The other thing is one interesting discussion between Jesus and the chief priests, the scribes and the elders on the authority to do the things Jesus did, which he moved to the first step/requirement/ordinance – baptism. Why Jesus did went to be baptized of John instead of the learned man of the Law of that day? For Jesus knew who had the authority and what did the authorized one (John) did? [Pull him up] or “went up straightway out of the water”, i.e. did it the right way.

I would like to learn more about Mikvah too. Is there more to what was shared here on the Mikvah that I can go and read?

Thank you for the quality discussion I see here!

My point in bringing this up is historical, provable information. Nothing in the Bible can be proved archaeologically prior to about 600-700 BC. I’m not trying to argue theology here, but rather history. Andrew is the one who wants to argue theology here (as in WHY?). Perhaps you can answer that for him. Or you can show me the baptismal font Adam was baptized in? (Sorry, I’m not trying to provoke–please understand.)

I know and trust the JST, PoGP, etc, but they don’t add anything to the archaeology. While it is off-topic here, I mused that the Book of Abraham is similar to Muslim writings about Abraham, and is also similar to the Jewish Midrash, in the link I posted above. For those that want to trash the Book of Abraham, that certainly adds some interesting elements to consider. But then Doug G is going to come along and say that Joseph copied the Midrash or Koran, and blamed it on a funeral scroll…

Andrew, I’ve always found the LDS model of 2 Priesthoods re-assuring for this very reason. Milk before meat. Law of Moses before Law of Christ. Physical ordinances prior to spiritual. Baptism is an easy way to see someone commits to wanting to be a member. Temple recommend interviews are very spiritual-driven.

Did you know that circumcision was commonly practiced by the pagan religions in Abraham’s day? Circumcision wasn’t instituted by Abraham, but rather seems to have been adapted by Abraham for a new spiritual meaning. I posted on it a while back at http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/04/02/jewish-muslim-and-academic-perspectives-on-abraham/

This might add some interesting insight as well. http://www.haderek.ca/articles/pesach/handofzipporah.htm

Andrew, I wrote a short post about ordinances a few months ago.

Conversion of the Whole Soul: Body and Spirit

I agree with adam e’s #7. There is a big difference between being opposed to ordinances and being opposed to losing the symbolism and the on-going efficacy in the doing of them.

I’ve wondered the same thing myself.

I’ve concluded that the covenant associated with baptism is necessary for our salvation, and the ordinance of physical baptism is the way God has chosen for mortals to make that covenant. (The same is true of other ordinances) The ordinances focus our mortal minds on spiritual concepts, and establish an orderly way for us to make and keep spiritual covenants.

The ordinances are for our benefit, not God’s. Without the ordinances, I suspect we mortals would make a mush of key spiritual concepts.

Christ participated in the physical ordinances and rituals including circumcision (albeit not by choice), baptism, passover, etc. (Interestingly, I can’t think of any scripture indicating that Christ offered sacrifices) He wasn’t anti-ordinance; he was anti-focusing-on-symbols-and-appearances-to-the-exclusion-of-spiritual-truths.

To be honest, I have a very hard time understanding why God would institute legalistic requirements like baptism that then inevitably result in centuries and millennia of legalistic debate. It seems to me if there was one thing Jesus railed against during his ministry, it was the Pharisees’ legalism in setting nit-picky requirements and outward observances for this and that and the other thing, and calling that religion, distracting people from the private interior yearning for God and development of the human soul that characterizes true spirituality. By contrast, Jesus just tried to focus on making sure our faith was a genuine, private, interior pursuit that focused on caring for those in need and infusing our unseen thoughts and motives with selflessness and love (don’t fast as the hypocrites do, pray in secret, give alms in secret, don’t judge, go the extra mile [i.e., be generous with others], don’t just focus on avoiding wrong action like murder or adultery, focus on cleansing your heart from bad feelings like anger and lust, etc.).

As soon as we say God “requires” an ordinance, a legal ceremony, you inevitably run into contentious debates for the next few millennia about who does and doesn’t have the legal authority to perform those legal ceremonies, and legalistic debate over the details of exactly how those legal ceremonies should be performed (sprinkling? immersion? a little of both?), at what age the legal ceremony should be performed, etc., etc., etc. And I’m just not sure how all that inevitable legalistic debate moves us all closer toward the oneness and unity that was the ultimate desire of Christ’s intercessory prayer.

By contrast, if baptism is not viewed as a legal requirement for your salvation, but instead is viewed as one of many possible ways to focus ourselves on God and to commit ourselves to live a Godly life, in other words, a beneficial-but-optional performance, then it seems we have all the benefit of baptism (the covenant-making, the focusing our hearts on God, the striving for purity) without the need for centuries of ensuing legalistic debate. Oh, and the other benefit of not having baptism as a legal requirement for salvation is that then we don’t have to worry about babies and relatives and people living in most of the world going to hell for not being baptized by the right people in the right place at the right time and in the right way.

To be clear, I don’t dispute the fact that the Bible says Jesus was baptized and preached baptism. And I’m not saying God doesn’t require ordinances like baptism. I’m just saying that for years I have had a hard time understanding WHY he would require ordinances like baptism because it seems to lead us in the opposite direction, or at least greatly distract us, from the interior spiritual pursuits that Jesus so passionately preached, and seems to be a stumbling block that undermines the oneness and unity that was the object of his Intercessory Prayer. If anyone has any thoughts about why God would require ordinances like baptism as requirements for salvation, I’d appreciate hearing your views (MH, I hope that’s not a threadjack).

Thanks for the info. Can you help me correct my own misconceptions? What happens to a child who is not baptized as an infant, according to Catholic belief?

I’ve noticed that LDS tend to be somewhat misinformed about infant baptism, and what it means and does not mean. (at least, to a catholic, I don’t have enough experience to speak for other denominations that practice it.)

First of all, to catholics, baptism is not a covenant the way it is to LDS. If there’s any “covenanting” going on it’s between the parents and god, not the child. The child makes his own promises to God later on in life through “confirmation” which occurs somewhere between 10 and 18 grade depending on the congregation.

Really, infant baptism is seen more as a blessing of the child and an introduction to the community, than anything else.

Now, you all can debate whether such a thing is wrong or right, I don’t care, but at least understand the context of why it is done.