NOM

I'm doing the next chapter of Saints and we're finally getting to the polygamy stuff (outside of the glancing mentions of Fanny earlier)...

So I'm looking at the Lousia Beaman marriage and unless I'm missing something, Joseph Smith was sealed to her in 1841 but the Millennial Star notes that she was baptized in May 1843.

Anyone know if this is wrong? If not... this is kind of a problem, isn't it?

Record is on left hand side just over half way down.

I found some references to Michael Quinn that contend these are "re-baptisms" which are thought to be a way to prepare for polygamy.

So I suppose while this might be a really weird thing, it probably isn't an indication she was never baptized.

Just wondering if anyone had ever come across this before.

I have. I had never heard Quinn's rebaptism explanation, but it does make sense and is consistent with Mormon practice at the time. Because it comes from Quinn I'll take it seriously. Do you happen to know what Compton says about it?

Can't help you with the Loisa Beeman baptism, but I'll lay you odds Joseph never paid for all that lumber brought down river to build the Nauvoo House...

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:09 pm

I found some references to Michael Quinn that contend these are "re-baptisms" which are thought to be a way to prepare for polygamy.

So I suppose while this might be a really weird thing, it probably isn't an indication she was never baptized.

Just wondering if anyone had ever come across this before.

Brigham made everybody get rebaptised into HIS church. Joseph's baptismal authority was good enough for the Reorganized church.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:36 am

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:09 pm

I found some references to Michael Quinn that contend these are "re-baptisms" which are thought to be a way to prepare for polygamy.

So I suppose while this might be a really weird thing, it probably isn't an indication she was never baptized.

Just wondering if anyone had ever come across this before.

Brigham made everybody get rebaptised into HIS church. Joseph's baptismal authority was good enough for the Reorganized church.

I was thinking they did some re-baptisms before Joseph died though.

Kind of as a formal entry into the church after they finally decided on a name or something. Can't recall for sure.

There is one other important aspect of this that is easily overlooked. Most of Christianity considers baptism as a commitment to Jesus Christ. The LDS church considers baptism as a way to gain membership into the LDS church. Yes, I know that "following Jesus" is part of the LDS baptismal commitment. But you can be a member of many other churches without being baptized. You simply can't do that in the LDS church. In fact, church statistics did not formally consider 7 year old children as being members of the LDS church until 1989 when the measurement process was changed. Before then, the statistics report included children of record baptized.

But baptismal practices were still being formulated by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. As others have pointed out, rebaptism was common. Getting baptized was not entirely for membership in the church. And, yes, plural marriage was probably involved.

I probably should read the Saints book, but I would look forward to such like I was anticipating my next dentist appointment. It's probably a good idea, but the experience is annoying and I can probably procrastinate it a bit more.

I think they should call for a general re-baptism to make sure people know they are in the COJCOLDS rather than the Mormon church. Such a baptism would work as a census so they could find out how many "members" care enough to take action ensure that they remain members in good standing. Maybe make it part of the tithing settlement ritual one year. What percent of members do you think would actually show up at the font with tithing check in hand?

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:36 am

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:09 pm

I found some references to Michael Quinn that contend these are "re-baptisms" which are thought to be a way to prepare for polygamy.

So I suppose while this might be a really weird thing, it probably isn't an indication she was never baptized.

Just wondering if anyone had ever come across this before.

Brigham made everybody get rebaptised into HIS church. Joseph's baptismal authority was good enough for the Reorganized church.

Wait?! What?

What about all the authority stuff with Juan the Baptist?

Hagoth wrote:I think they should call for a general re-baptism to make sure people know they are in the COJCOLDS rather than the Mormon church. Such a baptism would work as a census so they could find out how many "members" care enough to take action ensure that they remain members in good standing. Maybe make it part of the tithing settlement ritual one year. What percent of members do you think would actually show up at the font with tithing check in hand?

I was joking with a friend about rebaptism during the reformation period in 1850s Utah when they were really trying to reign in non-compliance. Both of us thought a form of it might happen again with Nelson or Oaks at the helm.

Can someone post a reference to this that i can look into. This is totally effed up.

slavereeno wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:37 pm

Can someone post a reference to this that i can look into. This is totally effed up.

Which part? I can send what I came across -- just not sure which part you're looking for.

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:21 pm

slavereeno wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:37 pm

Can someone post a reference to this that i can look into. This is totally effed up.

Which part? I can send what I came across -- just not sure which part you're looking for.

This is another example of what I didn't know, i didn't know. I am referring specifically to Brigham re-baptizing members into the church.

slavereeno wrote:

jfro18 wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:21 pm

slavereeno wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 13, 2018 2:37 pm

Can someone post a reference to this that i can look into. This is totally effed up.

Which part? I can send what I came across -- just not sure which part you're looking for.

This is another example of what I didn't know, i didn't know. I am referring specifically to Brigham re-baptizing members into the church.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_Reformation

It wasn't really to make them members of the church. They already were. It was like a protestant revival where members who had suffered tremendous privations and hardships in colonizing deseret were getting spiritually lazy and their commitment levels were waning, so the leaders fired up the rhetoric and made them recommit through baptism.

slavereeno wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:16 am

This is another example of what I didn't know, i didn't know. I am referring specifically to Brigham re-baptizing members into the church.

Here's the D Michael Quinn part that discusses rebaptism - it starts off talking about how BY had all the apostles rebaptized although the focus is still on Nauvoo, but it's definitely an interesting read: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... text=byusq

jfro18 wrote:

slavereeno wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 14, 2018 11:16 am

This is another example of what I didn't know, i didn't know. I am referring specifically to Brigham re-baptizing members into the church.

Here's the D Michael Quinn part that discusses rebaptism - it starts off talking about how BY had all the apostles rebaptized although the focus is still on Nauvoo, but it's definitely an interesting read: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... text=byusq

Oh yes, I totally forgot about baptisms for healing in the temple. I came across one of my ancestors journals that talks about getting baptized for health in the Logan temple in the late 1800s. If that was a legit practice why didn't it survive do you suppose? Probably to many failures to heal by magic baptismal font holy water.

Thanks!!

I don't get it though. I don't think having spiritual feelings about the BoM or JS is sufficient to establish a "testimony" of the church. You really have to go through that process with (at the very least) Brigham Young, or you are in the wrong branch of Mormonism.