A friend asked me about the doctrinal history of why Mormons, and specifically Joseph Smith, came up with the doctrine of baptism of the dead, and vicarious ordinances. He noted that in Elder Bednar’s 2011 General Conference talk, Bednar tied vicarious work not only with the visit of Elijah to Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple, but also with the earliest foundations of the church. I hadn’t considered that as a possibility before and thought it would be interesting to look at.
Of course we all know that the First Vision occurred in the spring on 1820. Bednar notes that
Approximately three years later, in response to earnest prayer on the evening of September 21, 1823, Joseph’s bedroom filled with light until it “was lighter than at noonday” (Joseph Smith—History 1:30). A personage appeared at his bedside, called the young boy by name, and declared “he was a messenger sent from the presence of God … and that his name was Moroni” (verse 33). He instructed Joseph about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. And then Moroni quoted from the book of Malachi in the Old Testament, with a little variation in the language used in the King James Version:
“Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
“… And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming” (verses 38, 39).
Moroni’s instructions to the young prophet ultimately included two primary themes: (1) the Book of Mormon and (2) the words of Malachi foretelling the role of Elijah in the Restoration “of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:21). Thus, the introductory events of the Restoration revealed a correct understanding of the Godhead, emphasized the importance of the Book of Mormon, and anticipated the work of salvation and exaltation for both the living and the dead. This inspiring sequence is instructive about the spiritual matters of highest priority to Deity.
Bednar skips some very important events as he jumps from 1823 to 1836 and I thought it would be good to fill in some details. Just 2 months after this angelic visitation in Sept 1823, Joseph’s older brother Alvin died on November 19, 1823, at age 25. How did Alvin die? Apparently he was suffering from stomach pain, known at the time as “bilious colic.”[7] . In response, he was offered the “remedy” of calomel which is actually Mercury chloride. This cure killed Alvin, as he died fairly quickly of of mercury poisoning. Alvin was a big supporter of Joseph and his visions. His death occurred two months after Joseph’s first visit to the hill from which he was eventually said to have recovered the golden plates. Wikipedia records that
According to a history written by his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, as Smith lay dying he called each member of his family to his bedside to give them counsel. To his brother Hyrum, Smith said, “I have done all I could to make our dear parents comfortable. I want you to go on and finish the house.”[8] He urged his brother Joseph to fulfill all of the requirements to obtain the record.[9] [Alvin] Smith’s death had a significant effect on the family, resulting in Joseph taking more of a leadership role.
Alvin’s funeral was held at the Presbyterian church. According to an 1893 account by his brother William, “Rev. Stockton had preached my brother’s funeral sermon and intimated very strongly that he had gone to hell, for Alvin was not a church member”.[10] William cites this as a reason that Joseph Sr. would not join the Presbyterians.
Smith figured prominently in the establishment of the Mormon doctrine of the redemption of the dead and the later establishment of the practice of baptism for the dead. On January 21, 1836, after the completion [but before the dedication] of the Kirtland Temple, Joseph Smith claimed to have had a vision of the celestial kingdom. Smith stated that he saw his brother Alvin in this vision, and was surprised at his presence since he had died before the establishment of the church and its associated doctrines.[11] Joseph Smith stated that he then received a revelation concerning the salvation of those who die without hearing the gospel and their ability to receive the same opportunities as those who had the opportunity to hear it on earth.[12]
The revelation concerning baptism for the dead wasn’t recorded until September 1836 in a letter from Joseph Smith, and is now section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It’s interesting to me that the vision occurred in January, before the Kirtland Temple was dedicated on March 27, 1836. Bednar says
Elijah was an Old Testament prophet through whom mighty miracles were performed. He sealed the heavens, and no rain fell in ancient Israel for 3½ years. He multiplied a widow’s meal and oil. He raised a young boy from the dead, and he called down fire from heaven in a challenge to the prophets of Baal. (See 1 Kings 17–18.) At the conclusion of Elijah’s mortal ministry, he “went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11) and was translated.
“We learn from latter-day revelation that Elijah held the sealing power of the Melchizedek Priesthood and was the last prophet to do so before the time of Jesus Christ” (Bible Dictionary, “Elijah”). The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, “The spirit, power, and calling of Elijah is, that ye have power to hold the key of the … fullness of the Melchizedek Priesthood … ; and to … obtain … all the ordinances belonging to the kingdom of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith[2007], 311; emphasis added). This sacred sealing authority is essential for priesthood ordinances to be valid and binding both on earth and in heaven.
Elijah appeared with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration (see Matthew 17:3) and conferred this authority upon Peter, James, and John. Elijah appeared again with Moses and others on April 3, 1836, in the Kirtland Temple and conferred the same keys upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery.
We usually associate the sealing power with marriages, rather than baptism for the dead. In 1836, the doctrine of baptism for the dead wasn’t fully revealed to Joseph; otherwise the Kirtland Temple would have had a font like Nauvoo and later temples did. Section 128:15-17 does reveal that Elijah was essential for baptism for the dead. It’s always interesting to me to realize that the Kirtland Temple really was an incomplete temple with regards to temple ordinances. While they did have what they called an endowment, the Kirtland Endowment is what we now simply refer to as the initiatory rite, or washing and anointing where we are spiritually washed and anointed. The full endowment wasn’t recieved until 1842-43 in Nauvoo. The Ensign describes this.
By 1843, the temple’s full import and design seem to have crystallized in the Prophet’s teachings. The doctrines of sealing and of becoming kings and queens, priests and priestesses were often discussed. Joseph Smith taught that “except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the Holy Priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die; that is, they will not have any children after the resurrection,” 31 nor can they obtain the highest degree of the celestial glory. (See D&C 131:1–4.)
This alludes to the marriage sealing which wasn’t written down until 1843 (at least in the Doctrine and Covenants, although Joseph had secretly introduced it in Nauvoo to a select group of men and women. So, the Kirtland Temple is not only missing a baptismal font like later temples, but the Nauvoo Endowment and marriage sealing too. The vision in 1836 was really quite incomplete when we talk about Elijah restoring the sealing power.
Even though we had D&C 128 in 1836, baptisms for the dead still didn’t happen until 1840, after the saints had been kicked out of Kirtland, Ohio and Independence, Missouri. Of course Joseph never lived to see the Nauvoo Temple finished, and the first baptisms for the dead were performed in 1840 in the Mississippi River. Initially, women could be baptized for dead men, and vice versa. One of my favorite stories is that of Elijah Abel, one of the earliest black Mormon converts. He was baptized on behalf of his deceased mother during this early period. However, the practice was changed so that men and women are baptized for women and men for men under the leadership of Brigham Young in order to ensure that the person being baptized for a dead man could also be ordained on their behalf to the priesthood.[44]
Other ordinances such as endowments and sealings were not performed for several decades. I heard a wonderful presentation a few years ago by BYU Professor Richard E. Bennett who stated that endowments and sealings for the deceased first happened at the St. George Temple around the same time that the Manifesto was issued in 1890. At that time, the U.S. government passed a law to confiscate church property to pressure the church to drop polygamy. Bennett says that Woodruff believed the loss of temples would stop the vicarious work for the dead, and that it was better to give up polygamy rather than lose the ability to perform work for the dead. The Genealogical Society of Utah (now responsible for maintaining the FamilySearch website) was established by Woodruff in 1894 to help church members find records of their dead ancestors. In a previous post, I talked about Woodruff’s vision where the founding fathers came to him asking why their temple work hadn’t been completed. At the time of the vision, Woodruff was serving as St. George Temple president. (Note the St. George Temple was the first temple completed in Utah.)
So the doctrine that we have concerning ordinances of the dead, followed a long evolution over almost 80 years, if you want to tie this back to the First Vision. Were you aware how slowly the evolution of temple work occurred? I guess it makes me wonder if baptism performed prior to 1836, were really binding in heaven without this visit from Elijah? Is this why many saints were re-baptized several times throughout their life, or is this just a lack of understanding on the part of the early saints who wanted to be re-baptized?
Wheat & Tares 
It’s wonderful to put it all together, isn’t it? How great is our God.
I would recommend reading this book for further details about the evolution of ordinance work: https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119
Interesting write up MH. What I’m most curious about is how the LDS doctrinal understanding of vicarious ordinances changed from being an adoptive sealing free-for-all focused on trying to graft oneself and family members into a valid priesthood line, and the modern practice of baptising and sealing everyone in the world into their own historical family lines, whether or not those family lines are dead-ends priesthood-wise.
acw, I actually own that book, but it is more of a source book of official documents and doesn’t contain a real narrative that ties it together. As such, it doesn’t attempt to link themes together, and isn’t much fun to read as an overall analysis. Yes it is interesting to see the memos that may or may not have been for public consumption, but as a narrative, it is entirely lacking. Certainly there are time periods where the church was interested in certain themes, like blacks for example. I remember seeing documents asking if blacks can participate in baptism for the dead (yes, but not endowments), but if you want someone to explain it in narrative form (as I have tried to do in this post), you have to put those pieces together yourself.
Nate, it seems to me that Woodruff was uncomfortable with everyone being sealed to Joseph. I think it was a sort of idolatry akin to multi-level marketing where everyone downstream from big church leaders like Joseph or Brigham were almost assured exaltation, while other lines were completely ignored. It was Woodruff who made this change in the 1890s where people were told not to pay attention to these adoptive sealings and simply look back along family lines.
ji, thanks for the compliments. I’d be interested to hear your opinions on my last 2 questions of the OP.
Actually, baptism for the dead (and other vicarious ordinances) came about as pretty much step 4 in the development of doctrine to solve the soteriological problem of evil, which the Book of Mormon totally whiffs on (all who haven’t heard the gospel are simply saved and given eternal life, according to at least four different BoM prophets. Section 76 was step 2. Now all these folks just go to the terrestrial kingdom. Joseph’s vision about Alvin in the celestial kingdom was step 3. He was saved because of his desires. Still no baptism required. Step 4 was Joseph’s introduction of baptism for the dead, which also requires missionary work in the spirit world. This still leaves a few questions unanswered, but we haven’t gotten to step 5 yet.
MH,
I can’t speak definitively, because I wasn’t there. But I tend to believe that God can work things out. In the old days, some Latter-day Saints were baptized several times with priesthood authority. Nowadays, we’re told by priesthood authority that re-baptisms for members are not necessary and should not be done. Rather than saying one is right and the other us wrong, I prefer to think that both can be right in the context of their own time under. D&C 112:20 applies for me. Evolution…
Whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven.
Endowments for the dead were done in the 1870s, as noted in your previous post. When you say the sealings started in the 1890s, you’re thinking about the end of the law of adoption?
Paper here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1885588
Good post, but question on your historical dating of D&C 128. You say it was written in 1836, but I can’t find evidence of that. The D&C says 1842. The earliest evidence for baptisms for the dead theology I had read about was Joseph giving a funeral sermon I believe in late 1840 timeframe, and I think this was from Gregory Prince’s book on the development of the Priesthood.
All of the theology around sealing and vicarious work for the dead didn’t happen until the Nauvoo timeline, unless you have evidence otherwise, I think this is a problem with your thesis. Can you correct or clarify?
I enjoyed the historical read MH. Thanks for putting it together.
Did you mean to omit the history of the “Endowment House” in Salt Lake City as a location for endowments and sealings?
I have not studied much about the endowment house, but the encyclopedia of Mormonism has the following quote:
“On the average, 25 to 30 endowments were given daily, for a total of 54,170 in the thirty-four years it was used. And an average of 2,500 marriages were also performed annually.”
I do not know if among this number were ordinances for the dead or not. I had always assumed there were, so your teaching that those ordinances languished until the construction of the St. George temple came as a surprise. I remember watching the movie “Brigham” and there was a side story about a man who wouldn’t join the church before the exodus west. His member-wife died sometime during the journey and one of the key scenes was a sealing ceremony taking place in the Endowment House where the husband–now member, was sealed to his departed wife. That certainly could have been artistic license, but it shows how my memory and understanding was colored.
Another link:
http://mds.marshall.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=lib_faculty
though I have only skimmed it quickly, describes the influence of the Endowment House on crystalizing the format of endowment ritual. It also describes baptisms for the dead being performed in a font constructed in the endowment house in 1864 (page 20).
As to whether I am surprised about the evolution of the temple occurring slowly, I would say yes and no. I learned some new perspectives from reading your post which where surprising. I am not really one that feels the manner in which the Endowment is carried out must be set in stone. There are certain elements that need to be taught, but it seems that the Lord allows those elements to be delivered in methods depending upon the culture of the recipients.
I do not see re-baptism as being doctrinally necessary except for a few instances. Are you suggesting that Joseph and Oliver did not have the proper authority to baptize each other because their baptisms preceded the visitation from Elijah? I don’t believe that to be the case.
Anon, you are correct. I swear that when I read the intro paragraph to D&C 128, it said 1836, but when I checked today, it said 1842. I don’t know why I saw that wrong, but that pushes back baptisms for the dead completely out of Kirtland altogether. I knew there was no font in the Kirtland Temple, but this makes baptism for the dead even more a Nauvoo doctrine, not Kirtland.
Rigel, as I read D&C 128 with the reference that Elijah was needed for the sealing power specifically for baptisms for the dead, that seemed strange to me. Like I said in the OP, it seems that sealing is for binding married couples and children together. So it does raise the question of whether pre 1836 baptisms were efficacious. I’m sure the church says they were, but then why is Elijah needed for baptism for the dead? It doesn’t make sense to me. I’d be very interested if someone has an explanation.
As for the Endowment House, these endowments were only for the living. In Richard E. Bennett’s presentation, he indicated that endowments for the dead first occurred in the St. George Temple. That was news to me. I was under the impression that these endowments for the dead were done in the 1880s, but seeing that he was president of the St. George Temple from 1877-1884, I suppose it might have been earlier than the late 1880s as I believed. I’ve sent an email to Bro Bennett, but haven’t heard back from him on the precise dates.
“I do not see re-baptism as being doctrinally necessary except for a few instances. Are you suggesting that Joseph and Oliver did not have the proper authority to baptize each other because their baptisms preceded the visitation from Elijah? I don’t believe that to be the case.”
I don’t either, but I don’t understand why Elijah is mentioned as necessary in D&C 128, and Bednar also mentioned it in his talk.
This is what differentiates us from other religions…this is what is supposed to make a peculiar people…not abstaining from coffee.
Also, it’s a bad idea to read chapter summaries or intro’s…they can be/have been summarized incorrectly and it creates cognitive dissonance when trying to understand the correct meaning. IMO
Rigel, let me add another point. You referenced a movie in which a man was sealed to a deceased wife. I do believe such sealings took place. Several women were sealed to Joseph after his death, so such sealings did happen.
When I’m taking about vicarious ordinances, I’m talking about doing research on dead ancestors and sealing them to each other. This didn’t happen until st. George Temple.
It wasn’t uncommon to seal people to Joseph or Brigham after their deaths, but Woodruff’s change said you should be sealed to your own ancestors and stop being adoptively sealed to famous Church members like Joseph and Brigham.
I am sure that there probably were adoptive sealings of living people to dead Church leaders in the Endowment House, but that is quite different from what we do today as we search for our own dead ancestors.
Maybe something about the power to bind in heaven what is bound on earth? Goes along with the requirement that one performing baptisms for the dead to be an endowed Melchizedek Priesthood holder?
Sealings to dead spouses were taking place quite early – at least as early as 1843. Hyrum Smith became converted to the idea of plural marriage based in large part on an understanding that he could be with his first deceased wife as well as his second living wife after death. His second wife, Mary, stood in for his first wife, Jerusha, when Hyrum was sealed to her. Hyrum was then sealed to Mary as well. Same thing with Mercy Fielding Thompson – Hyrum stood as proxy for her deceased husband, Robert, so that Mercy could be sealed to him. This was before Hyrum took on Mercy as a plural wife in late 1843.
I agree with MH that this seems to be separate from the vicarious ordinances (baptisms, confirmations, initiatories, and endowments) that we typically associate with family history and temple work.
So was the vision of the founding fathers asking for their vicarious work to be done the impetus and beginning of that work–or had it already been done for ancestors in the St. George temple prior to that time and it was the impetus for ‘special cases’ of non-relatives receiving work by revelatory intervention?
Rigel, thanks for the thoughtful questions and points. I’ve been pondering this all week, and even participated in baptisms with my daughter this week. I performed the baptisms, and she was proxy. I performed these baptism through the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood I hold. Now they did ask if I was an endowed member, but I believe this is more of a procedural point than a theological one. I’m wondering if the “spirit of Elijah” is simply the idea that Elijah is turning the hearts of the children (us) to the fathers (our ancestors.) I am still having a hard time understanding why it is Elijah and the sealing power that is needed for baptism for the dead when in Matthew 18:18 Jesus told the Twelve “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” That seems pretty binding without Elijah in the picture at all.
As for the Founding Fathers, if you click on the link in the OP, Brian Stuy tells us that the Founding Fathers were baptized previously in Nauvoo, so that work seems to have been repeated in St. George, and it was repeated again “in 1985, President Benson wanted to make sure these ordinances were performed. While most had been performed, some wives and children of the signers weren’t completed, so Benson made sure these were done in time for the bicentennial celebration of the Constitutional Convention in 1987.”
Stuy notes
The St. George Temple was completed in 1877 (first temple completed in Utah) and Woodruff was its first temple president. He had been reading a book titled Portrait Gallery of Eminent Men and Women of Europe and America. Stuy believes this book to be the source that may have inspired Woodruff to ponder on the subject. Woodruff seems to be the main source for thinking that endowments should be done for deceased people when it was previously only done for the living. There seems to be a lot of ties back to Woodruff that makes more than simply baptisms important for the dead.
Your number of 54,170 endowments in the Endowment House seems high to me. I know that the 2nd Endowment (known to us as “Calling and Election Made Sure”) was performed much more frequently then than it is now. I wonder how many of these 2nd Endowments are numbered in that 54,170. It is my understanding that the 1st endowment that we receive commonly is to be anointed “to become” kings and priests, queens and priestesses in the future, whereas the 2nd Endowment is a present tense king, queen, priest or priestess, just as Joseph Smith and early church leaders were. So the 1st endowment is a precursor to a 2nd endowment that seems to now be reserved simply for upstanding stake presidents (such as the now ex-mo Tom Phillips) and higher general authorities. Average members no longer get the 2nd anointing because of blabber-mouths like Tom and some early church members, and the leadership wants that 2nd anointing to be much more secret than even current temple practices.
MH, “I am still having a hard time understanding why it is Elijah and the sealing power that is needed for baptism for the dead when in Matthew 18:18 Jesus told the Twelve “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” That seems pretty binding without Elijah in the picture at all.”
Elijah was in the picture – he was present with Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration in Matthew 17. It’s believed that Peter, James, and John received the requisite “keys of the kingdom” at that point.
A better example of sealing keys sans Elijah is Helaman 10:7.
Interesting point Mary Ann. It seems obvious that the Lord could bestow the sealing power personally rather than Elijah being the intermediary as seems to have been done in Helaman 10:7. If the mission is given to Elijah, then it would seem there is a particular lesson to be taught in having Elijah deliver those keys.
MH,
Wouldn’t all ordinances of each temple be under the direction of the Temple President who holds the keys of sealing power? Even if you are performing baptisms for the dead as an endowed M.P. holder and do not hold the sealing power yourself, the administration of the ordinance is done within the scope that the Temple President has authorized the performing of the ordinances. Not speaking from any inside knowledge, as I have never been a temple worker and certainly not a temple president.
Rigel, Perhaps that is true, but using that line of reasoning seems to invalidate all baptisms in life outside of a temple. If it is truly the sealing power that binds in heaven, and not the priesthood then I think a case can be made that baptisms performed without the sealing power delivered in 1836 are not valid in heaven.
I will also note that baptisms performed in the Mississippi River were done outside of the temple. (I also learned that City Creek was dammed so saints could do baptisms for the dead while the Endowment House did not have a font.) There was no temple president, though I suppose it could be argued these were under the direction of JS and BY who held the sealing power.
I guess I’m confused where priesthood ends and sealing power begins.
We’re told that sealers (and Temple Pres and above) hold the sealing power, but they are no where to be found during either endowments for the dead, or baptisms for the dead. They are only found in sealing sessions. So how does Elijah fit in with baptism for the dead?
MaryAnn, I just read Matthew 17. It says Elias, which I guess in the greek name for Elijah (though LDS seem to think they are 2 separate people). If Elijah confers sealing to Jesus who confers to the Twelve, then didn’t Peter, James and John confer that same power in 1830 to JS? Why did Elijah confer something greater 6 years later? I mean if JS had it in 1830, then that takes care of the problem of pre 1836 baptisms as being binding, but then again, what is Elijah restoring in 1836? Is it marriage sealings (that seems to make more sense to me). I still get confused regarding baptisms.
MH–shooting from the hip here, but I assume an ordinance performed by non-sealing priesthood power to a living person (other than sealing to spouse or family) is bound on earth and heaven–BUT for an ordinance performed on earth for someone in the spirit world, sealing power is required for it to be bound both in Earth and Heaven. I’m chuckling as I type this because it became more and more complicated to explain as I type.
I assume the Lord granted an exception for the baptisms in the Mississippi and in City Creek (and if you are God–then you should be able to omnipotently grant exceptions I suppose) because of the intent of the hearts of those performing the ordinances.
I assume that Peter, James, and John did not confer the same power to JS in 1830 because JS was not ready to receive it AND the trial of building and pentacost of experiencing a temple was needed for Joseph to become ready. Peter, James, and John did live in a time when there was a temple on the earth and–apparently–it was not deemed necessary that they receive the sealing power in the temple, but on the top of a mountain.
I assume that though there was both an Elijah and Elias that the visitor described in Matthew 17 was actually Elijah and not Elias, which correlates the latter-day experience.
I assume that the teaching experience of different heavenly visitors delivering different keys to Joseph in the Kirtland Temple was part of the Lord’s plan for the dispensation of the fullness of times and to provide teaching to all of us about those particular keys.
Bishops hold the keys for all of the new baptisms that are taking place in the ward, but they do not have to physically present for those keys to be exercised, so it may be the same with temple presidents. As I understand it, sealing power used to be reserved to those with a calling of Apostle and the keys were only given to temple presidents and other temple sealers when the need became great for the work to go forward. Thus, it could, indeed, be argued that JS and BY had ultimate direction of the sealing power.
When you listen to the introduction to the initiatory ceremony, you can think of that as being the next step to the preparatory ordinances of baptism and confirmation.
Again, I am shooting from the hip here and making assumptions and—you know what you do when you assume! 😉
Rigel, that’s as good of a convoluted explanation as can be and best explanation I can think of.
My only quibble with what you said was “When you listen to the introduction to the initiatory ceremony, you can think of that as being the next step to the preparatory ordinances of baptism and confirmation.”
Remember that for a person to participate in initiatory, they have already been baptized and confirmed previously. The intro you speak of, as I said in comment 19, is that the 1st Endowment is preparatory to the 2nd endowment. We’re washed and anointed “to become” kings and priests (queens or priestesses), whereas the 2nd Endowment is where it is no longer future tense. In the 2nd Endowment, we literally become kings and priests (queens and priestesses.)
So that wording doesn’t apply to baptism at all.
One book, Jewish Commentary on the New Testament, definitely interprets the Elias as Elijah. They also note that the Elijah who had “already come” was clearly a reference to John the Baptist.
In the newest NT Institute manual, they go with BRM’s interpretation – Moses, Elijah, and John the Baptist were all present on the Mount of Transfiguration (as well as God the Father). Peter, James and John received their endowments at that time. Looks like he thinks they also received the Second Anointing as well.
From what I’ve always understood, just because you have keys conferred upon you doesn’t mean you can then go ahead and confer them on others (like one bishop to the next bishop). You have to have special permission. So the sealing power Peter received from Elijah wasn’t what he conferred to Joseph and Oliver at the Melchizedek Priesthood restoration. Similarly, Moses *may* have bestowed keys on Peter for gathering of Israel (based on what BRM said), but Peter wouldn’t necessarily have been allowed to pass on that key to Joseph Smith.
Supposedly they had baptisms for the dead in the NT, so you can still make the association between vicarious ordinances and the sealing power given by Elijah. I personally doubt they had the full initiatory and endowment thing going on (I know BRM would disagree). Herod’s temple had nothing to do with what we associate with temples today. To be blunt, I have a really hard time swallowing BRM’s take on what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration.
The differentiation between Elijah and Elias at Kirtland has always confuses people (me included). Elias is commonly understood as a general description of a forerunner. I’ve seen the Elias description applied to Elijah, John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and Joseph Smith. Elias in the NT is the Greek form of Elijah, so it’s only ever applied to OT Elijah and John the Baptist (the gospels make explicit associations between John the Baptist and Elijah, even down to physical description).
If I had to take a stab at it, I’d say that the sealing power in the temple is essentially what makes all the previous ordinances effective in the eternities. As far as I can tell, ordinances are only necessary if you want to get to the Celestial Kingdom. People in the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms don’t need ordinances to get there.
I think I agree with you guys that the sealing power is critical for after-death stuff. Baptism and confirmation are ultimately required for exaltation, but there are no explicit after-death blessings/promises associated with them in this life. Initiatories, endowments, and family sealings are different. When you are doing vicarious ordinances there is immediate application to those in the spirit world, which means the higher power (binding in heaven as well as earth) is required.
I just got an email from Bro Bennett, and learned some interesting things. Yes, the dating of endowments for the dead does date to the Jan 1877 dedication of the St. George Temple with Woodruff as president, and yes the Endowment House only did live endowments up to that point. Woodruff felt that the loss of the temples due to the Edmunds-Tucker Act (when the US Govt tried to confiscate church property to hurt the church for polygamy) would cause untold harm to these vicarious ordinances. The vision of the Founding Fathers occurred in 1877 as well.
Woodruff felt it was better to jettison polygamy and keep ordinances going, thus the Manifesto was issued. Bennett makes the case that the sealing power was needed for vicarious ordinances. Apparently priesthood is good enough for living ordinances.
“the sealing power in the temple is essentially what makes all the previous ordinances effective in the eternities”
Sounds familiar–like I have heard that before. 🙂
#26 about the quibble…not sure we are talking on the same thing. I was thinking of the reference from Exodus 28:1 where Aaron is taking his son’s to be ‘consecrated and anointed’ to minister in the Priest’s office. Assuming Paul’s interpretation is correct in 1 Cor 10, the children of Israel had previous to that time been ‘baptized’ by Moses in the cloud and in the sea.
Rigel, after I got into writing it, I realized I was just repeating what you guys had been saying all along. I was just too tired to go back and pick up the exact quotes. LOL. Figured since you and MH were the only ones following the conversation you’d forgive the repetition. Should’ve just gone with “I’m along the same line of thinking as you guys.”
I thought you were referring to Exodus 40:12-13 (though your verses sound similar)
I think this is pretty similar to what they say for the initiatory. As I see it, in the temple people are baptized by immersion and then confirmed. Then during the initiatory, they are ritually washed with water and anointed with oil, in that order.
I think 28:1 something very similar is going on–a ritual washing and anointing, but after the mikvah, a Jewish precursor to baptism, that I blogged about 8 years ago.
Maybe I just don’t understand what you are getting at though.
Mary Ann, I don’t think I had said exactly that…I honestly was saying that I had heard it at church sometime!
You got the more accurate verse MH. I’m confused though by what you are saying. “In the temple people are baptized by immersion and then confirmed” Well, not living people for their own ordinances, of course, but are you saying that you think everyone should receive their own baptism in a temple rather than a font/river? I was trying to make the point that baptism is preparatory for the initiatory ordinance–which I think we agree on.
Rigel, in your original comment you said
“When you listen to the introduction to the initiatory ceremony, you can think of that as being the next step to the preparatory ordinances of baptism and confirmation.”
This sounded to me like you were saying the initiatory was preparatory to baptism and confirmation. I was trying to point out that when we do vicarious ordinances, dead people were baptized BEFORE participating in the ritual washing and anointing, so “the next step” is not baptism, it is the endowment because baptism has already been completed for them. (The step after that is sealing.) So the wording of the initiatory is not preparatory for baptism, it is preparatory for the 1st endowment (and perhaps the 2nd endowment which only high church leaders participate in.)
Maybe I misinterpreted your comment, but this was what I thought when you made it. Now that I read it again, perhaps you were saying the initiatory is “the next step [AFTER] the preparatory ordinances of baptism and confirmation.” I thought you were saying baptism and confirmation were the next steps, and I was saying those had already been completed for the initiate. Is that what you intended by your comment? If so, I definitely misunderstood what you were saying.
Living people can be baptized in churches, rivers, lakes etc. It definitely isn’t required for the living to be baptized in temples.
I’m very late to this discussion, but this is more of an FYI to anyone following this thread. Rick Turley’s account of Joseph’s personal life affecting how he thought about salvation for the dead is worth a read:
Click to access 2001-11-09.pdf