Rebaptism, Restitution or Ratification of Former Baptism and Church-Sanctioned Authority?

[Navidad]

Good afternoon all. I have not posted in quite a long time. I am deeply immersed in my thesis. As part of that I am writing about the Third Convention situation here in Mexico. Many of you may know of F. LaMond Tullis, a now ninety-something LDS historian who focused a lot on Mormons in Mexico. I had the privilege of meeting him when he attended a talk I gave some years ago at an MHA meeting.

This morning I was reading a chapter (article) he wrote on the Third Convention in the mid-1930s into the 1940s in Mexico. Two things grabbed my attention and I seek your collective input and thought about them. Thanks in advance. . . . . . . First, he talks about the 800 Mexican folks who left the church in 1936-1937. By 1946 they were a strong Mormon (non-LDS) group that had grown to 1200. There was also a new LDS Mexican Mission president and a new church president, both of who wanted to bring the Third Convention folks back into the fold. Tullis indicates that the new mission president was sensitive to Mexican culture and understood the importance of dignidad - or dignity to the Mexican. I think it is important to all humanity, but that is a discussion for another time.

Pierce (the new president) wanted to figure out a way to bring the folks back and preserve their dignity related to the time they were gone. He clearly thought that was important to whether or not they would rejoin the LDS church en mass. The subject came up of the need for rebaptism of those who had been baptized during the time the Third Convention was separate from the LDS Church. I quote from Tullis:  "The church made another face-saving move in dealing with convention members who had been baptized without Mormon church-sanctioned authority. They were not (emphasis mine) told that they had to be rebaptized, which would ordinarily have been the case, but rather that a restitution or ratification of their former baptisms would have to be made." Rebaptism, restitution, ratification -- the effect was the same: members were rebaptized by those holding the proper Mormon priesthood authority. but the terminology preserved dignidad, as did the fact that Pierce himself performed most of the rebaptisms."  p. 157 - Mormons in Mexico.

Several things struck me. Tullis, a careful writer and faithful member of the church, used the term "without Mormon church-sanctioned authority." Reflecting on my own experience over the past six years, it seems to me I could have accepted being rebaptized to join the church if anyone had said to me that my previous baptism was done "without Mormon church-sanctioned authority." No problem there - I would have understood that. The problem, both my wife and I have had is that what folks said to us what that our baptisms were without "God-sanctioned authority." Therefore a rebaptism constituted an affirmation that our previous baptisms (mine done by my father by immersion) was not God-sanctioned. I could never agree with or to that. In that sense it takes away the dignidad of my experience and what my baptism means to me to this day. So, the distinction between "God-sanctioned" and "Mormon Church-sanctioned authority is huge - a deal killer for my dignity as a life-long Christian and follower of the Savior.

The second thing is the idea of restitution or ratification of former baptisms. If someone had said that me, I also think I could have accepted that, especially the idea of "ratification." Of course, those words were not used with us. Our baptisms were invalid and of no spiritual-effect and we needed to have an LDS priesthood holder do it the right way this time - the way that is God-sanctioned, not the Mormon church-sanctioned way. The church also reduced the previous excommunication of the Third Convention leaders to "dissfellowshipping" to also make it easier for them to return. That one doesn't interest me quite so much.

My questions? Did Tullis miss-write when he used the term "Mormon church-sanctioned authority" or did he write, simply assuming that the concept of "Mormon church-sanctioned authority" and "God- sanctioned authority are interchangeable. They sure aren't for me. Hence, that phrase really stood out for me.

Second, is it acceptable in the church if the then-prophet assents to use the term restitution or ratification in place of rebaptism, especially to safeguard the dignity of the Christian who is considering "converting" to the LDS church? These may not be big questions to you all, but to someone like me and my wife, they have huge meaning. I also understand that when the situation is reversed and some don't accept the LDS baptism as God-sanctioned, that might not preserve your dignity and life experience either.

I hate to ask it this way. "did the leaders of the church here in 1946 water down (pun intended) the true meaning of LDS baptism in order to facilitate the coming back into the fold of the 1200 members of the Third Convention while preserving their dignity? If so, was that a wrong thing to do? George Albert Smith was here and in the meetings when all this was discussed with members of both churches present. What do  you all think? Nothing but the facts will go into my thesis, but I find these two issues quite interesting. Perhaps if someone had said to me, we want to "ratify your former baptism because it was not Mormon church-sanctioned" things might have ended up very different for us from our sad situation now. Thanks for your time and thoughts.

 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Navidad

[Calm]

I think God may very well sanction baptisms of other faiths because such may be done as part of their discipleship, but I would also say that other baptisms are also not God sanctioned for the particular purpose LDS see our ritual of baptism as fulfilling and therefore one needing a certain approved form and to be performed by one given priesthood authority of a certain type/lineage (one that ultimately ties back into John the Baptist through Joseph Smith) and whose authority is still recognized by the institutional Church.
 

So I don’t have a problem with using “Mormon church-sanctioned authority” if it is recognized that we believe God revealed that authority and is the one who ultimately instructed us to require such for the stated purpose and therefore a previous baptism is insufficient because God deemed it insufficient for one of his purposes, even if it likely (in my view) has meaningful purpose in other ways. 
 

Since those of the Third Convention likely understood the purpose of baptism to be the same as the Church, I can see why a “ratification” might be a useful term.  Restitution depends on what it is intended to mean. If any of this implies for the person that the former baptisms would have been sufficient for all purposes if they had not joined the LDS church eternally speaking, then I think that is problematic. There is a reason why we intend to proxy baptize all those who were baptized as Christians before and it is not simply because it was done by nonmembers of the LDS Church. 

Edited August 5, 2023 by Calm

[rpn]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

My questions? Did Tullis miss-write when he used the term "Mormon church-sanctioned authority" or did he write, simply assuming that the concept of "Mormon church-sanctioned authority" and "God- sanctioned authority are interchangeable. They sure aren't for me. Hence, that phrase really stood out for me.

We know that the early saints got rebaptized more than once into the late 1800's.    And we know that today, when excommunicated saints or those with membership withdrawn are rebaptized, their original ordinance dates are the ones on their church records.    Don't see any meaningful difference in those things, and the circumstances you cite.  

[webbles]

I think a possible factor is that members of the Third Convention were non-LDS mormons.  So they already had very similar beliefs in how things worked with the priesthood and how baptism needed to be performed.  So, this terminology was specifically for them and their situation.

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good afternoon all. I have not posted in quite a long time. I am deeply immersed in my thesis. As part of that I am writing about the Third Convention situation here in Mexico. Many of you may know of F. LaMond Tullis, a now ninety-something LDS historian who focused a lot on Mormons in Mexico. I had the privilege of meeting him when he attended a talk I gave some years ago at an MHA meeting.

This morning I was reading a chapter (article) he wrote on the Third Convention in the mid-1930s into the 1940s in Mexico. Two things grabbed my attention and I seek your collective input and thought about them. Thanks in advance. . . . . . . First, he talks about the 800 Mexican folks who left the church in 1936-1937. By 1946 they were a strong Mormon (non-LDS) group that had grown to 1200. There was also a new LDS Mexican Mission president and a new church president, both of who wanted to bring the Third Convention folks back into the fold. Tullis indicates that the new mission president was sensitive to Mexican culture and understood the importance of dignidad - or dignity to the Mexican. I think it is important to all humanity, but that is a discussion for another time.

Pierce (the new president) wanted to figure out a way to bring the folks back and preserve their dignity related to the time they were gone. He clearly thought that was important to whether or not they would rejoin the LDS church en mass. The subject came up of the need for rebaptism of those who had been baptized during the time the Third Convention was separate from the LDS Church. I quote from Tullis:  "The church made another face-saving move in dealing with convention members who had been baptized without Mormon church-sanctioned authority. They were not (emphasis mine) told that they had to be rebaptized, which would ordinarily have been the case, but rather that a restitution or ratification of their former baptisms would have to be made." Rebaptism, restitution, ratification -- the effect was the same: members were rebaptized by those holding the proper Mormon priesthood authority. but the terminology preserved dignidad, as did the fact that Pierce himself performed most of the rebaptisms."  p. 157 - Mormons in Mexico.

Several things struck me. Tullis, a careful writer and faithful member of the church, used the term "without Mormon church-sanctioned authority." Reflecting on my own experience over the past six years, it seems to me I could have accepted being rebaptized to join the church if anyone had said to me that my previous baptism was done "without Mormon church-sanctioned authority." No problem there - I would have understood that. The problem, both my wife and I have had is that what folks said to us what that our baptisms were without "God-sanctioned authority." Therefore a rebaptism constituted an affirmation that our previous baptisms (mine done by my father by immersion) was not God-sanctioned. I could never agree with or to that. In that sense it takes away the dignidad of my experience and what my baptism means to me to this day. So, the distinction between "God-sanctioned" and "Mormon Church-sanctioned authority is huge - a deal killer for my dignity as a life-long Christian and follower of the Savior.

The second thing is the idea of restitution or ratification of former baptisms. If someone had said that me, I also think I could have accepted that, especially the idea of "ratification." Of course, those words were not used with us. Our baptisms were invalid and of no spiritual-effect and we needed to have an LDS priesthood holder do it the right way this time - the way that is God-sanctioned, not the Mormon church-sanctioned way. The church also reduced the previous excommunication of the Third Convention leaders to "dissfellowshipping" to also make it easier for them to return. That one doesn't interest me quite so much.

My questions? Did Tullis miss-write when he used the term "Mormon church-sanctioned authority" or did he write, simply assuming that the concept of "Mormon church-sanctioned authority" and "God- sanctioned authority are interchangeable. They sure aren't for me. Hence, that phrase really stood out for me.

Second, is it acceptable in the church if the then-prophet assents to use the term restitution or ratification in place of rebaptism, especially to safeguard the dignity of the Christian who is considering "converting" to the LDS church? These may not be big questions to you all, but to someone like me and my wife, they have huge meaning. I also understand that when the situation is reversed and some don't accept the LDS baptism as God-sanctioned, that might not preserve your dignity and life experience either.

I hate to ask it this way. "did the leaders of the church here in 1946 water down (pun intended) the true meaning of LDS baptism in order to facilitate the coming back into the fold of the 1200 members of the Third Convention while preserving their dignity? If so, was that a wrong thing to do? George Albert Smith was here and in the meetings when all this was discussed with members of both churches present. What do  you all think? Nothing but the facts will go into my thesis, but I find these two issues quite interesting. Perhaps if someone had said to me, we want to "ratify your former baptism because it was not Mormon church-sanctioned" things might have ended up very different for us from our sad situation now. Thanks for your time and thoughts.

 

Sure.

To me, it's just semantics.  We need to be free to interpret any and all church characterisms by our own testimonies.

It's all just people talking about what is "actually" unknowable in my opinion.

Human construction of word descriptions.  Just like Rorty says in my siggy below.

Incidentally I just read the church explanation of the "Third Convention"

Edited August 6, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, webbles said:

I think a possible factor is that members of the Third Convention were non-LDS mormons.  So they already had very similar beliefs in how things worked with the priesthood and how baptism needed to be performed.  So, this terminology was specifically for them and their situation.

There were 800 full members of the LDS church who left in 1936. Those who left were not excommunicated, but seven of their leaders were. During the ten years that the group who left existed as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Third Convention - the name they adopted, that church grew. Conversions of mestizo Mexicans to the LDS church fell off quite a bit during the same ten years. Neither the leaders who had been excommunicated and then had their excommunication changed to dissfellowshipping  had to be baptized again when they rejoined the church. The question apparently was about those who had joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Third Convention in the ten year interim. Their leaders were all recognized leaders from the LDS church in Mexico. The dating of who was baptized when became important. Many of the leaders who took the folks out of the church, were again in leadership when they came back in. Perhaps if the church had a few missiologists onboard in 1936, the whole episode could have been avoided. The church counted on J. Rueben Clark a lot since he had just been US ambassador to Mexico and was now in the presidency. Reading what he wrote, it appears he didn't give the leaders in the US the best counsel about the Mexican's issues and intent. The then current president of the Mexican mission didn't handle it very well either. The writings of Arwell Pierce confirm his thoughts about that.

Of course in the 1930s mission work was still very colonial and patriarchal, regardless of church sponsoring that work. There were no missiologists in any church at that time. I commend Arwell Pierce and George Albert Smith for the flexibility they used in the language they used to facilitate the return of this large group of folks to the LDS church.

I also appreciate the way Calm explains it as well. As I understand her, she indicates that the LDS church has the only authority to administer baptism within the framework of the understanding of baptism that the LDS church has. That makes perfect sense to me. That is very different than insisting that the LDS church has the only baptism that is pleasing to God. Perhaps suggesting as Spencer Kimball did, that anyone outside of the church who administers baptism is committing blasphemy is a bridge too far. I honor what the church leaders did here in 1946 to win back 800 souls and accept 400 new souls into the church.  That seems to me to be a lesson in missiology and the preservation of dignity.

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Incidentally I just read the church explanation of the "Third Convention"

I would suggest that the one page on the church website that discusses the The Third Convention could use some updating. It does not reflect current scholarship on what happened, either when or why the folks left or when or how they returned. Typical of many things here, events like The Third Convention are talked about like they happened yesterday. Lots of people's grandparents were involved in it. I do however like the photo of George Albert Smith speaking to the gathering. Take care! I had a feeling you would weigh in on the variance of word meanings on this issue! Take care!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I would suggest that the one page on the church website that discusses the The Third Convention could use some updating. It does not reflect current scholarship on what happened, either when or why the folks left or when or how they returned. Typical of many things here, events like The Third Convention are talked about like they happened yesterday. Lots of people's grandparents were involved in it. I do however like the photo of George Albert Smith speaking to the gathering. Take care! I had a feeling you would weigh in on the variance of word meanings on this issue! Take care!

Well as one might guess, "his-story" often conflicts with "my story", so I tend to disregard the whole hearsay bundle as a source of "what really happened", since we are still philosophically and culturally struggling with overcoming the correspondence theory of alleged "truth".

At least our judicial system ignores hearsay " truth", and we should as well.

[webbles]

Here's an online source that is written by the same person and has a lot of the same details (including the paragraph quoted by Navidad) https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol37/iss1/7/

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

I hate to ask it this way. "did the leaders of the church here in 1946 water down (pun intended) the true meaning of LDS baptism in order to facilitate the coming back into the fold of the 1200 members of the Third Convention while preserving their dignity? If so, was that a wrong thing to do? George Albert Smith was here and in the meetings when all this was discussed with members of both churches present. What do  you all think? Nothing but the facts will go into my thesis, but I find these two issues quite interesting.

After reading that online version for more details (let me know if there is something in the book or online article that is drastically different), I don't belive it is correct to say the church "watered down" the true meaning of baptism.

The Third Convention was founded by saints who didn't leave because of doctrinal issues. They left because of administration issues (they wanted more local leadership).  They didn't change any doctrines.  In fact, they translated church materials from English to Spanish after they left.

The leaders were excommunicated but that can be reviewed by the First Presidency and changed.  I believe that has been possible since the beginning of the church so it wasn't a new thing for the Third Conventionist.  Since President George Albert Smith didn't see them as apostate and they hadn't changed any doctrine or practices, changing their excommunication to disfellowsipment makes sense.  Being disfellowed means they are members who have just lost some privileges (such as access to the temple or using their priesthood).  So all members who had joined the church before the schism didn't need anything special for them.

The saints who had been baptized after the schism did have a problem.  They had been baptized with invalid priesthood authority and must be rebaptized with valid authority.  But, that is the only problem with their baptism.  They had made the same covenants that all other saints did and understood baptism in the same way.  It was just that they needed valid priesthood authority.  So it would make sense to say it is a renewal of their previous baptism.  The only thing that changed was the priesthood authority.  Also, the church had a history of rebaptisms that were for rendering of covenants. It was common in the 1800s.  I expect President Pierce knew of those practices and saw the similarity.

20 hours ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps if someone had said to me, we want to "ratify your former baptism because it was not Mormon church-sanctioned" things might have ended up very different for us from our sad situation now.

I don't think this would have worked.  You understand baptism differently than us.  So it wouldn't be a ratification of your former baptism.  It works with the Third Conventionist because the beliefs are identical.

[CV75]

21 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good afternoon all. I have not posted in quite a long time. I am deeply immersed in my thesis. As part of that I am writing about the Third Convention situation here in Mexico. Many of you may know of F. LaMond Tullis, a now ninety-something LDS historian who focused a lot on Mormons in Mexico. I had the privilege of meeting him when he attended a talk I gave some years ago at an MHA meeting.

This morning I was reading a chapter (article) he wrote on the Third Convention in the mid-1930s into the 1940s in Mexico. Two things grabbed my attention and I seek your collective input and thought about them. Thanks in advance. . . . . . . First, he talks about the 800 Mexican folks who left the church in 1936-1937. By 1946 they were a strong Mormon (non-LDS) group that had grown to 1200. There was also a new LDS Mexican Mission president and a new church president, both of who wanted to bring the Third Convention folks back into the fold. Tullis indicates that the new mission president was sensitive to Mexican culture and understood the importance of dignidad - or dignity to the Mexican. I think it is important to all humanity, but that is a discussion for another time.

Pierce (the new president) wanted to figure out a way to bring the folks back and preserve their dignity related to the time they were gone. He clearly thought that was important to whether or not they would rejoin the LDS church en mass. The subject came up of the need for rebaptism of those who had been baptized during the time the Third Convention was separate from the LDS Church. I quote from Tullis:  "The church made another face-saving move in dealing with convention members who had been baptized without Mormon church-sanctioned authority. They were not (emphasis mine) told that they had to be rebaptized, which would ordinarily have been the case, but rather that a restitution or ratification of their former baptisms would have to be made." Rebaptism, restitution, ratification -- the effect was the same: members were rebaptized by those holding the proper Mormon priesthood authority. but the terminology preserved dignidad, as did the fact that Pierce himself performed most of the rebaptisms."  p. 157 - Mormons in Mexico.

Several things struck me. Tullis, a careful writer and faithful member of the church, used the term "without Mormon church-sanctioned authority." Reflecting on my own experience over the past six years, it seems to me I could have accepted being rebaptized to join the church if anyone had said to me that my previous baptism was done "without Mormon church-sanctioned authority." No problem there - I would have understood that. The problem, both my wife and I have had is that what folks said to us what that our baptisms were without "God-sanctioned authority." Therefore a rebaptism constituted an affirmation that our previous baptisms (mine done by my father by immersion) was not God-sanctioned. I could never agree with or to that. In that sense it takes away the dignidad of my experience and what my baptism means to me to this day. So, the distinction between "God-sanctioned" and "Mormon Church-sanctioned authority is huge - a deal killer for my dignity as a life-long Christian and follower of the Savior.

The second thing is the idea of restitution or ratification of former baptisms. If someone had said that me, I also think I could have accepted that, especially the idea of "ratification." Of course, those words were not used with us. Our baptisms were invalid and of no spiritual-effect and we needed to have an LDS priesthood holder do it the right way this time - the way that is God-sanctioned, not the Mormon church-sanctioned way. The church also reduced the previous excommunication of the Third Convention leaders to "dissfellowshipping" to also make it easier for them to return. That one doesn't interest me quite so much.

My questions? Did Tullis miss-write when he used the term "Mormon church-sanctioned authority" or did he write, simply assuming that the concept of "Mormon church-sanctioned authority" and "God- sanctioned authority are interchangeable. They sure aren't for me. Hence, that phrase really stood out for me.

Second, is it acceptable in the church if the then-prophet assents to use the term restitution or ratification in place of rebaptism, especially to safeguard the dignity of the Christian who is considering "converting" to the LDS church? These may not be big questions to you all, but to someone like me and my wife, they have huge meaning. I also understand that when the situation is reversed and some don't accept the LDS baptism as God-sanctioned, that might not preserve your dignity and life experience either.

I hate to ask it this way. "did the leaders of the church here in 1946 water down (pun intended) the true meaning of LDS baptism in order to facilitate the coming back into the fold of the 1200 members of the Third Convention while preserving their dignity? If so, was that a wrong thing to do? George Albert Smith was here and in the meetings when all this was discussed with members of both churches present. What do  you all think? Nothing but the facts will go into my thesis, but I find these two issues quite interesting. Perhaps if someone had said to me, we want to "ratify your former baptism because it was not Mormon church-sanctioned" things might have ended up very different for us from our sad situation now. Thanks for your time and thoughts.

 

I believe that Tullis used a reasonable term and that the terminology for the sanctioned ordinance was acceptable for the circumstances. These very unique cultural circumstances differ from the more personal, individual dignity of an individual Christian considering joining our Church. The Third Convention represents a fairly localized, politically separated ["apostate" may be too harsh a term] church-within-a-culture which is doctrinally and culturally-aligned with their former church-within-a-culture, which in turn is a doctrinally- but less culturally-aligned branch of the main church-within-another culture (or “main church-outside-their-culture”).

I think the status of “born in the covenant” and our practice of baptizing those whose members obviously convert in strong connection to familial, tribal and other cultural mores and expectations are examples of the concept that the larger setting contributes to unity in Zion in concert with individual agency and choice; these two social building blocks can be well-integrated.

Those who do not accept my baptism as God-sanctioned do not mar my dignity or life experience at all; my conversion to another church would be “all in,” including their denominational views and requirements on baptism, however parochial they may seem. It is painful to try to stay true to oneself and to one self’s conversion when they are not well-aligned.

Edited August 6, 2023 by CV75

[webbles]

@Navidad, is there anything in the book dealing with priesthood ordination for the Third Conventionists?  I would expect that all those that received the priesthood before the schism didn't require re-ordination, but those that were ordained after the schism would need a re-ordination.  Was there any rephrasing done in regards to re-ordination?

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

@Navidad, is there anything in the book dealing with priesthood ordination for the Third Conventionists?  I would expect that all those that received the priesthood before the schism didn't require re-ordination, but those that were ordained after the schism would need a re-ordination.  Was there any rephrasing done in regards to re-ordination?

Hi my friend: There was not any such discussion in the book. The only such discussion was about baptism, both in the context of the difference between being excommunicated and disfellowshipped and in sensitivity to cultural concerns about dignity and using terms other than rebaptized. By the way, my questions were not meant to poke any holes in, dismiss, or critique the actions of those who came along in 1946. I am all for what they did. I do think they went farther (further?) in their efforts to bring the folks back than the current church website article indicates. Maybe I'll write an article about that after I have my dissertation completed. There is a lot of confusion about the early twentieth century, lets say up through the thirties in Mexican church history. That history is begging to be written. . .  including the activity of the Saints in the revolution and all of the conflicts, typically known as La Segunda Cristiada over land, agrarian issues and water. That history is as of yet untold, except by Rebecca Janzen and is actually more interesting than the LDS and the revolutionary years. Ditto for the Mennonites who actually moved here in the 1920s and experienced in some ways the same issues that faced the LDS and the Mormon fundamentalist groups that are still active in Mexico. We need a thorough history of the Mormon Mexican Mission as well. That one is begging to be told too.

[webbles]

29 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend: There was not any such discussion in the book. The only such discussion was about baptism, both in the context of the difference between being excommunicated and disfellowshipped and in sensitivity to cultural concerns about dignity and using terms other than rebaptized. By the way, my questions were not meant to poke any holes in, dismiss, or critique the actions of those who came along in 1946. I am all for what they did. I do think they went farther (further?) in their efforts to bring the folks back than the current church website article indicates. Maybe I'll write an article about that after I have my dissertation completed. There is a lot of confusion about the early twentieth century, lets say up through the thirties in Mexican church history. That history is begging to be written. . .  including the activity of the Saints in the revolution and all of the conflicts, typically known as La Segunda Cristiada over land, agrarian issues and water. That history is as of yet untold, except by Rebecca Janzen and is actually more interesting than the LDS and the revolutionary years. Ditto for the Mennonites who actually moved here in the 1920s and experienced in some ways the same issues that faced the LDS and the Mormon fundamentalist groups that are still active in Mexico. We need a thorough history of the Mormon Mexican Mission as well. That one is begging to be told too.

That would be cool to read.  All of my father's grandparents were born in the Mexican colonies and were forced out because of the revolution.  I still have distant relatives who live there, including some who are in the polygamist groups (I haven't met any of them but my father and grandparents have).  So, I've read bits and pieces that are related to my ancestors as well as other things that I've picked up.  It was an interesting time period.