Did Moroni Know About Baptism By Proxy?

[inquiringmind]

If Moroni or his readers knew about baptism by proxy, why would he say this the way he does here?

...little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism. Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. (Moroni 8:12-13.)

Doesn't his reasoning--his presupposition here--preclude any knowledge or understanding of proxy baptism (or baptism for the dead)?

Edited February 10, 2012 by inquiringmind

[CV75]

Doesn't his reasoning--his presupposition here--preclude any knowledge or understanding of proxy baptism (or baptism for the dead)?

I don’t think the knowledge of proxy baptism (or lack thereof) impacts the knowledge that infant baptism is wrong. They are two separate teachings.

As for me, I know about proxy baptism, and I still say that infants don’t require baptism, whether by proxy or “live”. So I can see how Mormon (the quote you use is from his letter) or Moroni could have done the same.

[Calm]

If Moroni or his readers knew about baptism by proxy, why would he say this the way he does here?

...little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism. Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. (Moroni 8:12-13.)

Doesn't his reasoning--his presupposition here--preclude any knowledge or understanding of proxy baptism (or baptism for the dead)?

Baptism by proxy is not performed for children who died before the age of eight.

Children who died before age eight and were not born in the covenant need only to be sealed to their parents. They do not need any other ordinances.

http://www.lds.org/m...nances?lang=eng

I realize that the point you are making is that proxy baptism would take care of any who died without baptism so that even if children could not be saved without baptism, they would not be going down to an endless hell so if others were aware of proxy baptisms they would not be concerned about infant baptisms. I am just providing this as a FYI showing that the baptism by proxy ordinance is practiced on the same principles as live baptisms.

I don't think one has to assume that Moroni or at least the ones he was trying to teach (who were mostly in an apostate state) knew of baptism by proxy, LDS do not believe that the fulness of the gospel (each ordinance, doctrine, etc) was known among all the faithful (and definitely not to the less than faithful) in each and every dispensation.

Edited February 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[altersteve]

I agree with what is said above. Moroni probably did know about and practice baptism for the dead, but that's just my own opinion, and I have nothing with which to back it up.

Edited February 10, 2012 by altersteve

[inquiringmind]

I don’t think the knowledge of proxy baptism (or lack thereof) impacts the knowledge that infant baptism is wrong. They are two separate teachings.

As for me, I know about proxy baptism, and I still say that infants don’t require baptism, whether by proxy or “live”. So I can see how Mormon (the quote you use is from his letter) or Moroni could have done the same.

But would you (knowing and believing in proxy baptism as you do) use infant mortality as proof that infants don't need the ordinance of baptism in order to be saved?

Is it true to say (as Moroni 8:13 says here) that those (infants) who died without the ordinance of baptism would have to go to an endless hell if the ordinance were needed for salvation?

Edited February 10, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

Moroni probably did know about and practice baptism for the dead

Even if he knew, it doesn't mean he was able to practice it, especially once he was on the run. Who would he practice it with? Would the temple have even been available for him any longer to do so? Would there have been enough of the faithful left to make it possible? While it is possible and even likely that he continued to preach to those who might have sheltered him unless he was commanded otherwise, I think it unlikely he was able to teach the fulness as well as set up an organization that would be able to undertake this sort of work.

[Cobalt-70]

If Moroni or his readers knew about baptism by proxy, why would he say this the way he does here?

...little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism. Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. (Moroni 8:12-13.)

Doesn't his reasoning--his presupposition here--preclude any knowledge or understanding of proxy baptism (or baptism for the dead)?

I don't see any clear evidence that, as of the writing of the Book of Mormon, baptism was even a universal requirement for salvation--so there would be no need for baptism for the dead. Though the Book of Mormon teaches the importance for followers to be baptized, the book portrays the purpose of baptism as a means of witnessing to God that one is willing to obey his commandments, and to become part of God's fold. Thus, it is little different from many Protestant beliefs on the subject of baptism, and you might call it a mixture of Baptist and Campbellite doctrine.

The argument in Moroni against the necessity of infant baptism is mostly an anti-Catholic argument. It is more than anything an argument that baptism is not a requirement for salvation for all people. Moroni 8:22 extends the same logic to the baptism of those that are "without the law" (i.e., the heathen). Like little children, the book teaches that the heathen are automatically redeemed and do not need baptism. So the writer of Moroni was clearly not aware of baptism for the dead.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[CV75]

But would you (knowing and believing in proxy baptism as you do) use infant mortality as proof that infants don't need the ordinance of baptism in order to be saved?

Is it true to say (as Moroni 8:13 says here) that those (infants) who died without the ordinance of baptism would have to go to an endless hell if the ordinance were needed for salvation?

Infant mortality has nothing to do with their not having to be baptized. Their lack of accountability does. The verses are about infant accountability and baptism, not about proxy baptism for accountable people who died without the opportunity.

If infants were accountable (which is not true), then those who died without the ordinance of baptism would have to go to an endless hell since the ordinance is needed for salvation. This highlights how unjust and unmerciful such a requirement would be, and in this way conveys a truth.

For the sake of discussion, if infants required baptism which they don't), proxy baptism would relieve them of endless hell j(ust as it does for accountable people). The reasons Mormon / Moroni did not explain proxy baptism in these verses are not spelled out. Either they didn’t know about it, or they knew about it and chose not to get into it while discussing infant baptism. Covering one thing at a time, so to speak.

[CV75]

I don't see any clear evidence that, as of the writing of the Book of Mormon, baptism was even a requirement for salvation

Please read 3 Nephi 11, where baptism is part of the doctrine of Christ (from His own mouth), especially verses 33 and 34.

[inquiringmind]

Infant mortality has nothing to do with their not having to be baptized.

But doesn't Moroni's father (Mormon) use infant mortality (infant death) as evidence that infants don't need baptism?

He says "for how many little children have died without baptism? Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell."

...For the sake of discussion, if infants required baptism (which they don't), proxy baptism would relieve them of endless hell (just as it does for accountable people).

But then wouldn't it be less than entirely true to say "if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell"?

The reasons Mormon / Moroni did not explain proxy baptism in these verses are not spelled out. Either they didn’t know about it, or they knew about it and chose not to get into it while discussing infant baptism. Covering one thing at a time, so to speak.

But either way, wouldn't the absolute statement made in the text fall somewhat short of the absolute truth on the subject?

Edited February 10, 2012 by inquiringmind

[cdowis]

Clearly Mormon did not have access to the FAIR forum where such an argument would have been picked apart. I see this all the time in conference talks, where we could "correct" the speakers ... "but what about ...." etc.

AS CV75 points out, he was merely dealing with one simple question with an analogy, or hypothetical argument.. It was not perfect, just a teaching device.

Thank the Lord that we are lead by a prophet and not by theologians and scholars.

Edited February 10, 2012 by cdowis

[Cobalt-70]

Please read 3 Nephi 11, where baptism is part of the doctrine of Christ (from His own mouth), especially verses 33 and 34.

But this was spoken to believers. 3 Nephi 11:33-34 does not necessarily mean that non-believers or children are required to be baptized for salvation. Later in Moroni, the Book of Mormon makes that explicit: baptism is not a requirement for salvation because little children and those "without law" (heathen) don't need to be baptized for salvation. I guess more accurately, you could say it is portrayed as a requirement for salvation of the faithful, but not an absolute requirement for salvation.

Moreover, it's a little hard to pin down what the Book of Mormon teaches about baptism because to some extent the doctrine evolved while the book was being produced. In Mosiah, the first book to be translated by Joseph Smith, baptism is depicted as simply a witness or testimony that the participant had repented, had entered a covenant with God, and had joined the church of God. (Mos. 18:10, 13, and 21:35) Thus, the Book of Mormon started out with a rather Methodist view of baptism. The same view continued through the first part of the book up until 3 Nephi 7 (see, e.g., Alma 6:2, 7:14-15, 3 Nephi 7:25)

Then around 3 Nephi 11, the Book of Mormon switched from a more Methodist view of baptism to a more Campbellite view: baptism was seen not just as a witness of one's repentance and covenant with God, but as a requirement for those who had faith in Jesus (3 Nephi 11:34, 37-38). Around this time, the book began noting that water baptism was associated with baptism by the Holy Spirit. (3 Nephi 9:20, 12:2, 27:16, 20, 30:2, 4 Nephi 1:1) Around this time, the book also switched from a "name of Jesus" formulation (circa Mos. 18:13) to a Trinitarian formulation (3 Ne. 11:25).

This more Campbellite view then continued through the Book of Moroni (see 4 Nephi 1:1, Mormon 7:10, Ether 4:18, 12:14), although after 3 Nephi, the book stopped using the "be baptized or be damned" language (see Mormon 9:23). In Moroni 8, that's where the book goes into some finer elements of Campbellite doctrine on baptism, adding statements against pedobaptism. It clarifies that the reason why baptism is required is that it is a commandment, and that following commandments causes the remission of sins (Moroni 8:25, 2 Nephi 31:5). By that time, a revelation had been giving indicating that baptism by immersion (another Campbellite doctrine) was required. (D&C 13). The Campbellite formulation then continued through the remainder of the translation. (2 Ne. 9:23-24, 2 Nephi 31:5, 13, 17)

[CV75]

But doesn't Moroni's father (Mormon) use infant mortality (infant death) as evidence that infants don't need baptism?

He says "for how many little children have died without baptism? Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell."

But then wouldn't it be less than entirely true to say "if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell"?

But either way, wouldn't the absolute statement made in the text fall somewhat short of the absolute truth on the subject?

Are you equating correct logic with true doctrine? False doctrine can also be logical.

Mormon is saying that, where many infants die without baptism (one is enough to make the point, I guess, but maybe many infants dying was the problem the population faced at the time, especially during a time of war, and using “many” emphasizes the great extent of the unjust and unmerciful position infant baptism represents), and if they could not be saved without baptism, they would be damned (see 3 Ne 11:33, 34). It is a way of saying that infant baptism is an untrue principle.

It is correct logic to say "if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.” But it is not a true doctrine, which Mormon is pointing out. This is why we look at the entire discussion and not just a few phrases here and there.

I would think the issue would be, if we need to become as children and then be baptized (see 3 Ne 11:37), why do we need baptism, when children don’t need it? But that would be another topic.

[CV75]

But this was spoken to believers.

The purpose and use of the baptismal ordinance would naturally change in both the old and new worlds with the fulfillment of the law in Christ, including its association with baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost (just as the Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples only after the ascension of Christ). This evolution, as well as any other expanding doctrines, would be reflected in the abridgement of the records and the revelations they contained (which seem to have been abridged and presented in chronological, not doctrinal or subject matter, order), as in Joseph Smith's revelations on the subject largely coinciding with his work on the Book of Mormon.

[Cobalt-70]

The purpose and use of the baptismal ordinance would naturally change in both the old and new worlds with the fulfillment of the law in Christ, including its association with baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost (just as the Holy Ghost descended upon the disciples only after the ascension of Christ). This evolution, as well as any other expanding doctrines, would be reflected in the abridgement of the records and the revelations they contained (which seem to have been abridged and presented in chronological, not doctrinal or subject matter, order), as in Joseph Smith's revelations on the subject largely coinciding with his work on the Book of Mormon.

The common understanding is that the baptism with the Holy Spirit began on the day of Pentecost which was, indeed, after Jesus' ascension. But in the Book of Mormon, the reference to "baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost" was first mentioned in 3 Nephi 9:20, which the Book of Mormon says took place during the three days after the sign of Jesus' death. (3 Ne. 8:23, 10:9). Thus, it was before Jesus' ascension and before the day of Pentecost.

Moreover, 3 Nephi 9:20 says that the Lamanites had been thusly baptized by the Holy Ghost many years earlier before Jesus' birth when they became righteous, "and they knew it not." There is thus an inconsistency between the Book of Mormon and the New Testament on the timing of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The shift from Methodism to Campbellism between 3 Nephi 7 and 3 Nephi 9 does not coincide with Jesus' ascension or the day of Pentecost.

[Freedom]

The doctrine being taught is that children are innocent and incapable of sin, not of the the ramifications of baptism. The endless hell referred to in the Book of Mormon is the spirit prison, not the reward after the Resurrection. Little children do not go to the spirit prison, they go to paradise. It is taught, but I do not think it is doctrine, that these children will be given the opportunity to grow up during the millennium when they will receive the saving ordinance of baptism. He is countering the doctrine that children who are not baptized before they die are cast down to hell. The issue is that we do not know the question, only the answer. The same problem arises when interpreting the Bible. We do not fully understand the challenges that Paul was responding to so we fill in the gaps according to our doctrinal paradigm.

Baptism for the dead is not relevant to this passage because, as he states, little children do not require baptism. If doctrinal fallacy being discussed was that adults will be cast out for all eternity if they die without baptism, then Mormon would have explained the doctrine of proxy baptism.

[Cobalt-70]

...It is taught, but I do not think it is doctrine, that these children will be given the opportunity to grow up during the millennium when they will receive the saving ordinance of baptism....

It depends on whom you ask. Joseph Smith taught in his King Follett sermon that these children would be resurrected at the age in which they died, and would forever remain at that age, reigning on their thrones forever as child-gods. However, somebody claimed that Smith taught on another prior occasion that the parents of such children would raise them to adulthood, although that claim is anecdotal and second or third-hand. It is left unexplained, though, why such children would need to be raised by parents at that point. Moreover, I don't think anyone said that these children would need to be baptized after the resurrection, an idea which would directly contradict the reasoning of Moroni 8.

[CV75]

the reference to "baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost" was first mentioned in 3 Nephi 9:20, which the Book of Mormon says took place during the three days after the sign of Jesus' death. (3 Ne. 8:23, 10:9). Thus, it was before Jesus' ascension and before the day of Pentecost.

A "first mention" of a coming ordinance does mean its institution, and the Lord in 3 Ne. 9:20 only mentions what He will do. Chapter 11 occurs a year later (after His ascension), and it is at that time He explains and institutes His doctrine, which includes the requirement for baptism, by establishing authorized servants and protocols (some of which aren’t recorded until the early chapters of Moroni, and seemingly, in some cases, not recorded at all).

The Lamanites’ baptism with fire and the Holy Ghost seems to have been part of another dispensation (see 2 Nephi 31: 13-17). I’ve always figured they had been previously baptized in water. But even if not, that would be the Lord’s prerogative, just as other seeming irregularities in how ordinances are performed in extenuating circumstances or different dispensations.

I’d rather not digress from the OP’s interest any further. Feel free to start a new thread on this topic if you would like to continue its discussion.

[TAO]

I believe freedom nailed it.

In addition, you must remember; there is a time between death and the resurrection. And there is a time between death and proxy baptism. Young children do not have to wait for the ordinance... they may go into paradise, as their cost is already payed. =)

Edited February 11, 2012 by TAO

[cdowis]

Here I think is the bottom line.

He is speaking from the point of view of those who believe that infants require baptism. Such individuals do not believe in proxy baptism, they are not "mormons" .

He is pointing out their dilemma-- according to their belief system, on the one hand there is no proxy baptism, and infants requre baptism. The natural conclusion of such a belief is ... etc

He is not speaking from his faith, but from the viewpoint of a false religion. It just does not make sense.

Edited February 11, 2012 by cdowis