Baptism for Health

Yep. Things change, even “central” things, no matter what some people say.

It should be noted that we didn’t practice “infant baptism” in the classic sense of that term. Baptisms for health and baptisms for the remission of sins were seen as two very distinct practices, and we never baptized small children or infants for a remission of sins. When they were baptized, it always was for healing / health.

It should be noted that we didn’t practice “infant baptism” in the classic sense of that term. Baptisms for health and baptisms for the remission of sins were seen as two very distinct practices, and we never baptized small children or infants for a remission of sins. When they were baptized, it always was for healing / health.

Ray, you are absolutely correct. See below from Journal of Mormon History

That baptism for health was viewed as separate and distinct

from other baptismal rituals in Nauvoo is illustrated by the scattered

references to administering the ritual to children under the age of

eight, a practice not extant in later periods. Abraham Hunsaker had

his three-year-old son baptized in the temple font in the spring of

1842, and Seymour B. Young told a 1921 general conference that his

father had baptized him for his health before he turned eight.

Bathsheba Smith wrote to her missionary husband about their

three-month-old son: “George Albert was sick last saterday and

sunday.He had quite a feavor. I was vary uneaseey about

him . . . I took him to the fount and had him baptised and sinse

then he has not hadany feavor. He is about well now.”

Furthermore, while baptism for health had become a formalized

rite for Church members, healings associated with convert

baptisms also continued, although records ofthem became less

frequent with the passage of time.

Honestly, SD, if we can go from circumcision to baptism as the marker of God’s covenant people . . .

This one doesn’t bother me at all. We don’t immerse in water now; we put a drop of oil on someone’s head. Both are symbolic for me, and, generally, they were / are prayers of faith. I’ve never been bothered by form, since I don’t think form has any relevance to efficacy, in and of itself. It’s the symbolism that counts, and I can see why baptism for health had great symbolism for the people at that time. Also, since it didn’t have any impact on how baptism for the remission of sins was seen, I really don’t see it as opposed to or even changing that particular ordinance. I just see it as using the same outward form for a totally different purpose – and I’m totally cool with that.

Honestly, SD, if we can go from circumcision to baptism as the marker of God’s covenant people . . .

That may be the most epic line in the history of the internet! (Okay, maybe that’s a bit of hyperbole)

There are many, many reasons I prefer the NT gospel to the OT gospel. Right up near the top of the list is the switch from cutting off the foreskin (ouch!) to taking a bath (aaahhh). Great analogy, Ray!

There is direct record, I think, of only one baby (or a very small number) – and that baby was very sick at the time. Remember, this was for health and healing, so it would make sense to use it in the case of serious sickness, regardless of age. Even given that, however, the fact that there is no record of extensive practice with babies or even young children indicates that, generally, the people viewed it as intended for those already “cleansed” by baptism for the remission of sins. That is harder to pin down objectively, since what is assumed as obvious often isn’t discussed or recorded (which has many other ramifications when trying to understand people more fully), but I think it’s accurate to say it that way.

I know a man who is from South America. He and most of the people he knew growing up were poor.

I was amazed once when he told me about all of the healing blessings in which he had participated throughout his life. A few were jaw-dropping, but many were for conditions that are commonplace to us – things for which we wouldn’t think of asking for a blessing. Initially, I was a bit bemused and almost dismissive of how “commonly” they relied on blessings, and I asked him why it was so commonplace and not more special.

His response humbled me, but it also opened my eyes to my own assumptions and what I take for granted. He said:

“You can take some aspirin or go to a doctor and get a prescription. Your health insurance makes it cost next to nothing. We didn’t have that option. God was our only physician, so we went to him.”

I will never stop using the resources I have available to me, but I also will not ridicule or even question people who go / went to God in their lack of things I take for granted. I hope I can take advantage of ALL of my resources, and I hope that never stops including God – even if that varies in degree from others on either side of the spectrum from me.

I thought US health insurance was horrifically expensive?