Proper method of baptism.

[dgrichards]

During a baptism the priesthood holder should raise his right arm to the square. If he raises his left arm to the square and performs the baptism will the child that was baptized need to be re-baptized?

[russellhltn]

During a baptism the priesthood holder should raise his right arm to the square. If he raises his left arm to the square and performs the baptism will the child that was baptized need to be re-baptized?

Short of finding a clear answer in a Handbook, I think you're going to have to run that one by the stake president or mission president. If he's not sure, he can ask the area authority.

[sbradshaw]

This is something that you'd hope the witnesses would catch so it could be repeated right away in the font. After the baptism is over, scheduling a rebaptism will be difficult, if it's necessary.

Sometimes there are allowances made in ordinances whe n a person is physically disadvantaged – for example, if the baptizer doesn't have a right arm.

[dfchamplain]

Handbook 2 says that the person must raise their right arm to the square - https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... eng#20.3.8

It also outlines how to deal with individuals who may have disabilities -
https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2 ... eng#20.1.4

[Jimdeanworkman]

Actually the only thing that can invalidate an ordinance is if the person performing it didn’t have the proper authority. The ordinance you describe is valid for God knows our intentions and would not condemn someone because of the errors of man.

[jgoggan]

Just wanted to follow up on this since we had it happen recently.

I think the part about witnesses in the Handbook is interesting in relation to this. It states: "A baptism must be repeated if the words are not spoken exactly as given in Doctrine and Covenants 20:73. It must also be repeated if part of the person’s body, hair, or clothing is not completely immersed."

It seems to specifically mention the things that could invalidate it being the words being wrong and not being completely immersed. It does not seem to indicate that they are to confirm which hand is held up.

I mean, I've seen LOTS of baptisms where you could argue that the (right) arm was not exactly "to the square". I've never seen one invalidated because of that.

I tend to side with the crowd that says if it was done with proper authority, the words were said properly, and the person was fully immersed, then the ordinance is valid.

[jgoggan]

(I'll also add that 3rd Nephi says nothing about arm position...)