Temple Baptism For Health

[Doctrine 612]

so durring my reasearch on the angel Raphael, I came across some info that people up until 1922, could go to the temple and get baptized for health, but the practice ended, because to many people went there for themselves and not for the dead.

Has anyone heard of this before?

[JAHS]

The Indians of the late 1870s had a great faith in healing ceremonies and the missionaries used this to their advantage while proselyting to them. They would tell the Indians they converted that the ceremony of baptism itself had a healing function. 

 

Someone wrote up a study of this practice at the following website:

Baptism for Healing

By: J. Stapley - November 03, 2005

http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/baptism-healing/

[Michael Sanders]

Yes - pretty common in the early 1840's - see:

‘They Shall Be Made Whole’: A History of Baptism for Health

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664180

and

The Forms and the Power: The Development of Mormon Ritual Healing to 1847

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1664187

Mike

[JLHPROF]

I've discussed this here before:

It was VERY common in the early days of the Church.

 

In the early days of the church people were rebaptized many times.  It was done for health, for renewal of covenants, before entering a new covenant (like marriage or a United Order), after gathering to Utah, before leaving on a mission and for other reasons.

 

One of the very first things Brigham Young did after the settlers were established in the Salt Lake Valley was require every member of the Church to be rebaptized.  This was about 1847.  Then during the "reformation" in 1856 pretty much the entire population of the Church were baptized again.  Joseph baptized Emma twice in the Mississippi river one evening for her health.

 

In 1897 it was felt that this was being abused so the First Presidency called a general halt to rebaptisms.  But they never changed the idea that it could be done if necessary.  It just became something that wasn't done by the time of the Reed Smoot trials.

[theplains]

I've discussed this here before:

It was VERY common in the early days of the Church.

 

Is this recorded in any publicly available documents at lds.org or the GC talks?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

Is this recorded in any publicly available documents at lds.org or the GC talks?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Here's a start.  Plenty of other references too.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/07/line-upon-line?lang=eng

 

There were other occasions upon which people were sometimes rebaptized; for the sake of their health, for entry into the United Order, and even, in some cases, in preparation for marriage. In 1878 a circular letter from Joseph F. Smith of the Quorum of the Twelve gave instructions to bishops regarding those who should receive endowments and said, “No person, male or female, should be recommended for these ordinances, unless they have first renewed their covenants by baptism.”¹² So common were both rebaptism and reconfirmation that the printed forms for ward membership records, introduced in 1877, contained columns for officially recording them, and these forms were not replaced until 1900.

It became clear, however, that the practice of rebaptism could be abused. It could become all too convenient to regard it as an easy way to pay the consequences of sin. So it was that the leaders of the Church reconsidered that matter as time went on. In 1893 the First Presidency instructed stake presidents not to require Saints to be rebaptized before they received recommends to attend the temple dedication, for “the Lord will forgive sins if we forsake them.”

Finally, by 1897, the Brethren had decided to end the practice altogether. As explained by George Q. Cannon, first counselor in the First Presidency of the Church, “We hear a good deal of talk about rebaptism, and the First Presidency and the Twelve have felt that so much rebaptism ought to be stopped. Men, when they commit sin, think if they can only get the Bishop to re-baptize them, they are all right and their sins are condoned. It is a fallacy; it will lead to destruction. There is no such thing in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is repentance from sin that will save you, not re-baptism.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1897, p. 68.)

Edited November 27, 2014 by JLHPROF

[theplains]

Here's a start.  Plenty of other references too.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/07/line-upon-line?lang=eng

 

Thanks.

[Doctrine 612]

Here's a start.  Plenty of other references too.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/07/line-upon-line?lang=eng

Quick work everyone. I guess it is true, ask and you shall receive.