Reading and studying this doctrine lately has made my heart burn, in a good way. I have been impressed with how regularly the saints, beginning with Joseph, felt it necessary to enter the waters and be confirmed, renewing covenants to God, to have sins remitted. Also, it is intriguing to note that baptisms were performed to prepare for missions and marriages, plural or not. Baptism, as a means of purifying, was also attended to as a means of aiding a person in recovering from illness! Every saint who entered the Salt Lake valley was required to be re-baptized upon entering, in order to cleanse them and renew their enthusiasm to live the laws. When the United Order was again attempted in 1872, re-baptism was required to enter it. This of course makes me believe that we will be re-baptized when committing to Israeland Zion in days soon to come. All that being said, I have some quotes here for you to read on the doctrine. This is only a very small smattering of the doctrine recorded, since literally hundreds of people and journals recorded re-baptisms, some many times for various reasons. in 1897 the practice was stopped altogether.
I know that in my traveling and preaching, many a time I have stopped by
beautiful streams of clear, pure water, and have said to myself, “How
delightful it would be to me to go into this, to be baptized for the
remission of my sins.” When I got home, Joseph told me it was my
privilege. At this time, came a revelation, that the Saints could be
baptized and re-baptized when they chose, and then that we could be
baptized for our dear friends. (Brigham Young, J.D. 18:241)
In the first place, if you were re-baptized for the remission of sins,
peradventure you may receive again the Spirit of the Gospel in its glory,
light and beauty; but if your hearts are so engrossed in the things of
this world, that you do not know whether you want to be re-baptized or
not, you had better shut yourselves up in some canyon or closet, to
repent of your sins, and call upon the name of the Lord, until you get
His spirit. (Brigham Young, J.D. 1:324)
Sat. 17, 1875–Pres. Brigham Young (SEVENTH TIME!), his counselors and others renewed
their covenants by baptism at Ephraim, Sanpete Co. This. example was
subsequently followed by the Saints generally. (Church Chronology, p. 94)
The battalion brethren moved their wagons and formed a corral between the
forks of City Creek. Brigham exhorted the brethren to be re-baptized,
himself setting the example, and reconfirming the Elders. On the 8th of
August three hundred were immersed, the services commencing at six
o’clock in the morning. (History of Utah, 1840-86, Bancroft, p. 265.)
The authorities decided that all that came to the valleys should renew
their covenants by baptism. So all the Bushman family were re-baptized,
and the saints did enjoy a rest from their enemies for ten years….
(John Bushman Diary, MSS 1935, p. 11)
Jedediah’s message was heeded; people by the hundreds flocked to him for
re-baptism, but in the strenuous life he led–many times attending three
meetings during the same afternoon and evening–he exhausted his physical
strength and collapsed. A brief and severe illness, from which he never
recovered, attacked him and on December 1st, 1856, he died. (Jedediah M.
Grant, p. 139)
Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize thee for the
remission of thy sins, for the renewal of the covenant with God and thy
brethren and for the observance of the rules that have been said in thy
hearing, in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost,
Amen. (Ceremony of baptism into the United Order; obtained this copy from
among the papers of Apostle C. C. Rich, Sept. 4, 1886. The copy from
which the above was taken is in the handwriting of George Q. Cannon.)
(Unpublished Diary of Milando Pratt)
I was baptized first in 1832, and I was baptized the next time when I
came out here to Utah. I was baptized first for the remission of sins.
Was baptized the second time for the same thing. I came out here in 1847
and was re-baptized then. When I came out here I was baptized again
renewing my covenants and also for the remission of sins that I might
have committed in taking this long and tedious journey through all these
mountains and canyons. (Joseph C. Kingsbury, Temple Lot Case, p. 340)
Be humble, and seek unto the Lord as children; put away your vain
philosophies and strip yourself for the Kingdom. Preach Christ, and him
crucified–preach life and salvation unto the Elders; the Saints [38]
first, and then unto the people. Begin at home in the office–purify and
regenerate them; get the fulness of the Spirit, and the power of the
Highest to rest down upon you and then go forth to the people, and let a
reformation be stirred up among the Saints; fire up each other, and then
all the Saints; let all participate, and when they have sufficiently
cleansed the inside of the platter, let them cleanse the outside, and
renew their covenants in the waters of baptism, and abide in the truth,
and be alive in the Church and Kingdom of God. (Letter of Brigham Young
to Orson Pratt in England, Mill. Star, 19:97)
They teach re-baptism here in Utah as a doctrine. The authorities in the
church here in Utah have taught it and insisted that everyone who came
here should be baptized, and have baptized them the third time since
coming here. It did not make any difference whether or not they belonged
to the church when they came here, they were re-baptized when they came
here. (Temple Lot Case, p. 341; Joseph C. Kingsbury)
…The proposition was joyfully and very generally accepted by the
saints. This procedure, however, must not be regarded as casting any
doubt upon the validity of their original baptisms, or repudiation of it
as a sacrament. It was only to make more solemn the renewal of covenants’
with God. (C.H.C., B. H. Roberts, 2:286-287)
This is a representation of the feelings of some who have crossed the
plains this season. My advice to you is, go and be baptized for the
remission of sins, and start afresh, that temptation may not overcome you
again; pause and reflect, that you be not overcome by the evil one
unawares. (Brigham Young, J.D. 1:324)
My counsel to them today is, as it has been on former occasions to all
who have [58] come into these valleys, Go and be baptized for the
remission of sins, repenting of all your wanderings from the path of
righteousness, believing firmly in the name of Jesus Christ, that all
your sins will be washed away. If any of you inquire what is the
necessity of your being baptized, as you have not committed any sins, I
answer, it is necessary to fulfill all righteousness.
I have heard some of you cursing and swearing, even some of the Elders of
Israel. I would be baptized seven times, were I in your place; I would
not stop teasing some good Elder to baptize me again and again, until I
could think my sins forgiven. I would not live over another night until I
was baptized enough to satisfy me that my sins were forgiven. Then go and
be confirmed, as you were when you first embraced the religion of Jesus.
That is my counsel. (Brigham Young, J.D. 2:8, 9)
Elder Zera Pulsipher transcended the bounds of the Priesthood in the
ordinance of sealing, for which he was cited to appear before the First
Presidency of the Church, April 12, 1862. It was there voted that he be
re-baptized, reconfirmed and ordained to the office of a High Priest, or
go into the ranks of the Seventies. (Church Chronology, Introductory
XIII)
Nov. 27th, 1889 (at Fillmore) –two young unmarried people have committed
fornication. Bro. Kelly (1st counselor in Stake [61] Pres.) was told that
on asking forgiveness, they should be permitted to receive re-baptism and
not be cut off; but where persons thus sin who have received their
endowments, they must be excommunicated. (Abraham Cannon Journal, p. 197)
When Brother Brigham predicts that certain things will happen if the
people persist in a certain course, that prediction will be fulfilled,
except the people [63] make a retraction and an atonement sufficient to
satisfy the demands of justice; for that is what God requires. When that
is done, the sins of the people will be remitted. I speak of this, that
you may understand that your re-baptisms must be agreeable to the order
laid down. It is not simply a man’s saying, “Having been commissioned by
Jesus Christ, I baptize you for the renewal of your covenant and
remission of your sins,” but you must be subject to your brethren and
fulfill the law of God.
Supposing you have sinned against your brethren, or in some way offended
them, will your sins be remitted, unless you go and make the proper
acknowledgments? No, they will not. You have got to pay the debt; and sin
cannot be remitted until you confess it and make satisfaction to the
party aggrieved. (Heber C. Kimball J.D. 5:202)
One of the most enlightening articles I read on the subject is by Ogden Kraut. I have included below two small section from his book that may be of interest. One discusses scriptural precedents, I included the Book of Mormon portion here. The other discusses baptism as a means of physical healing, which I had never heard of before, though it make perfect sense in light of baptisms ability to remove impurity. It should be noted that the individuals re-baptized also generally noted being confirmed at waters edge too, it being the other half of baptism.
The Book of Mormon also contains specific references to re-baptism.
Nephi, it is written, baptized many believers and “ordained men unto this
ministry,” and “there were many in the commencement of this year that were
baptized unto repentance.” (A.D. 32: see 3 Nephi 7:26) However, a few years
later, after the destruction of his nation, it is written that Nephi again
“went down into the water and was baptized.” (3 Nephi 19:11) Thus Nephi
complied with the principle of re-baptism; and being a leader among his
people, he established the precedent for that practice and they followed his
example. Nephi proceeded to baptize the others and “it came to pass when they
were ALL baptized and had come up out of the water, the Holy Ghost did fall
upon them.” (3 Nephi 19:13)
Alma also participated in the principle of re-baptism. After he received
the authority and had been converted, then he preached the principles of
faith, repentance, and baptism, and baptized a “goodly number” of the
believers. Then on a later occasion, while baptizing a man by the name of
Helam, he became so influenced with the beauty and blessings of baptism, that
[16] he also was “buried” in the waters of baptism. Alma, therefore, certainly
experienced a re-baptism, and he “came forth out of the water rejoicing, being
filled with the Spirit.” (Mos. 18:13-14)
At the final eclipse of the great Nephite empire, the nation had grown
cold in the principles of righteousness. The last plea for a return to the
gospel was being made by Moroni who wrote:
And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and
teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought
forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it. (Moroni 6:1)
The “elders, priests, and teachers” were of course members and offices of
the Church of Jesus Christ, and yet they were baptized. To become members of
the Church and hold the offices of elders and priests, they must be baptized;
therefore, these members were again baptized after they had repented by
bringing forth the “fruit” of repentance.
Thus the doctrine of re-baptism, like the doctrine of baptism for the
dead, has a few substantiating scriptural references. Even one is enough to
establish it as a doctrine and practice of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
BAPTISM FOR THE SICK
One of the requests for re-baptism was for healing of the sick. Strange
as this may appear, history has proved this practice to be very beneficial in
many of the cases where it has been performed. One of the first accounts of
baptism for the sick is recorded by the Prophet Joseph. He baptized his wife
Emma for her illness.
Tues. 4, 1842, Emma is very sick again. I attended with her all the day,
being somewhat poorly myself.
Wed. 5. My dear Emma was worse. Many fears were entertained that she
would not recover. She was baptized twice in the river, which evidently
did her much good. She grew worse again at night, and continued very sick
indeed. I was unwell, and much troubled on account of Emma’s sickness.
(History of Church, J. Smith, Vol. 5; p. 167-168)
Emma had been baptized in Coalville in 1830. This re-baptism was 12 years
later. Even previous to this account, the baptisms for healing were quite
common. They were performed in the Nauvoo Temple, along with other baptisms.
Baptisms for the dead, and for the healing of the body must be in the
font, and those coming into the Church and those re-baptized may be
baptized in the river. (D.H.C. 4:586)
However, these baptism for the sick were not restricted to the temples,
as the case of [52] Emma illustrates. Others were baptized in streams and
rivers. Another similar example comes from the life of Lorenzo Snow:
Upon arriving at Pisgah, Lorenzo and members of his family remained for a
season. “At this place,” Lorenzo said, “I was taken seriously and
dangerously ill with a burning fever, which so affected my brain that I
was delirious many days, lying at the point of death. While in this
condition, Elder Phineas Richards, the father of Apostle F. D. Richards,
assisted by other kind brethren, took me from my bed, wrapped in a sheet
placed me in a carriage, drove to a stream of water, and baptized me in
the name of the Lord, for my recovery. The fever immediately abated, and
through the kind unwearied nursing and attention by my faithful, loving
wives, and my dear sister, E.R.S. Smith, aided and sanctified through the
power and blessing of God, I was delivered from suffering and restored to
health. The sickness was the result of extreme hardships and exposures
consequent on the journey. (Life of L. Snow, 1846, Romney, p. 80-81)
Two other examples may serve to illustrate the beneficial powers of this
ordinance.
F. D. Richards, who had been sick for several months, was baptized,
anointed, and confirmed; immediately after which he was restored to
health.
Mrs. Richards was taken by her brother from a sick bed to a lake from the
surface of which ice more than a foot thick [53] had been removed, and
there baptized, whereupon she immediately recovered. Similar cases might
be given by the score. (Bancroft’s History of Utah, p. 337)
Baptism for the sick was never an established order for healing the sick,
because the Lord had already established administration by the laying on of
hands and the use of olive oil for such healings. Baptism was a means of
remitting sins; and if the devil was afflicting someone with sickness, it may
have been through their weakness or sins that he could accomplish it.
Nevertheless, these baptisms were a means of controlling or abating the
afflictions of the Saints, even though it had its limitations.
I spoke of baptism for health in my examination in chief: it was never
considered a prominent feature or any doctrine of the original church,
any mere than it is of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. It was never considered essential in either church. It
was simply taught as a doctrine that was beneficial; I never heard an
elder or anybody else preach it in either church. I never heard it taught
as a present duty, but I have heard it advocated as beneficial, and in
that sense it was practiced. (Jason Briggs, Temple Lot Case, p. 404)
One of the latest records of baptism for health is found in the year of
1884:
Sunday, November 16th, 1884–This morning reconfirmed Elder L. Harris who
has been baptized for his health. (Diary of Elder J. H. Standifird)
[54] This would indicate that re-baptisms, for health purposes, were practiced
for at least 42 years. It is doubtful if they continued for very many years
after that time.
Great topic. I too was pondering this subject just last night (actually read what you were reading it seems) and was both (a) elated to hear of it and (b) mournful that it is no longer practiced despite both its historic performance in mormon culture and scriptural precedence.
What’s interesting about the “battalion brethren” account is that apparently there were 400 people at that place and time who were witnesses to that event. those who were baptized were of an eligible age while those who were not, the vast majority simply hadn’t reached that age yet where they had participated in an original baptism.
my other thought, on this issue, is that frequently there are those among us (like myself) who lament the lack of gifts in this day and age and in our church generally. the gifts of healing, tongues, seership, prophesy, visions and many, many others are all but lost to us…and likely do to both (a) unbelief/lack of faith and (b) unworthiness. The doctrine of re-baptism could certainly take care of the latter, at least to those truly seeking a better way in this life, while the former can be taken care of by diligence to the word of God and, amazingly, if we saw and/or witnessed these gifts being practiced, in all likelihood our faith would increase as the unbelief melted away.
One of my favorite scriptures regarding the results of baptism on a people is found in the Book of Mormon…
” 3 Nephi 1:23 And it came to pass that Nephi went forth among the people, and also many others, baptizing unto repentance, in the which there was a great remission of sins. And thus the people began again to have peace in the land. ”
So, there was a lot of “baptizing unto repentance” happening and as a result there was a “great remission of sins” and as a result of that there was “peace in the land”.
I have often thought on the great blessings that we are missing due to our ignoring the principle of rebaptism, Practiced regularly it could change our lives and our families.
Tunecedemalis
(Man I dislike not being able to use capital letters in this theme)=)
A while ago I was asked to rebaptize a friend and i consented, although for some reason we never really followed through with it.
I, too, mourn over the loss of this and many other doctrines and practices. Perhaps it could help us be more right with the lord and thus receive more of his influence.
so, would any be willing to participate? is this something i should not be (publicly) asking?
Steve
I can’t help but agree with all the thoughts above. I am willing to take that step, since the spirit has borne its truth to me so strongly. besides, doing so wouldn’t be to renounce your membership in the church. Conversely, it would reaffirm and strengthen a person to live and strive harder to understand through wisdom the principles Christ has in store for us. It would be interesting to find out what the “official” stance of the church was on this, for reference sake.
Steve. IMO if we are “afraid” of something publicly, there are 3 reasons.
1) afraid of recourse. This is foolhardy to me, as it only feeds the trouble of oppression we already have. It allows the priesthood to continue to exist as a destroying club to be held over our heads, rather than a tool of love and building. No recourse made on a man on that pretense is of any worth anyway.
2) afraid of being wrong. All the more reason to speak up and find out!
3) The thing is sacred, and shouldn’t be discussed this openly. A personal issue no doubt, on an individual basis.
one last thing I thought of (we, actually I didn’t think of), just an observation mostly.
The statement attributed to the ending of this practice was made by George q. Cannon, which says this:
“We hear a good deal of talk about re-baptism, and the First Presidency and Twelve have felt that so much re-baptism ought to be stopped.” (Conf. report, Oct. 1897, p. 68)
That was the statement that brought an abrupt end to the practice and yet, I believe it was wrongly ended (meaning at the local level). It seems from George q. cannon’s statement that “so much re-baptism” is getting to something done in excess and not at all directed at an absolute end to the practice (though clearly that was the result of the statement). If they (First presidency + Quorum of the 12) wanted the practice to come to an abrupt stop, it would seem that taking out the “so much” would have achieved that end, but the “so much” clearly relates to something they felt was going on a bit too frequently or, perhaps, carelessly, but not something that should have been brought to annihilation. We know, from sad experience, that things get taken for granted the more access we have to it…and perhaps this happened with this beautiful ordinance.
As a result, a mere 4 generations later, this entire doctrine (and many, many others lost around the same time) is either all but forgotten, or purposefully pushed aside and left out of manuals, discourses, and all the like.
Dan, to your point on why we’re afraid…I think the main answer is #1. We have been conditioned to think of those acting in leadership positions within the priesthood as being our taskmasters and rulers, and they all too often find joy and satisfaction in that role of power. There are a “few” humble servants out there, but all too often those in positions of leadership feel it their duty and prerogative to smash down those who would undermine their influence and authority (especially as it comes to scripture and doctrine – heaven forbid our leaders be seen as not knowing or understanding the doctrine!). As a result, they are viewed by the masses as the purveyors of all things doctrine and anything outside of that convenient box is viewed as something to either be afraid of or avoided entirely.
Thanks for bringing this topic up…
Wanted to add one more thing…one of the quotes you shared can also be contrasted with that statement from George q. cannon. No matter what interpretation we take of his statement, we nevertheless read that “the First Presidency and Twelve have felt that so much re-baptism ought to be stopped”, with special emphasis on the word: felt.
Contrast that with the quote you shared by Brigham Young and his original yearnings to go down into the water for a remission of his sins:
“I know that in my traveling and preaching, many a time I have stopped by
beautiful streams of clear, pure water, and have said to myself, “How
delightful it would be to me to go into this, to be baptized for the
remission of my sins.” When I got home, Joseph told me it was my
privilege. At this time, came a revelation, that the Saints could be
baptized and re-baptized when they chose, and then that we could be
baptized for our dear friends.” (Brigham Young, J.D. 18:241)
In contrast to that statement from George q. cannon, we have Joseph apparently saying it was [our] privilege to do so, following which there “came a revelation”. So, the operative word here is: revelation.
So there we have it…the practice of re-baptism was coined as a “revelation” from Brigham Young (and perhaps Joseph Smith as well), while the discontinuance of the re-baptism was because the leadership “felt” that it should be curtailed. Interesting contrast…
another part of that quote that is intriguing was the choice of words “when they chose” And apparently this was part of a revelation which covered baptism for the dead? or did it mean to say that we could be baptized By our dear friends, when we chose?
Either way, the statement says by revelation that it is our privilege to be baptized when we chose.
to bad its the middle of November here at 7500′! no open water… Maybe the river is.
there are some great example of rebaptism in the book of mormon.
Below is a short writeup that I did following a study of the principle.
On the baptismal covenant and rebaptism:
I had a neat experience in church today. It included having a question on a point of assumed “doctrine” and getting an answer all in the same sacrament meeting.
A couple gave talks on the sacramental covenants. These covenants can be found in the scriptures in a handful of places including:
D&C 20: 77
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.
And verse 79
O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.
So in the sacrament we clearly do enter into a covenant. The covenant looks like this:
We covenant to:
- Witness that we are willing to take upon us the name of Jesus (thy Son).
- Always remember him (Jesus).
- Keep his commandments
God covenants to:
- Always have his spirit with us.
Today, during the talk on the sacrament it was commonly said that the speaker “was grateful to be willing to renew (their) baptismal covenants every week while taking the sacrament”. While listening to the talk I began to wonder what exactly it was that we covenanted to do at our baptism. I looked up the scripture in the D&C that dealt with baptism requirements and read it. It said:
D&C 20:37
And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.
In this scripture it says that the requirements for baptism are:
- Humble yourself before God
- Desire to be baptized
- Come forth with a broken heart and contrite spirit
- Witness before the church that they have truly repented of their sins
- Be willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ
- Have a determination to serve him (Jesus) to the end,
- Manifest by (your) works that you have received the spirit of Christ unto the remission of your sins.
The only part that is similar to the sacramental covenant is the part that says that the candidate for baptism “be willing to take upon them the name of Christ”. But even with that similarity it is abundantly clear that at baptism we do not enter into a default covenant. Baptism is the gateway to the kingdom of God, this teaching is abundantly clear by any basic study of the scriptures but just to name a few scriptures that say this:
3 Nephi 11:33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.
3 Nephi 11: 38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
2 Nephi 9: 23 And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
So, to clarify up to this point… The scriptures do say that we must be baptized to inherit the Kingdom of God but they do not say anything about us entering into a covenant at baptism. Now to be fair to those that believe this false doctrine I must make it clear that there are two scriptures (that I can find) in the scriptures that do have example of individuals entering into a covenant at baptism. These are found at:
Alma 7:15 Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth abeset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.
And:
Mosiah 18: 10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the bname of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?
Both of these scriptures seem to show examples of individuals entering into a covenant with the Lord when they are baptized. However, there is an interesting aspect of both of these situations, made especially clear in the verse in Alma. In Alma 7 the prophet Alma the younger is on a mission to fix the church. Alma 6:8 precedes the sermon in Alma 7 by saying that:
And Alma went and began to declare the word of God unto the church which was established in the valley of Gideon, according to the revelation of the truth of the word which had been spoken by his fathers, and according to the spirit of prophecy which was in him, according to the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who should come to redeem his people from their sins, and the holy order by which he was called. And thus it is written. Amen.
So, the verse in Alma 7 that talks about entering into a covenant at baptism was being given to members of the church, Alma was telling members of the church, who obviously had already been baptized previously, to be re-baptized!
This is also the case in Mosiah 18. The people that Alma the elder taught had most likely already been baptized, they just were not living the way that they should have been. While King Noah was a wicked man, most of us neglect to recognize that during his “reign” he was the “president” of the church, hence the “priests of King Noah”. When they (the righteous people that were converted by Alma the Elder) went to the Waters of Mormon they were forsaking the world that they had been living in and recommitting to following the covenants that they had made with the Lord. A part of this recommitment was rebaptism, and in this rebaptism the people covenanted to uphold covenants that we make every time we take the sacrament, they had probably been taking the sacrament in church previously but they were not living up to the covenants. (correction, probably not partaking of the sacrament at church because it was before Christ instituted the sacrament) Once they began to listen to Alma (a church heretic=)) they repented of their sins and signified that repentance with a rebaptism with accompanying covenants.
This is what I learned in sacrament meeting today, that we do not make a default covenant at our “baptism” (although we are free to make covenants at baptisms if it is what we personally want to do). Therefore, when we talk of renewing our baptismal covenants with the sacrament, it is incorrect. The sacrament is not a renewal of a baptismal covenant, it is its own covenant altogether.
BTW: Rebaptism was practiced extensively in the church in earlier days, it was not until the 1920’s (I think) that the president of the Church told the members that it was no longer necessary. Strange to tell me that something in the scriptures in “no longer necessary”.=) I guess it was never a “commandment” as far as I can tell, but it still should be used I think, perhaps I will be rebaptized at some point in the future.
One thing I noticed from those examples in Alma 7 and Mosiah 18, in relation to the “covenants” is that they both mention that the act of baptism (or in these cases, re-baptism), is a “witness” on behalf of the person getting re-baptized that they’re making the covenant. THe baptism itself isn’t the covenant, but a witness of that covenant.
I take it to mean this (and please correct me if/where i’m wrong): instead of placating yourself by professing to change and follow a new course in life (words/intentions only), in this instance you also do an act, a physical act which demonstrates in deed those words you’re intending to live by. With the act, the words are not empty (as so many of our words tend to be).
The covenant appears to be (a) keeping the commandments and (b) serving God…the witness of those covenants is the the walking down into the water and getting re-baptized.
Am I mistaken in this interpretation?
I think I would agree with that Tom.
I think you are dead on Tom. There is no doubt that a covenant is associated with baptism. but however, the act of baptism isn’t the act of making a covenant. The covenant is made when a person “turns around” or repents. He commits when doing so to take upon him the name of Christ. Than, he shows that he has done this by entering the waters of baptism. The lord in return Washes him clean by fire if the repentance was true. And when it is time, the Holy Ghost is also given to him to posses his body in a new birth.
I’ve felt much the same about this subject, and have done re-baptisms with a small group in a river, using Alma’s baptism of Helam as a model, including the covenant.