" of water or mere "dunking" of the head (Forgive my lack of proper terminology!)

Wasn't the full submersion to symbolize the burying of the body and the resurrection thereof? I can understand this is still symbolized with the "dunking," but am I missing something with the "sprinkling?" Do they also do something with that in the way of burial and resurrection?

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

As far as the original question, and to expound on what Tek says (in terms of further discussion) what D&C 124 "...had sufficient time to build a house to me, wherein the ordinance of baptizing for the dead belongeth, and for which the same was instituted from before the foundation of the world" seems to suggest is that the whole purpose of temples is for ordinances for the dead - and indeed these are the most common ordinances performed in temples. It might also have relation to the priesthood, since as far as my bishop has said, Aaronic priesthood holders (priests) can perform ordinary baptisms, but baptisms for the dead must be performed by Melchizedek priesthood holders, as other temple ordinances.

As far as the second question, why do other Christian churches not perform baptisms for the dead?

Baptism for the dead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has some insight, namely that around the 4th century the practice of "Baptising for the dead" was explicitly banned by two seperate councils. The text of the edicts of these councils seems to suggest that people were not just baptising in proxy for the dead, but actually baptising dead bodies (ew). Let me suggest a possible time line:

Christ and 1st century christianity: Baptisms for the dead instituted and sanctioned (1 Corinthians).

Sometime between the 2nd and 3rd centuries: the doctrine of baptism by proxy became corrupted or misinterpreted, leading to the performance of ordinances on dead bodies (ew).

4th century: edicts (rightfully, IMO) ban the practice of performing ordinances on dead bodies, having the side effect of discouraging or stopping proper proxy ordinances completely.

Today: most of the records, if any existed, regarding the specific practices and doctrines are lost, leaving us to speculate.

Since it would have been the precursor to the modern Roman Catholic church who banned the practice, and since all protestant religions are branched off from the Catholic church, it makes complete sense that without clear and concise scriptural or revelatory instructions to institute the practice then no one would. However the LDS church isn't the only church that practices baptisms for the dead by proxy; the Mandaean practice especially seems to bear close resemblance to LDS belief - especially interesting because the Mandaean culture is at least 1800 years old.

:edit:

Lehi, I think the answer to your question lies in the fact that some people are just really hard to immerse. The elderly, handicapped etc. Plus water is a rare commodity in the deserts where early Christianity was spreading in the 1st century. Especially "living" (flowing from a fresh spring) water, vs stagnant lake or sea water, as was originally commanded for use in baptisms ( Leviticus 15: 13 ). Baptism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has a bit of information on it, however objective evidence one way or the other regarding how the early Christians practiced is scant or non-existent. I don't have a clue if any other Christian churches have the same burial/resurrection symbolism we do, I think most do not. Baptist and other immersion practicing churches might, though I'm not sure.

Edited June 29, 2008 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[Justice]

Also, another reason for baptisms for the dead being performed in temples is so that only those who understand what is happening can witness it.

The Lord taught that we shouldn't give meat before milk.

What do you think the response would be by those Christian churches, if permitted to see baptism for the dead, who teach you do not have to be baptized?

First, we should teach them the need for baptism. Once you understand that, you generally turn your thoughts to those who passed on without the chance.

Only then can you understand. All things have a proper order. We can actually hinder someone's progress by teaching them about baptism for the dead if they don't understand the need for all to be baptized first.

[Justice]

The Jews I have known and spoken to have all expressed anticipation for a temple. They believe the reason they do not offer sacrifices anymore is because there is no temple. At least the ones I have spoken to are anxious for both to return.

[MrNirom]

open question to all:

Why do you think protestant Christians (and even Catholics for that matter) do not see any reason to perform proxy baptisms for the dead? What is their rationale?

My guess.. they don't understand it. They don't have enough information to act on it. If it had not been a revelation given to Joseph Smith.. we would not have known about it either.

Just another reason why the restoration was so necessary.