General LDS Information
Basic LDS Beliefs
LDS Videos
Critics' Questions
Submitted Questions
Scriptures/LDS Literature
LDS Temples
Music and Arts
LDS Online Stores
Priesthood, Humor, Miscel.
Site Map

Suggest a Site
Now accepting banner ads!

Bookmark and Share

JIM - I was baptized as a child and had to comprehension of my true commitment or understanding of the Lord. Like all 8 year olds. In the scriptures it talks about rebaptism "again" to show your total understanding and commitment to the Savior. The LDS church used to do this. Sometimes more than twice. Is there a Commandment that we cannot be rebaptised, not in a another church, and not for forgiveness of sins. Because I understand the reason for the Sacrament. But for my commitment to the Savior? If it is a commandment not too could you quote it to me from the scriptures. If not, is it even I the handbook that if someone wanted to just be baptized for a personal commitment he wrong. And if it is one for excommunication Why? Because it has nothing to do with my church commitments or trying to was away sins. It is an act I feel I must do to show that I now understand and comprehend my responsibility to the Savior.

JOEL - The Sacrament also covers your recommitment to the Savior. See the LDS article on the Sacrament

It is against church policy for someone to be rebaptized, unless the person had previously been excommunicated and is rejoining the Church or if a person's baptismal record has been lost. Some saints in the early years of the church in Utah were rebaptized, but that was a different time and circumstance compared to today when our church leaders have counseled against it. Without proper authorization from a church authority and no witnesses it would be no different than just going for a short swim. It would also be considered a misuse of priesthood authority because it was not authorized by the Bishop.

President Joseph Fielding Smith said:
"It is unnecessary, however, to rebaptize persons merely as a renewal of their covenants every time they transgress in order that they may obtain forgiveness, for this would greatly cheapen this sacred ordinance and weaken its effectiveness. One baptism by water for the remission of sins should be enough, and there are other means by which sins may be forgiven for those who have made covenant with the Lord, provided they do not sin away their right to a standing in the Church." (Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 2)

Rebaptism is required after excommunication because such a person is no longer a member of the church. Their condition is as if they were a new convert getting baptised for the first time.

"In 1893 the First Presidency instructed stake presidents not to require Saints to be rebaptized before they received recommends to attend the temple dedication, for “the Lord will forgive sins if we forsake them.”

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

The practice of rebaptism thus was discontinued. The obvious redirection in policy was not a change in the fundamental doctrine of the Church concerning baptism. It was simply an inspired change in policy with regard to a specific variation in practice"

See the Ensign article Line upon Line

So this was an officially documented direction in church policy.

Return to top
Return to Questions