On the matter of Baptism for the Dead - Harrowing of Hell

Up till yesterday, I haven't been able to see the value in the LDS practice of Baptism for the Dead, and in trying to learn how it figures so largely in the temple work, up to this point I have seen the one reference in the New Testament whereby Paul speaking to the Corinthians calls into comparison the practice of baptism for the dead, making the fact that such a ritual was a norm in that time and place apparent.   I thought it peculiar that an entire practice in these modern times could be based on a ritual of antiquity based on a quick reference verse in NT bible.  In my mind there was not strong enough reason for me to wish to involve myself in the practice, while respecting that the rite meant a great deal to the members who did observe it.

Another non-compelling reason for me to wish to include the 'temple experiences' as part of my own experience in Mormon faith practices.  Already on my list of not sure I even want to experience the temple is the compelling reason that the Church requires one to go through a temple recommend interview with the Bishop of the Ward.  Condition of being eligible to go into the temple is what is called being worthy.  Seriously objecting to that word and what it conveys, I was already greatly put off inasmuch as if a member is not considered 'worthy' then that may well mean the member is 'unworthy'.  I don't like the psychological messages that puts into people's minds.  As humans, it seems to me, we already have enough of a struggle in finding our worth without another condition being set upon us as in temple worthy or temple unworthy. I don't like how it feels to me.  An extension of the worthy concept as defined by the LDS Church includes a requirement to pay tithing.  That is another thought for another time, and to wrap it up, I don't like the idea of an enforced tithing as the means of contribution to the needs of the Church.

Enter Hugh W. Nibley with his thoughts on the matter, published in a transcript (online here) 'Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times' at Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship (a BYU component) with an in depth look at the practice.  I'm so ready to resist and as I continue to read encounter concepts familiar to me that I am hooked into reading the rest of the article, getting only about half way through it and I stop to tell my husband of my find, asking him if he knows much about Hugh Nibley, and suggesting to him that if he hasn't read this particular article, he might be interested in reading it given some of the concepts we have explored together in other venues.

What would that be?

-- mention of a Coptic papyrus found in 1895, purported to be account of teaching of Christ to his apostles after the resurrection in salvation for the dead.

-- mention of names familiar to me as early Christian scholars; Justin (a Christian convert), Clement of Alexandria, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, St Augustine; Origen, Plato

-- involving people of the bible; Peter (of the Disciples); Matthew, Luke, Mark (of the NT); James; John; Moses; Elias; Abraham, Issac, Jacob, John the Baptist;

-- mention of concepts familiar to me; Gates of Hell; Satan; Devil; Prince of this world; medieval Easter Drama with Satan and Death; underworld; God as a Cloud; Nicaea; Nicene Creed;  Hades; Dante's Inferno (depiction of his concept of Hell); ransom; Jesus destroying death (or Death); apocryphal books (Apocrypha); gnosis; apostolic times; Apostles Creed

There is no need to reinterpret what Nibley has already put to word and reader can read the article (already linked above).   What this new way of looking at that which I disavowed has alerted me to a deeper exploration.  I am mindful of the young missionary who pointed out verses in New Testament of the renting of the veil upon death of Jesus on the cross and His descending into hell before ascending (harrowing of hell).

Today then upon further examination, I encountered NT verses actually using the term 'spirit prison' - a term used in LDS teachings that I have not heard in any of my other spiritual affiliations.  See NT- 1 Peter 3:19-20 and then see 1 Peter 4:6 and Ephesians 4: 8-10 and OT - Isaiah 24:21-22. 

Given that there is a fullness of body of beliefs predating the formation of the religion of Joseph Smith, it is not a belief that I would wish to discard without giving attention to it's formation and application.  And in that regard as I take off my holding shelf a look at the concept of baptism for the dead, I come to appreciate why it might be revered as biblical, as a practice that did occur and as something I deem worthy of further exploration on my part.

In appreciated respect for the artists of the antiquities portrayals of the Harrowing of Hell, iconography of the same, and how art influences my mind, it seems there is a chunk of early Christian history absent of my understanding.  Ahhh, the humility of it all.  And perhaps that is the holiness that comes down to incarnate in humankind in bringing each of us a deeply needed sense of humility at what we do not know, cannot know, and yet know we do not know.

link - slideshow with many images of Harrowing of Hell

I'm Still Percolating

Still percolating. Updates though, while percolating.

 Baptism for the dead. I am coming to appreciate that this is indeed one of the rituals that LDS members do hold sacred, for reasons having to do with ensuring all have opportunity, living and dead. Also their belief that it among the commandments to make upon earth conditions as described in the scriptures. Although I'm not yet inclined to embrace all the scriptures they are using, preferring still bible as scriptural basis by which to begin to build foundations, and baptisms for the dead is but one verse in the New Testament referencing a practice done at that time in history, I am inclined to think about adopting the ritual in support of the fact that it is considered a sacred rite to LDS membership. Having now learned that the performance characteristics of this ritual are safe and do not include touching of the body beyond a laying on of hands on the head, that element is out of the way. Still a barrier and in the way - the issue of tithing equates to whether one can or cannot enter temple. Right now it is my thought that this church is putting up barriers that will impede my progression, something the leadership and membership desire for me, yet it seems I will need to pay my way to that progression.

 ....................... Sidebar, and in observing one bit of information, leads me to relating more of my (our) faith journey. Skip this part if you aren't interested in reading through 4-5 paragraphs, and I may well have related some part of our journey in previous blog postings.

 Interestingly, side note, there is an Occupy London (OWS) gathering at the St Paul Cathedral in London, Anglican (Episcopal) Church of England, which has been sourced as reason for two high ranking clergy stepping down from their positions in support of not banning the Occupiers from camping out at St Pauls. What has this to do with my blog subject? Just my observant following of the Occupy movement and my affiliation with the Episcopal church. I'm a bit of a dual citizenship Christian in that regard, actually more than dual citizenship but for now I'll reference just the two faith citizenships, Episcopal and LDS.

 I was baptized in Methodist church when I was a baby. In my young teen years I attended a neighborhood church when we lived in the South - probably a Baptist church and the minister called people to come down, and in the feeling of the moment, I went down which led the minister to herd me immediately into baptism - something I wasn't fully ready for, more was in touch with the feeling than knowledgeable about the practices or beliefs. Once again, as a young adult, via home lessons from the Jehovah's Witnesses, I began attending that church, was once again herded into baptism. By then I had our firstborn child and was looking for a spiritual home in which to raise her. That lasted two years, and I credit myself for a bit of perseverance in wanting good for my child, yet finding something not quite in line with what I was looking for, I left that church within two years. late into our adult years, after my divorce and marriage to my current husband, we were confirmed in the Episcopal church (church of my mother's formative years) where we found a church home where we felt welcome, wanted and needed. In time we came to see that the members were older and looking for younger energy to continue the offices of the church, which put us in the path of studies towards being licensed lay preachers, and further down the road unpaid Priests.

 The invasion into Iraq put us on a different footing, with a stronger discernment of ministry in activism to end the Iraq war, a call to Peace. With a military background and both of us having experienced some aspect of the earlier Vietnam war, we spoke as a military family and veteran calling for the troops to be brought home, the Iraq war brought to a close. This necessitated conflicting schedules with our functions at the church on Sundays and our public activism engagements. We advised the membership, spent years between 2004 and 2008 in intense activism efforts. Returning to our home church no longer quite felt like home to us. Years had passed with our country in turmoil, and we found it difficult to settle back into a quiet Sunday worship service routine as the expression of our spirituality, beliefs and recent activism energies.

 We had opportunity to visit a Lutheran worship service, as the Episcopals and Lutherans are in communion. It was not a lot different than Episcopal service and I loved the church building, a quaint building of Norwegian styled architecture. Lutherans have a quite extensive and somewhat impressive social services outreach. Thought it might be a bit too much though, husband still doing social work in his profession, and adding more social work outreach in his leisure hours after the years of intense activism might be a bit of overload. I chose instead to spend some time on the Boards of local non-profits, one that was being smeared badly and unfortunately given their history of good work in the community, and the other a church start-up food bank for local town. As it turns out on the Board of the food bank start up was the same individual who participated in badly smearing the other organization. I remained on both Boards until the inevitable demise of one organization had reached completion, in the hopes I might bring something to the table that would aid in turning it around. Not to be. In the diminished need of the existence of one board, I no longer felt comfortable being on the other board, taking my leave and still wanting for their endeavor to be a successful one.

 A few more years passed, we visited a church in our immediate community, good people, and perhaps a bit of the Evangelical coloring making it somewhat uncomfortable for us. By the time of the year 2010, we felt calmed enough to visit other of the local churches, still seeking a church home for our later years. We agreed we would visit the local denomination churches one by one, and some of the further distance churches based on what was attractive to us in their belief sets and practices, ie Quakers, Unity Church which we had enjoyed in our visit to congregation in Vancouver, WA. We started with a visit to my husband's church, local Mormon church in the area. I was impressed enough with the talks to believe I could make my personal spirituality work within context of this church, his church and I yearned for him to find some place of inner peace with his cultural heritage and identity vs the doctrines the church impressed upon him. I rather knew giving a thumbs up and announcing desire to proceed to baptism would generate the baptism preparedness activity which I by then knew every church denomination seems intent on insisting, thinking we could get it done and out of the way rather than the cat and mouse dance of being convinced to agree to baptism. I had years of life with my husband, exposure to his perception of Mormon beliefs and practices, and felt ready to make this dive for where it might take us. end sidebar............................

  Sunday talks at Sacrament Meeting. Conversion or Convert as a process and not an event. Speaker, a long time member of the church, and also holding an academic and skilled profession as an administrator of school system, spoke of being converted in some areas while still waiting for conversion in other areas. A relief to me to hear. The 'process' of conversion as a process as in over years, maybe decades, maybe a lifetime. Shares the out take from the parable of the wage earners with the late arrivals being paid the same amount as the all day workers. He used just a few sentences, it was a part of his talk, not the subject of his talk. Loved how he gave the parable a green light and ended that part of his talk as the end of his talk with those familiar phrase to 'get over it'. Gives me another sense of relief, that I have a place at this table even if I have arrived late to the party. Bishop talk, and he wrapped his talk up with the phrase to 'suck it up'. Another familiar phrase to me.

  Sunday School - Gospel Doctrine I just can't get into the teacher's teaching style. Asks the open ended questions and seems to me with an expectation of 'correct' responses, not shared thoughts of many. It feels to me like he is wanting people to read his mind as to what the correct response is, or at least based on my feeling/reaction when I do share a response which it feels like he pretty much writes off. I was resolved to provide no response at all, not to let my spontaneity overcome my resolve. I was successful. Bishop fulfilled his promise to sit with me, and again encourages me to share and respond. I'm thinking about this often. Knowing I bring different perspective since I've been exposed to different disciplines, I am coming to understand though, this is not about discussion, dialogue or sharing. It's pretty much rote, routine responses, even if the teacher has worked hard in preparing the lesson. Maybe it's his personal perspective that he brings to the lesson and since he and I would likely not see eye to eye on many of the New Testament readings, because he is in the role of 'teacher' it changes the dynamic as perhaps would not be in a private conversational exchange. Leaving this one as perplexing to me for now, likely will return to it from time to time in this blog. I am not doing well with the Sunday School class, nor the teachers called to teach it. Or at least that is my feeling about it, although I have not had any members call me out on it.

  Joint Priesthood and Relief Society Meeting (men and women meeting together) Four Talks - every one of them about Tithing (capital T intentional). Lay it off to it's that time of year, with tithing settlements sessions with Bishop coming up or can't help but feel like because I did bring the issue up with the Bishop in Bishop interview last week, it brings the topic back to the forefront. One of our newest members (moved here from another Ward) pointed out the distinction of 10% of income or 10% of increase and don't other contributions as strength, time, talents, gifts count as increase. That was not dismissed as not having merit, but given that all the other talks were firm on the 10% of income, I didn't get the impression that the point of increase was considered to be the correct application. Discussions with husband and he assures me that talk is not aimed at me (us) specifically and there are others in the Ward membership who are not paying tithing regularly or fully or at all.

  Community of Christ church meeting We had bumped into website for Community of Christ Church earlier in the week, and read through the website for several hours. It appears that while they are the product of Joseph Smith teachings that did not make the trek to Utah under Brigham Young leadership, remaining instead in East Coast states, the formation of the religions have quite different beliefs. Listening to Mormon Stories podcast; John Hamer, The LDS Succession Crisis of 1844 and the Beginning of RLDS (Community of Christ) we got a feel for the formation and beliefs of the Community of Christ church. Interestingly, when we lived on Samish Island in Skagit County, there was one road in and an RLDS sign was posted showing direction to what we presume was an RLDS campsite. As it turns out, that is correct, it is one of the Community of Christ campsites. I recall at the time, not knowing the difference between Fundamentalist LDS with polygamy, I had mistakenly thought RLDS to be that, and was always put off by seeing that sign, thinking it pointed direction to a polygamous compound. I was wrong about my perceptions, confused about the acronymns. RLDS means Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, a name they changed to Community of Christ in 2001 more in keeping with original name of the Joseph Smith church - Church of Christ. Community of Christ church follows the Revised Common Lectionary with the liturgical years A,B, C. Familiar theme via our confirmation and activity with the Episcopal Church. Core message of the Community of Christ church is Peace. From the website, it certainly appeared that the hybrid blend of Mormon/Protestant beliefs might be a better fit for us, we contacted a congregation closest to us and were invited to come.

 We drove the hour drive and met with the people of that particular congregation, very small, newly forming and sharing church building with Methodist church in that particular neighborhood, diaconal Minister (meaning unpaid minister). The people were pleasant, warm, welcoming and inviting enough, sharing their meal with us, followed by their service. We tried to bring to the sharing some of our positive LDS experiences, yet I didn't get the sense there was familiarity to them of LDS community. It was, not as I might have thought, LDS Light, but seemed more of a start up congregation of what could easily have been any Protestant faith, or for that matter, a community non-profit reach out group. Were this what we were looking for, we can find it much closer to home, and we have found it in many of our church and community affiliations. Since they are a quite small group, their focus is on their immediate community needs, ie, holiday baskets, adopt a family, clothing and food drives, helping with holiday community dinner. Bless them and wishing them well in their endeavors, it is not quite what we were thinking it would be and if anything rather validated that I am more pleased than I realize with the LDS church and Ward we attend.

Baptisms for the dead - an early Christian practice?

It remains on my mind that the Bishop said to me with a degree of emphasis on it being in the bible (he knows I have a strong leaning towards biblical text which I consider to be the gospel, having not yet fully embraced the BoM, D & C, PoGP as 'gospel') so much so, that I wanted to do my own follow up and see what I think the bible verse, chapter and context is trying to say.  Verse; 1 Corinthians 15:29  ²⁹Else 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? 


Given that I am not taken to use of one verse as a methodology to create an entire concept or doctrine based on that verse, I was curious about the entire chapter and what was being said, to whom, by whom, along with some sense of the era or period of time in which it was being said as well as some of the customs/practices of that time.  It is a given that I cannot possible know what were customs/practices of an era of antiquity and must rely on scholarly studies, which of themselves are seldom in agreement.  More sorting, more puzzle pieces and I've long since abandoned an idea that with enough puzzle pieces I would be able to piece together an entire picture, rather a composite of fragments of customs/cultures and belief sets that have been shared, borrowed, confiscated, supplanting and/or augmenting the existing cultural belief sets.

It is my belief that it is impossible to gather enough information or ideas or concepts to glue together an overarching belief set thus having at last driven down to the 'truth' as a singular foundational underlaying of the many years of layers upon layers.  I think my mental approach wants to be a bit like an archaeological dig, getting down beneath the surface to find out what was buried over the eons.  And even then knowing whatever is found will still be subject to interpretation based on the finder's perspectives given his/her period in history. 


excerpt at ORB    (more closely matches my understanding of the Christian narrative, and I appreciated  as well as recommend reading the entire article)

Early Christian doctrines developed and were shaped over time; they were neither fixed nor stable. Once a doctrine was established it often necessitated a subsequent doctrine to define more precisely what was meant and to clarify the subtle nuances. Lived experience and understanding was the basis for the emergence of forming and re-forming doctrine. In other words, the need to develop doctrine about Jesus Christ emerged from the need to sort out what was truly Christian experience and life. In the words of the early church historian, Joseph Kelly:

The story of the Church begins at Pentecost with a frightened group of disciples wondering what will happen to them; it progresses through an almost frenetic attempt to win over the outside world before the Second Coming; it focuses on an epic struggle with the most powerful empire of the ancient world; it reaches its high point with the conversion of that empire to the new faith; it closes with the gradual decline of a great civilization and the emergence of a new world. It has a large canvas and broad brush strokes. While we must pay meticulous attention to the particulars, we must never forget the generalŠ(Kelly, "Why Study Early Church History?" 5)

I read the entire chapter of Corinthians for context, and continued to be nagged by the sense that this one particular verse pointed to something I had not yet explored for myself.  Further that it is not of substantive value to be mentioned in the Protestant narratives to which I had been exposed, nor the Episcopal narrative, meaning to me that it has been discounted as not relevant to the Protestant or Episcopal narratives.  If I bypass Protestant and Episcopal narratives, what do the religious studies have to say about this verse, being that it does point to some kind of custom being practiced in that time.  What practice, why, and from where does that practice stem? 

Chasing it down, I gain some knowledge of what is believed among some scholars to be the custom pointed to in the verse (along with a lot of sifting through the usual and typical finger pointing to the Mormon belief as heretical, false, misguided, etc.).  That is not what I'm after, I'm after some concrete sense of what custom, what practice, for what reason, why is Paul pointing it out at all unless it was being practiced and he knew of it.  And if so, is he finding a commonality he can point to in preaching the Christ resurrection or is he admonishing against something suggesting a replacement of belief sets, what he is preaching instead of the practice of what they are doing?   

It would be presumptuous for me to write that I found answers to what I was looking for as if that is the explanation.  Rather I would state that I did find thoughts about what I was looking for that cause me to pause a bit and let that information percolate a while.  Nonetheless, it becomes evident to me that somewhere in the Mormon history, the meanings attached to this verse, whether from Gnostic or otherwise belief sets, this verse brought the Mormon practice of baptisms for the dead alive as a ritual practice imbued with sacred meanings for those who teach it as well as those who believe it as well as those who practice it.  Iconography has sprung up with it to further imbue sacred meaning to the practice.  It is therefore real enough as it is practiced in the LDS church among the membership.

 I'm not having a problem with approaching it from that perspective.  I'm still stuck though on the a,b,c  element that ties tithing to temple, therefore ties tithing to the Mormon sacred ritual practice of performing baptisms for the dead, as it is performed only in the temple, not in the chapels and access to the temple requires a temple recommend which requires approval from a bishop which means responding with an honest degree of integrity to the questions posited by the bishop in which the question of 'do you pay a full tithing' requires an answer of yes or no.  The matter of defining what is a full tithing, as in one tenth of your personal increase has considerable wiggle room, and were we agreeable to paying some part of a tithing, could easily respond to the question with a yes with a personal degree of honest integrity.  The church has not been unclear in restating repetitiously it's requirements of members to pay tithing at a rate of ten percent or 1/10th of their income/increase.

It seems that I do not yet have a testimony of tithing, which is in fact prohibiting and impeding gaining a testimony of the temple, a testimony of baptism for the dead, a testimony of sealing, and as yet unknown to me other testimonies that involve temple, ie, personal endowments, ordinances and in truth because it is absent in my experience, I really don't yet know what else will be kept from me for the lack of temple experience.

It's an odd thing, because I have a belief in sharing, compassion, generosity of spirit, empathy for humankind, community, communion, and belonging.  While I recognize there is usually some sort of price to be paid for admittance to the tribe, be it initiation rituals, practices, customs as shared among the tribe, I have not yet encountered a must pay cash contribution situation.  Appreciating that it does take funding for most organizations, religious or otherwise, to function well, I'm not opposed to contributing for the sake of well being of the organizations ability to function.  I am not sold on a specific contribution amount being set as the price of admittance though - that concept troubles me.