Elective rebaptism

[Guest saintish]

I was talking to an old friend who had been baptized in the last couple years. It turns out that the person who had baptized him was unworthy at the time (guilty of fornication, alcohol, and drug use). He asked me If he could be rebaptized, I told him the standard answer that the lord accepts the ordinance even if the person performing it was unworthy. That didn't satisfy him, he still feels like he was cheated somehow because the person who baptized him was unworthy.

I guess my question is what are your thoughts about this? early saints practiced rebaptism what would be the harm in allowing someone who is worthy to rebaptize someone who was baptized by an unworthy priesthood holder?

[Backroads]

I don't really see any harm in it at first thought; I mean, it makes the guy happy. But then again where do you draw the worthiness line?

[KrazyKay]

I think he should go talk to his bishop.

I can see where your friend is coming from, and if I was him, I would probably feel the same way. Personally I haven't heard of anyone being re-baptized for this reason.

[Guest saintish]

I don't really see any harm in it at first thought; I mean, it makes the guy happy. But then again where do you draw the worthiness line?

one way would be to ask: if the Bishop would of know what this guy had been doing, would he still have allowed him to baptize this person?

[Backroads]

one way would be to ask: if the Bishop would of know what this guy had been doing, would he still have allowed him to baptize this person?

I suppose this is quite a grey area and I see a couple of possibilities: The Bishop figured the guy was improving enough, or the individual seeking rebaptism is honestly confused about the dates of when this person was sinning.

There's also the very real possibility of the guy flat-out lied to the bishop.

EDIT:

I read that very wrong. But I think I still stand by much of my sentiment. If this individual was not speaking with the bishop, there's a lot going on that is out of your friend's hands.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Backroads

[Guest saintish]

from my understanding of the conversation it was clear that the fornication in any case had taken place before the baptism and hadn't been confessed at the time of baptism.

[Backroads]

from my understanding of the conversation it was clear that the fornication in any case had taken place before the baptism and hadn't been confessed at the time of baptism.

Which I think makes your friend pretty much innocent in this. I do believe that the ordinance is real and good despite the lack of worthiness (I believe that falls upon that individual's head) but again, I can see where your friend is coming from.

[Guest saintish]

I agree backroads at the same time should we allow / would it be ok for someone in this circumstance to be rebaptized?

[Madriglace]

No rebaptism is need the ordinace if done correctly is good ... your friend should not feel cheated ... the price was paid a long long time ago.

[Vort]

On a philosophical note, which of us is worthy by his own merit to perform ordinances in the place of the Lord? The Priesthood functions only because the Lord allows it among men. He has made it clear that a lawful ordinance done by an authorized man is valid, even if that authorized man is sinful and unworthy. So the baptism is as valid as if Christ himself had performed it.

That said, I have sympathy for someone in that position. Could the ordinance be redone? Yes, if the relevant authorities approved. Would it be? I don't know. The problem is that redoing the ordinance suggests that such ordinances are valid based on personal worthiness of the authority. This is false. None of us is perfect. When you find out that the next person to baptize you had a porn addiction, do you get rebaptized yet again? When you discover that that guy was billing hours he had not actually worked, do you get rebaptized? He cursed at his wife; rebaptism? Where does it end?

[NeuroTypical]

Madriglace nailed it. (no nail puns intended).

If we're going to have to re-do every ordinance performed by a sinner, that could cause some problems...

[Vort]

No rebaptism is need the ordinace if done correctly is good ... your friend should not feel cheated ... the price was paid a long long time ago.

It's easy to say "your friend should not feel cheated". Talk is cheap. The fact is that the friend does feel cheated. Saying "Well, quit feeling that way!" is probably of limited use. Better would be an explanation as to why he need not feel cheated.

[applepansy]

On a philosophical note, which of us is worthy by his own merit to perform ordinances in the place of the Lord? The Priesthood functions only because the Lord allows it among men. He has made it clear that a lawful ordinance done by an authorized man is valid, even if that authorized man is sinful and unworthy. So the baptism is as valid as if Christ himself had performed it.

I agree with what Vort said above.

Maybe a discussion about forgiveness is in order. Yes the man was unworthy. But...aren't we all?

Sometimes we have to let things go, forgive and move on.

The bishop is the person to go to for an answer. What his bishop will or won't do is all speculation, but there isn't a need to redo the baptism. If the bishop is well-versed in the gospel and church procedure, I doubt he would authorize a re-baptism unless the member threatened to leave the church over this one issue. If he does...Forgiveness is still the root problem.

[Backroads]

I agree backroads at the same time should we allow / would it be ok for someone in this circumstance to be rebaptized?

I suppose it would be okay, but I'm not sure if I would publically announce the "Hey, come be rebaptized!"

[Madriglace]

It's easy to say "your friend should not feel cheated". Talk is cheap. The fact is that the friend does feel cheated. Saying "Well, quit feeling that way!" is probably of limited use. Better would be an explanation as to why he need not feel cheated.

The explanation was there ... the price was paid by the only one ever to walk the earth who was fully free of sin ... the atonement is applied on person at a time ... instead of feeling cheated ... take the gift and run with it.

[bytebear]

Since the sacrament is a renewal of baptism, it doesn't make sense to go through the effort of baptism when going to church and partaking of bread and water is sufficient. Also, are you going to verify the worthiness of the priests and deacons who are administering that ordinance?

[Dove]

On a philosophical note, which of us is worthy by his own merit to perform ordinances in the place of the Lord? The Priesthood functions only because the Lord allows it among men. He has made it clear that a lawful ordinance done by an authorized man is valid, even if that authorized man is sinful and unworthy. So the baptism is as valid as if Christ himself had performed it.

That said, I have sympathy for someone in that position. Could the ordinance be redone? Yes, if the relevant authorities approved. Would it be? I don't know. The problem is that redoing the ordinance suggests that such ordinances are valid based on personal worthiness of the authority. This is false. None of us is perfect. When you find out that the next person to baptize you had a porn addiction, do you get rebaptized yet again? When you discover that that guy was billing hours he had not actually worked, do you get rebaptized? He cursed at his wife; rebaptism? Where does it end?

I don't fully agree with you, Vort. While yes, we all do sin, there are certain standards we must live by in order to be considered worthy to perform these ordinances. I'm thinking of D&C 89:3, concerning the Word of Wisdom; "Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints."

Yes, we all fall short; however, there are very clear, simple standards given by the church to live by in order to be able to hold the priesthood.....

I say this from the perspective of someone who smokes (breaks the WofW) and so am currently not allowed to partake of the sacrament, hold a calling, etc. I don't look at this as an imposition; but, as the price I pay for not keeping my covenants/breaking the commandments.....

I certainly have broken quite a few of the commandments given. I've always striven to be very honest with my bishop/priesthood leader in regards to this. No one should be baptizing another who is committing to keep the commandments they themselves are not willing/ready/able to keep. This is so hypocritical and unfair. Yes, I've heard that dishonesty runs rampant in our church. Still, allowing a person addicted to porn, or who is fornicating, or any other serious sin perform these ordinances leads me to ask, when will the line be drawn as to who can do this?

Do I believe this person should be allowed to be re-baptized? It's not mine to say authoritatively; but, imo, absolutely!

Edited June 23, 2011 by Dove

[Dravin]

Still, allowing a person addicted to porn, or who is fornicating, or any other serious sin perform these ordinances leads me to ask, when will the line be drawn as to who can do this?

Vort isn't saying that since we all sin Bishops should rubber stamp anyone to perform ordinances regardless of personal worthiness, he's saying the ordinances are valid despite the lack of personal worthiness. Where the line is for being worthy to, in good conscience and without heaping condemnation upon yourself, perform an ordinance is a very different question and I suspect Vort will agree with me when I say: It's a question for your Bishop.

[Guest saintish]

I dont see what wrong with drawing the line at if the bishop would have allowed it knowing the sin then it is ok, if not then rebaptism is ok but not nessisary.

[Backroads]

Since the sacrament is a renewal of baptism, it doesn't make sense to go through the effort of baptism when going to church and partaking of bread and water is sufficient. Also, are you going to verify the worthiness of the priests and deacons who are administering that ordinance?

This is a crucial thing to think about. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Guest saintish]

Since the sacrament is a renewal of baptism, it doesn't make sense to go through the effort of baptism when going to church and partaking of bread and water is sufficient. Also, are you going to verify the worthiness of the priests and deacons who are administering that ordinance?

Except that baptism is a saving ordinance, the sacrament is not. So a young priesthood holder might not be worth to bless the sacrament but chances are next week there will be one who is.

[pam]

If this were to become common practice..do we start having people claiming foul of their baptism so they can start over themselves for transgressions committed?

That becomes another issue that could snowball.

[Backroads]

I guess the question is not whether or not the individual can be rebaptized, but whether or not it is necessary.

[Guest saintish]

If this were to become common practice..do we start having people claiming foul of their baptism so they can start over themselves for transgressions committed?

That becomes another issue that could snowball.

Certianly the Lord would see through that. I doubt that it would ever become the standard. Rebaptism would likely become a very rare exception.

[estradling75]

Certianly the Lord would see through that. I doubt that it would ever become the standard. Rebaptism would likely become a very rare exception.

To what point... to repeat a very sacred saving ordinance just so that someone can feel better? Instead of teaching them correct principles, and encouraging them to develop the faith necessary to stand no matter how life and members of the church might fail to go as expected