Baptism - Doctrinal Evolution

[hope_for_things]

Avatar4321 and Scott Lloyd were challenging my assertion that virtually every Mormon doctrine has changed and evolved over time.  So a topic was picked for discussion and I'm opening this thread for us to discuss.  The topic is Baptism.  To represent the most recent official teachings about this doctrine, I'm going to use two sources.  First is the LDS.org site, and the second link is the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/baptism?lang=eng

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Baptism

It will take me a little time to look at some of the sources for doctrinal development, but an interesting essay that I just started reading (anyone can get a free account at JSTOR, just sign up) is this essay in the JMH by Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine L. Wright titled ""They Shall Be Made Whole": A History of Baptism for Health".  It starts by talking about the history of rebaptism in the church and then expands on the use of baptism for the purposes of healing an individual with health problems, both of these rituals are no longer performed today in the church.   

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23290830?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Well, lets get started, thanks

 

[JLHPROF]

Baptism has changed in the Church.
There used to be multiple uses for baptism.  Brigham Young was estimated as being baptized over 15 times.
Baptism used to be performed for a large variety of reasons.

[Button Gwinnett]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Avatar4321 and Scott Lloyd were challenging my assertion that virtually every Mormon doctrine has changed and evolved over time.  So a topic was picked for discussion and I'm opening this thread for us to discuss.  The topic is Baptism.  To represent the most recent official teachings about this doctrine, I'm going to use two sources.  First is the LDS.org site, and the second link is the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/baptism?lang=eng

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Baptism

It will take me a little time to look at some of the sources for doctrinal development, but an interesting essay that I just started reading (anyone can get a free account at JSTOR, just sign up) is this essay in the JMH by Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine L. Wright titled ""They Shall Be Made Whole": A History of Baptism for Health".  It starts by talking about the history of rebaptism in the church and then expands on the use of baptism for the purposes of healing an individual with health problems, both of these rituals are no longer performed today in the church.   

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23290830?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Well, lets get started, thanks

 

Quote

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

Seems doctrinal evolution is baked into the belief system.

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Seems doctrinal evolution is baked into the belief system.

Which brings up all kinds of other questions about eternal truths, eternal ordinances, and eternal laws.
Which elements are temporal and therefore changeable?  And which are eternal and unchanging?

Given how many changes have been made to the beliefs and practices of Mormonism over the decades finding eternal truths can be a challenge.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Avatar4321 and Scott Lloyd were challenging my assertion that virtually every Mormon doctrine has changed and evolved over time.  So a topic was picked for discussion and I'm opening this thread for us to discuss.  The topic is Baptism.  To represent the most recent official teachings about this doctrine, I'm going to use two sources.  First is the LDS.org site, and the second link is the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/baptism?lang=eng

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Baptism

It will take me a little time to look at some of the sources for doctrinal development, but an interesting essay that I just started reading (anyone can get a free account at JSTOR, just sign up) is this essay in the JMH by Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine L. Wright titled ""They Shall Be Made Whole": A History of Baptism for Health".  It starts by talking about the history of rebaptism in the church and then expands on the use of baptism for the purposes of healing an individual with health problems, both of these rituals are no longer performed today in the church.   

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23290830?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Well, lets get started, thanks

 

In the true Church, there's always going to be a certain amount constructive change because the things of God are revealed "line upon line, precept upon precept," so there's nothing strange about the enlarged perspectives naturally come with continuous revelation.

But  I'm afraid in your chosen topic you're attempting to conflate two different things. One is going to be hard-pressed finding any evolution at all in the ordinance of baptism by emmersion for the remission of sins, the lone exception being the introduction of baptism for the dead which was a preexisting New Testament practice that was restored in our day. On the other hand, the randomly practiced past acts of washings or baptisms for healing comstitute a separate and distinct practice from baptism by emmersion for the remission of sins (and entry into the kingdom of God). But if one stops to think about it, the practice of washing or baptizing for health did not come to an effective end because the practice was simply supplanted by the official ordinance of anointing with consecrated oil (a ritual washing of the ailing individual) followed by an authoritative sealing of the anointing and a pronounced priesthood blessing of healing, both steps of the ordinance effectively negating the need for continued washings and baptizings for health.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In the true Church, there's always going to be a certain amount constructive change because the things of God are revealed "line upon line, precept upon precept," so there's nothing strange about the enlarged perspectives naturally come with continuous revelation.

But  I'm afraid in your chosen topic you're attempting to conflate two different things. One is going to be hard-pressed finding any evolution at all in the ordinance of baptism by emmersion for the remission of sins, the lone exception being the introduction of baptism for the dead which was a preexisting New Testament practice that was restored in our day. On the other hand, the randomly practiced past acts of washings or baptisms for healing comstitute a separate and distinct practice from baptism by emmersion for the remission of sins (and entry into the kingdom of God). But if one stops to think about it, the practice of washing or baptizing for health did not come to an effective end because the practice was simply supplanted by the official ordinance of anointing with consecrated oil (a ritual washing of the ailing individual) followed by an authoritative sealing of the anointing and a pronounced priesthood blessing of healing, both steps of the ordinance effectively negating the need for continued washings and baptizings for health.

 But the principle of REbaptism for the remission of sins, for consecration, prior to entering new covenants, etc were all done away with.

I think the removal of our ability to be rebaptized for the remission of sins is a change to the practice of baptism for the remission of sins.  They are the same ordinance after all.

[Button Gwinnett]

40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which brings up all kinds of other questions about eternal truths, eternal ordinances, and eternal laws.
Which elements are temporal and therefore changeable?  And which are eternal and unchanging?

Given how many changes have been made to the beliefs and practices of Mormonism over the decades finding eternal truths can be a challenge.

I agree

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Button Gwinnett said:

Seems doctrinal evolution is baked into the belief system.

Yes, this is true, yet I'm met with resistance for articulating such a belief.  I think for some they believe in this in theory but not in practice.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Avatar4321 and Scott Lloyd were challenging my assertion that virtually every Mormon doctrine has changed and evolved over time.  So a topic was picked for discussion and I'm opening this thread for us to discuss.  The topic is Baptism.  To represent the most recent official teachings about this doctrine, I'm going to use two sources.  First is the LDS.org site, and the second link is the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/baptism?lang=eng

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Baptism

It will take me a little time to look at some of the sources for doctrinal development, but an interesting essay that I just started reading (anyone can get a free account at JSTOR, just sign up) is this essay in the JMH by Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine L. Wright titled ""They Shall Be Made Whole": A History of Baptism for Health".  It starts by talking about the history of rebaptism in the church and then expands on the use of baptism for the purposes of healing an individual with health problems, both of these rituals are no longer performed today in the church.   

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23290830?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Well, lets get started, thanks

 

Assuming you are using 1830 as a starting point, some things haven't changed about it such as the elements of proper authority, water and immersion; the remission of sins and the requisite ordinance for the baptism of fire have also been a constant theme. I'm thinking there might be some evolution in the liberality of its application, followed by refinement and return to basics, rather than in the actual doctrine of baptism.

Edited September 22, 2017 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

In the true Church, there's always going to be a certain amount constructive change because the things of God are revealed "line upon line, precept upon precept," so there's nothing strange about the enlarged perspectives naturally come with continuous revelation.

But  I'm afraid in your chosen topic you're attempting to conflate two different things. One is going to be hard-pressed finding any evolution at all in the ordinance of baptism by emmersion for the remission of sins, the lone exception being the introduction of baptism for the dead which was a preexisting New Testament practice that was restored in our day. On the other hand, the randomly practiced past acts of washings or baptisms for healing comstitute a separate and distinct practice from baptism by emmersion for the remission of sins (and entry into the kingdom of God). But if one stops to think about it, the practice of washing or baptizing for health did not come to an effective end because the practice was simply supplanted by the official ordinance of anointing with consecrated oil (a ritual washing of the ailing individual) followed by an authoritative sealing of the anointing and a pronounced priesthood blessing of healing, both steps of the ordinance effectively negating the need for continued washings and baptizings for health.

What about rebaptisms for the remission of sins for large groups of people that weren't excommunicated.  I'm reading about this in Nauvoo and later in the Utah reformation of 1856-57.  

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=byusq

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23286149?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 But the principle of REbaptism for the remission of sins, for consecration, prior to entering new covenants, etc were all done away with.

I think the removal of our ability to be rebaptized for the remission of sins is a change to the practice of baptism for the remission of sins.  They are the same ordinance after all.

The need to be rebaptised was done away when it was fully realized the Sacrament of thr Lord's Supper accomplishes the very same thing without having to go to rivers or fill baptismal fonts. It's not like with the elimination of rebaptism that there was no longer an official Church ordinance providing for the remission of sins and the renewal of covenants for those who are already members.. With further light and knowledge it no doubt became clear to the leaders that the rebaptism of those who were already members was redundant and not needed. The important thing to note here is that though the practices of baptism for healing and rebaptism for the remission of sins are no longer being practiced, the important roles they pplayed in the lives of the saints are still being filled by official ordinances that provide the same benefits. Practices may have evolved but the same needs these former practices provided are still being filled by official and standardized priesthood ordinances.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Avatar4321]

Baptism 

Still done for the remission of sins

Done to join the Church

Done by full immersion

Represents the death burial and resurrection of Christ

Precedes confirmation and receiving the Holy Ghost

Done with the same prayer as originally revealed

Done with the same authority

Authority is still required

It is still the first gate we enter into in our walk with Christ

Still required for eternal salvation and exaltation

Requires witnesses

I could go on. Your claim was that the doctrines have changed so much a member then wouldn't recognize this as the same Church now. Yet all of these things are identical as has always been done since the beginning of the Restoration. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would see no substantial difference with the ordinance, it's purpose or how it's done.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Avatar4321

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Avatar4321 and Scott Lloyd were challenging my assertion that virtually every Mormon doctrine has changed and evolved over time.  So a topic was picked for discussion and I'm opening this thread for us to discuss.  The topic is Baptism.  To represent the most recent official teachings about this doctrine, I'm going to use two sources.  First is the LDS.org site, and the second link is the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.  

https://www.lds.org/topics/baptism?lang=eng

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Baptism

It will take me a little time to look at some of the sources for doctrinal development, but an interesting essay that I just started reading (anyone can get a free account at JSTOR, just sign up) is this essay in the JMH by Jonathan A. Stapley and Kristine L. Wright titled ""They Shall Be Made Whole": A History of Baptism for Health".  It starts by talking about the history of rebaptism in the church and then expands on the use of baptism for the purposes of healing an individual with health problems, both of these rituals are no longer performed today in the church.   

http://www.jstor.org/stable/23290830?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Well, lets get started, thanks

LIke polygamy, and some other practices of early Mormonism, it may be less about development or evolution and more about use and disuse of some legitimate practices -- which could be reimplemented today.  Baptisms are ritual immersions in water, and can presumably be done for a variety of reasons.

Which reminds me of the longtime Jewish practice of ritual washing, which preceded the NT period, and which remain in effect.  One Jewish practice is ritual immersion for conversion to Judaism, while the other is immersion for ritual purity in which all Jews participate.  Both take place in a formal mikveh.

Edited September 22, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Avatar4321 and Scott Lloyd were challenging my assertion that virtually every Mormon doctrine has changed and evolved over time.  So a topic was picked for discussion and I'm opening this thread for us to discuss.  The topic is Baptism. [...]

Well, lets get started, thanks

 

Yeah baptism in the 19th century Utah period is particularly interesting as it parallels much closer the Jewish mikvah rather than my perceptions of Protestant baptism. I don't know if anyone has done comparisons with other movements in the US. I suspect it was more widespread than just Mormons. However I found it fascinating when I first learned about it. 

The other thing I find interesting is how the line between anointing and washing blurs both in the ANE but even in early America. When you stop and think about the semiotics it makes a lot of sense why the meanings would shift and flow like that. Still I find it pretty fascinating.

That said, despite that semiotic drift as different associations ebb and flow, the key meanings have remained fairly stable over time. (For obvious reasons given the fixed texts of the NT, D&C, and BoM)

[PeterPear]

The Church at one time didn't have Mondays set aside for Family Home Evening. Awful!

My Grandfather took my then 20-year old Father to receive a blessing from their Patriarch before my Father entered the Army and was shipped overseas to Europe to fight in WWII. How awful!

The Church used to broadcast the audio of the Priesthood Session of General Conference to Church buildings over telephone lines. How awful!

😑

[Calm]

"My Grandfather took my then 20-year old Father to receive a blessing from their Patriarch before my Father entered the Army and was shipped overseas to Europe to fight in WWII. How awful!"

What is the change?

[Maidservant]

Love is the eternal law.  Everything else will fail.

[Gray]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What about rebaptisms for the remission of sins for large groups of people that weren't excommunicated.  I'm reading about this in Nauvoo and later in the Utah reformation of 1856-57.  

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=byusq

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23286149?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

As I understand it, the RLDS church took this as evidence that they were the original movement and the LDS church was the breakoff.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Which brings up all kinds of other questions about eternal truths, eternal ordinances, and eternal laws.
Which elements are temporal and therefore changeable?  And which are eternal and unchanging?

Given how many changes have been made to the beliefs and practices of Mormonism over the decades finding eternal truths can be a challenge.

I think the eternal truths are the one boiled down to the most basic principles. God exists. Good is good. God loves us. The rest are details.

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Done with the same authority

Authority is still required

I'd like to talk about the authority piece a little more.  As I understand the development of the priesthood doctrine within early Mormonism, priesthood authority did not come first, but rather the ordinance of baptism came before the priesthood authority theology.  This is evidenced in the earliest accounts and in the baptismal prayer as well where there are no references to priesthood, and in the BoM and early revelations.  This shows an evolution of the concept of authority and what is required for baptism specifically.  Thoughts?  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

LIke polygamy, and some other practices of early Mormonism, it may be less about development or evolution and more about use and disuse of some legitimate practices -- which could be reimplemented today.  Baptisms are ritual immersions in water, and can presumably be done for a variety of reasons.

Which reminds me of the longtime Jewish practice of ritual washing, which preceded the NT period, and which remain in effect.  One Jewish practice is ritual immersion for conversion to Judaism, which the other is immersion for ritual purity in which all Jews participate.  Both take place in a formal mikveh.

I do wonder how to distinguish between development/evolution vs. use and disuse as that seems to be an unclear differentiation.  

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, Gray said:

As I understand it, the RLDS church took this as evidence that they were the original movement and the LDS church was the breakoff.

Really, thats interesting.  Was this specific to the Utah reformation rebaptisms, and were they claiming that because Brigham Young was having everyone be rebaptised that this was proof that the RLDS church was more legitimate? 

When would this argument have come forth, I'm no expert on the timeline for the RLDS church, but according to the wikipedia article they were organized in 1860, so I'm just wondering if this argument would have come up later when they started sending missionaries to Utah?  

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I do wonder how to distinguish between development/evolution vs. use and disuse as that seems to be an unclear differentiation.  

That's a difficult distinction to make. I don't understand the insistence that nothing important has changed. Maybe people think that acknowledging change means that earlier church leaders got something wrong. Unless we believe in functional infallibility, that shouldn't be an issue at all. 

[JLHPROF]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think the eternal truths are the one boiled down to the most basic principles. God exists. Good is good. God loves us. The rest are details.

As you might imagine, I don't agree.
 

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That's a difficult distinction to make. I don't understand the insistence that nothing important has changed. Maybe people think that acknowledging change means that earlier church leaders got something wrong. Unless we believe in functional infallibility, that shouldn't be an issue at all. 

The way I see it, we're always getting things wrong, to err is human.   I do think you're right that some people probably have a hard time accepting the idea that a church leader got a doctrine wrong, but that comes from this concept that things don't change and never will which I find unrealistic.