Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsRebaptism - Page 2 of 2
I haven't studied this topic, but - Page 2 - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 1st May, 2006 - 6:11am
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 16 - Views: 2428
Rebaptism - Page 2
Excellent points. Yes, baptism is the gate. Baptism qualifies us to receive many great blessings, including the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
I don't think that rebaptism is necessary for salvation. I believe it is a tool that God gave us to help us along the way, just like the tools of the Church, Priesthood meetings, etc.
I still don't know of any scriptural reference to the Sacrament being a renewal of our baptismal covenants. Just for fun, I just looked up Sacrament in Mormon Doctrine. This makes much more sense to me than the common answers we use.
| QUOTE |
| To replace the ordinance of sacrifice (which pointed the attention of the saints forward to the coming sacrifice of the Son of God), our Lord during his mortal ministry instituted the ordinance of the sacrament (to point the attention of his saints, after his death, back to the great atoning sacrifice which he had wrought). |
What is very interesting about this is that Bruce R. McConkie then proceeded to explain, using scriptures that the Sacrament really is a renewal of the baptismal covenants. However, when I read the scriptures that he refers to, I only see that the Sacrament refers to some of the same things as the baptismal covenant (as outlined in Mosiah 18:7-10).
I just looked up "rebaptism" in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. It basically just says that it is extremely rare in the "modern" church.
| QUOTE |
| Rebaptism is rare among Latter-day Saints in modern times. Historically, however, many members were rebaptized as an act of rededication. This was first practiced in Nauvoo and was continued in the Utah Territory. Rebaptism served as a ritual of recommitment but was not viewed as essential to salvation. Members often sought rebaptism when called to assist in colonization or to participate in one of the united orders. On some occasions, the Saints were rebaptized as they prepared for marriage or entrance into the temple. Early members also rebaptized some of the sick among them as an act of healing. Because of misuse by some Church members, all such practices of rebaptism were discontinued in 1897. |
Now, this does bother me again. If Joseph Smith received a revelation that the Saints were to have this privilege, and Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff all agreed and participated in this practice, by what right was this privilege taken away? There is no indication that it was taken away by revelation, but rather by policy. Once again, because of misuse by SOME people, a valued and comforting tool is taken away from all.
I do find this to be a very interesting subject.
Sponsored Links:
Rebaptism
| QUOTE |
| I still don't know of any scriptural reference to the Sacrament being a renewal of our baptismal covenants |
There are several scriptures, but this one seems to directly say it. I think one of the purposes of the Sacrament is renewal of covenants .
"Drink ye all of it. For this is in remembrance of my blood of the new testament, which is shed for as many as shall believe on my name, for the remission of their sins" (Joseph Smith Translation, Matthew 26:23-24; see also Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:20-25; Luke 22:15-20).
| QUOTE |
| If Joseph Smith received a revelation that the Saints were to have this privilege, and Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff all agreed and participated in this practice, by what right was this privilege taken away? There is no indication that it was taken away by revelation, but rather by policy. Once again, because of misuse by SOME people, a valued and comforting tool is taken away from all |
I can understand your concern, yet I could completly understand it if nowdays we would not have any other tool, but we have the Sacrament that accomplish the same thing. Then why it is so important rebaptism if we are doing the same thing by partaking the Sacrament?
Edited: LDS_forever on 29th Dec, 2005 - 6:04pmPage 2 Rebaptism
Yes, they had the sacrament and there is no difference between then and now. That's exactly what I do not understand why rebaptism should be so important taking into consideration as I said before that we accomplish the same thing when we partake the Sacrament. Maybe the Brethren at that time thought that rebaptism makes them feel in a particular way (and I am sure it does!) but it does not accomplish any other purpose than the Sacrament doesn't unless you think it does?
Rebaptism
Apparently there was something very powerful about rebaptism for healing.
I still don't think that the Sacrament completely fulfills the purpose. Again, if Joseph received a revelation giving this to the Saints, then I don't think it is right, especially within the "Restoration" for it to be removed.
We have a lot of assumptions going on here. One is that the Sacrament is really a complete renewal of our baptismal covenant. Another is that rebaptism is the same as the Sacrament. I don't know that either of those two assumptions are valid. I do know that there is no revelation recorded to stop the practice, only a policy decision.
Rebaptism - Page 2
I have to go back to my original assertion. Brigham Young reported that Joseph Smith received a revelation that rebaptism is a privilege that the Saints were to enjoy. Subsequent Prophets participated in this practice. If the Sacrament fulfills ALL of the benefits of rebaptism, then why did these men encourage the practice?
Unfortunately, this is not a subject that I have spent much time studying. I may ask some questions of some people I know who have studied it, and get their input.
Rebaptism Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 2
I haven't studied this topic, but I do have an additional thought on it.
| QUOTE |
| Because of misuse by some Church members, all such practices of rebaptism were discontinued in 1897. |
This might be the key to the reason the practice was discontinued. This is similar to the reason the Law of Consecration was withdrawn from practice. Because of their greed and worldly circumstances, the saints couldn't achieve success in practicing the Law of Consecration, so He withdrew the privilege of living it. Or perhaps it had to do with the complexity of performing an unnecessary ordinance in a fast growing church. In my opinion, it's all speculation and it doesn't really matter. The fact that the policy to discontinue the practice came from the President of the Church is, in my opinion, as good as revelation and perhaps it was revelation, only not recorded. I have been taught that conference reports are scripture. If this is true, then here is a scriptural reference:
| QUOTE |
| In partaking of the sacrament, we can renew the effects of our baptism. . . In the waters of baptism we witness to the Lord that we have repented of our sins and are willing to take his name upon us and serve him to the end (see D&C 20:37). . .The renewal of our covenants by partaking of the sacrament should also be preceded by repentance, so we come to that sacred ordinance with a broken heart and a contrite spirit (see 2 Ne. 2:7; 3 Ne. 12:19; D&C 59:8). Then, as we renew our baptismal covenants and affirm that we will "always remember him" (D&C 20:77), the Lord will renew the promised remission of our sins, under the conditions and at the time he chooses. One of the primary purposes and effects of this renewal of covenants and cleansing from sin is 'that [we] may always have his Spirit to be with [us]" (D&C 20:77).Dallin H. Oaks, "Always Have His Spirit," Ensign, Nov. 1996, 59 |
TOPIC: Rebaptism