Guest bigolebear Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Why did "John the Baptist" neglect to baptize Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery? Surely, if it was John the Baptist, he as a messenger from heaven under the direction of Peter, James and John (according to the Mormon tract on Joseph Smith's TESTIMONY) would have known that an unbaptized person could not hold the Priesthood. Quote
Ray Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Heh, that’s bringing up quite an image. Can you imagine a glorified being standing in water to baptize somebody? John the Baptist had probably received the higher priesthood by that time, so I suppose we could also wonder why he didn’t save Peter, James and John the trouble of doing that too. Or better yet, why didn’t Jesus just do everything Himself? He could have taken care of everything Himself a whole lot sooner. Quote
Guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 Even today, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would NOT bestow the Aaronic Priesthood on an unbaptized (and therefore "unsaved") person. Surely, John the Baptist would have known that - after all he was John the BAPTIST! Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery washed away their priesthood conferred on them by "John the Baptist". Joseph Smith, an unbaptized person, baptized Oliver Cowdery and therefore Oliver Cowdery's baptism was invalid and so was Joseph's baptism invalid. Consequently, neither had the authority to ordain each other to the Aaronic Priesthood. All this confusion could have been avoided IF "John the Baptist" had baptized them and then conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on each of them if "John the Baptist" had the authority to do so in the first place. This makes one wonder who this "messenger from heaven" would have been if the story was true. II Corinthians 11:14 comes to mind at this point. "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." KJV therefore their authority is not Scriptural authority. Quote
Faerie Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 i sense like 4 personalities all from the same person...strange... Quote
Ray Posted August 2, 2004 Report Posted August 2, 2004 The record can be read in Joseph Smith – History, beginning with verse 68, for anybody who doesn’t know the details.John the Baptist gave Joseph and Oliver the authority to baptize each other, then told them to baptize each other, and then told them to place their hands on each other to bestow the authority of the Priesthood of Aaron on each other. John didn't baptize them himself, but the baptisms were done under his direction while he was there watching, so the "work" was as valid as if John had baptized them himself. Quote
Guest DG#23 Posted December 23, 2004 Report Posted December 23, 2004 Originally posted by Ray@Aug 2 2004, 05:38 PM John the Baptist gave Joseph and Oliver the authority to baptize each other, then told them to baptize each other, and then told them to place their hands on each other to bestow the authority of the Priesthood of Aaron on each other. According to what reliable and disinterested witnesses? Quote
Eros Augustus Posted December 23, 2004 Report Posted December 23, 2004 well, since John was there from heaven, I'd say God and Christ and the hosts of heaven wittnessed Quote
Guest TheProudDuck Posted December 23, 2004 Report Posted December 23, 2004 As long as we're talking about baptisms performed by people who hadn't been baptized, who baptized John the Baptist? If he wasn't baptized by someone having authority before baptizing Jesus (the Bible doesn't say he was -- and to a sola-scriptura fundamentalist, if the Bible doesn't mention it, it didn't happen), wouldn't that mean that the Jordan River washed away Jesus' high Priesthood? Think about it. There is no mention of baptism in any of the Old Testament. There are only three possibilities to explain this: 1. The Mormon teaching is true that the fulness of the Gospel was on the earth from the beginning, known to the Old Testament prophets, but not generally practiced, because of the weakness of the people, and thus not recorded in the Bible. 2. Baptism was actually generally practiced among the Old Testament Hebrews, but for some reason nobody bothered to record the practice in a thousand-plus pages describing pretty much everything else. 3. Baptism was a religious innovation within Judaism that began after the conclusion of the Old Testament, and either John the Baptist or someone not long before him was the first person to start baptizing. Either John or his predecessor must have begun baptizing without having first been baptized -- unless, of course, he was baptized directly by a divine messenger, of which there is no record and therefore a sola-scriptura Protestant can't accept. You're way out of your league, old sport. Go back to your Jack Chick pamphlets. And Merry Christmas. Quote
Amillia Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 Was baptism anything like circumcision? Did it take the place of circumcision? Quote
Jenda Posted December 30, 2004 Report Posted December 30, 2004 Originally posted by Amillia@Dec 30 2004, 10:32 AM Was baptism anything like circumcision? Did it take the place of circumcision? Yes. Baptism was the "circumcision" of the New Covenant. Quote
Amillia Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 30 2004, 12:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 30 2004, 12:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Dec 30 2004, 10:32 AM Was baptism anything like circumcision? Did it take the place of circumcision? Yes. Baptism was the "circumcision" of the New Covenant. That's what I thought I'd heard once a long time ago. :) Quote
Guest curvette Posted December 31, 2004 Report Posted December 31, 2004 Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 30 2004, 11:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 30 2004, 11:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Dec 30 2004, 10:32 AM Was baptism anything like circumcision? Did it take the place of circumcision? Yes. Baptism was the "circumcision" of the New Covenant. That's interesting. I think the earliest Christians continued circumcising male infants, but Peter's revelation eventually deemed it unnecessary. Are we mocking baptism by having our sons circumsised? I think of it now as a cultural preference. Quote
srm Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 John the baptist himself received priesthood authority without being baptized. It seems that in some special cases one can be ordained before baptism. Quote
srm Posted January 3, 2005 Report Posted January 3, 2005 Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 30 2004, 11:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 30 2004, 11:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Dec 30 2004, 10:32 AM Was baptism anything like circumcision? Did it take the place of circumcision? Yes. Baptism was the "circumcision" of the New Covenant. That is interesting Jenda. What is your source? Quote
Guest lt Posted January 4, 2005 Report Posted January 4, 2005 Frarie you are correct, and if I see that person using more than one account I will put them on mod status Laureltree Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.