Gramps,

What is the history of baptism?

Charles

Answer

Charles,

Baptism, in Christ’s original Church, was not optional; it was never just a symbolic gesture to be performed after one felt emotionally converted. Instead, it was—in the words of early Christians—“an inseparable part of the salvation process. In fact, there was no salvation without it.” The scriptures and early Christian authors collectively declared four primary purposes for baptism:

1. Essential for Salvation and Entrance into the Kingdom of God:
Baptism is a non-negotiable step—Jesus told Nicodemus that being “born of water and of the Spirit” was required to enter God’s kingdom (John 3:5). Early Christian writers affirmed that “unless therefore they receive saving baptism they cannot be saved.”

2. Necessary for the Remission of Sins:
Baptism was, and is, God’s chosen method of washing away sins—not the water itself, but through the cleansing power of Christ’s atonement. As Peter declared on the day of Pentecost: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). Justin Martyr, an early Christian apologist, explained that converts prayed and fasted “for the remission of their sins that are past…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.”

3. A Witness of One’s Faith and Commitment:
Throughout history, some have argued that faith alone is sufficient and that baptism is only an outward sign. However, scriptural evidence, including Paul’s teachings in Romans, emphasized that our outward actions, such as baptism, are inextricably connected to our inward faith. Tertullian, another early writer, referred to baptism as “a sealing of faith”—an act that completes and confirms our faith.

4. A Drama of Death, Burial, and Resurrection:
Perhaps most powerful is the symbolism embedded in baptism by immersion. Paul described how in baptism we are “buried with him by baptism into death,” and as we come forth from the water, we rise “in the likeness of his resurrection” (Romans 6:3-5). The water becomes both a grave and a womb: a place where the “old man” dies and the “new man” is born—a “spiritual birth.”

In the Church, baptism is not just a step—it is a covenant, “a sacred agreement between God and a person or group of people.”  Candidates for baptism undergo an interview where they express their willingness to keep God’s commandments, take upon themselves the name of Christ, and serve Him faithfully. The immersion in water before witnesses, following the specific prayer, is a physical acceptance of this covenant, and God promises the baptized the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, remission of sins, spiritual rebirth, and eternal life—if they honor their promises.

Early Christian records, the Book of Mormon, and modern revelation agree: baptism is to be performed by immersion by one with proper authority. Christ set the example, being baptized by immersion in the Jordan River even though He was sinless—“to fulfill all righteousness” and show the “straitness of the path…by which [all] should enter.” Nephi explained, “If even the Son of God must be baptized…then surely there is no other way for us.”

In every New Testament case, immersion is the mode. For example, both Jesus and others are described as going “down into the water” and “coming up out of the water” (Matthew 3:16, Acts 8:38). Paul’s metaphors of burial and planting only fit full immersion—not sprinkling or pouring.

Early church writers confirmed this:
– Tertullian: “We are immersed in the water.”
– Justin Martyr: “The water immersion is performed…”
– Bishop Bennet: “They laid them down in the water as a man is laid in a grave… then they raised them up again, and clean garments were put on them…”

The Lord, through modern revelation (Doctrine and Covenants 20:73-74), declared the exact mode and prayer for baptism in the Church. The individual authorized to baptize “shall go down into the water with the person… and shall say, calling him or her by name:

‘Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.’

 

Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.”

The language is simple, direct, and covers every theological necessity without verbosity. As B. H. Roberts observed, “Not a superfluous word in it—direct—covering all the ground necessary, and yet how simple withal!”

In the centuries after Christ and the Apostles, human tradition began to erode the beautiful simplicity of the ordinance. Elaborate rituals were introduced:
– Salt placed in the mouth of the baptized as an emblem,
– Rites of exorcism performed in preparation,
– Adornments with crowns and white robes,
– Anointings, symbolic feedings of milk and honey,
– Restriction of the timing of baptisms to festival days after long preparation.

Despite these intentions, each addition was “a step towards the fulfillment of the prophecy…[that they] changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24, as referenced).

Crucially, the form of baptism itself was altered. “The general rule among Christians is to baptize by sprinkling or pouring. For this change, there is no warrant of revelation. It destroys the symbol there is in baptism as taught by Messiah and his apostles—that of a burial and resurrection.” Infant baptism—first rare, then common—likewise perverted the doctrine, as infants are incapable of faith or repentance, the prerequisites of the ordinance.

As Tad Callister described, once the form was altered, its meaning also changed. “How could pouring or sprinkling be symbolic of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ…?”

Early Christians fiercely debated whether baptism performed by heretics was valid—the consensus was that only baptisms done by proper authority counted, underlining the importance of priesthood commission.

The restoration reaffirmed both the doctrine and the manner of baptism:
– Performed by immersion,
– Using the exact form given by revelation,
– By one holding proper authority from Jesus Christ.

Such continuity anchors the Church in the original Christian tradition and testifies to the doctrine’s enduring relevance.

Gramps

Gramps,

I’m sure Adam and Eve must have been baptized. Who might have performed these ordinances for them? If Peter, James, and John ordained Adam to the priesthood then he would have baptized Eve, but who might have baptized Adam? Did he have to wait until Cain or Abel was old enough and ordained to the priesthood?

Donna

Answer

Donna,

In Moses 6:64 Adam’s baptism was a unique event. The scripture states,

And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.

This passage suggests that Adam’s baptism was not performed by another mortal or even a resurrected being but rather through divine intervention.

This understanding aligns with the belief that God can perform ordinances through His power, even in the absence of a mortal priesthood holder. The act of being “caught away by the Spirit” indicates a profound spiritual experience, emphasizing the sacredness of the moment. This perspective is crucial for members of the Church, as it shows the belief that God is actively involved in the ordinances of His children.

In the Book of Mormon, we find another example of a baptism that raises similar questions. Alma, a prophet and priest, baptized himself and others without the formal authority of a priesthood holder at that time. In Mosiah 18:12-15, Alma states,

12 And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart.

13 And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world.

 

14 And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.

 

15 And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury himself again in the water.

This passage illustrates that Alma acted under divine inspiration, suggesting that the authority to perform baptisms can come directly from God, even in the absence of a formal priesthood structure.

The parallel between Adam’s baptism and Alma’s experience highlights a consistent theme in the scriptures: the importance of divine authority and inspiration in performing sacred ordinances. This understanding can help clarify the confusion surrounding who baptized Adam, reinforcing the idea that God can and does intervene in the lives of His children.

One of the central questions surrounding Adam’s baptism is the nature of authority in performing ordinances. In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is taught that all saving ordinances must be performed by someone holding the proper priesthood authority. However, the unique circumstances of Adam’s baptism challenge this notion. If Adam was baptized by divine intervention, it raises questions about the necessity of mortal authority in the early dispensations of the gospel.

The teachings of the Church suggest that while priesthood authority is essential, God can bestow His power in extraordinary circumstances. This perspective is supported by the experiences of prophets like Alma, who acted under divine direction without formal authority. Thus, Adam’s baptism can be seen as a special case where God’s direct involvement superseded the need for mortal authority.

Another intriguing aspect of Adam’s baptism is the potential involvement of angels or divine messengers. In the writings of Hugh Nibley, it is suggested that Adam received teachings and ordinances from heavenly beings. These accounts indicate that Adam was not alone in his spiritual journey; he had divine assistance in understanding the ordinances of the gospel.

The idea that angels were sent to teach Adam and Eve the law of chastity and other ordinances reinforces the belief that God provides guidance and support to His children. This perspective can help members of the Church understand the significance of divine messengers in the context of baptism and other ordinances, emphasizing the collaborative nature of God’s plan for His children.

In contemporary practice, baptism remains a cornerstone of faith for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is viewed as a necessary step in the journey of discipleship, symbolizing the commitment to follow Jesus Christ and live according to His teachings. The Church teaches that baptism is not only a personal covenant but also a communal one, connecting individuals to the larger body of believers.

The significance of baptism extends beyond the individual; it is a communal act that binds members of the Church together in their shared faith. This understanding can help members appreciate the importance of baptism in their spiritual lives and the lives of their families and communities.

The question of who baptized Adam also invites reflection on the continuity of ordinances throughout the history of the Church. The teachings of the Church emphasize that the same ordinances performed in Adam’s time are still relevant today. This continuity points to the belief that God’s plan for His children has remained consistent, providing a framework for understanding the importance of baptism and other ordinances.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why was baptizing one of the first things that Alma did?

Lee

Answer

Lee,

From the inception of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, baptism has been integral to its structure and growth. Alma’s decision to baptize was not merely a ritualistic act but a foundational step in establishing a cohesive and unified body of believers. By baptizing those willing to make covenants, Alma ensured that the new members were committed to upholding the church’s teachings and dedicating their lives to service.

Baptism serves as the first covenant between an individual and God within the church, signifying a personal commitment to follow Christ’s teachings and live a righteous life. Alma recognized the importance of this covenant in creating a community bound by shared beliefs and values. This act of baptism laid the groundwork for what would become a thriving and enduring religious movement.

Alma’s authority to perform baptisms was deeply rooted in divine sanction and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. According to historical accounts, Alma and Helaman were both immersed in water and arose filled with the Spirit, a testament to the sanctity and spiritual power of the baptismal ordinance. This experience shows the divine authority under which Alma operated and highlights the transformative power of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers.

The necessity of authorized leadership in administering baptism cannot be overstated. Alma, being one of the first leaders with the requisite authority, exemplified the importance of ordained individuals in performing sacred ordinances. This principle remains a cornerstone of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where only those holding priesthood authority are ordained to baptize, ensuring that the ordinance is performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

This communal aspect of baptism reinforces the interconnectedness of church members, encouraging mutual support and accountability. The shared experience of baptism creates a strong foundation for community building, as members are united in their dedication to living according to gospel principles. Alma’s early emphasis on this ordinance was crucial in establishing a resilient and cohesive church community poised for growth and enduring faith.

Alma’s initial acts of baptism hold enduring significance for Latter-day Saints. These early baptisms set a precedent for future generations, emphasizing the importance of obedience, covenant-making, and spiritual authority. The continued practice of baptism as an essential ordinance underscores its foundational role in the faith and organizational structure of the church.

Moreover, Alma’s actions demonstrate the timeless principles of leadership, faith, and dedication that continue to inspire church members today. 

Gramps

Gramps,

In the Old Testament, circumcision was how baby boys were brought into the covenant relationship with God (see Genesis 17:9-12). The ordinance of baptism is also how we are brought into the covenant relationship with God. Why was it okay to bring babies into the covenant relationship through circumcision in the Old Testament, but not okay to bring babies into the covenant through baptism?

Brad

Answer

Brad,

Circumcision, as instituted in the Old Testament, serves as a physical sign of the covenant between God and His people. This ritual was not limited by geography, ethnicity, or age, indicating a universal invitation for inclusion. The practice dates back to the time of Abraham, highlighting its foundational significance in establishing a relationship with the divine.

Genesis 17:10-12 (Joseph Smith Translation) emphasizes the enduring nature of this covenant: “This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee; and ye shall be their God, and they shall be your people.” The removal of the foreskin on the eighth day was a mark of belonging and commitment, symbolizing purity and dedication to God’s commandments. Importantly, circumcision was extended to all male infants, signifying that entry into the covenant community did not hinge on personal culpability but on communal belonging and divine grace.

Contrasting with the Old Testament practice, infant baptism emerged as a prevalent ritual in various Christian denominations. However, its legitimacy has been a subject of theological dispute, particularly within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Critics argue that infant baptism deviates from early Christian teachings and scriptural mandates, suggesting that it was not an original practice endorsed by the apostles or early church fathers.

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of Genesis 17:6 provides a critical perspective: “certain heretics had turned from the commandments, and taken unto themselves the washing of children.” This assertion indicates that the practice of infant baptism was seen as a distortion of true doctrine, introducing a ritual that was not aligned with the intended principles of baptism and covenantal inclusion. Furthermore, the Church’s teachings emphasize that children are not accountable before God until they reach the age of eight, aligning with practices such as circumcision, which underscores personal accountability and the capacity to enter into covenants.

At the heart of the debate lies the understanding of redemption, atonement, and individual accountability. Circumcision in the Old Testament was a visible sign of God’s promise and protection, not directly linked to the concept of original sin or the need for redemption. Conversely, baptism in the New Testament is intrinsically connected to the atonement of Jesus Christ, symbolizing purification and the remission of sins.

The JST clarifies that the doctrine of redemption was misconstrued when linking baptism to the blood of Abel, a reference not supported elsewhere in scripture. This misinterpretation suggests that the practice of infant baptism conflates redemption with a hereditary state of sinfulness, which was not the original intention. Instead, the Church teaches that baptism should be a conscious act of faith, reflecting an individual’s understanding and willingness to accept the covenant with God.

Moreover, the notion that children are born in sin, as interpreted by some through infant baptism, is explicitly refuted in the Church’s doctrine. According to Doctrine and Covenants 74:6-7, children are considered holy and are sanctified through the atonement of Jesus Christ, eliminating the need for baptism as a rite of purification from sin. This theological stance emphasizes the innate innocence of children and their inherent capacity to enter into covenants without the necessity of infant baptism.

The Apostolic Fathers and the Ante-Nicene Fathers provide historical insights into early Christian practices and beliefs. These early church leaders largely advocated for the believer’s baptism, where individuals consciously decide to undergo baptism upon reaching an age of accountability and personal conviction. This practice aligns with the Church’s emphasis on the agency and informed consent of the individual.

The absence of infant baptism in the teachings and practices of the Apostolic Fathers underscores its later development as a theological construct rather than an apostolic mandate. This historical perspective reinforces the argument that infant baptism was a deviation from early Christian traditions, introduced by certain heretical groups who misinterpreted scriptural covenants and doctrines.

Central to the Church’s rejection of infant baptism is the principle of agency—the God-given right and responsibility to make personal choices. Baptism, therefore, is viewed as an act that should be undertaken by individuals who can consciously commit to the covenant, reflecting their understanding and acceptance of its obligations and blessings.

Circumcision, on the other hand, was a communal and physical sign of the covenant, not predicated on personal choice or moral accountability. It served as a perpetual reminder of the ancestral covenant and God’s everlasting promises, thereby not necessitating the individual’s awareness or consent at the time of the ritual.

The differentiation between these two practices highlights a broader theological emphasis on personal agency and accountability in covenant relationships. While circumcision was a communal identifier, baptism represents a personal commitment to follow Christ, necessitating individual understanding and consent.

Gramps

Gramps,

Is baptism a requirement for entrance into the Telestial Kingdom of glory?

Scott

Answer

Scott,

Baptism, a fundamental ordinance in many religious traditions, holds a significant place within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church). Among the three degrees of glory—celestial, terrestrial, and telestial—questions often arise regarding the necessity of baptism for entry into each.

The concept of degrees of glory is central to LDS theology, stemming primarily from revelations found in Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants. This revelation delineates three distinct kingdoms—celestial, terrestrial, and telestial—where souls are assigned based on their earthly lives and adherence to gospel principles. While baptism is universally acknowledged as a gateway to the celestial kingdom, its role in the lower kingdoms requires nuanced exploration. Understanding these requirements not only clarifies doctrinal positions but also offers profound insights into the Church’s teachings on salvation and the afterlife.

In the celestial kingdom, baptism is unequivocally required. It is through this ordinance that individuals commit to following Christ, embrace divine commandments, and prepare for eternal progression. The celestial kingdom represents the fullest manifestation of God’s glory, where ordinances like baptism are indispensable for attaining exaltation and living in the presence of God and the Heavenly Father’s family.

Contrary to the celestial realm, Section 76 explicitly states that baptism is not a prerequisite for entry into the terrestrial or telestial kingdoms. This clarification underscores the Church’s belief that resurrection and habitation in the lower kingdoms do not hinge on the reception of specific ordinances such as baptism. Individuals who fail to receive the gospel in mortality yet live according to their consciences may inherit a degree of glory without undergoing baptism.

The Church practices proxy baptisms in temples on behalf of deceased individuals, providing them with the opportunity to accept or reject the ordinance in the afterlife. These vicarious baptisms are aimed at enabling those who did not receive the gospel during their mortal lives to attain celestial glory, contingent upon their acceptance and repentance. This practice highlights the exclusivity of baptism’s necessity solely for the celestial kingdom, as those destined for the terrestrial or telestial realms do not require such ordinances for their resurrection and posthumous assignments.

By not mandating baptism for the telestial kingdom, the Church acknowledges a broader scope of salvation that accommodates varying levels of righteousness and knowledge. This stance emphasizes God’s infinite mercy and justice, ensuring that all souls receive appropriate recompense based on their earthly lives and choices.

The delineation reinforces the balance between grace and works in LDS theology. While baptism is a critical ordinance for those seeking the highest degree of glory, the absence of such a requirement for the lesser kingdoms underscores the role of personal accountability and divine grace in determining one’s eternal destiny.

For members of the Church, this understanding fosters a commitment to performing saving ordinances for themselves and their ancestors, recognizing the eternal significance of baptism while appreciating the varied outcomes of individual mortal experiences. It also highlights the importance of missionary work and temple ordinances in expanding the opportunities for all to receive the gospel and its associated blessings.

Gramps

Gramps,

The Bible says that if you are not baptized with water and fire, you cannot enter the kingdom of God. My question is how can John the Baptist enter if he was not baptized?

Hyrum

Answer

Hyrum,

Baptism stands as a fundamental ordinance in Christianity, symbolizing a person’s commitment to follow Jesus Christ and enter into a covenant with God. However, a particular question arises when considering the role of John the Baptist: How can he, a pivotal figure in the preparation for Christ’s ministry, enter the kingdom of God if he himself was not baptized with water and fire? 

According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, baptism is essential for entering the kingdom of God. In John 3:5, Jesus states, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” This scripture highlights the necessity of being baptized by both water and the Holy Spirit for salvation. The Church teaches that baptism is not merely a ritual but an essential ordinance that signifies a covenant to follow Christ and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The Church’s teachings emphasize that baptism is a two-part process: being “born of water,” which refers to the physical act of baptism, and being “born of the Spirit,” which references the spiritual rebirth that comes through the Holy Ghost. This duality is crucial for understanding the path to salvation and the conditions for entering the kingdom of God.

John the Baptist occupies a unique position in the New Testament narrative and Latter-day Saint theology. As the forerunner of Christ, he was tasked with preparing the way for the Savior’s ministry. His role is underscored in Matthew 3:11, where he declares, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I.” John’s baptism was intended for the repentance of sins, facilitating a spiritual awakening among the people and pointing them toward Christ.

John held the Aaronic Priesthood, which afforded him the legal authority to perform baptisms. This priesthood was essential for administering the ordinances of the Gospel, and John’s baptism was recognized as valid under this authority. The teachings of Joseph Smith note that John’s mission was limited to preaching and baptizing and that what he did was legal and necessary for the unfolding of God’s plan. This acknowledgment is vital in addressing the question of how John could enter the kingdom of God without the baptism of fire.

While John the Baptist’s baptism was significant, it differed in purpose and effect from the baptism that Jesus would later establish. John’s baptism prepared the people for the coming of the Messiah and involved repentance, but it did not confer the gift of the Holy Ghost, which is a crucial component of the baptism instituted by Jesus. In Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, it is stated that the baptism of Jesus Christ includes the subsequent conferral of the Holy Ghost, marking a full initiation into the kingdom of God.

John’s baptism was a preparatory ordinance, while Jesus’ baptism represents the fullness of the Gospel. By baptizing Jesus, John fulfilled all righteousness and established a connection between his preparatory work and the complete Gospel that Jesus would later deliver. This act further solidified John’s role as a legitimate administrator of the ordinances of God, reinforcing the idea that he was indeed a participant in God’s kingdom on earth.

The question remains: How could John the Baptist enter the kingdom of God if he did not receive the baptism of fire? The teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints provide clarity on this issue. John was a prophet and a legal administrator with the authority to perform baptisms. His prophetic mission was validated through his actions and his unique role within the divine plan.

It is essential to understand that while John’s baptism did not include the gift of the Holy Ghost, he was still part of the kingdom of God due to his authority and his role as a forerunner to Christ. Joseph Smith taught that “there is no salvation … without a legal administrator,” indicating that John’s authority was critical in the unfolding of the Gospel plan. Furthermore, it is believed that John received the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost after Christ’s resurrection, thereby fulfilling the requirements for entering the kingdom of God.

The teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints clarify that baptism is essential for entering the kingdom of God. John the Baptist’s unique role as a forerunner to Christ allowed him to fulfill his divine mission, even without the complete baptism that Jesus established. His baptism served as a preparatory ordinance that pointed individuals toward the Savior and the fullness of the Gospel. Understanding these distinctions illuminates the pathway to salvation and emphasizes the importance of baptism in the eternal plan of God.

As we reflect on these teachings, let us remember the significance of baptism in our own lives and strive to follow the example of John the Baptist, preparing the way for others to come unto Christ.

Gramps

Gramps,

A 10 year old child from a non-member family is being baptized into the church. The mother has given consent despite the stepfathers diapproval. The family has drug and alcohol problems and there are mental health issues at play for the mother. Although her mom gave consent, there is really no home support.The missionaries have never been allowed in the home. Should she be baptized? I feel it puts her at odds with her family.

Abigail

Answer

Dear Abigail,

I understand your  concerns, but would it not be better for that child to have her baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, the support of a loving ward and Church programs to support her in these trials?

I am not just speaking theoretically here. Years ago, there were three young women in my ward that came to church without their families. One of them could have been the girl you describe, her situation was so similar. Today she is active in the church, was married in the temple, her children who are old enough have been on missions including a daughter, and married in the temple. Of the other two girls, one is active, married in the temple etc, and the third is not active as far as I know.

So my answer is absolutely, yes, don’t underestimate the strength of that 10 year old, or deny her the blessings that come with being a member of Christ’s Church.

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

Was Elijah the last Melchizedek priesthood holder until Christ? Or did he just take the sealing keys with him?

Shelia

Answer

Elijah retained the sealing keys, but he was not the last Melchizedek priesthood holder. Elisha was next, followed by other prophets up to Malachi, the last prophet of the Old Testament. Also, there were prophets in the Book of Mormon during the same time period, so the Melchizedek priesthood was present for quite a while after Elijah.

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

I just wondered if the church celebrates any saints’ days like in the Roman Catholic church?

Elizabeth

Answer

We celebrate special events directly connected to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as many other Christian faiths do, such as Christmas and Easter. Along with these we celebrate special events directly related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its history. Events like the publication of the Book of Mormon, the early pioneers and their trek across the plains of America to find and settle in the Salt Lake Valley.

We honor individuals who contributed greatly to the Church including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. However there is no station in the Church equivalent to the Catholic idea of a Saint. We remember people like James E. Talmage who wrote several very spiritual books including Jesus The Christ and The Articles of Faith. We remember Hugh Nibley for his contributions to explaining and defending our faith in clear and sound ways.

These people are prominent in what they did for strengthening the church as a whole, yet that is all they are, prominent people we want to remember.

Gramps

Gramps,

I have a big fear of going underwater. I found my baptism really difficult. I have been a member for nearly 4 years and I still have not done a baptism in the temple because of my fear. My patriarchal blessing talks about me doing family history. I do family history and confirmations in the temple as a way to make up for not doing baptisms. If I never manage to do a baptism for a dead person, what will the consequences be? Will I be less likely to get into the celestial kingdom because of this?

Renata

Answer

Dear Renata,

Be at peace.  Perhaps you will be able to master your fear of going underwater, perhaps not.  Either way, you can do your family history work, and perform other ordinances in the temple.  The youth in your area can serve you by doing the baptisms – something which will bless both you and them.

I have no doubt the Lord understands your heart and that you desire to do this work.  Trust that he will both accept the best you have to offer, and, if you have faith and it’s his will, he will help you to overcome your fear.

Ether 12:27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.  Ether 12:27

Sometimes, the way in which the Lord makes weak things strong is not the way we imagine.  Paul, for example, had some weakness which he referred to as a “thorn in the flesh”, which was not taken away.  Rather, the Lord helped him to endure this trial:

7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

 

8 For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.

 

9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

 

10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.  2 Corinthians 12:7-10

I cannot predict whether the Lord will help you to overcome your fear, or whether he will help you to endure its continued existence.  Either way, I’m confident that if you turn to the Lord, seek his guidance, and do your best to follow him, all will be well in the end.

As for the consequence of not doing the baptisms yourself, I believe it will be as simple as missing whatever you might have experienced by doing them.  That is, you won’t fail to attain the celestial kingdom when the only thing stopping you was a fear over which you had no control.  You won’t be punished for not doing the baptisms yourself.  But you also won’t experience whatever blessings might have come from doing them yourself.  Therefore, keep working at your family history.  Keep doing the ordinances you can.  Serve the Lord and obey his commandments.  If you can, work to overcome your fear – seek help, if needed, both from professionals and through priesthood blessings.  It’s OK if it takes years, just keep doing as much as you can.  Imagine how grateful an ancestor will be knowing that you overcame your fear just to bring her this blessing!  And if you can’t master this fear, you will be stronger for trying, and the Lord will know you did everything you could.  And your ancestors will still thank you for doing the family history work and enlisting the help of others to perform their baptisms.  I’m confident this will be sufficient.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

Hello. I am wondering about my 7 year old autistic son. He is very low functioning and does not speak. He cannot tolerate going ‘anywhere’…. literally. Does not do well around large groups of people, therefore we are unable to attend church. He will probably (although we pray) never be able to completely be accountable for himself. And we are unable to leave him with anyone; ONLY my mother. He will not be able to be baptized next year, when he is 8. Should we be concerned that he is unable to participate in gospel ordinances? The last Sacrament meeting that we attended as a family, was his blessing. because he literally cannot be around a lot of people, noise, smells, etc. I am also concerned for my daughter; who is almost 10 and has not been baptized (simply because of her brother’s disability; is unable to attend church. Please let me know what you think about our situation. Thank you.

Emily

Answer

Dear Emily,

It is not that your autistic son cannot be baptized. The fact is that he has no need to be baptized. The purpose of baptism is the sign of a covenant that, having repented of our sins, we promise to take upon ourselves the name of Christ, to obey His commandments and to remain true and faithful all the days of our life. If we fulfill that covenant, we are promised to receive a remission of our sins and be qualified to enter into the celestial kingdom of God. A minimum age of eight years is established for baptism because that has been defined by God as the minimum age of legal accountability before Him. Children who die before the age of eight, or any others who are not accountable for their actions, are saved in the celestial kingdom without the formality of an ordinance that has no intrinsic meaning for them by the merits of the great atoning sacrifice of the Savior of mankind. So your son is choice spirit, worthy from birth to inherit the celestial kingdom of God. And when he arrives there after his mortal sojourn he will be perfect in body and mind, having all the faculties of his pre-mortal spirit.

You did not mention any details about your family circumstance, other than you have a soon to be eight year old son and a 10 year old daughter, and that the family does not attend church because of the needs of your son.

Would it be possible for one parent to attend church every other week in order to accompany your daughter there? Would it be possible to have your daughter picked up by a neighbor if neither of you were able to attend? Does your daughter go to school during the week? Why would it not be possible by the same token to have her spend three hours in church each Sunday?

Also would it not be possible for your mother to care for your son for a few hours, say, once a month, so that the two of you could attend the temple?

Gramps

Gramps,

In 1 Peter 3:20 it reads:  20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Do the 8 souls saved by water have any connection to the age of accountability?  I’m just curious, I suppose I do not want to read further into something than there actually is.

Thanks!

Aaron

Answer

Dear Aaron,

One of the more interesting verses in the New Testament appears in 1 Peter 3:20:

“Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.”

At first glance, this verse seems fairly simple. Peter is referring to Noah and his family surviving the Flood while the rest of the world rejected God’s warnings. Yet many readers have paused over one detail in particular: why did Peter specifically mention “eight souls”? Since Latter-day Saints place special significance on the age of eight as the age of accountability and baptism, this naturally raises the question of whether there is a connection.

Officially, there is no doctrine from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that directly ties the eight people saved on the ark to the age of accountability. The scriptures never make that claim. Still, there are some beautiful symbolic parallels that are worth considering. Scripture often uses patterns, symbols, and recurring themes to teach deeper spiritual truths, even when those patterns are not meant to establish doctrine in and of themselves.

Peter’s primary purpose in this passage is not to explain the age of accountability. Instead, he is teaching about salvation through Jesus Christ and comparing Noah’s deliverance through water to the ordinance of baptism. In other words, Peter sees the Flood account as more than just a historical event. He sees it as a symbolic foreshadowing of spiritual salvation through Christ.

Just a verse later, Peter writes:

“The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21).

Peter clearly sees Noah’s experience as symbolic of salvation. The Flood represented destruction for the wicked but deliverance for the faithful. Noah and his family passed safely through the water because they trusted God.

Latter-day Saints often recognize this same symbolism in baptism. Going into the water represents death to sin, and coming out of the water represents new life in Christ.

The Pearl of Great Price uses similar imagery. In Moses 6:59, we read:

“That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit… even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit.”

Water is repeatedly associated in scripture with cleansing, rebirth, covenant making, and salvation.

Peter could have simply said that Noah and his family were saved, but instead, he specifically mentioned the number eight. Throughout scripture, numbers sometimes carry symbolic meaning.

In biblical tradition, the number seven is often associated with completion or fullness. The number eight can symbolize a new beginning—a fresh start after completion.

That symbolism fits the Flood narrative remarkably well.

The Flood ended a corrupt world and marked the beginning of a renewed one through Noah and his family. In many ways, the ark carried humanity into a fresh start. That idea of beginning again fits naturally with the symbolism of baptism in LDS theology.

When a child reaches the age of accountability and is baptized at eight years old, baptism represents a spiritual rebirth and the beginning of covenant discipleship. The old life is left behind, and a new life in Christ begins. Because of that, many Latter-day Saints have noticed that the symbolism surrounding Noah’s family and the symbolism surrounding baptism at age eight overlap in meaningful ways, even if the scriptures never directly connect the two.

According to LDS doctrine, little children are innocent before God and are not accountable for sin until they reach the age of eight.

Doctrine and Covenants 68:27 states:

“And their children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old, and receive the laying on of the hands.”

This doctrine is deeply connected to the belief that children are born innocent because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Moroni strongly condemned infant baptism in the Book of Mormon. Moroni 8:8 says:

“Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole.”

Latter-day Saints believe children do not need baptism before they are accountable because Christ’s grace already covers them.

President Joseph F. Smith taught:

“With little children who are taken away in infancy and innocence before they have reached the years of accountability, and are not capable of committing sin, the gospel reveals to us the fact that they are redeemed, and Satan has no power over them.” (The Salvation of Little Children)

This doctrine makes the age of eight highly significant in LDS theology. It marks the beginning of personal accountability and covenant responsibility.

Even though there is no official teaching tying Noah’s eight souls directly to the age of accountability, several symbolic parallels are meaningful to many Latter-day Saints when reading these passages together.

Both stories involve salvation through water. Noah’s family was physically saved through the floodwaters, while baptism symbolizes spiritual salvation through Jesus Christ. Peter himself directly connects the Flood to baptism, making the comparison impossible to ignore.

After the Flood, humanity began again through Noah’s family. Likewise, after baptism at age eight, a child symbolically begins a new spiritual life as a covenant disciple of Christ. In both cases, water is connected to cleansing, renewal, and a fresh beginning.

Noah entered into a covenant with God. After the Flood, God established a covenant with Noah and gave the rainbow as a sign.

Likewise, baptism is a covenant ordinance.

Both experiences involve entering into a special relationship with God through faith and obedience.

In scripture, eight can symbolize transition, renewal, or a new order.

For example, male children under the law of Moses were circumcised on the eighth day. Circumcision represented covenant entry into the house of Israel.

Similarly, baptism at age eight represents covenant entry into Christ’s Church.

Because of these patterns, some LDS teachers and members have informally drawn symbolic connections between the number eight in Noah’s story and the age of accountability.

Still, it is important to distinguish between symbolism and doctrine.

It is probably unwise to claim that Peter intentionally meant the eight souls on the ark to prophesy or establish the age of accountability.

The scriptures themselves never make that connection directly.

LDS doctrine on the age of accountability comes primarily through modern revelation, especially Doctrine and Covenants 68 and Moroni 8.

This is often how scripture works. There are meaningful patterns and symbols throughout the scriptures that teach spiritual truths without necessarily being formal doctrine.

Elder David A. Bednar has taught the importance of distinguishing between eternal doctrine and personal interpretation. He explained:

“Doctrine refers to the eternal, unchanging, and simple truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Principles are doctrinally based guidelines for what we ought to do.”  (Doctrines, Principles, and Applications: A Framework for Gospel Learning)

That perspective is helpful here. Symbolic parallels can strengthen faith, but they should not be treated as revealed doctrine unless the Lord has clearly declared them.

In this case, the safest conclusion is that the connection is symbolic rather than doctrinal.

Even if the connection is symbolic, it is still beautiful.

The Flood story reminds us that God preserves and saves those who enter into a covenant with Him.

Baptism at age eight represents a child willingly entering the covenant path.

Both experiences involve water, faith, covenant, and beginning again. Most importantly, both point toward salvation through Jesus Christ.

In many ways, Noah’s ark itself can even be viewed as a symbol of Christ—a place of safety amid destruction.

Just as Noah’s family entered the ark to survive the Flood, disciples enter into a covenant with Christ through baptism to receive spiritual safety and eternal life.

So, do the eight souls saved by water in 1 Peter 3:20 have a connection to the age of accountability?

Officially, LDS doctrine does not teach a direct connection.

However, there are strong symbolic similarities that many Latter-day Saints appreciate:

• Both involve salvation through water,
• Both represent new beginnings,
• Both involve covenant relationships with God,
• and both are associated with the number eight.

Peter’s primary message was about salvation through Jesus Christ and the symbolism of baptism. Yet the recurring scriptural themes surrounding the number eight beautifully harmonize with the restored doctrine that children become accountable and enter the covenant path through baptism at age eight.

Whether intentional symbolism or simply a meaningful pattern, the connection ultimately points us back to Christ, whose grace makes all covenant relationships possible.

Gramps

Gramps,

Why are some people baptized and become active and others baptized and become inactive ?  As individuals, as wards, as missionaries, or as individual members who pay attention ?

Theodore

Answer

Dear Gramps,

Is there a commandment in the church that says you can’t be re-baptized when recommitting yourself? I have a son who has been inactive, but is coming back. He just wants me to re-baptize him to show his recommitment to himself and God I guess. He has not been excommunicated, he does not want laying of hands for membership or Holy Ghost. He just wants me to do it. No recording of it, no witnesses. If there is a law against it where and why. Can you advise please?

Jon

Answer

Dear Jon,

Rebaptism to show recommitment to the gospel used to be common enough early in the Restoration, but I think it’s been about 150 years since we really practiced that. I don’t think there are any rules against it. It’s more that it isn’t done, because it isn’t necessary.  We have the privilege and opportunity to renew our baptismal covenants weekly when we partake of the Sacrament.

Because the Sacrament is something we can/should do weekly, there may be a tendency to take it for granted.  However there are blessings awaiting those who appreciate this sacred ordinance.  Elder Don R. Clarke gave a beautiful talk about these blessings (I recommend it), and in part he said:

“If we have spent time before sacrament meeting repenting of our sins, we can leave sacrament meeting feeling clean and pure. President Boyd K. Packer said: “The sacrament renews the process of forgiveness. Every Sunday when the sacrament is served, that is a ceremony to renew the process of forgiveness. … Every Sunday you cleanse yourself so that, in due time, when you die your spirit will be clean.” Partaking of the sacrament worthily can help us feel like the people of King Benjamin, who “were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience.”

Gramps