The Baptizer

[inquiringmind]

I still haven't been baptized, but someone asked me today if he could do it when I'm ready.

I said yes, but something's been troubling me.

As long as it's a priesthood holder, does it make any difference (in LDS theology) who does the baptizing?

I mean, is it your responsibility to make sure the right priesthood holder (a faithful priesthood holder) does the job?

What if an early latter day saint were baptized by David Whitmore?

Would he have had to be rebaptized after Whitmore was excommunicated?

I know this may seem a silly question (and I know Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Protestants don't view the faithfulness of the minister performing the sacrament as particularly important), but I never thought of it from an LDS perspective before, and I don't know how you view it.

How important is this?

Should I have thought about it before I said yes to this fellow today?

Edited March 18, 2012 by inquiringmind

[volgadon]

No, you would not have to be rebaptised if the person who baptised you became apostate. The elder that baptised my wife has since left the church, my wife is still a member and was only baptised the once.

Edited March 18, 2012 by volgadon

[inquiringmind]

No, you would not have to be rebaptised if the person who baptised you became apostate. The elder that baptised my wife has since left the church, my wife is still a member and was only baptised the once.

So I really don't have to worry about who does the baptizing?

[BCSpace]

As far as his potential future apostasy, no you don't have to worry. if they leave the Church, it won't affect your standing. Current faithfulness is a concern and typically the local bishop and the mission will step in if they don't view the baptizer as worthy. I wouldn't sweat it. I wouldn't seek for a perfect person. No one is perfect which is why we go to Church and repent constantly. A decent person who believes and is trying to live the gospel will do just fine.

[inquiringmind]

Current faithfulness is a concern and typically the local bishop and the mission will step in if they don't view the baptizer as worthy.

So if he's not currently worthy (and they don't catch it, and step in) all I do is get wet?

Edited March 19, 2012 by inquiringmind

[BCSpace]

Current faithfulness is a concern and typically the local bishop and the mission will step in if they don't view the baptizer as worthy.

So if he's not currently worthy (and they don't catch it, and step in) all I do is get wet?

Nope. It will still be valid. Those who hold the keys have authorized it. The only person who will suffer is the unworthy baptizer who will have to account for it in the Judgement and may of course still be found out and have to account for it to the Church in mortality.

[CV75]

So if he's not currently worthy (and they don't catch it, and step in) all I do is get wet?

A baptism is valid as long as the baptizer's priesthood is recognized by the Church. The restoerd priesthood is so recognized.

The unowrthines issue is more about the baptizer's salvation. He should be prevented from using it unworthily for his own sake, if it is known to his priesthood leader(s). The prevention helps him think through everything else he is doing in the other covenants he has made in the Lord's name. D&C 121:37 is about 121:38.

[inquiringmind]

Nope. It will still be valid. Those who hold the keys have authorized it. The only person who will suffer is the unworthy baptizer who will have to account for it in the Judgement and may of course still be found out and have to account for it to the Church in mortality.

Thank you.

[3DOP]

I still haven't been baptized, but someone asked me today if he could do it when I'm ready.

I said yes, but something's been troubling me.

As long as it's a priesthood holder, does it make any difference (in LDS theology) who does the baptizing?

I mean, is it your responsibility to make sure the right priesthood holder (a faithful priesthood holder) does the job?

What if an early latter day saint were baptized by David Whitmore?

Would he have had to be rebaptized after Whitmore was excommunicated?

I know this may seem a silly question (and I know Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Protestants don't view the faithfulness of the minister performing the sacrament as particularly important), but I never thought of it from an LDS perspective before, and I don't know how you view it.

How important is this?

Should I have thought about it before I said yes to this fellow today?

I don't want to distract from the question you are asking. No reply is necessary to what I say below. I just want to focus on the reason why Catholics are among those who "don't view the faithfulness of the minister of the sacrament as particularly important".

We are not aloof about the holiness of the minister. I am sure all of us would rather have a holy priest.

But our sacramental theology teaches that if we discover after receiving a sacrament that a valid minister of a sacrament was a villain or an apostate, that it is ultimately Christ who effects the grace of the sacrament anyway...even through a bad priest. It could be a source of continual uneasiness if souls had to depend on the holiness of a mere man, regardless of his supposed holiness, for their salvation. Catholic sacraments don't work that way. If a Catholic receives a sacrament from an unholy minister, we are promised that Christ will not say to the person who is baptized, makes his confession, or receives any other sacrament, that he is effected negatively at the day of judgment because a minister of one of the sacraments was sinful. Further, the Church doesn't want us worrying about the interior life of the minister. We are often reminded and consoled by the reminder that the true priest of the sacraments is Christ Himself, regardless of who might be the delegated priest on earth.

Edited March 19, 2012 by 3DOP

[BCSpace]

that it is ultimately Christ who effects the grace of the sacrament

That is a very good and necessary component imho. The grace of Christ overcomes everything if one is willing to take advantage of it.

[zerinus]

So I really don't have to worry about who does the baptizing?

President Harold B. Lee was fond of quoting the following verse in response to such concerns:

D&C 36:

2 And I will lay my hand upon you by the hand of my servant Sidney Rigdon, and you shall receive my Spirit, the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which shall teach you the peaceable things of the kingdom;

The sacrament is performed by the Lord, with the officiator acting as His agent. The unworthiness of the agent does not affect the validity of the sacrament. But the Church must approve the choice of the agent. The agent does not "take this honor unto himsself".

[volgadon]

So I really don't have to worry about who does the baptizing?

You really need not worry. There are some very good responses in this thread, too.

[Calm]

I'd chose someone whom you are comfortable with and have a decent relationship with so that his acting in this function for you will mean something to you and if you have a problem with water or maybe even if you don't, practice a bit so you know what to expect if you haven't had a chance to see a baptism being done.

Edited March 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Log]

Inquiringmind, I hope this might help. I know of someone who was baptized by a serial adulterer. Despite the manifest unworthiness of the baptizer (unknown to the baptizee at the time), God honored the ordinance.

You have nothing to worry about as long as the baptizer was duly ordained and appointed to perform the ordinance.

As long as you conform to this, you are doing your bit.

All those who ^ahumble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and ^bcontrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the ^cname of Jesus Christ, having a^ddetermination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their ^eworks that they have received of the ^fSpirit of Christ unto the ^gremission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Log

[KevinG]

The answers about authority above are very good... there are other considerations.

It is an honor to be asked to baptize someone. Consider this when you extend that offer to a friend or trusted priesthood holder.

When you are ready to receive the priesthood (asuming you are a male) the person who confirms you will be listed in your "priesthood lineage" or the record of who confirmed who back to early church leaders. Just as baptism their worthiness does not change your confirmation- but it is pretty nice to have a friend or family member perform the ordinance and have a record of this connection with them.

Congratulations by the way!

[LeSellers]

One thing alluded to, but not explicitly stated, is that, irrespective of who performs the ordinance, it is under the direction and by the authority, given from Jesus Christ, of Thomas S. Monson, His prophet and president of His Priesthood. Even if the one who baptizes you were a secret , unrepentant, vile sinner, the ordinance would be valid because he'd be acting under the authority of either the mission president or the bishop (both hold the local keys of the Aaronic Priesthood—the one responsible for baptisms, see Doc&Cov 13). The bishop is the one whose authority is on the line; in essence, the bishop baptizes you.

But, let's say the bishop, too, is a blackguard; in that case, the stake president, who holds the keys over the bishop, has the authority to baptize, and his keys make your baptism legitimate. In this case, it is the stake president who baptizes you.

In the unlikely event that all three, the ordinance officiator, the bishop and the president, were unworthy, the baptism is still effective because Thomas S. Monson holds keys that make it so, and I (among millions) can attest to the fact of his worthiness. President Monson, through his proxy, baptizes you

Priesthood keys are a subject that few, even among the Saints, understand well. Christ told Peter that he, Peter, would have the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. This was no mere symbol (although symbol it is): Peter and his successor, now President Monson, literally bind on earth and bind in heaven by virtue of those keys. Of course, neither can or could do it all by himself: others act in their behalf (and on that of Christ, only one step further up the path). But it is by those keys that all ordinances are performed on earth , and because of those keys that Christ recognizes work done in His name. Zerinus is right about this: that's what Doc&Cov 36:2 is saying. When you are baptized, whoever is standing in the font with you, Christ is the one Who will baptize you, just as He did in 1956 when it was my father who performed the ordinance for me.

Lehi

BTW, it should go without saying that the same thing is true of Confirmation and the bestowal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost; as well as of any other ordinance performed anywhere, at any time, by the power of the holy Priesthood of God. LS

[BCSpace]

is a blackguard;

lol

Haven't seen that term in a while. One might have to watch the old Disney Robin Hood cartoon to hear it pronounced correctly.

[LeSellers]

Haven't seen that term [blackguard] in a while. One might have to watch the old Disney Robin Hood cartoon to hear it pronounced correctly.

"Blackguard" is hoary, wrinkled, and has fallen into desuetude. Much like those of us who use it regularly.

Lehi

Edited March 19, 2012 by LeSellers

[mfbukowski]

I agree with all that's been said, and would like to include that if the baptism is done in a ward other than where the baptizer is known, he will need a recommend from his bishop - a temple recommend should also do the trick, but something in writing from his bishop would also help, so that both you and the other bishop who is permitting the ordinance knows it will be valid.

[cinepro]

So if he's not currently worthy (and they don't catch it, and step in) all I do is get wet?

If that were the case, there would no doubt be many "lines" of baptized people in the Church who aren't, in fact, baptized.

[rongo]

I agree with all that's been said, and would like to include that if the baptism is done in a ward other than where the baptizer is known, he will need a recommend from his bishop - a temple recommend should also do the trick, but something in writing from his bishop would also help, so that both you and the other bishop who is permitting the ordinance knows it will be valid.

Last May, we had a sister baptized in our ward. A friend of hers from a rough part of L.A. came out to baptize her, and he was extremely menacing and imposing (tattooes all over his face, neck, arms ----- clearly gang-affiliated. He was also a big man, and not the type you would want to run into in a dark alley). His bishop mailed me a letter with his Recommend to Perform an Ordinance because he didn't want anyone to give him any problems (or be scared). He had just been baptized a month prior, and he didn't "look the part."

It was very heart-warming. He and his wife (equally intimidating in appearance, with at least as many tattooes) were very gentle souls, when you talk to them. It was really a neat experience, especially for them to drive all the way out to baptize her and be there for her.

[mfbukowski]

Last May, we had a sister baptized in our ward. A friend of hers from a rough part of L.A. came out to baptize her, and he was extremely menacing and imposing (tattooes all over his face, neck, arms ----- clearly gang-affiliated. He was also a big man, and not the type you would want to run into in a dark alley). His bishop mailed me a letter with his Recommend to Perform an Ordinance because he didn't want anyone to give him any problems (or be scared). He had just been baptized a month prior, and he didn't "look the part."

It was very heart-warming. He and his wife (equally intimidating in appearance, with at least as many tattooes) were very gentle souls, when you talk to them. It was really a neat experience, especially for them to drive all the way out to baptize her and be there for her.

You'd be surprised- I am now on the High Council and am responsible to help out in a ward from which this couple very well might have come- the ward boundaries cut through a vast swath of South Central and is huge in its boundaries because we don't have many members in that area. Many of these folks have had hard lives but are the sweetest most compassionate and non-judgmental people I have met, because whatever your personal circumstance, they have probably been through it themselves. They know full well what it is to forgive and to need forgiveness because they have been on both sides of that page, and are among the best members I have met anywhere.

[Robert F. Smith]

You'd be surprised- I am now on the High Council and am responsible to help out in a ward from which this couple very well might have come- the ward boundaries cut through a vast swath of South Central and is huge in its boundaries because we don't have many members in that area. Many of these folks have had hard lives but are the sweetest most compassionate and non-judgmental people I have met, because whatever your personal circumstance, they have probably been through it themselves. They know full well what it is to forgive and to need forgiveness because they have been on both sides of that page, and are among the best members I have met anywhere.

Reminds me of the time I began working in South Central L.A. years ago (I never met a Mormon there). My African American supervisor took me out to the best soul food restaurant in the area. We sat down and when they brought out the food (excellent!!) he bowed his head in silent prayer and blessed his meal. I have always been impressed by men who are not ashamed to acknowledge the Lord in a public place, and I have never seen anyone ridiculed for it -- at least not in South Central.

[mfbukowski]

Reminds me of the time I began working in South Central L.A. years ago (I never met a Mormon there). My African American supervisor took me out to the best soul food restaurant in the area. We sat down and when they brought out the food (excellent!!) he bowed his head in silent prayer and blessed his meal. I have always been impressed by men who are not ashamed to acknowledge the Lord in a public place, and I have never seen anyone ridiculed for it -- at least not in South Central.

Our stake has an annual multi-cultural songfest in which we invite churches throughout the area (specifically not LDS)to send a choir or other singing group and it is a pretty amazing event. We hold it in the stake center, and the president gets up at the beginning and tells us stiff old Mormons that it's ok to applaud etc for this event and we have gospel groups that raise the roof, choirs from the Spanish Stake, Samoan groups of various kinds, Chinese performers, Korean Pentacostal singers, just about anything you can imagine.

It's really humbling to know how much diversity there is out there among good Christian people and what an huge job we have to spread the gospel.

I was driving with my wife once through a corner of Compton which is part of our ward while I was a bishop and saw a very rough looking tattooed kid with his pants practically around his knees, shaved head and tattooed head and neck, and I made some uncharitable comment to my wife. As she always does, she snapped me right back into reality when she said "Yes, he's rough-looking, and you are his Bishop"

Very humbling! She always knocks me off my high horse.

[Log]

deleted, didn't contribute, sorry.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log