A question about the Mormon remnant movement

[AI2.0]

My responses in blue, so you can see that I did read what you wrote;

I would venture to bet my food storage that had you not gotten involved with the remnant factions who followed Snuffer from place to place you would not have considered rebaptism either. That idea didn't just pop into your head one day without some coaxing and proselytizing being done before hand by those in that movement. Be honest am I right or am I right?

Just got home from work. Mark, that is a bold wager. I will be honest, though, as I have always endeavored to be honest because I genuinely believe the Lord and angels are silent notes taking. So, since you want to be honest, I expect that you have told your Bishop that you were rebaptized by someone you met on the internet, right?The Lord had taught me things before Denver came onto the scene. Denver does not have a monopoly on the Second Comforter, C&E and other principles of the gospel. That's true, there are many other dissidents who teach some of the things Denver teaches.But you are absolutely right (I wonder if you really would have turned over your food storage had you been wrong). I wrestled with the notion of "rebaptism" for a year or so, and I was genuinely deathly afraid that I was being deceived when I realized that the Lord required it of me. I went so far as to search for precedents because as much as I am willing to obey God, to serve Him at all hazards and to lay down my character and reputation, etc (LoF 6:5), it is a scary thing to do something, which is completely contrary to your beliefs, traditions, character, etc. I understand Nephi's hesitation to slay Laban. How's that for a test of faith!?Did you understand the implications of what this would mean? When you decided that 'the Lord required it', did you know that this meant 'the Lord' required that you lose access to his temple, you lose your membership and your blessings of the ordinances of Salvation? Just wondering.

It turns out that multiple baptisms is something that ancient Israelites did and was not new to the people in the Book of Mormon. Before Jesus appeared at Bountiful, Nephi was out baptizing all who believed (3 Nephi 1:23) in Zarahemla after his father, Nephi departed out of the land. Being the prophet, there is no doubt that he had the authority to baptize, but he was also a baptized member of the church in Zarahemla. And yet when Jesus came and taught them at Bountiful, He required they be baptized again, authorizing Nephi to baptize them (though he was already an authorized baptizer). But rebaptism must be approved by priesthood authority, which they clearly had back then when they did it,
but it not given at this time.

3 Nephi 19:10 And when they had thus prayed they went down unto the water’s edge, and the multitude followed them.

11 And it came to pass that Nephi went down into the water and was baptized.

12 And he came up out of the water and began to baptize. And he baptized all those whom Jesus had chosen.

Moroni teaches that this is the way it was done among the Nephites.

Moroni 6:1 And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it.

2 Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins.

Baptized men in the church were required to be baptized again when called to serve as elders, priests, and teachers. But they were not baptized into office unless they showed that they were worthy of it. Neither was anyone baptized into the church unless they witnessed to the members that they had truly repented. Then I discovered that Joseph Smith and Ema were also baptized more than once as were many saints including Brigham Young. From Brigham Young's journal of discourses, I found this:

"About this time came a revelation concerning baptism for the dead. I know that in my traveling and preaching, many a time, I have stopped by beautiful streams of clear, pure water, and have said to myself, “How delightful it would be to me to go into this, to be baptized for the remission of my sins.” When I got home Joseph told me it was my privilege. At this time came a revelation, that the Saints could be baptized and rebaptized when they chose, and then that we could be baptized for our dear friends, but at first it was not revealed that a record should be kept of those who were baptized; but when he received an additional revelation to that effect, then a record was kept. Hundreds and thousands, I suppose, were baptized before any record was kept at all, and they were baptized over, and a record kept of the baptisms and the names of the administrator, those who acted for the dead, and of the dead, and of the witnesses."--Brigham Young, JOD 18:241

Not only did they baptize each other often, but also for their dead. Baptism was not a one time ordinance for membership into the church but an ordinance performed often as tokens of faith, repentance, healing, etc. When the pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, they were all baptized again, though they were already members of the church. Eventually it became church policy no longer to be rebaptized.'Church policy'? That's how you see it. The Prophet no longer authorizes the rebaptism practice marc. That's what the situation is now, if you believe in the Lord's prophet heads the church, then you would follow his counsel and not do something which is not allowed right now--just as polygamy is not allowed any longer and Priesthood for all worthy men IS allowed. The Lord spoke to my mind, giving me the name of the person who should baptize me. I concluded that when the Lord requires you to do something, He authorizes it. I'm just going to copy from my journal the relevant portion:

I found him and sent him a private message online telling him that I had been praying fervently for a long time and that the Lord had given me his name. I then asked him to share his testimony with me because I had never before met him and was making his acquaintance for the first time. After he replied and shared his testimony, I told him that the Lord gave me his name and I asked him if he would baptize me in living waters. He replied and consented to baptize me. He told me that he had just baptized others and had been praying to the Lord to confirm to him that he was doing the Lord's will. When I contacted him, he received it as a witness that he was doing the Lord's will. This was probably as surreal to him as it was to me.

I never saw him again and to my knowledge, he is NOT part of any "Remnant Movement."And I bet you haven't done much searching or asking to find out. But I also BET he has baptised other remnant people so he's 'approved' by them. Mark, it would never have occurred to me to do this had I not heard about it.But I bet you heard about it by reading dissident blogs, like tim malone's, Rock waterman and others who agree with much that Snuffer teaches. The remnant didn't even form until after Snuffer's excommunication, but they were still a loose knit group. But I inquired and I persistedI can't help but think about Joseph Smith asking for permission to show the 116 pgs to Martin Harris, how'd that work out? until I was certain it was the Lord's will and not my own fanciful imagination and not to go off and join some movement. But that is the way it is with revelation. Lehi would never have considered inquiring of God concerning the destruction of Jerusalem had he not first heard about it from someone else. Likewise, Nephi would never have considered inquiring of the Lord concerning his father's vision of the tree of life had he not first heard about it, nor would Enos have prayed all day and all night. The list goes on. This brings me back to my first post in this discussion:

1 Nephi 15:8 And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord?

9 And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.

10 Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord? How is it that ye will perish, because of the hardness of your hearts?

11 Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and ask me in faith, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you.

What was the difference between Nephi and his two brothers? Nephi obeyed the Lord and did not rely on the testimonies of others, including his own father's. He went and got his own witness from God. Yes, his father's words were true, but they were only efficacious in his life because he went and got his own answer. Nephi's words in this chapter were not efficacious in his brother's lives because, while he spoke the truth to answer their questions, they did not get their own answer from God by the power of the Holy Ghost like Nephi did. There's the difference. If you don't have the Holy Ghost, then what good does it do to understand the truth from the leaders of the church or from some remnant group or some forum? Awaken your soul and go and study it out in your mind and with all your heart ask of God and then do what HE requires of you. If you have the Holy Ghost, you should have no problem. If you don't have the Holy Ghost, then you're in trouble.

'Have ye inquired of the lord?" I have about all this rebaptism stuff and I've received clear inspiration that this is what we were warned about by the Lord--beware of false prophets and by their fruits shall ye know them. Good LDS saints with high ideals and desires are being deceived because they are looking past the mark, and allowing themselves to be taken down wrong paths, knowingly making choices which will take them farther from the Lord and his church, as they continue on in this way.

Does this mean I have joined the "Remnant Movement"? No. And I do not identify myself with any part of any remnant movement. But I do love them and many are dear friends to me. I respect their beliefs and they respect mine. My journey is my own.

That's fine, you don't think you are part of their group, I assume you don't attend their sacrament meetings, you don't pay money to them, you still attend LDS meetings with your family, but truthfully, is it because there are no remnant people near you? Do you have the ability to attend them if you wanted to? And, was your name added to their baptismal roster? Is it possible that the guy from the internet who performed the baptism, kept a record and gave your name to the remnant baptism record? Do you know for certain you aren't on there?

[marc]

On my lunch break, ,A12. Respectfully, what I have discussed with my bishop in private in his office is none of your business. My experience is not an endorsement of rebaptism, nor do I encourage anyone to just go out and do what I did or do. But if you know God's will in your own life, then go and do it.

[creator]

Also in regards to the early saints multiple baptisms...this is really not the same as our day. There are a couple of reasons for this and I would point them out for you. For starters, the early Israelites way back in the day had to baptize more often because they apostatized frequently! They lived in an era where their next door neighbors were practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism (ever wonder why the Jews can't mix certain foods? Well this was part of it), also a whole lot of really icky and nasty behaviors. So there was partly a reason they were re-baptized often.

We also have the fact that in more recent church history they didn't always have paperwork, and documentation of ordinances due to the church growing so fast, lack of paper, less established organization (but still organized enough to function), and less technology. This is different than today where we have a very strong organizational structure, and near infinite access to paper. So their re-baptizing people to make sure that everyone is on the same page isn't the same as us. We can at the click of a few buttons know who has what callings in our wards now. It's very simple. So there's less confusion. Can you imagine living in the 1830s and you don't know who is baptized, who is confirmed, and who has the Melchizedek priesthood? You don't have a computer to keep track of it, and you can't use your journal because you might only be able to buy paper once every 2 or 3 years and that's if you lucky because everyone is poor from escaping the mobs. It would have been a nightmare to keep track of. So no wonder, they baptized often. It's very clearly a different issue for us.

Finally, I would point out the fact that we don't need multiple baptisms if we understand the sacrament and the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If we are going to our meetings and worthily partaking of the sacrament then that IS like a baptism every week. And I would point out much of being worthy to partake of the sacrament is having a broken heart and contrite spirit. It is absolutely essential that we understand how precious and wonderful the sacrament is. The sacrament IS an ordinance. I know many of us have had thoughts of wow it'd be nice to be re-baptized but if we think about the sacrament it's absolutely taken care of. ..

You're welcome to your opinions but that is a very un-scriptural, non-prophetic, and ignorant view of baptism. I'll just stick to what I learned from Joseph Smith (prophet of the restoration) and other earlier Church leaders (and the scriptures) about baptism.

[e-eye2.0]

Also in regards to the early saints multiple baptisms...this is really not the same as our day. There are a couple of reasons for this and I would point them out for you. For starters, the early Israelites way back in the day had to baptize more often because they apostatized frequently! They lived in an era where their next door neighbors were practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism (ever wonder why the Jews can't mix certain foods? Well this was part of it), also a whole lot of really icky and nasty behaviors. So there was partly a reason they were re-baptized often.

We also have the fact that in more recent church history they didn't always have paperwork, and documentation of ordinances due to the church growing so fast, lack of paper, less established organization (but still organized enough to function), and less technology. This is different than today where we have a very strong organizational structure, and near infinite access to paper. So their re-baptizing people to make sure that everyone is on the same page isn't the same as us. We can at the click of a few buttons know who has what callings in our wards now. It's very simple. So there's less confusion. Can you imagine living in the 1830s and you don't know who is baptized, who is confirmed, and who has the Melchizedek priesthood? You don't have a computer to keep track of it, and you can't use your journal because you might only be able to buy paper once every 2 or 3 years and that's if you lucky because everyone is poor from escaping the mobs. It would have been a nightmare to keep track of. So no wonder, they baptized often. It's very clearly a different issue for us.

Finally, I would point out the fact that we don't need multiple baptisms if we understand the sacrament and the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If we are going to our meetings and worthily partaking of the sacrament then that IS like a baptism every week. And I would point out much of being worthy to partake of the sacrament is having a broken heart and contrite spirit. It is absolutely essential that we understand how precious and wonderful the sacrament is. The sacrament IS an ordinance. I know many of us have had thoughts of wow it'd be nice to be re-baptized but if we think about the sacrament it's absolutely taken care of. ..

You're welcome to your opinions but that is a very un-scriptural, non-prophetic, and ignorant view of baptism. I'll just stick to what I learned from Joseph Smith (prophet of the restoration) and other earlier Church leaders (and the scriptures) about baptism.

Was Joseph Smith baptized more than once?

[creator]

Was Joseph Smith baptized more than once?

Yes. And he performed re-baptisms as well, for various reasons.

[stillwater]

Was Joseph Smith baptized more than once?

Once in 1829 by Oliver Cowdery

Once in 1830 when the Church was legally organized (DHC 1:77)

Once in on 11 April, 1841, with Sydney Rigdon "for the remission of their sins" (Journal of William Huntington: http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/WHuntington.html)

That is thrice at least.

[stillwater]

Brigham Young recalled his joy when Joseph told him of the revelation he had received, which included both permission to be rebaptized personally and for the dead:

I know that in my traveling and preaching, many a time, I have stopped by beautiful streams of clear, pure water, and have said to myself, “How delightful it would be to me to go into this, to be baptized for the remission of my sins.” When I got home Joseph told me it was my privilege. At this time came a revelation, that the Saints could be baptized and rebaptized when they chose, and then that we could be baptized for our dear friends. (JoD 18:241).

While we do not have the text of the revelation, we do have Joseph’s instructions on the topic in the Times and Seasons of 7 April, 1842:

Baptisms for the dead, and for the healing of the body must be in the font, those coming into the church and those rebaptized may be done in the river.

[Finrock]

Was Joseph Smith baptized more than once?

Yes.

-Finrock

[AI2.0]

On my lunch break, ,A12. Respectfully, what I have discussed with my bishop in private in his office is none of your business. My experience is not an endorsement of rebaptism, nor do I encourage anyone to just go out and do what I did or do. But if you know God's will in your own life, then go and do it.

I never asked to know what you discussed with your Bishop. I will take your huffy response to mean you have not told him.

I think you don't realize that your decision to be rebaptized WILL be viewed as an endorsement of the practice, whether you meant it to be or not.

And, since you aren't sure whether the guy who baptized you was Remnant or not.....did he claim to have been sustained by seven women? If he did, then he's Remnant.

[marc]

On my lunch break, ,A12. Respectfully, what I have discussed with my bishop in private in his office is none of your business. My experience is not an endorsement of rebaptism, nor do I encourage anyone to just go out and do what I did or do. But if you know God's will in your own life, then go and do it.

I never asked to know what you discussed with your Bishop. I will take your huffy response to mean you have not told him.

I think you don't realize that your decision to be rebaptized WILL be viewed as an endorsement of the practice, whether you meant it to be or not.

And, since you aren't sure whether the guy who baptized you was Remnant or not.....did he claim to have been sustained by seven women? If he did, then he's Remnant.

I did not mean to be huffy-please forgive me. A12.0, I am acutely aware of everything I have done and do and I have weighed everything and do weigh everything carefully and by the Spirit. You keep taking me to task and I'm beginning to feel like you are stalking me. I am thankful that you are concerned about me, though. I am not going to argue with you about authority except to say that when God directly tells you to do something, He is authorizing you to do it, even if it challenges your beliefs, or is contrary to His commandments to everyone else. It is not beneath God to test you in this manner as He has done a number of times in scripture.

[jwbohrer]

A former member of this forum has his own blog now, and most of what he talks about is the sermon on the mount. He's part of the Mormon remnant movement, believes Denver Snuffer is a prophet, and has been rebaptized...

..he tells me I should be baptized by someone in the movement, and says that if I don't believe he's a messenger of God, without receiving personal revelation to the contrary, it's because I don't have Charity...

Could my old friend be right?

If any of you aren't already familiar with his blog, here's the link.

Your friend is Jared of Log's Cabin?!

He's using classic manipulation tactics on you.

How about you just follow what the Spirit/Lord is telling you to do.

Random comment but I am pretty sure I was his Home Teacher at one point...did he live in Northern Virginia?

[drtanner]

Also in regards to the early saints multiple baptisms...this is really not the same as our day. There are a couple of reasons for this and I would point them out for you. For starters, the early Israelites way back in the day had to baptize more often because they apostatized frequently! They lived in an era where their next door neighbors were practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism (ever wonder why the Jews can't mix certain foods? Well this was part of it), also a whole lot of really icky and nasty behaviors. So there was partly a reason they were re-baptized often.

We also have the fact that in more recent church history they didn't always have paperwork, and documentation of ordinances due to the church growing so fast, lack of paper, less established organization (but still organized enough to function), and less technology. This is different than today where we have a very strong organizational structure, and near infinite access to paper. So their re-baptizing people to make sure that everyone is on the same page isn't the same as us. We can at the click of a few buttons know who has what callings in our wards now. It's very simple. So there's less confusion. Can you imagine living in the 1830s and you don't know who is baptized, who is confirmed, and who has the Melchizedek priesthood? You don't have a computer to keep track of it, and you can't use your journal because you might only be able to buy paper once every 2 or 3 years and that's if you lucky because everyone is poor from escaping the mobs. It would have been a nightmare to keep track of. So no wonder, they baptized often. It's very clearly a different issue for us.

Finally, I would point out the fact that we don't need multiple baptisms if we understand the sacrament and the Atonement of Jesus Christ. If we are going to our meetings and worthily partaking of the sacrament then that IS like a baptism every week. And I would point out much of being worthy to partake of the sacrament is having a broken heart and contrite spirit. It is absolutely essential that we understand how precious and wonderful the sacrament is. The sacrament IS an ordinance. I know many of us have had thoughts of wow it'd be nice to be re-baptized but if we think about the sacrament it's absolutely taken care of. ..

You're welcome to your opinions but that is a very un-scriptural, non-prophetic, and ignorant view of baptism. I'll just stick to what I learned from Joseph Smith (prophet of the restoration) and other earlier Church leaders (and the scriptures) about baptism.

What are your thoughts on current members of the church being re-baptized? If the brethren council against it do you think members should still go forward with it?

[creator]

What are your thoughts on current members of the church being re-baptized? If the brethren council against it do you think members should still go forward with it?

I see nothing wrong with following the principle of baptism in a manner that is scriptural and was taught/practiced by Joseph Smith (and many others for almost the first 100 years of the LDS Church). It's between the person and the Lord.

[AI2.0]

On my lunch break, ,A12. Respectfully, what I have discussed with my bishop in private in his office is none of your business. My experience is not an endorsement of rebaptism, nor do I encourage anyone to just go out and do what I did or do. But if you know God's will in your own life, then go and do it.

I never asked to know what you discussed with your Bishop. I will take your huffy response to mean you have not told him.

I think you don't realize that your decision to be rebaptized WILL be viewed as an endorsement of the practice, whether you meant it to be or not.

And, since you aren't sure whether the guy who baptized you was Remnant or not.....did he claim to have been sustained by seven women? If he did, then he's Remnant.

I did not mean to be huffy-please forgive me. A12.0, I am acutely aware of everything I have done and do and I have weighed everything and do weigh everything carefully and by the Spirit. You keep taking me to task and I'm beginning to feel like you are stalking me. I am thankful that you are concerned about me, though. I am not going to argue with you about authority except to say that when God directly tells you to do something, He is authorizing you to do it, even if it challenges your beliefs, or is contrary to His commandments to everyone else. It is not beneath God to test you in this manner as He has done a number of times in scripture.

I'm sorry if you felt I was stalking you, I'm certainly not meaning to. I'm afraid my concern is seen as badgering, so I will stop. I'm sorry, I'm just surprised, I didn't think you had gone that far down the rabbit hole of fringe LDS society. I truly was shocked to find that out about you after reading your posts for as long as I have.

Please take this as my concern, for what it's worth and then I'll say no more; you think that God directly tells you to do something that will cost you your membership in his church, cause you to violate sacred covenants and cut you off from access to his temple and most likely lead you to wandering in strange paths that will end in misery for you and loved ones....I don't think you are listening to 'God'. It is not in his nature to lead you or others astray in such a manner, but it is exactly Satan's M.O. God doesn't test us by teasing, manipulating and lying to us. This is NOT the way an Abrahamic test comes, these Mormon Gnostic beliefs some have been seduced into following, are the same kind of games Satan has used on Saints before through the ages many many times. We poor humans are so easy to read for the demons around us, they don't waste time coming up with new stuff, they don't have to, they just recycle the stuff that worked in the past--and it's working great again. Please be very careful in the path you are headed and please pray about sharing this with your Bishop or other church leader you trust.

[marc]

Thank you, A12. I know what I am doing. For what it's worth for your information, the Lord spoke to me and explicitly told me not to participate in their upcoming covenant. As I have repeatedly said, I do precisely what the Lord requires of me. No more, no less. My journey is my own.

[AI2.0]

My understanding is that at this time, in this day-- men who exercise priesthood can give blessings and healing blessings without permission of those priesthood brethren over them, but all ordinances need permission, including Baptism.

A rebaptism can be performed if permission is given. However, at this time, If men choose to do it without permission, they are wrongfully attempting to exercise priesthood, IMO and my understanding is that it could mean excommunication for the one performing the baptism and the one being baptized. If you believe the church is headed by the Lord's prophet, then you accept his authority and do not violate what he's forbidden at this time--just like you wouldn't enter a plural marriage today, even though it was allowed in the past. While you may not agree or understand--it's simple--it comes down to obedience to the laws and precepts as given to YOU, in YOUR DAY, not to the saints in Brigham Young's day or the Saint's in Peter's day or Alma's day or any one else's time.

[FTC]

Has Snuffer had as many prophecies as I have made come true? Just sayin'. B-)

[Finrock]

My understanding is that at this time, in this day-- men who exercise priesthood can give blessings and healing blessings without permission of those priesthood brethren over them, but all ordinances need permission, including Baptism.

A rebaptism can be performed if permission is given. However, at this time, If men choose to do it without permission, they are wrongfully attempting to exercise priesthood, IMO and my understanding is that it could mean excommunication for the one performing the baptism and the one being baptized. If you believe the church is headed by the Lord's prophet, then you accept his authority and do not violate what he's forbidden at this time--just like you wouldn't enter a plural marriage today, even though it was allowed in the past. While you may not agree or understand--it's simple--it comes down to obedience to the laws and precepts as given to YOU, in YOUR DAY, not to the saints in Brigham Young's day or the Saint's in Peter's day or Alma's day or any one else's time.

Truth doesn't change. The gospel is not provisional. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If the President of the Church wants to provide a true oracle from God that gives us the mind and will of the Lord, then let him do so. No such thing has been received or announced in a very, very long time. Church Handbook of Instructions are not scripture and they don't constitute oracles of God given to man by His prophets.

We can rely on God and on His Spirit to guide and to direct us. Ultimately true prophets stand only to bring people to Christ. They don't stand to prescribe how people need to live, what they should believe, how they need to worship, or what they should do. They teach, they warn, and they most importantly invite people to come to Jesus Christ. Not some Jesus Christ that changes with tenure or a Jesus that believes one way yesterday but this could change in the next decade or next century. We are to come to the very same Jesus Christ that has existed forever. It is the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is the Church of Jesus Christ. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not the gospel of president A, president B, president C, president D, etc.

-Finrock

[shadow]

Was Joseph Smith baptized more than once?

Twice that we're aware of. However,-
1 Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.

2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.

3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.

4 Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen.

Only one baptism is required so long as it's done by someone authorized to do it.
The D&C further clarifies-
11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

Also of importance to note is that anyone going about baptizing will have need to conform to verse 11. Oh, and there's more. There's actually a system to the Priesthood.
64 Then comes the High Priesthood, which is the greatest of all.

65 Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church;

66 Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.

67 From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands.

Since baptism is an ordinance it has to be administered via the presiding High Priest which is the Prophet. He delegates to others, but not to unknowns like the guy who baptized Marc. His rebaptism was done outside the proper authority according to the D&C which makes it null and void or about as effective as being baptized by the Baptists. But the Baptists also truly believe their baptisms are valid. Lots of work to be done during the millennium.

[drtanner]

My understanding is that at this time, in this day-- men who exercise priesthood can give blessings and healing blessings without permission of those priesthood brethren over them, but all ordinances need permission, including Baptism.

A rebaptism can be performed if permission is given. However, at this time, If men choose to do it without permission, they are wrongfully attempting to exercise priesthood, IMO and my understanding is that it could mean excommunication for the one performing the baptism and the one being baptized. If you believe the church is headed by the Lord's prophet, then you accept his authority and do not violate what he's forbidden at this time--just like you wouldn't enter a plural marriage today, even though it was allowed in the past. While you may not agree or understand--it's simple--it comes down to obedience to the laws and precepts as given to YOU, in YOUR DAY, not to the saints in Brigham Young's day or the Saint's in Peter's day or Alma's day or any one else's time.

Truth doesn't change. The gospel is not provisional. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If the President of the Church wants to provide a true oracle from God that gives us the mind and will of the Lord, then let him do so. No such thing has been received or announced in a very, very long time. Church Handbook of Instructions are not scripture and they don't constitute oracles of God given to man by His prophets.

We can rely on God and on His Spirit to guide and to direct us. Ultimately true prophets stand only to bring people to Christ. They don't stand to prescribe how people need to live, what they should believe, how they need to worship, or what they should do. They teach, they warn, and they most importantly invite people to come to Jesus Christ. Not some Jesus Christ that changes with tenure or a Jesus that believes one way yesterday but this could change in the next decade or next century. We are to come to the very same Jesus Christ that has existed forever. It is the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is the Church of Jesus Christ. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not the gospel of president A, president B, president C, president D, etc.

-Finrock

I have several dear friends that have been derailed and entire families destroyed under this premise. Let me explain from my perspective and where I believe faithful latter day saints go wrong.

First let me say that if the "Lord" tells you to do something there is not question you should do it regardless of the consequence and you will be blessed.

Matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

The problem is many latter day saints are not told by the "Lord".... it is a thought in their head that they confuse or label as the spirit or will of the Lord. Many do not understand what revelation really feels like and my heart goes out to them because sometimes they genuinely believe it is the Holy Ghost telling them to do something. This makes it difficult because when you disagree and it is something really important the counter is "the Lord told me to do it." For their souls sake I sure hope they are right, but would be extremely cautious about the reality of that statement. It has been my sad experience that many times it is not the "Lord" that ended up telling them to do it and from reading the scriptures and church history I would have to say this is not just my own experience.

[Serragon]

Was Joseph Smith baptized more than once?

Twice that we're aware of. However,-
1 Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.

2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.

3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.

4 Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen.

Only one baptism is required so long as it's done by someone authorized to do it.
The D&C further clarifies-
11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

Also of importance to note is that anyone going about baptizing will have need to conform to verse 11. Oh, and there's more. There's actually a system to the Priesthood.
64 Then comes the High Priesthood, which is the greatest of all.

65 Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church;

66 Or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.

67 From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands.

Since baptism is an ordinance it has to be administered via the presiding High Priest which is the Prophet. He delegates to others, but not to unknowns like the guy who baptized Marc. His rebaptism was done outside the proper authority according to the D&C which makes it null and void or about as effective as being baptized by the Baptists. But the Baptists also truly believe their baptisms are valid. Lots of work to be done during the millennium.

Verse 11 is interesting. My personal belief is that at the time of the revelation it simply meant that you had to have been ordained to the priesthood by someone who already had the priesthood. By virtue of having this priesthood you also had the authority to baptize and preach as you saw fit. Most early missionaries were baptizing and preaching without ever asking permission from anyone.

Since our current practice is to require priesthood holders to seek permission to perform ordinances, our interpretation of verse 11 has changed along with it.

I prefer the earlier custom, but practice the latter with the hope that we will begin moving more in that direction in the future.

[e-eye2.0]

My understanding is that at this time, in this day-- men who exercise priesthood can give blessings and healing blessings without permission of those priesthood brethren over them, but all ordinances need permission, including Baptism.

A rebaptism can be performed if permission is given. However, at this time, If men choose to do it without permission, they are wrongfully attempting to exercise priesthood, IMO and my understanding is that it could mean excommunication for the one performing the baptism and the one being baptized. If you believe the church is headed by the Lord's prophet, then you accept his authority and do not violate what he's forbidden at this time--just like you wouldn't enter a plural marriage today, even though it was allowed in the past. While you may not agree or understand--it's simple--it comes down to obedience to the laws and precepts as given to YOU, in YOUR DAY, not to the saints in Brigham Young's day or the Saint's in Peter's day or Alma's day or any one else's time.

Truth doesn't change. The gospel is not provisional. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If the President of the Church wants to provide a true oracle from God that gives us the mind and will of the Lord, then let him do so. No such thing has been received or announced in a very, very long time. Church Handbook of Instructions are not scripture and they don't constitute oracles of God given to man by His prophets.

We can rely on God and on His Spirit to guide and to direct us. Ultimately true prophets stand only to bring people to Christ. They don't stand to prescribe how people need to live, what they should believe, how they need to worship, or what they should do. They teach, they warn, and they most importantly invite people to come to Jesus Christ. Not some Jesus Christ that changes with tenure or a Jesus that believes one way yesterday but this could change in the next decade or next century. We are to come to the very same Jesus Christ that has existed forever. It is the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is the Church of Jesus Christ. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not the gospel of president A, president B, president C, president D, etc.

-Finrock

I have several dear friends that have been derailed and entire families destroyed under this premise. Let me explain from my perspective and where I believe faithful latter day saints go wrong.

First let me say that if the "Lord" tells you to do something there is not question you should do it regardless of the consequence and you will be blessed.

Matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

The problem is many latter day saints are not told by the "Lord".... it is a thought in their head that they confuse or label as the spirit or will of the Lord. Many do not understand what revelation really feels like and my heart goes out to them because sometimes they genuinely believe it is the Holy Ghost telling them to do something. This makes it difficult because when you disagree and it is something really important the counter is "the Lord told me to do it." For their souls sake I sure hope they are right, but would be extremely cautious about the reality of that statement. It has been my sad experience that many times it is not the "Lord" that ended up telling them to do it and from reading the scriptures and church history I would have to say this is not just my own experience.

Agreed - When we think the Lord is telling us to do something that breaks our covenants we may want to give pause and study out in our mind a little more as I think that would have helped a lot of people who have left the church. When my family left the church and jumped on the Denver Snuffer movement they were already having issues with the church, the prophet and local leaders. It would seem that these family members were strong in the faith as they really were for years but if you knew them like I did the writing was on the wall, the spirit was not with them and the transition was simple.

I recently read on mormonleaks the notes from Bruce R McConkie on what he said about apostate religions and how they form. He had them so nailed down it fits this current movement to a T. It's as Mark often says here about Snuffer and Harmston group - they are one and the same, nothing new just different players.

You can use a lot of past precedence to justify current actions but when it comes down to it if you believe this is Gods church the actions of re baptism into another church or idea is where you faith and testimony lye, which in my opinion is an act of rebellion regardless of if that person thinks they have been told to do it.

[Mark]

My understanding is that at this time, in this day-- men who exercise priesthood can give blessings and healing blessings without permission of those priesthood brethren over them, but all ordinances need permission, including Baptism.

A rebaptism can be performed if permission is given. However, at this time, If men choose to do it without permission, they are wrongfully attempting to exercise priesthood, IMO and my understanding is that it could mean excommunication for the one performing the baptism and the one being baptized. If you believe the church is headed by the Lord's prophet, then you accept his authority and do not violate what he's forbidden at this time--just like you wouldn't enter a plural marriage today, even though it was allowed in the past. While you may not agree or understand--it's simple--it comes down to obedience to the laws and precepts as given to YOU, in YOUR DAY, not to the saints in Brigham Young's day or the Saint's in Peter's day or Alma's day or any one else's time.

And this is where the rubber meets the road. It is apparent here that many on this forum do not believe that the LDS church is in fact directed by the Savior thru His Prophet and First Presidency. Its just as simple as that. They are willing to go contrary to the revealed word of the Lords Prophet/President of the High Priesthood today because they dont really believe he is just that. This verse in section 42 is critical to this point:
11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

This isnt rocket science here. Some guy on the internet cant go around rebaptizing or reconfirming or performing temple ordinances at their home made alters or whatever other ordinance you want to discuss here unless he has the necessary Priesthood keys and authority given him by the heads of the church to do so. This is for the protection of the Saints to guard against wolves entering the flock etc.

4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

The Lord commands His Saints and revokes those commands thru His spokesman the Prophet who has been given that authority and exercises those Priesthood keys that have been given him. Why are people trying to redefine or change how the Lord works and has done so since the restoration? Sounds like a bad idea to me.. :-ss

[Arenera]

My understanding is that at this time, in this day-- men who exercise priesthood can give blessings and healing blessings without permission of those priesthood brethren over them, but all ordinances need permission, including Baptism.

A rebaptism can be performed if permission is given. However, at this time, If men choose to do it without permission, they are wrongfully attempting to exercise priesthood, IMO and my understanding is that it could mean excommunication for the one performing the baptism and the one being baptized. If you believe the church is headed by the Lord's prophet, then you accept his authority and do not violate what he's forbidden at this time--just like you wouldn't enter a plural marriage today, even though it was allowed in the past. While you may not agree or understand--it's simple--it comes down to obedience to the laws and precepts as given to YOU, in YOUR DAY, not to the saints in Brigham Young's day or the Saint's in Peter's day or Alma's day or any one else's time.

And this is where the rubber meets the road. It is apparent here that many on this forum do not believe that the LDS church is in fact directed by the Savior thru His Prophet and First Presidency. Its just as simple as that. They are willing to go contrary to the revealed word of the Lords Prophet/President of the High Priesthood today because they dont really believe he is just that. This verse in section 42 is critical to this point:
11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

This isnt rocket science here. Some guy on the internet cant go around rebaptizing or reconfirming or performing temple ordinances at their home made alters or whatever other ordinance you want to discuss here unless he has the necessary Priesthood keys and authority given him by the heads of the church to do so. This is for the protection of the Saints to guard against wolves entering the flock etc.

4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

The Lord commands His Saints and revokes those commands thru His spokesman the Prophet who has been given that authority and exercises those Priesthood keys that have been given him. Why are people trying to redefine or change how the Lord works and has done so since the restoration? Sounds like a bad idea to me.. :-ss

If his name is John Doe, be very careful... ;)

[Mark]

My understanding is that at this time, in this day-- men who exercise priesthood can give blessings and healing blessings without permission of those priesthood brethren over them, but all ordinances need permission, including Baptism.

A rebaptism can be performed if permission is given. However, at this time, If men choose to do it without permission, they are wrongfully attempting to exercise priesthood, IMO and my understanding is that it could mean excommunication for the one performing the baptism and the one being baptized. If you believe the church is headed by the Lord's prophet, then you accept his authority and do not violate what he's forbidden at this time--just like you wouldn't enter a plural marriage today, even though it was allowed in the past. While you may not agree or understand--it's simple--it comes down to obedience to the laws and precepts as given to YOU, in YOUR DAY, not to the saints in Brigham Young's day or the Saint's in Peter's day or Alma's day or any one else's time.

Truth doesn't change. The gospel is not provisional. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. If the President of the Church wants to provide a true oracle from God that gives us the mind and will of the Lord, then let him do so. No such thing has been received or announced in a very, very long time. Church Handbook of Instructions are not scripture and they don't constitute oracles of God given to man by His prophets.

We can rely on God and on His Spirit to guide and to direct us. Ultimately true prophets stand only to bring people to Christ. They don't stand to prescribe how people need to live, what they should believe, how they need to worship, or what they should do. They teach, they warn, and they most importantly invite people to come to Jesus Christ. Not some Jesus Christ that changes with tenure or a Jesus that believes one way yesterday but this could change in the next decade or next century. We are to come to the very same Jesus Christ that has existed forever. It is the priesthood of Jesus Christ. It is the Church of Jesus Christ. It is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not the gospel of president A, president B, president C, president D, etc.

-Finrock

I have several dear friends that have been derailed and entire families destroyed under this premise. Let me explain from my perspective and where I believe faithful latter day saints go wrong.

First let me say that if the "Lord" tells you to do something there is not question you should do it regardless of the consequence and you will be blessed.

Matthew 19:29
And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

The problem is many latter day saints are not told by the "Lord".... it is a thought in their head that they confuse or label as the spirit or will of the Lord. Many do not understand what revelation really feels like and my heart goes out to them because sometimes they genuinely believe it is the Holy Ghost telling them to do something. This makes it difficult because when you disagree and it is something really important the counter is "the Lord told me to do it." For their souls sake I sure hope they are right, but would be extremely cautious about the reality of that statement. It has been my sad experience that many times it is not the "Lord" that ended up telling them to do it and from reading the scriptures and church history I would have to say this is not just my own experience.

Indeed. Just ask the broken and fractured lives of those conned by the likes of Jim Harmston and many many others who seem to come and go with regularity. The Lord gives us revelation we can access through His Prophet/Presidency of the High Priesthood and through the scriptures and through His Holy Spirit. If those feeling or voices we are hearing are contrary or dont line up with those 3 critical sources united together then chances are alternative spirits are hard at work to try and deceive us.

14 And again, I will give unto you a pattern in all things, that ye may not be deceived; for Satan is abroad in the land, and he goeth forth deceiving the nations—

15 Wherefore he that prayeth, whose spirit is contrite, the same is accepted of me if he obey mine ordinances.

16 He that speaketh, whose spirit is contrite, whose language is meek and edifieth, the same is of God if he obey mine ordinances.

17 And again, he that trembleth under my power shall be made strong, and shall bring forth fruits of praise and wisdom, according to the revelations and truths which I have given you.

18 And again, he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.

19 Wherefore, by this pattern ye shall know the spirits in all cases under the whole heavens.