Just some milk before meat

So this last week has been absurdly busy, and I guarantee this next week will be even more so. Ahh, such is the last week of class and the following exam week. Today's question: What should this post be about?

I've considered a few topics, like my thoughts and feelings on the new Vancouver temple, the Prophet Joseph Smith's martyrdom, and.. well, mostly temple-related topics. I have several posts in the works, they just require some citations and clean-up before I'm ready to post them. The topics? The purposes of temples, excommunication, the PBS documentary "The Mormons," and receiving answers to our prayers!

So with my assurances that there are some intense posts coming up, I'll go ahead and write up a bit on my thoughts about the temple.

Last week I had the opportunity to go through the temple on a tour with my mother, younger brother and friend. Since then I've been working hard at getting some of my friends from high school to come along. Turns out it's harder than I thought! I've discovered that if you invite five friends to do something, odds are you'll get just two to come along. Such was the case tonight, as I actually got back from the temple a couple of hours ago.

So, last week was my first time going through any of the Lord's temples, although it was just a tour. It's interesting when I consider how it felt.. I heard someone saying on Sunday how intensely they felt the Spirit. After hearing that I felt, ashamed? Something along those lines, because when I went through the temple I recognized the Spirit was there, but to me it felt, compared to how a dedicated temple feels when I'm in one, like it was just another building - maybe along the lines of another chapel or even the Conference Center in Salt Lake. So I kept thinking through the tour, "This is just like any other building.. for now." In hindsight, I'll say I'm both right and wrong on this. I'm right in that it's really just a shell of what it will be as soon as the May dedication rolls around. I'm wrong in that it is the House of the Lord, dedicated or not, and therefore is unlike any other building on the Earth.

Now, mostly I was concerned about how the experience was for my mother and brother, especially since the purpose of temples is to bind families together, and both of those members of my family are in a position where they may not want to, or cannot be bound to someone for eternity in a temple. My mother is also of the opinion (last I talked to her about it) that if she were to receive her endowments in the temple, she'd have to be a "Molly Mormon."

It seems reasonable and silly to me that I'd be going through the temple my first time and worrying about how someone else' experience is going, rather than concerning myself with my relationship with my Heavenly Father. Silly in that it was my first time, after all, so shouldn't I trouble myself with my own relationship with the eternal? Reasonable in that they're my family and I love them and I want us all to be in a place where we can be tied together for eternity, and also that I'm not too worried about my own spirituality (not meaning I'm allowing myself to be lulled into a false sense of security) and more concerned about theirs. To illustrate this point, I've often wondered over the question, "Would you die for so-and-so?" My answer, at least in theory, has always been "Yes," no matter who "so-and-so" happens to be. This is because I feel it's important to be as prepared as possible for that time when we meet our Maker. If the option was to allow someone who hasn't received the Gospel to die, or allow myself to take their place, that gives them all the more time to prepare, so I'm OK with that.

OK, so aside from worrying about whether the tour-guide was explaining things well, or clearly enough, so that my mother didn't think I was nutty for wanting to receive my endowments/get sealed in the temple, I had a pretty good experience. The temple is, of course, gorgeous and breathtaking - that sort of goes without saying. I loved looking for symbolism while I was wandering through, and I took particular interest in the artwork, it being in the area I specialize in (realism). I enjoyed taking in the serenity in the waiting room, walking through the baptistery, and then going through the rooms upstairs; it has actually made me more excited for when I go through the temple for myself. Of course walking through the bride's room and then later into the sealing room cracked open a part of my mind reserved for "The Future," but I most enjoyed the Celestial Room.

So, why did I think this room was my all-time favorite? Well, Celestial rooms in LDS temples are meant to reflect heaven. As they do on these tours, before leading their group into the Celestial room, tour guides will explain the room and then invite the group to remain in silence to contemplate their relationship with God, and things eternal in nature. Going through the first time, the day was quite slow and as such we weren't being herded through the temple with other groups at our heels. For this reason we stayed in the Celestial room for quite a chunk of time - or maybe it just seemed that way. After I took in as much of the room as I could, I found myself staring out at the patterns in one of the windows. During this time it occurred to me that since I had been introduced to sealings I've been excited about the prospect of seeing my family after I'm dead. But I had always really just pictured some form of future family. This might have something to do with the fact that I think my family is demented and like most people, there are times when I'd rather not be related to some of them. But these things aside, I found myself really wanting to be with them forever. It felt revelatory.

So, if you've ever got the chance, go to a temple open-house. I dare you.

More on Baptism for the Dead

So, unbelievably, I haven't posted anything for a couple months shy of a year. This, I think, is unfortunate. Why? Well, silly folk, because I've actually looked in depth at many anti-Mormon arguments, several temple topics and have listened to loads of talks and done quite a bit of reading (with topics surrounding controversies in the early church, onto the Mountain Meadows massacre, and over to the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith).

Well, all that matters is I'm back, and you, my adoring fans need wait no longer!

All right, so with my assumed fame securely in place, let's move on. I re-read my article, "Baptism for the Dead?" and was somewhat troubled by some conclusions I failed to draw.

1 Cor 15:29 asks, "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?" I've recently learned to love the way Paul speaks, just like I've learned to love how confusing Isaiah seems to be. But really, I love how Paul words his epistles.


I suggest you read all of 1 Corinthians 15, just as I hope I can convey that which will compel you to understand: reason.

Up until verse 19, Paul is talking about the resurrection, and specifically the resurrection of Christ. I find verse 19 to actually be the most powerful thus far: "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (In other words, the believers are up a creek without a paddle if Christ wasn't resurrected, because if He wasn't, then He wasn't the Savior, and their belief would then be blasphemous against God.)

In verse 23 Paul is referring to the order that we'll be resurrected. First Christ, and then Christ's followers (and by "followers," I do not mean the members of a particular religion) at his Second Coming: "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming." Conceivably afterward will follow the resurrection of the unrighteous. Why? Simply because of the fact that Christ died for all of mankind, promising us all immortality, not just a select elite.

Verse 24: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." So, after Christ is finished resurrecting everyone (which here is referred to as "delivering up the kingdom,") He, Jesus Christ, will remove the governments in each country and establish His rule over the whole Earth. In simple terms, a perfect rule, or government, I suppose, with a perfect ruler.

Verse 25 refers to "enemies," being put "under his feet," and this of course refers to Jesus' wrath upon the wicked of the earth.

Plain and simple, in the words of Paul in verse 26: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." After being judged, those worthy of it will receive eternal life. That is, will be put back in the presence of God, we having lost that at the time of the Fall, when Adam and Eve were literally sent out of God's presence. This continues on through verse 28, which actually says "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." This refers to when Christ has perfected all of His work among us, and God will finally judge us.

This is everything I can conclude with my own, obviously vast, knowledge on the subject, and a straight-through reading of the chapter up until verse 29, which is the subject of so much debate.


OK, time to backtrack. I've recently delved into the volumes of The History of the Church, as written by Joseph Smith and subsequently edited and then approved for release by the First Presidency. In the introduction of the first volume, it says that Joseph Smith, when writing, would often go on long narrations of the character of various people he met, and these were, in the editing process, taken out and moved. Why? Simply because Joseph wrote in a manner called Stream of Consciousness. In this method of writing, one writes as one thinks. It makes for an often convoluted, difficult reading. Add the subject of religious doctrine not heard since Christs' Church in early times and you've got a very difficult read ahead of you.

Now, you may ask, am I digressing, as I often do? No, I'm just letting you know where my brain has been and where yours now is.


Back to Paul and the Corinthians.
Let's look at the entire chapter and it's sections, because oh! how there are sections.

From verses 1 through 20 Paul is talking about the resurrection. From 21 to 28 he's talking about the consequences of the resurrection as they will be. Sweet, sweet consequences.
And then in verse 29, he's back to talking about the resurrection!

Look at it like this, verse 12 is his chastening of the people who deny the resurrection of Christ. After that, he's telling of the consequences of there not being a resurrection of Christ. Check out the verses:

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

He, unknown to those who haven't taken a Philosophy 101 course, is employing a brilliant form of argument.

If you're where my brain is at, then way to be! If not, let's look at it in terms of the words Paul is using. We're going to only notice the words relating to being "asleep." I'll add some italicization for you. This will be fun, I promise!

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Paul, our most beloved letter-writer, is obviously using euphemisms here. Basically, if there is no resurrection (following his reasoning given to those who were denying the resurrection), then those Christian followers aren't just physically dead, but also spiritually dead (spiritually dead here meaning that they cannot return to God's presence) therein referred to as having "perished." Verse 20 is where Paul is giving the Corinthians the good news: Christ was resurrected, and not only that but He was the first, and *key point* not the last to be resurrected.

And now we return to our favourite verse of all verses, verse 29:

29 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?

Paul's wording is essential to understand to know what he's saying. When I first read this, ages before I wrote my last article, I really had no idea what was going on, and I confess that I was relatively all right with not going to the trouble of trying to understand it. However, and thankfully, people can, and do change.
But I digress.
So, Paul, in typical Tephrochr translation, is quintessentially saying, "If there is no resurrection, what are the people who are performing baptism for the dead doing? Why are they being baptized for people who've died and who aren't going to be resurrected?" Notice my first phrase, "if there is no resurrection," because I'll be using that again, referring to his previous argument.

And it goes on, in verse 30, "And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" Jeopardy meaning peril, danger, or risking loss. More Teph translations: "If there is no resurrection, why do we put ourselves in danger by falsely believing there is?" Of course I use the word "falsely," because Paul is talking to the Corinthians under the pretense that there is no resurrection, that they have indeed been "found false witnesses of God" (verse 15), risking damnation.

Because there's controversy surrounding verse 31, I'll not touch on it here, simply because it doesn't detract from my explanation.

Here's verse 32, which is quite like verse 30, elaborating more on "standing in jeopardy."
32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die." Here he's being ironic, while maintaining his seriousness. In my previous article, I elaborated on what he meant when he said he "fought with beasts at Ephesus," which is that he spoke, by reason and persuasion, with the men at Ephesus. With the knowledge I have about Judaism and how they receive greater and greater understanding of scripture, etc, I conclude that he wasn't just talking with men, but most likely with learned men, like Jesus had. Although, I think since Paul uses the word "fought," it probably wasn't a pleasant experience like Jesus seems to have had. It also would have been done as a missionary would, because Paul was an amazing missionary, and he does those kinds of things. But I digress. Teph's translation? I think so: "If there is no resurrection, why have I reasoned and persuaded learned men at Ephesus of the resurrection?" As for the latter part of that scripture, I think it's obvious. Isaiah mentions something along those lines, talking about how the people at Jerusalem at to be taken captive. The alternative? Eat, drink, and get with the merry-making.

Verse 33 and 34, our final two verses of the night I think, are good ones to conclude on. He returns to chastening those who were denying the resurrection of the Lord.

33 Be not deceived: evil ^acommunications corrupt good manners.

34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your ^ashame.

Verse 33 in a nutshell? Don't let people trick you into believing lies.
In verse 34 he teaches one my most favourite of doctrines. That which involves ignorance: "some have not the knowledge of God," but because of the epistle which I've just sent you, which you are now reading, "I speak this to your shame." Let me illuminate his words.

Jesus taught in parables so that those who were ready to receive His instruction would be able to, and so that those who weren't quite as ready just got to listen to a nice story. Paul doesn't speak that way. It's easy to understand why. He's building Christ's Church and needs the members to be strong, valiant, and righteous.

In the simplest of terms, he doesn't want them to dilly-dally, he wants them to understand. Indeed, they need to understand. And so do we.

Baptism for the Dead?

That must be one crazy notion if you aren't a Latter-day Saint. Or maybe it's not, if you understand the scriptures. Ouch, that might have hurt, and I know that I am no scholar, but a look in 1 Corinthians clears it right up. Or does it? I, personally, think it’s as clear as mud, and that it brings up a lot of questions for our consideration.I began my scripture study this morning and actually happened to turn to 1 Cor 15:29. Which asks, "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?" Now, this is a very interesting verse, no?

Before I get into v. 29, I am going to allow myself to digress into a discussion of 1 Cor 15:29-32. Why? Because context is very important, vital even. First, let’s read the scriptures:

29 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?
30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
(JST 1 Cor. 15: 31 I protest unto you the resurrection of the dead; and this is my rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord daily, though I die.)
32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

So, one can ask, what was Paul talking about before he got into all this talk of baptism for the dead? He was talking about the resurrection. Why? Because that is a vital piece of Christianity no matter what sect, or denomination you attach yourselves to. Why? Because if Christ was killed and wasn't resurrected, then he was just a man and he wouldn't have been able to redeem us and eventually "save" us. I don't like using the word "save," gives off a bad vibe (especially if you've ever been yelled at by a preacher that you were a sinner and needed to be saved). But I digress.
Paul writes v 29 to emphasize his point on the resurrection. The fact of the matter is that the people of Corinth were practicing baptism for the dead, and if they weren't, then they were supposed to be practicing it.
V 30 is a question meant to make the people think; Paul's reasoning: If the dead do not rise, then why do we put ourselves in harm's way to believe in Christ?
V 31 is the fun one. “Protest” is an interesting word, and when we think of it, it’s safe to say that most of us would imagine signs and disagreement and anger. Not so in this case, obviously. Another definition of “protest” is to affirm, or avow formally or solemnly. I think it would be appropriate for us to say that Paul was affirming something. Something. That isn’t so clear, which is why you’ll humor me as I turn to the Joseph Smith Translation (me being a Latter-day Saint and everything), so that I don’t drown. The JST of v 31 is Paul expressing his joy, because thanks to the resurrection, he can expect more after he dies, we all can. One note about me not liking the non-JST of v 31; with this many different versions and interpretations of it, can you really blame me? Maybe I’ll write an article later, just on that one verse?
V 32 is pretty neat, also. Who, or what, are the beasts at Ephesus? I believe that since he never physically fought any animals at Ephesus, he must be speaking of the people in Ephesus. And what does he mean when by fighting after the manner of men? Here, Paul speaks of reason and persuasion. Since we’ve cleared that up, this is basically a re-cap of what he has said in v 30. What is there for Paul to gain by reasoning with the “beasts” if there is no resurrection? I say again, if there is no resurrection, then there is no Savior, and there is no redemption to be had.

Long-winded, that.
So we see that Paul was speaking of the resurrection before and after mentioning baptism for the dead.

Let’s move on into some other interpretations of v 29, those are always fun.

I read somewhere that the Bible was incorrectly translated; according to this source, it is supposed to say, "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?" A very intriguing idea, based upon our own understanding I might add, as well as the New American Standard edition of the Bible (not the King James Version, which they claim they're quoting scripture from). Who are we to say that Paul wasn't actually referring to baptism for the dead? This source cites the "incorrect" translation of the Greek word, "huper" which they say means: above, over, instead of, for the realization of, or for the hope of. And they also say that since it is used in another scripture as meaning, "for the hope of" (Philippians 2:13) then it clearly also must be being used in the same context in 1 Corinthians.

An interesting article is this one, written by a man in response (kind of) to a letter he received from a man in California. Unfortunately he goes into a long paragraph about how Paul suffers. Paul isn’t suffering; at least in the sense that this guy, Leon Odom, is suggesting. Paul is preaching the Gospel. He taught the Gospel and the people of the early Church for countless years, and made numerous journeys. Why? Because he loves God, he loves Jesus Christ, and he loves the people he taught (notice the present tense of “love.” If there is a resurrection, then he’s waiting for it, and is only dead to us, mortals).

Another interesting interpretation on the aforementioned scriptures, it is suggested that “the dead” is a reference to those who have physically died, and that those who rise are those who join the Church; in other words, as members are persecuted and die, new members take their place.


Yet another interpretation, and the last that I will touch on, is given by the Russian Orthodox Church. It states that Paul is speaking to the Corinthians in a mocking tone. It was explained on this website that he is actually chastising, making a mockery of, or straight up pointing and laughing at them for this practice. And why were they practicing it? It is because they’re silly pagans.

Fortunately for us, we have the scriptures that we can read for ourselves and make up our own mind about it instead of listening to what someone else has - or even what I have - to say. This bit about mocking the Corinthians wasn’t agreeable to me. Paul clearly loved the people of Corinth, and he surely would have taught them in a loving manner. I know from personal experience that if I’m trying to explain something to a person, or people, they are more willing to listen to me if I don’t mock them. Correction, not mockery, then, is the better way.

I pulled up a quote, which I will verify when I make the time to, stated by Joseph Smith. He said, that “the greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead … This doctrine was the burden of the scriptures. Those saints who neglect it in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at the peril of their own salvation." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1976, by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 356-357, 193)

I altered the quote from the source I got it from, which originally read "the greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us [Mormons] is to seek after our dead…” I did so because I think it is very important, even just as a matter of interest, to know where we came from and who our ancestors are. We are who they are, in a tiny way, and our children will have pieces of us in them, and so on. We owe it to our family to recognize them as having existed. I believe that if my descendants completely forgot about me, if there was no record of me at all, then I would truly feel as though I didn’t ever exist, and that it would be just as well for me to lie in the dirt and be dead.