Thursday, February 27, 2014

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

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Temple Insights


THE MEANING OF THE TEMPLE (By Hugh Nibley, from the Book, Temple & Cosmos, pages 25-38, only a small part is given here).

"In the temple we are taught by symbols and examples; but that is not the fullness of the gospel. One very popular argument today says, 'Look, you say the Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel, but it doesn't contain any of the temple ordinances in it, does it?'

Ordinances are not the fullness of the gospel. Going to the temple is like entering into a laboratory to confirm what you have already learned in the classroom and from the text. The fullness of the gospel is the understanding of what the plan is all about — the knowledge necessary to salvation. You know the whys and wherefores; for the fullness of the gospel you go to Nephi, to Alma, to Moroni. Then you will enter into the lab, but not in total ignorance. The ordinances are mere forms. They do not exalt us; they merely prepare us to be ready in case we ever become eligible…

The ancient temple ordinances, called mysteries, are found in various degrees of preservation. If you ask what Joseph Smith knew about real temples, I reply, everything.

In this connection, there is an interesting sidelight to the word telestial, a word long considered as one of Joseph Smith's more glaring indiscretions. We know now that there are three worlds: the telestial, in which we live; the celestial, to which we aspire; and in between them another world, called the terrestrial. It is of neither the celestial nor the telestial. According to the ancients, this world is represented by the temple, the in-between world where the rites of passage take place... Telos means initiation.

Recall that you leave the creation, and you end up at the celestial; but nothing happens in the celestial. Everything happens in the telestial and terrestrial, but not until after you leave the garden…

In Christianity and Judaism, the temple played a strangely uncertain role; the Judaic ties have been the focus of a number of studies. The Jews like the theme, but they are afraid of it; they don't know what to do about it. They needed to exalt the temple, or else minimize it as a mere building. When the temple stood, it was the source of protection of the nation, and it came to be sort of a fetish — something that we learn from Josephus (the ancient historian). This led to the dangerous concept that as long as the people had the temple and its rites, they could consider themselves righteous and infallible; nothing would happen to them.

The same natural error hangs over the Latter-day Saints, incidentally, who often regard the temple as a kind of fetish.  A woman I know works in the library at BYU, and specializes in genealogy. She tells that when she was a small girl, she and her brothers and sisters stood at the door of their house in Manti, clinging to their mother's skirts during a terrible thunderstorm and looking at the temple, which had just been finished. Her father was up working on it. They said to their mother, "God will not let lightning strike the temple, will he?"

 And just as her mother was assuring them that he would not, bang! — Lightning struck the east tower, which began to burn briskly. The woman's father was in the crew that rushed up and soon put out the fire. When he came home, the children asked him what went wrong. What gives here? He explained to them that the installation of lightning rods had been discussed but not carried out. He said that God had given the means to protect the temple against lightning, and the workers neglected to use those means; they thus had no right to expect miraculous interventions.

God expects us to go on the same as ever… Because the Jews attached their hopes, in the end, to a building, its destruction had the most crushing effect on them.

The Christians were thrilled, but the Jews thought they would never be restored again because the temple had been destroyed and the Jews themselves felt utterly discouraged with the passing of the temple — it was all over with.

We Mormons have gone all out in the past to build temples, making great sacrifices of our means. Yet we have not been attached to the buildings as such. Brigham Young nearly worked himself to death getting the Nauvoo Temple built on time. But he did not "again want to see [a temple] built to go into the hands of the wicked."

After learning of the destruction of the Nauvoo Temple by fire, he said,  'Good, Father, if you want it to be burned up.' I hoped to see it burned before I left, but I did not. I was glad when I heard of its being destroyed by fire, and of the walls having fallen in,' and said, 'You cannot now occupy it.' It was just a building after all.

Why then should he knock himself out? We strive to make our temples beautiful, but if in the eyes of many of us some temples turn out to be something less than breathtaking, that doesn't dampen our enthusiasm for what goes on in them.

My favorite temple is certainly the Provo Temple, though as a building I give it very low marks indeed. We are not attached to the building as such (it is but an endowment house).

If the temple represents the principle of order, in chaos, it also represents the foothold, you might say, of righteousness in a wicked world. Someone once asked me concerning the Egyptian ordinances contained in the Joseph Smith manuscripts.

Is this stuff relevant to the modern world? My answer is no. It is relevant to the eternities. The modern world is as unstable, but the temple has always been the same. The ordinances are those taught by an angel to Adam.

The name of the Church will not let us forget that these are the last days. The last days of what? Of the rule of Satan on this earth. In the temple, we first learn by what means Satan has ruled the world, and how it came about, and how he has ruled over the world these many years. Then we proceed to lay the foundation for that order of existence which God intends his children to have here.

In both lessons, we deal with specifics. We are given a choice between them — to that degree we live up to the principles and laws of the temple. If we don't live up to them, we are in the power of the other kingdom. It is in the temple that God puts the proposition on the line, and he will not be mocked. The temple is there to call us back to our senses, to tell us where our real existence lies, to save us from ourselves. So let us go there often and face the reality, brethren and sisters.

We know that the gospel has been restored, and that the temple is the center of things.  We must repair there often. I have gotten so I am almost an addict. I cannot keep away from the temple.

I revel in it, We can see the ordinances and the endowments. It was built for practical purposes.  No two temples are built alike.

We live in Vanity Fair today, or in a world where the individual seeks, not spiritual salvation, but the rewards of Babylon–success, status, and wealth. The temple represents the one sober spot in the world, where we can really be serious and consider these things.

I have never asked the Lord for anything that he didn't give to me. Well, you say, in that case, you surely didn't ask for much. No, I didn't; I was very careful not to ask for much. We don't want to be spoiled brats, do we?

We ask for what we need, for what we can't get ourselves, and the Lord will give it to us. Don't worry. But he also wants us to get in and dig for the rest. So I pray and hope that the Lord may inspire and help us all to become more engaged — more involved — in the work of these latter-days and visit the temple often and become wiser all the time, because he intends to give us more revelations through that instrumentality."

Sunday, February 02, 2014

Withdrawal of Spirit


Consequences of Sin

From Robert L. Millet, Life in Christ, p. 68 we read:

"In a way that we cannot comprehend, Jesus of Nazareth assumed the burden and consequence of the sins of all mankind.  The immediate consequence of sin is withdrawal of the Spirit. (Alma 34:35) It may be that such a withdrawal from an individual is what leads to feelings of guilt and pain and emptiness.  Jesus Christ, in taking upon him the effects of the sins of all mankind, was thus exposed to the awful (and to Jesus, unusual) withdrawal of that Spirit which had been his constant companion from the beginning."

President Brigham Young explained: "The Father withdrew His Spirit from His Son, at the time he was to be crucified…At the very moment, at the hour when the crisis came for him to offer up his life, the Father withdrew Himself, withdrew His Spirit…That is what made him sweat blood.  If he had had the power of God upon him, he would not have sweat blood." (JD 3:206)

For us, in Alma 7:15, "Alma is not counseling the people to put away their sins one at a time, a bit here and a bit there.  This is the world's approach.  It may sound commendable, but it is terrestrial at best. To be born again is to have our natures changed, not always immediately but certainly in process of time.  To lay aside every sin and the desire for it; to put off all sinfulness; to confess and forsake sin and to rely on the merits and mercies of the Holy Messiah." (Millet & McConkie, Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 3, page 54) (Paraphrasing C.S. Lewis, it should not be our intent to wound the natural man, but to kill him outright).