Month: March 2008

Baptism or Temple Marriage Requisite to Enter the Kingdom?

53 Comments

I have had a question in my mind for some time over the many instances in the scriptures which tell us that baptism is the key to being saved in the kingdom of God. For example, when Christ appears to the Nephites and teaches them His doctrine:

And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned. (3 Nephi 11:33-34)

I have often thought, “What about the temple? Aren’t the temple ordinances, and particularly being sealed to your spouse in the temple (or celestial marriage), required for entrance into God’s kingdom also?”

I read some material somewhere this past week that helped resolve this question.

Both baptism and celestial marriage are required to enter into the kingdom of God, but in differing degrees of inheritance. Both of these ordinances are called new and everlasting covenants (see D&C 22:1 and D&C 132:4). They are the only ordinances to be so named because they permit us to enter different portions of God’s kingdom. Baptism is required to enter the celestial kingdom (D&C 76:51-52). Everyone so baptized, and worthy, may enter there. In addition to baptism, celestial marriage is required to enter into the highest degree of the celestial kingdom, and receive a fulness and exaltation (D&C 132:19). So, in a sense, one or the other ordinance can be said as the key necessary to enter into the kingdom of God, depending on whether we’re talking about the front door or our throne room.

It is also interesting to note that these two ordinances are exclusive in that they are the only two ordinances of the gospel that invoke the titles of the three members of the Godhead—”in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (D&C 20:73). Perhaps this is the case because all three members of the Godhead dwell in the celestial kingdom (D&C 76:62, 77, 86), and thus all three may be required for authorization to pass from one area to another in that exalted sphere.

Did the Temple Ordinances Come From The Masons?

Dr. Hugh Nibley lecturingToday a commenter on the site mentioned how I should include more parallels with the practices of the Masons, since that is plainly where the temple ordinances came from. And I would respond, did they? Did they really, so easily, come from the Masons? Can we dismiss Joseph as a prophet, seer, and revelator as simply as that?

I am reminded of a quote by our eloquent Dr. Nibley:

Off-hand, one may say that Joseph Smith could have gotten his ideas from any or many of a great number of sources, ancient and modern. Here is an illustration. On Easter Day in 1954 at about noon, the writer was standing with Brother Virgil Bushman, that doughty missionary to the Hopis, before the house of the celebrated Tewaquetewa in Old Oraibi, when a small delegation of leading men from the village came up and informed us that they had just learned from the local Protestant missionaries how the Mormons got a lot of their stuff. It seems that when the famous chief Tuba became a Mormon, Jacob Hamblin took him to Salt Lake City to marry his wives in the temple there. While the chief was in town, Joseph Smith, none other, got him aside and interrogated him very closely, prying the tribal secrets out of him; from what Chief Tuba told Smith, he proceeded to write the Book of Mormon, establish the temple ordinances, and found the Church. And that, sir, is why the Hopi traditions are so much like the Mormon.

The point is, that would be quite a plausible explanation had the two men been contemporary, or had either ever been in Salt Lake; Joseph Smith just might have gotten his knowledge that way. There are in fact countless tribes, sects, societies, and orders from which he might have picked up this and that, had he known of their existence. The Near East in particular is littered with the archaeological and living survivals of practices and teachings which an observant Mormon may find suggestively familiar. The Druzes would have been a goldmine for Smith. He has actually been charged with plundering some of the baggage brought to the West by certain fraternal orders during the Middle Ages-as if the Prophet must rummage in a magpie’s nest to stock a king’s treasury! There are countless parallels, many of them very instructive, among the customs and religious of mankind, to what the Mormons do. But there is a world of difference between Ginzberg’s Legends of the Jews and the book of Isaiah, or between the Infancy Gospels and the real Gospels, no matter how many points of contact one may detect between them. The LDS endowment was not built up of elements brought together by chance, custom, or long research; it is a single, perfectly consistent organic whole, conveying its message without the aid of rationalizing, spiritualizing, allegorizing, or moralizing interpretations. ((The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, intro))

Instead of making Joseph out as someone he clearly was not (a one-of-a-kind religious scholar of the most keen intellect and a knowledge a good two hundred years ahead of his time), it makes much more sense to me that he was actually a prophet of God who received the ordinances of the temple in the same way the ancients did, by revelation from God.

“You Don’t Speak About the Temple” Says Bushman

6 Comments

Dr. Richard BushmanI have just recently begun reading Dr. Richard Bushman’s prominent Rough Stone Rolling biography of the prophet Joseph Smith. I have found it very insightful and excellent, and I’m sure I will share things here that relate to the temple as I come upon them in the book.

This morning, I read a Deseret News article this morning which reported on a talk that Dr. Bushman gave at Weber State University on March 5th. One of the main subjects that Bushman spoke about is Mormonism’s acceptance in America, and the troubles which surround that acceptance. One of those troubles stems from the LDS practice of keeping the temple secret. The report states:

“It is true that we are in a sense secret,” Bushman said. “It will be difficult to remove the suspicions when there is a certain fact to it.”

Bushman said he doesn’t like when Mormons say the temple is not secret, that it is sacred.

“It is secret,” he said. But he appreciates how excellent Mormons are at creating sacred spaces.

“Those temple spaces are just different from the rest of the world,” Bushman said after watching people walk silently with arms folded through the Manhattan Temple before it was dedicated. The process to be able to go into a Mormon temple evolves around keeping it sacred and at the same time, secret.

“Important as anything,” Bushman said, “is you don’t speak about the temple, even to those who go to the temple.”

[Read more…]

The Pope Receives a New Name

6 Comments

Pope Benedict XVIThere is an established practice throughout history and in many areas of the world when someone is elevated to royal, or otherwise elevated status and position — they are given a new name. This name is often referred to as a regnal name, or a reign name, and is different than the given name at birth. This practice is particularly well known in the Roman Catholic Church, where the Pope, upon being elected to his position, is called upon to give himself a new name. This process goes something like this: [Read more…]