Difference between revisions of "Talk:D&C 128:6-18"
(→"Bombshell" interpretation of verse 12) |
(→"Bombshell" interpretation of verse 12) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:Perhaps another reading might be that the ordinance of baptism for the living, with water, was instituted to be in the likeness of baptism for the dead, which was not necessarily instituted already, but had already been planned. (or was being jointly planned) Similarly, we might say that the ordinances were planned to be the same and that baptisms for the living are done the way they are done partially because the symbolism would also be significant for baptisms for the dead. --[[User:Seanmcox|Seanmcox]] 08:04, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC) | :Perhaps another reading might be that the ordinance of baptism for the living, with water, was instituted to be in the likeness of baptism for the dead, which was not necessarily instituted already, but had already been planned. (or was being jointly planned) Similarly, we might say that the ordinances were planned to be the same and that baptisms for the living are done the way they are done partially because the symbolism would also be significant for baptisms for the dead. --[[User:Seanmcox|Seanmcox]] 08:04, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Or maybe the grammar became so complex that the original thought got mangled here? Sometimes I wonder, when does a strange turn of phrase mean something significant, and when is it just noise? I would love for every single word to be meaningful and precise, but I'm just not sure that's always so.--[[User:216.193.139.122|216.193.139.122]] 02:41, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:41, 26 October 2006
"Bombshell" interpretation of verse 12
OK, I've never really caught this before. Or, since some prophets have taught that resurrection of the dead is an ordinance, is that the ordinance that is instituted "to form a relationship" with baptism for the dead? Admittedly a more clumsy reading, but how else to make sense of this? Perhaps at some level, if these are both eternal ordinances that have existed throughout the eternities, there may never have been one before the other?--Rob Fergus 18:25, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)
- I think this phrasing is indeed interesting. There's a certain sense in which establishing baptism for the dead first makes sense: all of us who have need of baptism will die, but not everyone who lives will have the chance to be baptized. So if we had only baptism for the dead, possibly everyone could be saved, even if baptism for the living weren't possible. Another thought is that this passage makes me think in terms of purification rites for the dead, perhaps that's the best perspective from which to understand baptism? (BTW Joe, did you get the article on "The River Ordeal in Israelite Literature" I emailed you?) --RobertC 19:05, 24 Oct 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't gotten back to this yet. I taught seminary all day today, and then I had to set up and attend a stake youth Halloween (nowadays "Harvest") dance. I only have a minute before getting to bed. I think we have to take the wording quite seriously here, and I think it opens quite interestingly onto a number of themes in the Book of Moses. Perhaps I'll have to take some time and work some of these out (I'm working on a paper at the moment concerning some of these themes, and I thought it would be interesting just to see what sort of a reaction came from that tiny comment). Oh, and Robert, I did get the paper, and it was quite interesting, and it certainly bears on our discussions of Jonah, both directly (what mythological themes is the author trying to drawn on, and what would the consequences be, etc.?) and indirectly (if the mythology so profoundly influences the psalms, and Jonah immitates the psalms, what have we here?). Thanks. I got the other paper today, for which Jim was so grateful, but I haven't had a moment even to glance at it. I probably won't tomorrow, but I'll get to it Friday, I'm sure (along with the three other projects I have to get to that day). --Joe Spencer 04:36, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps another reading might be that the ordinance of baptism for the living, with water, was instituted to be in the likeness of baptism for the dead, which was not necessarily instituted already, but had already been planned. (or was being jointly planned) Similarly, we might say that the ordinances were planned to be the same and that baptisms for the living are done the way they are done partially because the symbolism would also be significant for baptisms for the dead. --Seanmcox 08:04, 26 Oct 2006 (UTC)
- Or maybe the grammar became so complex that the original thought got mangled here? Sometimes I wonder, when does a strange turn of phrase mean something significant, and when is it just noise? I would love for every single word to be meaningful and precise, but I'm just not sure that's always so.--216.193.139.122 02:41, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)
