Doctrinal Answers
This is a small part of a long
talk by Elder Tad R. Callister 12 Jan 2014 BYU Marriot Center entitled:
What is the Blueprint of Christ's Church?
The number of references in
the Bible to the separate identity and separate roles of the Father and Son is
staggering. In the Garden of Gethsemane, recognizing the excruciating pain that
was yet to be His, the Savior declared, “Not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke
22:42). This is the grandest act of
submission the world has ever known.
But what submission would
there have been if there was no other Being to whom He could submit—if He and
the Father were one and the same Being? Why does the Savior pray to the Father
or cry out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark
15:34). How could He be forsaken if
there was no separate Being to forsake Him? How did Stephen see
Jesus standing on the right hand of God if They are not two persons (see Acts
7:55–56)?... God the Father and His Son,
Jesus Christ, have a oneness of goals and will, but a separateness of identity.
Is baptism to be done by
sprinkling, pouring, or immersion? The blueprint gives at least four evidences
that baptism is to be done by immersion:
First, the Savior, our
great Exemplar, came up “straightway out of the water” (Matthew
3:16), indicating He must have first
gone down into the water.
Second, John the Baptist
“was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water
there” (John
3:23; italics added). Why
would he travel to a place of “much water” if sprinkling or pouring were
accepted modes of baptism?
Third, Paul tells us that
baptism is symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (see
Romans
6:3–5). As the new convert
stands in the waters of baptism, he represents the old man about to die. As he
is immersed in the water, his sins are “buried” and forgiven by the symbolic
cleansing power of the water. Then, as he rises from the water, he stands as a
representative of the new or resurrected man in Jesus Christ. All
of that symbolism underlying baptism is consistent with baptism by immersion,
but it is lost—totally lost—with sprinkling and pouring.
And fourth, the Greek word
from which baptism is translated means to dip or plunge in the water.
Will Durrant, a noted world
historian, knew what the blueprint revealed and thus observed, “By the ninth
century the early Christian method of baptism by total immersion had been
gradually replaced by … sprinkling—as less dangerous to health in northern
climes.”
It should be no surprise
that Joseph Smith received a revelation on the manner in which baptism is to be
performed that is perfectly consistent with Christ’s blueprint (see D&C
20:73–74).
Was baptism for the dead an
ordinance in Christ’s original Church? It was.
The members of the Church
in Corinth were participating in an ordinance known as baptism for the dead. These
people, however, doubted the reality of the Resurrection. Sensing the inconsistency
of what they were doing as compared to what they believed, Paul used their
participation in the correct ordinance of baptism for the dead to prove the
correct doctrine of the Resurrection: “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).
Once someone crosses the
doctrinal bridge and acknowledges that baptism is essential for salvation
(which it is), then logically he is led to believe in baptism for the dead—there is
no escaping it. Otherwise, how does one answer the difficult question “What
about those who died without the opportunity to be baptized?” Those
confronted with this question have four possible options from which to choose:
First, men and women who
have not been baptized will be damned and go to hell. Such an answer, however,
is inconsistent with the scriptural truths that “God is no respecter of
persons” (Acts 10:34) and that God desires “all men to be saved” (1 Timothy
2:4).
Second, perhaps God did not
really mean what He said—perhaps baptism is not really essential for salvation.
But this is unrealistic because God always means what He says: “What I the Lord
have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself” (D&C 1:38; see also Mosiah
2:24).
Third, some believe that a
new condition called “baptism by desire” may be substituted for baptism by
water. In other words, if someone desires to follow Jesus but did not have the
opportunity to be baptized in mortality, then his worthy desire becomes an
acceptable substitute in lieu of water baptism. The problem with this option
is that it has no scriptural support. The scripture does not say, “Except a man
be born of desire,” but rather, “Except a man be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5; italics
added).
The fourth option is that
God really meant what He said when He commanded all men to be baptized, and
because of this He mercifully provided a way for all men to be baptized even if
no opportunity arose in mortal life. That is baptism for the dead. That is the
option consistent with the blueprint.
What does the blueprint say
about the manner in which the gift—not the temporary presence, but the
permanent gift—of the Holy Ghost is given after someone is baptized? Does it
automatically descend upon someone following his baptism? Does it come like the
rushing of the wind, or is there some divine ordinance, some divine procedure
that must be followed to receive this gift? The blueprint gives the answer.
After Philip baptized some
new converts in Samaria, Peter and John arrived. The scriptures then reveal the
manner in which that ordinance is to be performed: “Then [Peter and John] laid
they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost” (Acts 8:17;
italics added).
This same procedure was
followed after Paul baptized new converts in Ephesus:
“When they heard this, they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
“And when Paul had laid
his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them” (Acts 19:5–6;
italics added).
Once again the blueprint
and Christ’s restored Church are in perfect harmony.
END OF PART ONE