Revision as of 21:55, 2 November 2009

Index of Claims made in Chapter 15: The Temple

by Ben McGuire

In the February 1995 issue of the Ensign, a magazine published by the LDS Church for its members, President Boyd K. Packer, commented on the temple ceremony as follows:

A careful reading of the scriptures reveals that the Lord did not tell all things to all people. There were some qualifications set that were prerequisite to receiving sacred information. Temple ceremonies fall within this category.

We do not discuss the temple ordinances outside the temples. It was never intended that knowledge of these temple ceremonies would be limited to a select few who would be obliged to ensure that others never learn of them. It is quite the opposite, in fact. With great effort we urge every soul to qualify and prepare for the temple experience. Those who have been to the temple have been taught an ideal: Someday every living soul and every soul who has ever lived shall have the opportunity to hear the gospel and to accept or reject what the temple offers. If this opportunity is rejected, the rejection must be on the part of the individual himself.1

It is necessary that the reader understand that the topics of the temple and the ordinances and ceremonies which are performed inside it are sacred and special to members of the LDS Church. Faithful members of the Church do not discuss these topics publicly. This means that there are portions of Mormonism 101 which, although incorrect, I cannot correct. Because of the sacred nature of the temple, it would be inappropriate for me to disclose exactly how McKeever and Johnson have misrepresented LDS practices. I hope that you will understand these situations as they arise.2

Additionally, I need to point out one more issue that will be referred to several times in the course of this review. While often used interchangeably, the terms ordinance and ceremony can have different connotations. An ordinance is a covenantal act-baptism is an ordinance, ordaining to the priesthood is an ordinance, confirmation is an ordinance, etc. A ceremony is the ritual or rite that includes the ordinance. But a ceremony is often far more than the ordinance. A wedding ceremony, for example, is a lot more than the 'I do,' and yet, most of the ceremony is relatively unimportant to the actual ordinance itself. In the case of a wedding, much of the ceremony is largely irrelevant to the ordinance itself-the ring ceremony, the giving away of the bride, taking vows, etc. There is a persistent attempt within Mormonism 101 to cloud this distinction. The reasons for this will become apparent as the discussion proceeds. Only the Worthy

McKeever and Johnson begin this section with the following remarks:

When they are first built, Mormon temples are opened to the general public in an "open house" format for a short time. After this, the temple is then dedicated by LDS general authorities and reopened only to worthy members. A member is considered worthy if he or she holds a "temple recommend." The recommend is an identification card, which is renewed annually by the individual's bishop. Qualifying criteria include full payment of tithes, regular attendance to ward meetings, wearing temple garments under regular clothing, and an agreement to obey the Word of Wisdom.3

There are a couple of important clarifications that need to be made in response to this paragraph. McKeever and Johnson, unintentionally perhaps, distort the nature of temple worthiness as viewed by members of the LDS Church. First, having a "temple recommend" does not make a member worthy. It is possible to have a "temple recommend" and yet not be worthy to participate in the ordinances of the temple. The recommend is an identification card which is carried by the member, and which expires after two years, and which is then renewed by the member as the member desires. Cards are used because of the number of members in the Church worldwide, and the number of temples. The process to get a recommend involves two interviews (not one)-one with your local leader (a bishop or branch president) and the second with your regional leader (a Stake President or Mission President or their counselors).

Both of these interviews consist of a series of questions, and depending on how the questions are answered, a recommend indicating temple worthiness is issued. The questions are as follows (the questions themselves, as provided here are in both instances taken from a 'recommend book' which contains blank recommends, and also instructions for giving the interview): 4

  1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
  2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
  3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
  4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?
  5. Do you live the law of chastity?
  6. Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
  7. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
  8. Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
  9. Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?
 10. Are you a full-tithe payer?
 11. Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?
 12. Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
 13. If you have previously received your temple endowment:
         * Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
         * Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?
 14. Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?
 15. Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

Now, compare these questions with the following set of questions-used to determine a convert's readiness for baptism.5 (If the candidate for baptism does not respond affirmatively to these questions, baptism may be postponed until the individual is better prepared to accept and live the Gospel of Jesus Christ.):

  1. Have you prayed about the gospel? Have your prayers been answered?
  2. Do you accept Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God?
  3. What are your reasons for knowing (or believing) that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God?
  4. Will you sustain the President of the Church as a prophet, seer, and revelator and as the Lord's representative on earth?
  5. Are you now living each of the Ten Commandments?
  6. What is your understanding of the law of tithing? Will you live this law?
  7. What is your understanding of the Word of Wisdom? Will you live this law by abstaining from tea, coffee, alcohol, tobacco [or other harmful drugs]?
  8. What is your understanding of the law of chastity? Will you obey this law?
  9. Have you repented of all past transgressions?

Effectively, the questions amount to the same standard. The bar for entrance into the temple is simply that one continues to keep the commitments that they made in baptism, and that were clearly explained to them. As McKeever and Johnson point out, one of the qualifications necessary to enter the temple is "an agreement to obey the Word of Wisdom." When was this agreement made? When that individual was baptized into the LDS Church. What I want to demonstrate by this is that temple worship requires nothing more than that a person is actively living the gospel of Jesus Christ and fulfilling the covenants he made to God at baptism.

It is also relevant to note that for the most part, these requirements are based on the member's understanding of the gospel, and not a pre-determined list of rules regarding compliance to these questions. Taking tithing as an example, a good summary of the Church's position on this teaching is found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

By revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord stated that members should pay "one-tenth of all their interest [increase] annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever." (D&C 119:4) Present Church policy specifically states that no one in the Church has any authority to interpret this revelation for another person (See Financial Clerk's Handbook). This prohibition applies to everyone, including Stake Presidents and Bishops. If a local Church leader instructs you how to calculate your tithing, then he is in violation of this policy. It is up to the agency of each individual person to determine what constitutes a fair interpretation of the revelation.6

In other words, even in complying with these requirements, the compliance largely hinges on a members understanding of the gospel principle. It is for this reason that some of the questions overlap, so that there is no question as to the requirements in specific instances-staying up to date on child support being one of those areas where it was decided that being more specific was necessary. Further, it is implied in this process that the person who goes unworthily into the temple is doing so both willfully and with a personal recognizance of their lack of worthiness. While God does not 'strike them down', they certainly do so to their own condemnation.

McKeever and Johnson continue with the following remarks:

The temple has been called the faithful Mormon's "home." President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:7

Now, before I actually looked up the reference, I was a bit puzzled by the relevance of this topic. However, the actual reference clarified a couple of points. Below is the text penned by Joseph Fielding Smith. The material in bold was text omitted by McKeever and Johnson in Mormonism 101.

If you would become a son or a daughter of God and an heir of the kingdom, then you must go to the house of the Lord and receive blessings which there can be obtained and which cannot be obtained elsewhere; and you must keep those commandments and those covenants to the end.

The Ordinances of the temple, the endowment and sealings, pertain to exaltation in the celestial kingdom, where the sons and daughters are. The sons and daughters are not outside in some other kingdom. The sons and daughters go into the house, belong to the household, have access to the home. "In my Father's house are many mansions." Sons and daughters have access to the home where he dwells, and you cannot receive that access until you go to the temple.8

What becomes clear from any reading of this text is that the temple is not called the "faithful Mormon's home" at all. Instead, to the contrary, Smith clearly intended for us to equate 'the House of God' with the Heavenly Kingdom of the Father, and that we, as His children, are capable of entering that house. The second piece of omitted text clearly indicates that we are not talking about the temple as the home that we enter, but rather the heavenly Kingdom of God. That we only become able to enter the heavenly home as we enter the temple is further indication that Smith was not calling the temple our home. Rather, as Hebrews 9:24 points out-the temple is merely a true figure of that heavenly home:

For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

Or, as the NIV clarifies this language a little bit:

For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence.

The LDS approach to temple worship is certainly a change from ancient Israel, who based temple participation not on true worthiness in living either the gospel or the commandments of Moses, but rather on issues of ethnicity, sex, ancestry and ritual cleanliness. All of these types of requirements no longer exist, and have been replaced with requirements that reflect the true faith and devotion of the member who desires to learn more of the mysteries of God. The Inside Works of The LDS Temple

It is in this section that I am not going to comment extensively on the text, but rather will limit myself to a few very specific issues. Under the heading: Temple Garments and New Names, McKeever and Johnson make the following observations: "At this point, a temple worker actually puts the temple garment on the patron." This is followed in the next paragraph with the remarks: "After placing the "garment" on the patron …"9

This never happens in the temple ceremony. What I find perhaps to be the most disconcerting about this statement, is that in an article on the same topic written by Bill McKeever, and published on his Web site, we find the following statement: "The patron then puts on a special piece of clothing known as the 'Garment of the Holy Priesthood.'"

Now, either McKeever is unsure of what really happens in the LDS temple ceremonies, or he is not really trying to be accurate, but rather is trying to sensationalize these ceremonies. My opinion is that accuracy and honesty are not the objectives of this book.

A little later in the same section, we read: "Historically, Mormon leaders have taught that the husband has the ability to call his wife from the grave by her new name on resurrection day."10

This is also not the case. A husband has nothing to do with the resurrection of his wife. Let me try to clarify this point a little bit and explain some of the fundamental doctrinal principles involved as taught by the LDS Church. Historically, Mormon leaders have taught that the resurrection is available to all people, regardless of their spiritual condition, their marital status, or any other consideration. As Apostle James E. Talmage wrote: "The eventual resurrection of every soul who has lived and died on earth is a scriptural certainty."11 Applying this to the statements made by McKeever and Johnson, this means that a husband has no say, or part in the resurrection of his wife. A second principle is that LDS do not believe in a 'resurrection day,' per se. The resurrection is not a single event, where all are raised at once. Talmage continues: "No spirit shall remain disembodied longer than he deserves, or than is requisite to accomplish the just and merciful purposes of God. The resurrection of the just began with Christ, it has been in process and shall continue till the Lord comes in glory, and thence onward through the Millenium."12

I find it somewhat suspect that the two citations provided in Mormonism 101 which are supposed to defend McKeever and Johnson's proposition never once mention the resurrection. And, you would be hard pressed to come up with any other statements by early LDS leaders that would support such a statement. Comparatively, the first source McKeever and Johnson cite, Charles W. Penrose, prefaced his remarks with the following statement: "No man or woman, separate and single, can attain to the fullness of celestial glory."13 More recently, Elder Bruce C. Hafen reiterated this doctrinal position when he wrote: "Further, no individual, woman or man, has access to the highest degree of celestial life alone: 'Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.' (1 Corinthians 11:11.) To obtain exaltation, we must receive the priesthood ordinance of eternal marriage."14 In LDS doctrine, the man and the woman are equal before the Lord, and the eternal blessings of one are not dependent unequally upon the other.

While there are some members of the LDS faith who entertain a romantic notion that a husband will resurrect his wife so that they can enter into the Celestial Kingdom together, this has never been a doctrinal teaching of the Church. And often, those members who believe this have misconstrued statements by leaders of the Church in the same fashion as McKeever and Johnson. Temple Garments

Under the heading of Pre-endowment Instructions, McKeever and Johnson enter into a discussion on the nature of the 'temple garments.' In regards to this garment, the authors write: "By wearing the garments at all times, it is taught that the individual Mormon, depending on his or her faithfulness, is protected both physically and spiritually."15 It is clear from the ensuing discussion that rather than focusing on the fundamental belief in a 'spiritual protection,' that McKeever and Johnson, in trying to sensationalize their account, are much more interested in the 'physical protection.' From the end of the section, where they end up comparing the garment to a "proverbial rabbit's foot or talisman," we see that they have little interest in accurately portraying Mormon beliefs. To begin with, they take a quote from a prominent LDS leader, Spencer W. Kimball, which might support such an interpretation. The quote reads:

Temple garments afford protection. I am sure one could go to extreme in worshiping the cloth of which the garment is made, but one could also go to the other extreme. Though generally I think our protection is a mental, spiritual, moral one, yet I am convinced that there could be and undoubtedly have been many cases where there has been through faith, an actual physical protection, so we must not minimize that possibility.16

There are a couple of concerns I have regarding this citation. McKeever and Johnson introduce the citation with the words: "For instance, President Spencer W. Kimball said on 31 May 1948:" First (and this is also dealt with in the second part of this review) Spencer W. Kimball was not the President of the Church in 1948 when these remarks were written. He was, however, an apostle, having been ordained to that calling in 1943, and would become the President of the Church in 1973. Second, while McKeever and Johnson suggest that this was spoken by Kimball, in fact, this is excerpted from a personal letter written by Kimball in 1948 and a copy kept by him in his personal things. So, while it is true that it was written by Kimball, this hardly seems to carry the degree of authority which is lent to it in Mormonism 101. We are left with the realization that this is a personal opinion and not a doctrinal statement. We could recognize from his statement that while he sees the garment as having acted as a physical protection in many cases, he certainly never goes so far as to suggest that it does in all cases, nor, that we should expect it to function in that manner.

Boyd K. Packer, in his book, The Holy Temple, is explicit in what he feels this protection is:

Members who have received their temple ordinances thereafter wear the special garment or underclothing. … The garment represents sacred covenants. It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and a protection to the wearer. … The garment, covering the body, is a visual and tactile reminder of these covenants. For many Church members the garment has formed a barrier of protection when the wearer has been faced with temptation. Among other things it symbolizes our deep respect for the laws of God-among them the moral standard.17

McKeever and Johnson also make the remark: "Mormons who remain true to the faith and wear the garments believe they will be protected."18 While all LDS believe that there is a spiritual protection afforded by the garments, and some believe that there is a physical protection as well, the fact that this protection is in part dependant on the faith and worthiness of the wearer is merely another indicator that the garment cannot be compared to a 'lucky talisman.'

At this point, McKeever and Johnson change course and attack the practice of wearing the garment by trying to show how its use in the LDS Church is inconsistent with the use of similar garments in the Old Testament. They write:

There is also no Biblical support for this unusual practice. In the Old Testament, only priests from the line of Levi and not the common Jew wore the linen undergarments. Still we find no biblical support for the notion that the priestly garments offered any special protection as described by various LDS authorities. … It appears that the idea of protective undergarments falls into the same category as the proverbial rabbit's foot or talisman."19

Although McKeever and Johnson do not mention this fact, Latter-day Saints assert that the garments of the priesthood received in the house of the Lord are representative of several things. First and foremost, we learn that these garments are representative of the coat of skins God gave to Father Adam to cover his nakedness. Theodore M. Burton said the following in a speech given at BYU on August 8th, 1966:

Adam was given a garment of the Holy Priesthood as a sign of this endowment of power which he received from God. Eve, his wife, was given him of the Lord. She also was clothed in a garment of power. She was not to be the servant of Adam, …

Traditionally LDS have believed that the garment which Adam was given by God in the Garden was symbolically this same garment of the holy priesthood. Why was it given to Adam? To cover his nakedness. As it is recorded in Genesis:

And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. … And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. … Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins and clothed them.20

There is a repetitive theme in the Old Testament where nakedness and shame are associated with sin, and a covering, or a garment with righteousness. In Zechariah 3:3-4 we get a narrative describing the calling of Joshua the High Priest.

Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

In Isaiah 47:3, speaking prophetically to wayward Israel, we read these words of the Lord: "Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man." There are many more instances, but perhaps the most significant to this discussion is the treatment of the special garments given to the Levitical priests.

A brief description of these special garments made for the priests is found in Exodus 28. Especially relevant are verses 42 and 43.

And thou shalt make for them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even to the thighs they shall reach: And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

Now I don't know how McKeever and Johnson would read this passage, but if we take the word here literally, then indeed there was some 'special protection' afforded by these garments. One of the points of interest here though, especially to LDS, is that this protection was only necessary when the Israelite approached God. As McKeever and Johnson pointed out, these garments were only required of the priests. In the LDS Church, the priesthood is offered to all worthy male members. The LDS practice is rooted in a similar theology. The D&C makes this statement (107:18-19) "The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek priesthood, is to … enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant." In other words, this symbolic imagery of pure garments now necessarily covers our sins at all times, not just when we go "to minister in the holy place."

In any case, it is the spiritual protection and reminder that remains at the forefront of LDS beliefs and practices regarding this garment. It is a reminder that we put on anew every day. It is a covering which sets a certain standard of modest dress. It is also a covering which would have to be removed before breaking many of the covenants of the temple. To this end, whether we believe that it serves us as a physical protection or not, its value to us is far above that of a mere protective covering. To us it is both a reminder and to the faithful, a witness of our willingness to obey our Father in Heaven. And it is from this context that LDS authorities' comments are drawn. The Endowment Ceremony

The main argument put forward by McKeever and Johnson in this section is that the temple ceremonies, which had supposedly been revealed directly by God, have been changed repeatedly over the 150 years since they were first revealed through Joseph Smith. They write:

Despite the fact that Joseph Smith himself said that God "set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever," the LDS Church has continuously changed the ceremony over the years. It quietly made many drastic changes in April 1990.21

It is here that we see a distinct difference in the terminology and intent between McKeever and Johnson and the various LDS authorities they quote. In my introduction, I noted that there was a distinct difference between the ordinance and the ceremony. In their text here, McKeever and Johnson consistently talk of changes to the ceremony, while the LDS authorities consistently refer to the ordinance. The ceremony and the ritual is the teaching mechanism that surrounds the ordinance. It is in fact only logical that this would change over time as the background and needs of the participants change. It has to appeal to as wide an audience of faithful LDS as possible, while staying true to its purpose. On the other hand, the ordinance, or the covenantal aspects of the temple ceremonies, have not changed. Here are some of the statements of McKeever and Johnson side by side with statements from the LDS authorities:

McKeever and Johnson:

   * "This ceremony is performed"
   * "The ceremony includes"
   * "The ordinance ceremony is made up of"
   * "The temple ceremony was supposed to have been given"

LDS:

   * "Temple ordinances instituted in the heavens"
   * "It is important that the saving ordinances not be altered"
   * "set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever,"

McKeever and Johnson really hit the nail on the head when they write:

Despite the fact that Joseph Smith himself said that God "set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever," the LDS Church has continuously changed the ceremony over the years.

My response is, despite the ceremony having changed, the ordinances have not. As a side note, I also find it somewhat amusing that McKeever and Johnson tacitly admit to the difference between the two when they use the term 'ordinance ceremony'-a term which could only be considered redundant if they were one and the same.

There is a second concern that arises from McKeever and Johnson's remarks. What do McKeever and Johnson make of the changes to "eternal" ordinances instituted under Moses in the Old Testament? Genesis Exodus 12:14 records of the Passover: "And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever." A millennia and a half later, the emerging Christian faith would cease observance of the paschal feast.22 Is this an indicator that the Christians had abandoned a commandment received from God? Does God have the power to change His ordinances? These are both legitimate questions that McKeever and Johnson need to answer. Baptism for the Dead

When discussing baptism for the dead, there are a few points brought up by McKeever and Johnson that need to be briefly addressed. These can be summarized under the following points: 1) Referencing Hebrews 9:27 that judgment follows this life. 2) That this life (now) is the time for salvation in 2 Corinthians 6:2. 3) That LDS erroneously use 1 Corinthians 15:29 in support of the doctrine of baptism for the dead. Each of these points needs to be addressed. Before I do so however, I wish to quote a couple of sections from Jay Todd's article on baptism for the dead found in the February 1995 Ensign. These particular passages are only just a small portion of the entire article, and, while McKeever and Johnson cite the article themselves, they exclude these citations and do not address their presentation. It seems to me, since the real substance of Todd's article was devoted to reciting the biblical evidence in support of this doctrine, that McKeever and Johnson should have at least attempted to address these issues. The rest of the article provides the biblical evidence to support the LDS doctrines. It is worth reading as a complete article, and can be found on the official Church website.23

Having earlier paid the price of sin for each of us, the Lord descended into death and the spirit world and then rose triumphantly again. For us to be cleansed of sin, we must each descend into water and rise again into a new, covenant life with Jesus, our Redeemer.

Another teaching fundamental to the Lord's plan of salvation is the concept that after death, one's spirit goes to a place where spirits reside, where faculties of sight and sound and mind are as vivid as they are here. God "is not a God of the dead," Jesus said, "but of the living for all of you live unto him" (Luke 20:38). Jesus himself visited that spirit world prior to his resurrection, just as he foretold: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live" (John 5:25).

…

If the Savior had not ascended to heaven yet, where had he been during the three days his body lay in the tomb? It is in the writings of Peter, the chief Apostle, that we receive the answer. Christ went to be with other disembodied spirits and there to minister to them. What did the Lord do there? Said Peter: "He went and preached unto the spirits in prison" (1 Pet. 3:19).

Who were these people? According to Peter, they were those who "sometimes were disobedient" (1 Pet. 3:20). "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh" (1 Pet. 4:6).

This essential ministry of the Lord to those who have died was prophesied by Isaiah, who, writing in behalf of the Messiah, wrote: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound" (Isa. 61:1).

Of course, the idea is that these persons will, like every other member of the human family, have the opportunity to fulfill the commandment given by Jesus to Nicodemus: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."24

In responding to the first point (that judgment follows this life), it seems safe to say that McKeever and Johnson do not express a belief in a final judgment. Such a judgment seems evident from passages like Matthew 25:31-46 or Revelations 20:12-13. In these scenes, all of humanity is judged at once-at the end. This judgment seems to occur after the resurrection of all mankind, so it is clearly arguable (and this is LDS doctrine) that this judgment, while it follows this life, does not need to occur immediately upon death.

The second point (that "now is the accepted time; now is the day of salvation") clearly relates to the same thing. The 'now'-where is it limited to the end of the mortal life? One could suggest that day of salvation would extend all the way to the point of judgment perhaps. The idea that this life-meaning before the death of the mortal body-is the limit of our time to prove ourselves before God seems to be directly contradicted by the passage in 1 Peter, which suggests that events that happen after this mortal life do affect our eternal destination. Let me repeat the verse:

For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

For the third point, McKeever and Johnson focus narrowly on Paul's use of 'they' as opposed to 'we.' Even a more neutral term produces a very narrow reading, which, if it were to be applied universally across the board to Paul's teachings, would cause problems. Certainly such a hermeneutic is later criticized in this same chapter of Mormonism 101 in relation to remarks by Bruce R. McConkie. Using this same interpretive practice, we might conclude for example that Paul was referring to himself personally, when he announces that he would not die, but would still be living at the resurrection: "we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed … for the trump shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed."25

The challenge is, though, that in relying on a term like "they" to base an argument, McKeever and Johnson are dealing with a translation of an original text and not the text itself. Nor are McKeever and Johnson the first to bring such an argument forward. Luke P. Wilson, in an article entitled Did Jesus Establish Baptism for the Dead? published in 1997, deals almost exclusively with this subject.26 This was responded to by John A. Tvedtnes as follows:

However, the Greek original of 1 Corinthians 15:29 does not use the pronoun they. It says, "Otherwise, what will do the ones being baptized for the dead?" The text uses a passive participle form, "the being baptized [ones]," as a substantive (where it is usually accompanied by the definite article). Participles reflect gender, number, and case, but not person. Hence, there is no third-person plural (they) in the Greek original. Stressing the pronoun supplied by the English Bible translators for flow in English distorts Paul's meaning. Being devoid of reference to person, the passage, does not restrict the practice to "false teachers" as Wilson contends. So Wilson is patently wrong when he says that "if we ask who the 'they' in verse 29 refers to, the context clearly points us back to verse 12. It is those within the Corinthian congregation who are denying the resurrection, and whom the entire passage is written to refute" (II.3). Wilson's case is made of thin air, nothing more. But since most of his readers rely on the English passage, I suspect that they will be taken in by his arguments.27

Additionally, the Greek oi baptizomenoi is a present passive participle. It can only refer to Christian baptism, unless otherwise defined (which Paul does not do here). Following this argument, other non-LDS scholars have agreed with the LDS. Even Carson, in the article quoted in Mormonism 101, agrees that "The most plausible interpretation is that some in Corinth were getting baptized vicariously for the dead."28 The following are a few non-LDS interpretations of the passage:

In following up ver. 29 with the words of ver. 30 (ti kai hmeiz kinduneuomen) P[aul] associates himself with the action of "those baptised for the dead," indicating that they and he are engaged on the same behalf.29

The objection that the apostle could not have meant anything like a baptism for the benefit of others is exegetically out of place. . . . If Paul had disapproved of it he probably would have written more about it than what this one reference contains. In any case the apostle could hardly derive an argument for the resurrection of the body from a practice of which he did not approve.30

Paul turns to an interesting item of Church practice in Corinth and probably elsewhere too. . . . At its best, the vicarious ceremony was a tribute to the spirit of fellowship, of unity, and of solidarity in the community, and as such it would be sure to commend itself to Paul. There are still some survivals of this ancient Christian practice. . . . In a sense, it might be compared with prayers offered for the dead. . . . Perhaps it is as well to leave the matter there. Paul is content to do so, merely pointing to this ancient rite, and incidentally giving us another glimpse into the customary procedures of the early Christian fellowship as they illustrated the truth of the Resurrection31

Finally, it needs to be pointed out that Joseph Smith asked God about this passage, and it was then that the doctrines of baptism for the dead was revealed to him. Ultimately, it is not Paul's brief reference in the New Testament on which the LDS faith bases this doctrine, rather it is the revealed will of God through modern prophets.