Tag: commission

3 Nephi 11: 24-25

“And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:  Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.”

Christ prescribes the exact words to be used in the ordinance. However, the instruction we use today is slightly different in wording, but identical in meaning: Instead of: “Having authority given me of Jesus Christ” we say instead: “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ.” (D&C 20: 73.) 

After giving these disciples “power to baptize” Christ’s instructions require them to say they have “authority” (in 3 Nephi) or today, hold a “commission” (in D&C 20). Is there a difference between “authority” to baptize and the “power” to baptize?
Why does the authorization come from Jesus Christ, but the ordinance get performed “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost?” The power to do the ordinance comes from the Son, but the ordinance is in the name of each member of the Godhead. Why?
Though they are one, the names show they occupy different roles and hold different responsibilities. (As to following and being sanctified by different laws and receiving different kingdoms, see D&C 88: 21-26.) We are in the fallen world where the primary means God communicates with man is through the Holy Ghost. (D&C 14: 8.) When, however, a person rises up through the merits of Jesus Christ to receive Him as a minister, they are living in a Terrestrial law and inherit Terrestrial blessings. (D&C 76: 77.) When He has finished His preparations with the person, and can bring them to the Father, the person is brought to a point where the Father can accept and acknowledge them as a son. (See D&C 76: 54-59, 92.) They are then begotten of the Father. (Psalms 2: 7.) Through each of these steps, does baptism matter? Does one receive the companionship of the Holy Ghost without baptism? Do they come to Christ without baptism? Do they inherit what the Father has without baptism? Is baptism critical to the association with each member of the Godhead?

The point at which the person’s journey is completed, and they may enter into the rest of the Lord is when the Lord declares by His own voice that the man’s offering has been accepted and they are sealed up to eternal life. I’ve explained this on the blog as to Joseph Smith. I’ve explained it for Enos and others in Beloved Enos. The Gospel is the same now, as always before. Therefore, no matter how you will receive blessings of the Lord in the afterlife, it will be through the Gospel of Jesus Christ and by the ordinances instituted for claiming blessings. These were established as law to govern man’s conduct here even before the world was. (D&C 130: 20-21.)

Note also the person cannot receive the ordinance without also having their name stated. Why do you suppose it is necessary to first call out the name of the person before they receive an ordinance? Why would the Lord’s instruction require a person to be “called” first? Though they are submitting to the ordinance voluntarily, why call their name?

Does it matter if the full legal name is used? We do that in the church, of course. But does it matter? If the Lord called Joseph by name at the time of the First Vision (and He did, see JSH 1: 17), what name do you suppose was called? Was it “Joseph Smith, Jr.”? Or was it “Joseph”? Or was it that name used by his most intimate friend at the time?

Whenever a name is given by an angel in an appearance to parents, the name is always the first name, or the name their friends would call them. (See, e.g., Luke 1: 13; Luke 1: 31.) Similarly, when the Lord calls a man’s name, He uses his first, given name. (See 1 Samuel 3: 4; Exodus 3: 4.) The Lord does not use formal names, but uses intimate names when addressing His servants.
We call the person to be baptized by name. Our practice is to use the full, legal name.

1 Nephi 13: 37

“And blessed are they who shall seek to bring forth my Zion at that day, for they shall have the gift and the power of the Holy Ghost; and if they endure unto the end they shall be lifted up at the last day, and shall be saved in the everlasting kingdom of the Lamb; and whoso shall publish peace, yea, tidings of great joy, how beautiful upon the mountains shall they be.”
Now we encounter words that require us to know meanings first. For the Lord’s “Zion” to be brought forth, we need to know what “Zion” means. What is it? When the Lord calls it “my Zion” does it belong to Him. Will the Lord be the one who “brings again Zion” as stated earlier in the 3rd Nephi materials of Christ’s prophecy? (3 Ne. 16: 18, quoting Isaiah 52: 8.) What are the role of people in “seeking to bring forth His Zion?”

Will they actually “bring again Zion” or is that the Lord’s doing? Unless the Lord determines to “bring again Zion” will men be able to accomplish it? Even if they are quite sincere and determined? What, then, must precede Zion’s return?

Even if they are not given the commission or command to participate in Zion’s return, will they nevertheless be blessed if they seek to bring it again? Is the promised “gift and power of the Holy Ghost” promised to those who would seek to bring forth Zion? What does that mean? How could anyone accomplish that?
What does it mean to “publish peace?”

What does it mean to “publish tidings of great joy?”

How does the “publishing of peace” and “tidings of great joy” relate to having your feet become beautiful upon the mountains? (I’ve already discussed having your feet clean of the blood and sins of your generation in an earlier post, How Beautiful Upon the Mountains.)
Why feet “upon the mountains?” What “mountains?” Are these literal, or figurative, or both? If the “mountains” are a symbol, what do they symbolize?

Tuesday I went to the Salt Lake Temple early with a missionary who reported to the MTC on Wednesday. I teach him in priest quorum. I wanted to make sure before his departure that the “endowment” he received would include some details of what the Mountain of the Lord’s House was intended to confer. Young men are still teachable. I’d really like to move to the Primary, however. Primary kids, despite their energy, have open hearts and they are willing to receive.

By the time we get LDS adults to teach there is just too much idolatry to deal with….