Temple Ordinances and the RLDS: Progressive and Digressive

In April 1860, the RLDS officially began with the ordination of Joseph Smith III as its prophet-president. At that time, the most current Book of Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) was September 1844; compiled by Apostle John Taylor, editor of the Times and Seasons in Nauvoo. It contained several sections received later than or not included in the 1835 Kirtland edition, and there was no conference vote approving the additions.

Nevertheless, the RLDS included all the sections in its 1864 edition. The Revelation on celestial/plural marriage was not in the 1844 edition, but 3 documents on the subject of Baptism for the Dead (BftD) were; now found in the LDS D&C as sections 124/127/128.

The RLDS believed in the divine commandment of Temple building, but of the four Temples commissioned by Joseph Smith Jr., one was destroyed (Nauvoo), one was in disrepair (Kirtland), and two unrealized (Independence/Far West). Having a temple was not a priority; their main message was that they were the TRUE Latter Day Saints church as established by Joseph Smith. But no one could deny that Joseph had taught BftD as a doctrine for the church. It was a dilemma, and by 1884 some sort of explanation was needed.

Their Quorum of Twelve issued a conference resolution stating in part “….the commandments of a local character, given to the first organization of the church, are binding on the Reorganization only so far as they are reiterated or referred to as binding by commandment to this church”. The term local character obviously meant teachings from the Nauvoo era. It was unheard of to require a reiteration of prophetic instructions in order to be accepted; and BftD is the only issue ever addressed in this manner. As a result, Jason W. Briggs, president of the RLDS Q12 withdrew from the church with several others, expressing their inability to believe in the doctrine of BftD. Apparently, their position was a outright rejection of the doctrine, leading to the theory of Joseph being a “fallen” prophet. Many echoed that theory, but the RLDS never sanctioned it.

So, for some 80 years, BftD was neither reiterated nor recanted. Occasionally priesthood members/authors would state that once a proper place was built (the Independence temple), BftD would occur. Then at the 1968 conference, prophetic guidance called for the planning of the Temple’s eventual construction at the Center Place. There was one specific detail “….there is no provision for secret ordinances now or ever…” (section 149A). In other words, the temple ordinances as performed by the LDS church would have no place in the RLDS Temple.

Did that close the subject? No, it didn’t. There was still the 3 sections in the D&C concerning BftD (107/109/110). Those sections, as well as the other additions to the 1844 D&C were categorized by the 1970 conference as “items of uncertain authority”. A vote was taken on each section whether to retain it or have it removed to an historical appendix at the back of the book. Of course all 3 sections were removed, and they were no longer part of the canon of scripture.

In 1984 section 156 accelerated the coming of the Temple. There was no mention of ordinances in the document, but the questions persisted. Those pesky D&C sections were still in the book, albeit in the back. So in 1990 a resolution called for the complete removal of the appendix and it was approved. I voted against.

And me? As an RLDS I had likes/dislikes. I liked being able to participate in the Temple groundbreaking ceremony. I disliked ultra-conservatives protesting the design/location were wrong, and ultra-liberals protesting that the church had more important social issues to spend money on. I liked the prohibiting of alcohol/tobacco on the construction site. I disliked the conference delegate calling sections 107/109/110 “the goofy stuff”. I liked believing the Temple would bring us closer to realizing the New Jerusalem. I dislike members proudly saying “we don’t believe THAT way anymore”.

Next year I will be visiting Independence as an LDS member, thinking what might have been and what may yet occur. What are your thoughts concerning the RLDS de-canonizing revelations on Baptism for the Dead?

Share this:

Related

Published by Guest Poster

27 thoughts on “ Temple Ordinances and the RLDS: Progressive and Digressive ”

If you are going to turn “rocks into cathedrals”, conserve your efforts by not re-inventing the wheel… Learn the lessons of cathedral-making from the people who actually built cathedrals. The problem with Joseph Smith and his visions is that no competent authority validates them. How does one know that Baptism for the Dead is legitimate doctrine from God? Because Joseph Smith says so? How does one validate Smith’s claims? On that first Pentecost Day, when the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles, Peter declared to the crowd that “God raised Jesus from the dead!” Anyone who wanted to dispute Peter’s extraordinary claim need only do one thing: go to Jesus’ tomb and point to the cold corpse inside. But that never happened. Why? Because even those who crucified Jesus can see for themselves that the tomb was empty. In other words, the true Christian faith was built on something more sturdy than men’s empty claims. Unlike other religions, the true Christian faith was not built on men’s “cleverly devised fables”. It was built on objectively verifiable truths. You cannot build faith on doctrines based on “likes” or “dislikes”. If a doctrine is true, then it has to be preached and believed whether people like the doctrine or not. But in our age of political correctness, where feelings are more important than the objective truth, who cares about correct doctrine?

Thank you, that is very fascinating and I wasn’t aware of the RLDS history regarding baptisms for the dead. So what is the current CoC doctrine or belief regarding the relationship between baptism and salvation/exaltation? I do feel that the LDS has lost a lot of the original purpose of temples, which served as public meeting places for community worship. Now it is all about the exclusive rituals, and temples are no longer community centers. Even the tabernacles that were built in Utah are going away. I have fond memories of attending music concerts in the Provo Tabernacle. I appreciate that the CoC makes its temples available to the community.

Unfortunately, I cannot agree with either the LDS or RLDS position. The doctrine of BftD is entirely misunderstood. People often take the words “the dead,” to mean those who have physically died. But that is not what it means at all. Like most stories in scripture, it has a far more important and metaphorical meaning. If you want a different take on the subject that is vastly different than LDS, RLDS, or any other mainstream Christian denomination, I highly encourage you to take a look a this document. Out of all documents I have read, this one was more revelatory than anything else on the subject. It is well worth it. Click to access LostKey.pdf I would be interested to hear what anyone thinks of it.

Joel asked about the relationship between baptism and salvation/exaltation in Community of Christ. The CofChrist.org website offers an interesting and, I believe, telling answer to that: “Baptism is a personal expression of faith in Jesus Christ. This is how we first express our commitment to lifelong discipleship. We are promising that we will welcome the stranger into our lives, feed the hungry, love our enemies, and visit the sick and the imprisoned.” It’s obvious there’s nothing in that statement regarding exaltation in the next life, and if you read this in regard to the idea of “salvation,” then it’s all about our discipleship in this world, not the next. Baptism is, then, a sacrament that is symbolic outwardly of what takes places internally. This is all in line with the CofChrist understanding of temple ministries: discipleship preparation/training to act in the stead of Jesus Christ. And it is another way the church has progressively diverged from its earliest roots in the early 1800s. One of the unheralded aspects to having an open canon of scripture is that some things can be taken away and other things added. We believe both come in response to the Holy Spirit nudging us along (well, sometimes we need more than just a little nudge). Baptism for the dead, and a whole range of other things, simply didn’t fit into our theological and spiritual matrix. By the process of common consent it was first relegated to historical status in the back of the D&C, then removed entirely. Personally, I would have preferred it remain in an historical appendix, but I guess that’s just the history geek in me.

De-canonization of anything is fascinating. It both supports and hinders belief in prophets as God’s mouthpieces on earth. For some, de-canonizing a concept that a previous prophet declared as revealed doctrine casts doubt on that previous person’s standing as a prophet (like in the case of Jason W. Biggs above, or the view of some members when the church re-classified Adam-God theory or priesthood ban as not doctrinal). At the same time, many see the ability of current leaders to supersede the teachings of older prophets as proof that God is indeed choosing to reveal new knowledge at this time. It’s the RLDS frequent use of the vote of members to classify something as canon that is interesting (in this and other recent posts). We have the doctrine of common consent for canon, but it’s use is rare. The last time it happened (1978) was before I was born. With our culture of exact obedience to decisions of church leaders, giving members an opportunity to sustain a leader’s decision feels more symbolic than anything. I can’t see a true vote ever happening like what is described in the RLDS community. LDS sustainings now are more “I trust your authority to act appropriately,” instead of “I’ve considered this and personally feel this is an appropriate (or inappropriate) action.” I’m also interested in Joel’s question – what are the current views of the CoC towards the necessity of saving ordinances?

So now, we have Mormons saying Baptism for the dead is commanded of God, and Mormons saying it is no longer commanded. And both sides can claim they have the solemn witness of the Spirit guiding them. Does truth contradict itself? If not, then which side is telling us the truth? Even Joseph Smith in his youth recognized that there is only “One Lord, one faith, and one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5). There cannot be many contradictory beliefs for “God is not the author of confusion, but of peace” (1Corinthians 14:33). Joseph Smith knew this even before he organized his church. In other words, after 185 years of teaching the world how to discern the promptings of the Spirit, Mormonism is back to square one: Which Mormon church is the only true Church? Guys, pause for a moment and ask yourselves: don’t you think that something must be fundamentally wrong somewhere?

Rico: Over the past few decades the Community of Christ set aside the idea of being the “One True Church.” I guess it took more of a nudge to reject that than baptism for the dead but we got there.

Does “setting aside the idea of the ‘One true church'” mean you have permanently surrendered any claim to be one? Or are you just putting it on the side temporarily with plans to pick it up when the right time comes? Honestly, I don’t know what the phrase means. What I know is this: The Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). If so, then it must be strong enough to support any structure built upon it. But since you do not see your church as an “only true church,” then how can anyone expect it to behave as a “pillar and ground of the truth”? In fact, why would anyone want to build upon it? Let’s take this doctrine of Baptism for the Dead, which you say is no longer needed. Why should anyone believe that? Since you do not view your church as the only true church, then it should not matter if I believe the exact opposite of what your church teaches. Right?

Rico: Many members of the RLDS have for several decades discarded beliefs/concepts which make them unique and thereby offensive to mainstream religions. That’s not true for the entire membership of course but over the years things like Joseph Smith called “the founder” instead of a prophet; special priesthood authority, the name of the church, and the “one true church” have been downplayed. I once was in a discussion and said that if it was part of a member’s personal testimony that it was the one true church, we did not have the right to forbid it. Someone responded “but it offends people”. I think certain members are offended instead of investigators. Perhaps it’s the religious version of the “everyone’s special” mindset.

Rico: the RLDS has for several decades discarded beliefs/concepts that, in some minds, are offensive. Perhaps it’s a religious version of the “everyone’s special” mindset. It’s not the entire membership, of course, but I encountered it a few times as I was a member. Back then, the leadership would say that a member can believe any way they want, but would then proceed to say why you shouldn’t believe THAT way.

Rico: When you read the whole verse of 1 Timothy 3:15, it most likely refers to “church” as congregation (Greek “ecclesia”), household of faith, the body of Christ, rather than a formal institution/denomination. As far as I’m concerned, you can believe whatever you want, including baptism for the dead, and that doesn’t affect my understanding of truth as I practice it in my own faith community. The big problem with designating any institution as “The One True Church” is that, by inference, you’re saying everybody else is wrong. As well, there were various expressions of “true” Christian community (ecclesia) in the first century, just as there are today. Why are you so hung up on proving other people wrong?

You are very welcome, Hedgehog! if there is a particular subject you would like to see given a comparison post. Let me know.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Seventh-day Adventists, and cults like Heaven’s Gate view themselves as a “Household of faith”. Yet, take a long hard look, and ask yourselves: “Can I really consider these groups the Church, the pillar and ground of truth?” “Can I really say they are equivalent to my household of faith?” Regardless of how you define Church, you will have to account for these believers who claim that they too are a “Church” and judge whether to accept their beliefs or not. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” (1John 4:1). At some point, you will have to draw a line that cannot be crossed, and exclude believers who hold to false beliefs. “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” (Matthew 16:6). “Take heed that no man deceive you” (Matthew 24:4). “Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind” (Matthew 15:4). All these warnings by Jesus mean nothing if every belief that comes along is to be accepted, tolerated, and given respect as if they were precious truths. When Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” by inference it means that every other teacher is false. “All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers” (John 10:8). Therefore, if there is “One Lord, one faith, and one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5) then by inference, there cannot be many lords, many faiths, or many baptisms. Christ is married to only one Spouse (Ephesians 5:31-32), therefore there is only One Church. Is it offensive to teach that there is only one True Church? (To be continued…)

I consider stringing together snippets of scripture, largely out of context, to make theological or doctrinal points, to be unpersuasive, misleading, and often offensive. Take, for example, the use of John 4:16, which includes “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.” That sounds, in the 21st century, like a definitive doctrinal statement that Christianity, among all the world’s great religions, is the right one—and everybody else is therefore wrong. But this statement didn’t arise in the 21st century; it was written down by John the Gospel writer sometime between the years 90 and 100 C.E. There was no such thing as a “world’s great religion”; for Jesus, John, and their contemporaries only Jews and non-Jews. But it’s even more important to read the whole passage and consider the context: “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way to the place where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also.” The key here is the phrase, “Jesus said to him….” Jesus is answering the question of Thomas, known for asking questions, as to just where Jesus is going “to prepare a place” where there are “many dwelling places,” for them (the disciples). Specifically, Thomas wants to know how they (the disciples of Jesus) can know the way. And Jesus responds that he is the way. This is all about Christian disciples. It is NOT a question about where non-Christians will end up after they die. Later generations of Christians often made it about non-Christians, of course, but that can’t be said of either Jesus or John. This is one of several great “I am” metaphorical sayings in John’s Gospel. Whether it’s Jesus as “bread of life” or “light” or “truth,” I think we quickly get in trouble when we start creating theologies, doctrines, and rigid belief systems around only these metaphors. In fact, I’m suspicious of anybody who creates complex theologies around scripture snippets. This is in line with counsel the Community of Christ included in its Doctrine and Covenants in 2007: “Scripture is an indispensable witness to the Eternal Source of light and truth, which cannot be fully contained in any finite vessel or language. Scripture has been written and shaped by human authors through experiences of revelation and ongoing inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the midst of time and culture. Scripture is not to be worshiped or idolized. Only God, the Eternal One of whom scripture testifies, is worthy of worship. God’s nature, as revealed in Jesus Christ and affirmed by the Holy Spirit, provides the ultimate standard by which any portion of scripture should be interpreted and applied. It is not pleasing to God when any passage of scripture is used to diminish or oppress races, genders, or classes of human beings. Much physical and emotional violence has been done to some of God’s beloved children through the misuse of scripture. The church is called to confess and repent of such attitudes and practices. Scripture, prophetic guidance, knowledge, and discernment in the faith community must walk hand in hand to reveal the true will of God. Follow this pathway, which is the way of the Living Christ, and you will discover more than sufficient light for the journey ahead.” (Section 163:7) I apologize for the length of this posting, but I just don’t see much point to a pissing contest over the idea of “One True Church.” There’s lots of “true churches” and lots of “false ones,” too. I think it best to leave the judgment to God.

“…NO ONE comes to the Father, but through ME” (John 14:6) seems to be very clear that everyone, whether it be Moses, Buddha, or Mohammed, is excluded. Yes, that means Moses and the Mosaic Laws, whom the Jews in Jesus’ day believed can bring them to God. In fact, the Jews believed that by being descended from Abraham, they would enter the Kingdom of God. But Jesus repudiates that teaching in several instances in the Gospels. Now if Jesus can do that to his own people, what makes us think he would tolerate a teaching that says we can come to God through Buddha or Mohammed? Can the teachings of Buddha or Mohammed atone for the sins of the world? If you are going to interpret scriptures and make them sound as if they only apply to the time period they speak of (in your case, Thomas and the apostles in the 1st century), then everything in the scriptures is pretty much dead. Nothing in them would apply to us in this age anymore. At the end of the day, we can both look at the same texts of scriptures, and come out with different, if not totally contradictory interpretations of the texts. Who then will judge and validate our interpretations? Is it you, or me, or no one? That there are tens of thousands of so-called Christian sects out there shows that nothing stops anyone from starting a church based on his own exotic interpretation of scripture. That is what we get if everyone thinks himself to be the sole rightful interpreter of scripture. “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33). Without question, there is a monstrous amount of confusion out there. Do we confess that God is the author of that? If we do, then it makes sense to get annoyed with anyone who mentions the idea of a “One True Church”. Your scriptures say, “Follow this pathway, which is the way of the Living Christ, and you will discover more than sufficient light for the journey ahead.” That is just an assertion made by ordinary humans who are not inspired by God. The statement is not self-evident. How do you know exactly that you got it right? Your church is not even 200 years old. Yet, for nearly 2,000 years, Christians have been following the Light of Christ without necessarily taking the pathway your church promotes. If your very young church is the “pillar and ground of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15) then one should believe and follow its teachings. But if it is led by people who get “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14) –and there are many, many churches like that– how do you know you are not among the deceived? “Scripture, prophetic guidance, knowledge, and discernment in the faith community must walk hand in hand to reveal the true will of God.” Sounds great, except how do you exactly do it? Even Mormon fundamentalists who advocate polygamy can tell you that they are doing exactly that.

“…NO ONE comes to the Father, but through ME” (John 14:6)
Rico, this scripture says nothing about the point in this life or after at which this is to happen. For me it comes down to this: will we accept the atonement of Christ as payment for both our own sins and those sins and hurts done to us by others such that we can all sit down together in heaven in peace and harmony having that perfect empathy and understanding, and having forgiven all.

Hedgehog,
At the end of the day, we can both look at the same texts of scriptures, and come out with different, if not totally contradictory interpretations of the texts. Who then will judge and validate our interpretations? Is it you, or me, or no one? That there are tens of thousands of so-called Christian sects out there shows that nothing stops anyone from starting a church based on his own exotic interpretation of scripture. That is what we get if everyone thinks himself to be the sole rightful interpreter of scripture.

Rico, “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”

The problem with allowing men to worship “according to the dictates of their conscience” is that many have no conscience at all. Take for example the Mormon polygamists who went about marrying child brides, or women whose husbands are still alive, or women who’d rather wish they’re dead than be a plural wife, did these men have consciences? And what if the Satanists in Oklahoma decide to restore human sacrifice? Would that be OK? And what of ISIS and its aim to subdue everyone who does not subscribe to their religious fanaticism? Would that be OK? “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:9). Unfortunately, there is such a thing as vain or useless worship. Some religions are even harmful and deserve to be destroyed. “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew15:13-14) There are many blind leaders out there guiding their blind followers. There is such a thing as falling down a spiritual ditch. Jesus doesn’t have illusions about men’s consciences as reliable guides. “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron…” (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

Rico, if you view the 11th article of faith as a problem, I’m afraid we really don’t have much to discuss. It really feels like your trolling, not discussing, and I personally think this conversation has run its course and is fruitless. Have a nice day.

MH, Take a look at the masthead of this blog, it says “turning rocks into cathedrals”… Can you really build cathedrals by breaking cathedrals? Can you build one by experimenting your way around? Or is the best way to build cathedrals by first learning from those who built cathedrals themselves? The idea that men should be allowed to worship “according to their conscience” is an experimental idea. It is not an eternal idea. It only works if men have a well-formed Christian conscience. Absent that, the whole idea fails. Christianity has enough sad history in its 2,000 years of existence to show why that is. If you call yourself a heretic, get used to having your most precious presuppositions and assumptions questioned.

MH, if my view the 11th AoF to be problematic, then at least have the decency to show why my views are problematic. You have merely asserted that they are. Am I the one who refuses to discuss is it you? Word for word, I have thrown more ideas at you to tackle, than you for me. I have asked you questions, and you don’t respond. It is not me who refuses to discuss.