Infant Baptism and the Nephites

[Uncle Dale]

An important part of the Book of Moroni is its condemnation

of Nephite infant baptism.

Is there some reason that the later Nephites went astray on

this point?

Didn't they previously have the fulness of the gospel among them?

UD

[Joseph Antley]

An important part of the Book of Moroni is its condemnation

of Nephite infant baptism.

Is there some reason that the later Nephites went astray on

this point?

Didn't they previously have the fulness of the gospel among them?

UD

The Catholics had the fullness of the Gospel among them once too.

[Uncle Dale]

The Catholics had the fullness of the Gospel among them once too.

Yeah -- but our leaders have taught us that the Great and Abominable

Church perverted the Bible.

If Christ's doctrines were engraved upon metal plates and kept by

the Nephite Church, then I'd expect that the Great and Abominable

Church would have had a great deal more trouble in foisting infant

baptism upon the preColumbian American Christians.

But what is even more strange, is that Mormon had to inquire of

God, to know true doctrine. What use is it to keep a perfect record

of divine commandments, if even the greatest of prophets grow up

not knowing true doctrine?

Seems a bit muddled to me.

UD

[Joseph Antley]

Yeah -- but our leaders have taught us that the Great and Abominable

Church perverted the Bible.

But that isn't the source of all false doctrine. Leaders have never taught that the biblical autographs ever taught against infant baptism or that they more clearly commanded baptism by immersion than they currently do.

If Christ's doctrines were engraved upon metal plates and kept by

the Nephite Church, then I'd expect that the Great and Abominable

Church would have had a great deal more trouble in foisting infant

baptism upon the preColumbian American Christians.

That again assumes that infant baptism is the result of a corruption of the scriptures. This is not necessarily the case.

But what is even more strange, is that Mormon had to inquire of

God, to know true doctrine. What use is it to keep a perfect record

of divine commandments, if even the greatest of prophets grow up

not knowing true doctrine?

If only we could fit every detail of true doctrine onto the scriptures and also anticipate every misinterpretation so as to better articulate said doctrine and subsequently prevent false doctrines from arising.

But that doesn't happen -- and thankfully the Lord has given us a Prophet so as to guide us when the scriptures are not sufficient.

[Uncle Dale]

...

That again assumes that infant baptism is the result of a corruption of the scriptures.

This is not necessarily the case.

...

Well, at least "corruption of the fulness of the gospel."

So, I guess we are agreed that the baptizing of infants in

the Nephite Church came about somewhere between 4th Nephi

and Moroni -- and that the Prophet Mormon grew up not

knowing it was false doctrine, until he inquired of the Lord?

Strange way to operate the one true church...

UD

[Joseph Antley]

Well, at least "corruption of the fulness of the gospel."

So, I guess we are agreed that the baptizing of infants in

the Nephite Church came about somewhere between 4th Nephi

and Moroni -- and that the Prophet Mormon grew up not

knowing it was false doctrine, until he inquired of the Lord?

Strange way to operate the one true church...

UD

What's so strange about it? They had been baptizing adults by immersion until Moroni's day when some people starting baptizing infants. Mormon prays about it, and the Lord confirms that infant baptism is a "gross error."

I don't see why that'a s "strange way" for the one true church to operate.

[CV75]

Strange way to operate the one true church...

It seems to me that Moroni 8:7 shows that Mormon, having heard about the disputations over the doctrine, approached the Lord and inquired of the best way to explain the correct practice and doctrine, and how best to use this to handle the disputations and put away the practice. He did this in behalf of young Moroni (it was "soon after my calling" Moroni 8:1), who Mormon evidently saw as being in a position to influence the resolution of the disputes and remove the practice of infant baptism. Perhaps it was a way to remind Moroni to assert himself in righteousness. Maybe that particular group confused some concepts into "become as little children and be baptized" and took it a bit too literally and a bit too far.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

In my searching over the last few years, I have come to the unexpected conclusion that the church (even the "one true church") has always had errors because of the precepts of men. The only time it was, perhaps, perfect was during the "Golden Age" of the Nephites and it will be perfect when New Jerusalem is built and the Lord dwells amoung His people. Ironically, both times are when divisions cease and the people work together.

[Uncle Dale]

In my searching over the last few years, I have come to the unexpected conclusion that the church (even the "one true church") has always had errors because of the precepts of men. The only time it was, perhaps, perfect was during the "Golden Age" of the Nephites and it will be perfect when New Jerusalem is built and the Lord dwells amoung His people. Ironically, both times are when divisions cease and the people work together.

I think that this is one of the messages of the Book of Mormon --

but not the only view given (or perceptible) in its pages.

On one hand we have the image of a pristine, perfect church,

having the fulness of the everlasting gospel -- troubled only by

an occasional lapse into apostasy around its outer edges.

On the other hand, we have the image of false doctrines such as

infant baptism taking hold so strongly that even the major

prophets do not recognize the errors for a while.

How does Mormon retain his priesthood if he was baptized as an

infant, and has baptized his family and neighbors as infants?

Why does God allow such apostasy to take over the Church, and

only later issue an oracle condemning the doctrine and its

practitioners as evil -- horrible -- anathema?

There is a slight parallel in Paul's epistles, where he now

and then condemns one of his far-flung congregations for drifting

into apostasy, I suppose. Did his priesthood appointees in places

like Corinth retain their priesthood, even while in perversion?

Did Paul himself teach and practice abominations, as an apostle

and prophet -- only to finally be corrected by God, much later?

The situation of infant baptism in the Nephite Church opens the

question of just how far the "one true church" can drift away

from the fulness of the gospel, and still retain the continued

presence of the Holy Ghost and the powers of the priesthood.

UD

.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I believe that ministerial authority can, in spite of minor errors, continue to exist in the church, as long as that church teaches the "Doctrine of Christ"...

3 Nephi 11:31-39

31Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

36And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghostwill bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

39Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

** Pardon the underline and other problems, the LDS Scripture search feature still isn't perfect***

[J Green]

Hey, Unk.

Your characterization of the issue seems fairly skewed to me. So I reread the chapter and still don't see it. How do you get that this has been going on for some time? (I get the exact opposite.) Given the passages as they stand, how can you infer that it's possible that Mormon himself was baptized as an infant? How do you get idea from the OT, BoM, or NT that whatever organization of God was on the earth was perfect and didn't have to correct assumptions of man, interpretations of man, or question God at all about about doctrine? The history of scripture is, in fact, a history of exactly that--Peter praying about teaching the gentiles and getting a vision about unclean becoming clean, etc. In short, I have a hard time understanding your premise at all. Help me see where you're coming from.

Regards

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Reviewing Chapter 8 it appears that Mormon knew this was an unacceptable practice that was not practice where he was at, but that it was a question causing contention amoung the Saints at Moroni's location. So it appears maybe the issue wasn't spoken of much in the church at the time. Chapter 8 appears to be Mormon writing what the Lord would have him say to the Saints with Moroni, not Moroni being corrected for himself teaching the error.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I have a hard time understanding your premise at all. Help me see where you're coming from.

...

If there were corruptions in the Nephite Church, then the Prophet Mormon,

above all others, should have had access to the centuries of Divine oracles

and counsel from the Nephite Church equivalents of the First Presidency

and the Q12. The whole purpose of engraving the commandments upon imperishable

metal plates, was to keep holy writ from corruption.

If infant baptism had crept into the Church before Mormon's birth, than

he can be excused (during his early years) for not immediately recognizing

the corruption. However, once he himself had the continual presence of

the Holy Ghost, and a pure and righteous ordination, he should have also

possessed the spiritual discernment to recognize and weed out apostasy,

without waiting for specific commandments to restore gospel fulness.

Nevertheless, I presume that the LDS teach that the Leaders of the One

True Church cannot lead it astray in the Seventh Dispensation -- but that

they could have done so during the Sixth (Nephite) Dispensation. And so

perhaps Mormon, at one point, was operating under the direction of

corrupt leaders.

If we assume that the infant baptism apostasy was of very recent origin,

and had only been going on a few days, then Mormon perhaps can be excused

for not having combated it earlier. At any rate, his simple citation of

the holy texts under his keeping should have been sufficient to have

nipped the problem in the bud -- on the very day that he heard of the

first apostate baptism.

UD

[CV75]

How does Mormon retain his priesthood if he was baptized as an infant, and has baptized his family and neighbors as infants?

This is not the case as presented in Moroni Chapter 8. As I read it, disputations (between the true and the false doctrine) had begun among the people with whom young minister Moroni was working. His father Mormon heard about it, became concerned, wondered why the novice Moroni couldn't (or wouldn't) set them straight, and inquired of the Lord--not to be informed of the true doctrine, or to teach his uninformed son the true doctrine, but to address the problem at hand: disputation and false practice where a neophyte (yes, a Nephite neophyte) was responsible for keeping the church on track. As I read it, both Moroni and Mormon knew the true doctrine, but Mormon thought his son needed his (Mormon's) help, and that he (Mormon) needed the Lord's help in framing an intervention.

[CV75]

At any rate, his simple citation of the holy texts under his keeping should have been sufficient to have nipped the problem in the bud -- on the very day that he heard of the first apostate baptism.

The use of an epistle indicates that they were separated by distance or other circumstances, and the chaotic environment could easily have interrupted communications on many levels. Who knows how long Mormon had heard about the problem but was prevented from responding, or how long the problem had been going on before he heard about it, or before young Moroni appeared on the scene. Or what obstacles Moroni was facing--maybe someone stole his scriptures or his handbook, or he lost them. President Monson observed in the worldwide training last week how easily false practices can creep into the units of the true church, and cited some examples.

[ELF1024]

An important part of the Book of Moroni is its condemnation

of Nephite infant baptism.

Is there some reason that the later Nephites went astray on

this point?

Didn't they previously have the fulness of the gospel among them?

UD

Not everyone gives two shakes about the truth and fullness of the Gospel. Many simply dismissed it as the "foolish traditions of our fathers". Nehor, Korihor, The Zoramites, Lamanites, etc...

[J Green]

the Prophet Mormon, above all others, should have had access to the centuries of Divine oracles

and counsel from the Nephite Church equivalents of the First Presidency

and the Q12.

Due to the war, he missed the worldwide training meeting and didn't get his CHI.

Still, you haven't established your premise that this issue would or even should have been on the plates. Rather odd for someone with a restorationist background--not that you have to believe the concept of continuing revelation, but at least you should understand it. I'd like to ask you again, if I may: What in the OT, NT, or BoM leads you to believe that all understanding was given at one time on everything and all of it written down? I'm very intrigued by this position of yours.

Also, I'd love to see your textual analysis of these verses in terms of how we get to Mormon's infant baptism. It's seems clear to everyone else in the thread that this is a local, recent issue.

Regards

[Uncle Dale]

Due to the war, he missed the worldwide training meeting and didn't get his CHI.

Still, you haven't established your premise that this issue would or even should have been on the plates. Rather odd for someone with a restorationist background--not that you have to believe the concept of continuing revelation, but at least you should understand it. I'd like to ask you again, if I may: What in the OT, NT, or BoM leads you to believe that all understanding was given at one time on everything and all of it written down? I'm very intrigued by this position of yours.

An interesting concept -- that when Christ founded his American Church,

he did not bother to tell his disciples that infant baptism was a horrid

abomination, practiced only by the most despicable of apostates. But,

that may indeed be what the Book of Mormon teaches. I don't know.

But the more interesting idea is that the Nephites did not have the

fulness of the gospel, recorded upon their centuries of holy records,

oracles, prophecies, instruction, etc. -- Somehow, in all of that

Divine doctrine, nobody ever was told not to baptize infants. Or, at

least such a core teaching never got written down until Moroni's day.

If so, then such a situation reinforces an old RLDS explanation I've

heard now and then ---> that the BoM instruction was written for us,

and not for the Nephites. We have the fulness of the Gospel in the BoM;

but probably not one Nephite in a million was so fortunate as we are.

If THAT was the case, I withdraw my criticisms. The Nephites did not

have the fulness of the gospel -- not even during the 3rd Nephi Christophany.

Also, I'd love to see your textual analysis of these verses in terms of how we get to Mormon's infant baptism. It's seems clear to everyone else in the thread that this is a local, recent issue.

Regards

I'm not sure that there ever was a Mormon -- but, abiding by the story in the

book, what stops him from having been raised among apostates, and partaking

of apostate doctrines? If infant baptism could so easily slip into the

One True Church, when under the direction of prophets, what barrier was in

effect to have prevented the apostasy at some earlier period?

Perhaps the modern reader can blame it all upon the Nephite priesthood --

who did a remarkably poor job of keeping church discipline and of fostering

the continual presence of the Holy Spirit. One can only wonder what sort

of men were running their equivalent to the First Presidency.

But, supposing that Mormon was raised in an entirely orthodox ward/branch,

and not exposed to wickedness masquerading as godliness, then why did he

not foresee and guard against unworthy members being elevated to leaders'

positions? Or -- perhaps the infant baptizers were so far astray from

Mormon's religion, that they had never even been ordained?

At any rate, he seems surprised at there being such a huge problem,

and does not cite a single line of scripture, to communicate the pure

doctrines of his ancestors. I find that remarkable.

UD

[nosmelone]

I can kind of see where Uncle Dale is coming from with this. To me it does seem kind of odd that Mormon wouldn't have already known this doctorine and just knipped it in the bud immediatly. Instead he inquires of the Lord first (almost as if he wasn't sure himself). But when we take into consideration Mormons past there may be a reason for him either not knowing or not running into this issue before this time. When he was 10 years old he was told by Ammaron to remember the things which he observed of this people and at the age of 24 he should get the plates at the land called Antum at a hill called Shim and get the records that Ammaron had deposited there. When (Mormon) was 11 years old he was carried by his father (also Mormon)"into the land southward even to the land of Zarahemla." This would mean he was probably born in the land northward. A few verses later states that "wickeness did prevail upon the whole face of the land, insomuch that the Lord did take away his beloved disciples, and the work of miracles and of healing did cease because fo the iniquity of the people". Later when he was 15 years old he endeavored to preach but his mouth was shut and he was forbidden that he should preach unto them for behold they had willfully rebelled against their God. We know that shortly after receiving the records burried at Shim that Mormon was eventually allowed to preach to the people but it was all in vain. Other than some of the epistles posted by Moroni of his father Mormons teachings we don't really know how much finding, teaching and baptizing Mormon ever did in his time. I would guess not much finding or baptizing. We Know of the teachings in Moroni 7 by Mormon to members of the Church

" you that are of the church that are the peaceable followers of Christ, and have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord , from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven. 13.) And now my brethren, I would judge these things of you because of your peaceable walk with the children of men."

Considering a previous land treaty that took place in Mormon 2:28-29 we know that at this time the Nephites would have been in the land northward because they gave the whole land southward to the Lamanites. Since none of the Nephites fit the description of "peaceable followers of Christ who have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord." I would assume Mormon is more than likely preaching to the decendents of either righteous Nephites who had migrated north or remenants of the Anti Nephi Lehies who we know migrated north according to Helaman 3 my guess is the latter. Either way we don't know exactly how much time he spent among them (the righteous people) but if we assume that it wasn't too much time than he might not have been baptizing among them considering they were already a righteous people who should have had the priesthood activilty working among them.

Although Mormon is the great compiler of all things scripture, it seems to me that his relationship with his father in Heaven via the Holy Ghost was on very good terms judging by the fact that the Lord made it known unto him when he could and couldn't preach to the Nephites. For someone who has access to these vast records it is interesting that both him and Moroni were in need of being taught by the three Nephites on occasion. So basically if Mormon was hardly ever around righteous people whom he could baptize considering most of his time among the Nephites he either couldn't preach to them or refused to due to their iniquities. It would seem to me that him not being accustomed to the act of baptism isn't really that surprising.

[CV75]

At any rate, he seems surprised at there being such a huge problem, and does not cite a single line of scripture, to communicate the pure doctrines of his ancestors. I find that remarkable.

The records stated, in several places even in the abridgment, that under Jesus

[Brant Gardner]

I see a very similar process in the New World as occurred in the Old World. There is a nice thread that ties immersion to sprinkling as symbolic of burial -- and the baptism of infants is logical when original sin becomes an important doctrine. In other words, a series of different forces combined to result in the practice in the Old World.

In the New World, there are different forces at work. There is ample evidence that the ending period of the Nephites is one where they are becoming more like the Lamanites, that is, absorbing more Lamanite culture and opinion. Infant washing is known for the Maya and Aztecs and the Spanish called it a "baptism." It isn't hard to see how that cultural practice could conflate with baptism among Nephites, with the only question being one of age rather than function.

What I see happening is that there has developed a cultural practice that has some logic behind it, and the question that Mormon has to clarify is how baptism is related to the exercise of agency. In a New World context, all of the issues fit and do not require any assumption of anti-Catholic polemic.

[Uncle Dale]

I see a very similar process in the New World as occurred in the Old World. There is a nice thread that ties immersion to sprinkling as symbolic of burial -- and the baptism of infants is logical when original sin becomes an important doctrine. In other words, a series of different forces combined to result in the practice in the Old World.

In the New World, there are different forces at work. There is ample evidence that the ending period of the Nephites is one where they are becoming more like the Lamanites, that is, absorbing more Lamanite culture and opinion. Infant washing is known for the Maya and Aztecs and the Spanish called it a "baptism." It isn't hard to see how that cultural practice could conflate with baptism among Nephites, with the only question being one of age rather than function.

What I see happening is that there has developed a cultural practice that has some logic behind it, and the question that Mormon has to clarify is how baptism is related to the exercise of agency. In a New World context, all of the issues fit and do not require any assumption of anti-Catholic polemic.

Growing up, I was presented with the view that every Nephite household had its

set of metal plates, containing the fulness of the gospel. Or, if a family was

too poor for such a treasure, the local Nephite synagogue certainly had all

the scriptures available ---- for, how else could a Nephite be expected to

live by every word that proceeds from out of the mouth of God?

Nowadays, after reading the book more times than I care to remember, I do

not have that same mental picture. We can read in Helaman how all the church

members are righteous one year, in the reign of the judges, and a year or two

later are consumed by wickedness.

If such were truly the case, perhaps a Nephite branch could be fully

orthodox one year, and a stench upon the face of the earth, the very

next year --- with once faithful priesthood leaders sinking so low as

to be raping Lamanite women, killing them, and devouring their dead bodies.

If such is a true record of Nephite Christianity, it would not be surprising

that a branch, or ward, or stake, or entire mission field resorted to baptizing

infants --- even when their engraved metal scriptures clearly stated Divine

commands for faith, repentance and restitution, prior to a baptismal request.

I did not mean to pick upon poor Mormon. I just meant to point out some

oddities which do not sound much like Latter Day Saintism as I know it.

UD

.

[J Green]

Hey, Unk.

I think you need to start with defining exactly what you think a fullness of the gospel actually means. This may help as you try to work out what this means about infant baptism among the ancient Nephites.

An interesting concept -- that when Christ founded his American Church,

he did not bother to tell his disciples that infant baptism was a horrid

abomination, practiced only by the most despicable of apostates. But,

that may indeed be what the Book of Mormon teaches. I don't know.

Given the absence of any belabored list of how not to baptize on the plates (of the portion that was translated) I would have to say that your premise is the interesting concept. There "may indeed" have been some instruction like this, but it sure isn't evident. Surely can't be the default assumption.

But the more interesting idea is that the Nephites did not have the

fulness of the gospel, recorded upon their centuries of holy records,

oracles, prophecies, instruction, etc. -- Somehow, in all of that

Divine doctrine, nobody ever was told not to baptize infants. Or, at

least such a core teaching never got written down until Moroni's day.

Why do you assume that a fullness of the gospel equates to fullness of gospel doctrine? How do you define the concept?

I'm not sure that there ever was a Mormon -- but, abiding by the story in the

book, what stops him from having been raised among apostates, and partaking

of apostate doctrines? If infant baptism could so easily slip into the

One True Church, when under the direction of prophets, what barrier was in

effect to have prevented the apostasy at some earlier period?

Mormon hears of the disputations from Moroni and immediately asks God about the practice (Mor 8:4-7). Does this sound like Mormon had been raised among the practice himself? If he had been raised among the practice among apostates, why is he only inquiring of the Lord after he hears about it from Moroni? Do you have a different analysis?

Perhaps the modern reader can blame it all upon the Nephite priesthood --

who did a remarkably poor job of keeping church discipline and of fostering

the continual presence of the Holy Spirit. One can only wonder what sort

of men were running their equivalent to the First Presidency.

This premise assumes

1. A doctrinal list of non-standard baptismal practices had been given by revelation previously.

2. This revelatory "CHI" was written down on Gold Plates volume 2.

And to a lesser extent . . .

3. That everyone in all local/rural "branches" had access to all copies of all the records or that they could submit for an inter-library loan to Mormon for the records.

I find these assumptions untenable. Can you point to any textual data that supports these?

At any rate, he seems surprised at there being such a huge problem,

and does not cite a single line of scripture, to communicate the pure

doctrines of his ancestors. I find that remarkable.

Instead of finding it remarkable, shouldn't it rather be an indicator for a careful historian to presume that there was no earlier instruction to cite? Wouldn't that be the more careful premise?

Do you find it remarkable that Peter would have been shown a vision in order to change Church policy towards the gentiles instead of quoting Leviticus? Oh, wait . . .

Cheers.

[J Green]

I see a very similar process in the New World as occurred in the Old World. There is a nice thread that ties immersion to sprinkling as symbolic of burial -- and the baptism of infants is logical when original sin becomes an important doctrine. In other words, a series of different forces combined to result in the practice in the Old World.

In the New World, there are different forces at work. There is ample evidence that the ending period of the Nephites is one where they are becoming more like the Lamanites, that is, absorbing more Lamanite culture and opinion. Infant washing is known for the Maya and Aztecs and the Spanish called it a "baptism." It isn't hard to see how that cultural practice could conflate with baptism among Nephites, with the only question being one of age rather than function.

What I see happening is that there has developed a cultural practice that has some logic behind it, and the question that Mormon has to clarify is how baptism is related to the exercise of agency. In a New World context, all of the issues fit and do not require any assumption of anti-Catholic polemic.

Always love your posts, Brant. This is a great insight.

[J Green]

Growing up, I was presented with the view that every Nephite household had its

set of metal plates, containing the fulness of the gospel. Or, if a family was

too poor for such a treasure, the local Nephite synagogue certainly had all

the scriptures available ---- for, how else could a Nephite be expected to

live by every word that proceeds from out of the mouth of God?

This would be rather extraordinary for an ancient American civilization. Multiple copies of the metal plates (enough for most families)? Widespread literacy? I don't see it and I don't buy it. If the OP rests on these premises, then this accounts for a lot of the disconnect. Can you point to any textual data to support these assumptions?