Comments on: What Am I Missing Here?

By: jkguy

jkguy — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 01:36:38 +0000

I may be wrong, and I’m sure people will let me know if I am, but when the church is being established, it is not a requirement to be baptized to have the authority to direct the church, i.e. the priesthood. Rather, the priesthood (or authority) must be in place first. Joseph Smith had the priesthood restored to him prior to being baptized. He had the priesthood and baptized Oliver, then Oliver baptized Joseph. What about Alma? He received authority, then began baptizing, including himself.

Moroni was establishing the authoritative structure of the church first to ensure proper teachings, then baptizing to keep that commandment.

By: Steven H

Steven H — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:50:13 +0000

I believe it is referring to the priesthood holders actually baptizing new members. Verse one does talk about the worthiness of the priesthood holders (note where in the same sentence after talking about the elders, priests and teachers it continues to refer to “they”). It does say in verse 2 “they receive[d] any unto baptism.” In my mind, this means that the verse is talking about performing the baptisms not actually being baptized. However, I realize this is somewhat of a reach too because according to our current mode of thinking, teachers are not permitted to baptize in the church, only elders and priests. Perhaps the teachers, like the sacrament, assisted in some way in the baptism…

As for rebaptism, we are baptized in the church for more than one reason. One is the remission of sins and the other for outwardly showing our inward committment to the Lord. Rebaptism in the early days of the church was as a sign to the Lord that the Saints had recommitted themselves to the Lord. If you research comments made by Brigham Young about when the Saints entered the Salt Lake Valley, he said that was the reason they were all rebaptized, not for a remission of sin. I think it was due to pure numbers that the church backed off on rebaptism in the end.

By: Ian Cook

Ian Cook — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 20:12:45 +0000

meems,

I don’t think that they necisarily follwed the age standards that we do at that time, but that is an interesting thought.

By: meems

meems — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 10:16:00 +0000

I assumed it referred to the ages of the boys being baptized.

By: Ronan

Ronan — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:37:23 +0000

When did the modern Church do away with re-baptism. Late 19th century, no?

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 22:57:32 +0000

Why not re-baptism. It is obviously not a false principle. I don’t see any reason to impose our modern conceptions of one baptism per lifetime onto the scriptures.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 05:58:27 +0000

I think this might be better read in light of what Moroni was speaking of earlier in the book of Moroni. Chapter six might also be referring to the early days of the church soon after Christ had come as chapter 2 clearly stated.
In 3 Nephi 19, Nephi was baptized as well as the other chosen disciples. While they had already been baptized, they had not done so under the fulfillment of the law and under the church that Christ had set up. With that I would think Moroni was saying that all people needed to be baptized, even those who were thought to have been righteous.

By: Bret

Bret — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 02:09:19 +0000

Yeah, I’m with Ian. I’d chalk it up to the “mistakes of men” part of Moroni’s disclaimer in the title page. (and all throughout his book)

By: Ian M. Cook

Ian M. Cook — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 01:40:39 +0000

I guess that rebaptism can’t be ruled out, but I’m not sure that is what is being said.

I am wondering if this statment was made in haste and actually means that they were baptized and they were ordained teachers etc.