Mid-Translation Change In Book Of Mormon Baptism Discourse

[Cobalt-70]

As a branch off of the discussion at "Did Moroni Know about Baptism by Proxy," I wanted to present here the hypothesis that during Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Mormon, the book's baptism doctrine evolved from something similar to Methodism in the first half of the translation of the Book of Mormon, to something in the second half of the translation like what the Stone-Campbellite groups were teaching.

This hypothesis depends on the "Mosiah-first" theory, which is as far as I can tell, the predominant theory of the order in which the Book of Mormon was translated, and it is supported by both internal and external evidence. According to this theory, after Smith lost the 116 pages of the Book of Lehi, he began translating where he left off, at the Book of Mosiah, and then did not return to translate the plates of Nephi until the end of Moroni. Thus, to the extent that style, word choice, or content of the Book of Mormon evolved during Smith's translation, the correct starting place for such evolution is in Mosiah, and that Smith translated Mosiah to Moroni, and then 1 Nephi to Words of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon's baptism theology (or at the very least, the way that theology is described) appears to have evolved during Smith's translation. There appear to be two divisions of discourse on the subject of baptism, and a sharp switch from one to the other between 3 Nephi 7 and 3 Nephi 9-11. I would describe the first discourse style as generally Methodist-like, and the second discourse style as generally Campbellite-like.

In the range from Mosiah to 3 Nephi 11:7, baptism is described, as a Methodist might describe it, as a witness or testimony that the participant had repented, had entered a covenant with God, and had joined the church of God. (See, e.g., Mos. 18:10, 13, and 21:35, Alma 6:2, 7:14-15, and 3 Nephi 7:25). There is no indication here that baptism itself represents a transformation. Rather, baptism is merely a sign or witness that the person has reconciled himself or herself with God. The main departure from a standard Methodist baptism is that this early part of the Book of Mormon does not recognize a requirement for the Trinitarian formulation of baptism (see Mos. 18:13). I am not sure which, if any, denominations or sects in 1820s New England performed non-Trinitarian baptisms. Smith had undoubtedly seen a number of baptisms by the late 1820s, and he must have considered the baptism described in Mosiah 18:13 to be unusual. The form of the baptism was neither Methodist or Campbellite, but the purpose of the baptism was described in Methodist terms.

Then around 3 Nephi 9-11, the Book of Mormon switched from this "Methodist" style of discourse on baptism to what might be described as 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). Baptism was more than just a witness of one's transformation, it was part of that transformation. For what appears to be the first time during the translation of the Book of Mormon, Baptism by water was associated with baptism by the Holy Spirit. (3 Nephi 9:20, 12:2, 27:16, 20, 30:2, 4 Nephi 1:1) This was also the period when the book first recognized the Trinitarian formulation of baptism (3 Ne. 11:25), which would have invalidated the baptism described in Mosiah 18:13. This new discourse on baptism continued until the end of the Book of Mormon (4 Nephi 1:1, 7:10, Mormon 9:23, Ether 4:18, 12:14, and Moroni 8 ). then again in the first two books of Nephi, which were near the end of Smith's translation (2 Ne. 9:23-24, 2 Nephi 31:5, 13, 17).

During this period of "Campbellite"-like discourse on baptism, the translation addresses some important elements of baptism that were important to the Stone-Campbell groups, including a rejection of pedobaptism (Moroni 8 ). This part of the Book of Mormon also emphasizes the characteristically Campbellite emphasis on baptism as a human act of obedience (Moroni 8:25, 2 Nephi 31:5). 3 Nephi 11:26 also specifies that baptism must be immersion, which was something that Methodists typically did, but Campbellites adamantly required. Notably, May 15, 1829 was the day that Smith and Cowdery baptized each other by immersion (D&C 13). This was about halfway through the translation period. If the translation from April to early July proceeded at a steady rate, and it started with Mosiah, then 3 Nephi would be roughly half-way through the translation, which is where you would expect Smith and Cowdery to be when they baptized each other.

That Joseph Smith had an early affinity towards Methodism is well known. Campbellism, or the related ideas that became the Stone-Campbell movement in the 1830s, was certainly a later influence on Mormonism through Sidney Rigdon. I am not one of the conspiracy theorists who thinks that Sidney Rigdon had anything whatsoever to do with the Book of Mormon. However, Smith could easily have been exposed to Campbellist ideas from other sources. Or perhaps the uncanny similarities with Campbellist baptism doctrine is the result of Smiths' exposure to some faction of Stone-Campbell-like Baptists. Or perhaps it is just a strange coincidence. However, this is not the only affinity between pre-Rigdon Mormonism and the anticreedal, restorationist ideas of the Stone-Campbell groups, so Smith must have had some early exposure to that faction of Christianity.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I think it's more of a pre/post Christ's visitation issue. I vaguely even recall a scripture relating this, something about them all being baptized again once Christ showed up. Could be wrong, but it's too late for me to go looking for such scriptures.

[Cobalt-70]

I think it's more of a pre/post Christ's visitation issue. I vaguely even recall a scripture relating this, something about them all being baptized again once Christ showed up. Could be wrong, but it's too late for me to go looking for such scriptures.

That can't be an explanation, because (1) the baptismal discourse of 1 and 2 Nephi is the same as that of that from 3 Nephi 9 to Moroni, and (2) 3 Nephi 9:20 refers to the Lamanites being "baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost" (even they "knew it not") prior to Jesus' visitation, and in fact even prior to his birth.

[S.Ferreira]

(2) 3 Nephi 9:20 refers to the Lamanites being "baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost" (even they "knew it not") prior to Jesus' visitation, and in fact even prior to his birth.

Just for reference, I think 3 Nephi 9:20 is referring to previous events in Helaman 5:43-50.

[wenglund]

I am wondering if the interpretation of the evidence in the OP may be theory laden--that is, the interpretation of the evidence may be driven by the theory rather than rightly the other way around.

I mention this because were one not looking for evidence in support of the proposed theory, but rather letting the evidence guide the theory, then instead of looking just at the presumed evolution of baptism within a 19th century context, one might look for presumed evolution of baptism in the broader historical context suggested in the work in question. In other words, one might reasonably explore whether, in the old and new worlds, the meaning and formality of baptism may have changed with the coming of Christ. If so, then that might factor in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon and against the theory proposed in the OP.

Thank, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 13, 2012 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

That can't be an explanation, because (1) the baptismal discourse of 1 and 2 Nephi is the same as that of that from 3 Nephi 9 to Moroni,

Call for references, please.

and (2) 3 Nephi 9:20 refers to the Lamanites being "baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost" (even they "knew it not") prior to Jesus' visitation, and in fact even prior to his birth.

You mean, just like Paul says that the early Hebrews were baptised in the cloud and in the sea? (I Cor. 10:1-4.)

Like other Book of Mormon readers, I see a significant shift in a number of things in 3 Nephi; baptism is one of those things.

Y'know Cobalt, speaking only for myself, I would much prefer dealing with you if you tried a little frankness. When you refer to Joseph "translating" the Book of Mormon, are you really using "translating" as a kind of weaselly code word for "writing?"

I think you might be.

And like others around here, I prefer my wolves straight up. Go on; get rid of that ridiculous fleece. It doesn't suit you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

And this amounts to a hill of beans because?

The tacit assumption is that "Joseph wrote the BOM and did not translate it" If that's what you're saying say so and then we can look at that question.

Suppose Joseph WAS "mistaken" about "true doctrine" and God wants us to believe something else. THAT is the question here I suppose ultimately.

That is not much different than "Why aren't we all Evangelical"?

Again, this amounts to a hill of beans because.....? I mean it is an interesting theory, but like all these theories, what is the ultimate value of spending time on this? How does it challenge or not challenge anything relevant to anyone's life?

[mfbukowski]

And like others around here, I prefer my wolves straight up. Go on; get rid of that ridiculous fleece. It doesn't suit you.

That seems to be a continuing issue with Cobalt, I agree. And as we posted when he first came here, Cobalt 70 IS radioactive.

[Cobalt-70]

Just for reference, I think 3 Nephi 9:20 is referring to previous events in Helaman 5:43-50.

I think you are probably right. Helaman 5:43-50 describes an event that has some similarities to the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, but about a generation before Jesus' birth. Helaman 5 would therefore have been a good place for the narrator to discuss the baptism of fire and its association with water baptism. Presumably, the Lamanites were baptized, but there was no emphasis on water baptism, though faith and repentance are emphasized.

[Cobalt-70]

I am wondering if the interpretation of the evidence in the OP may be theory laden--that is, the interpretation of the evidence may be driven by the theory rather than rightly the other way around.

I mention this because were one not looking for evidence in support of the proposed theory, but rather letting the evidence guide the theory, then instead of looking just at the presumed evolution of baptism within a 19th century context, one might look for presumed evolution of baptism in the broader historical context suggested in the work in question. In other words, one might reasonably explore whether, in the old and new worlds, the meaning and formality of baptism may have changed with the coming of Christ. If so, then that might factor in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon and against the theory proposed in the OP.

Thank, -Wade Englund-

The main assumption for the OP hypothesis is the Mosiah-first theory. If the Mosiah-first theory is correct, then the idea that the meaning of baptism changed at the coming of Christ is proven false, given that 1 and 2 Nephi, which is dated before Jesus, contain the "Campbellite" discourse on baptism as does the discourse from 3 Nephi 11 to Moroni.

[wenglund]

The main assumption for the OP hypothesis is the Mosiah-first theory. If the Mosiah-first theory is correct, then the idea that the meaning of baptism changed at the coming of Christ is proven false, given that 1 and 2 Nephi, which is dated before Jesus, contain the "Campbellite" discourse on baptism as does the discourse from 3 Nephi 11 to Moroni.

I would think the evidence would bring both theories into question, or at the very least your interpretation of the evidence (arbitrarily and loosely categorized as "Methodist" and "Campbelite") in relation to the theories.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

The main assumption for the OP hypothesis is the Mosiah-first theory. If the Mosiah-first theory is correct, then the idea that the meaning of baptism changed at the coming of Christ is proven false, given that 1 and 2 Nephi, which is dated before Jesus, contain the "Campbellite" discourse on baptism as does the discourse from 3 Nephi 11 to Moroni.

That is not a "given," it is merely your assertion, which you have yet to support.

Call for references, please.

For the second time.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited February 13, 2012 by Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

Call for references [that the baptism discourse of 1 and 2 Nephi is the same as that from 3 Nephi 11 to Moroni], please.

See the OP. There are lots of references there. For example, compare the "Campbellite" 2 Nephi 31:5 and Mormon 7:10 with the "Methodist" Mosiah 18:10-13. In the "Methodist" passage, baptism is done as a witness that the new convert has entered a covenant with God, and it is obedience that causes God to pour out his Spirit more abundantly. By contrast, in the "Campbellite" passages, baptism is not just a witness of a transformation, but the cause of the transformation, in the form of a baptism of fire. Moreover, baptism is itself the commandment to be followed, which is necessary for salvation, and for the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.

You mean, just like Paul says that the early Hebrews were baptised in the cloud and in the sea? (I Cor. 10:1-4.)

Both Methodists and Campbellites would agree with you that the Hebrews were "baptized unto Moses." But Paul was not making a link between the metaphorical Hebrew "baptism" (crossing the Red Sea, following the cloud, etc.) and either water baptism or "baptism with fire and with the Holy Spirit." For one thing, this "baptism unto Moses" was not by immersion, which would be an objection raised by Campbellites. Second, this "baptism" was not the sort of Pentecostal experience contemplated by the New Testament, and which is also emphasized by Campbellites.

Like other Book of Mormon readers, I see a significant shift in a number of things in 3 Nephi; baptism is one of those things.

Why so? If the author of both Mosiah and 3 Nephi was Mormon, then why should the discourse on baptism be different? Also, why should the 1 and 2 Nephi discourse, as well as that of Ether, contain the same doctrinal emphasis as the post-Jesus discourse?

Y'know Cobalt, speaking only for myself, I would much prefer dealing with you if you tried a little frankness. When you refer to Joseph "translating" the Book of Mormon, are you really using "translating" as a kind of weaselly code word for "writing?"

I think you might be.

And like others around here, I prefer my wolves straight up. Go on; get rid of that ridiculous fleece. It doesn't suit you.

I don't think it's appropriate for you to be calling anyone on this board a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and I think your instinctual ad hominem approach doesn't help your cause. Let's talk about the issues, shall we? For the interest of full disclosure, I probably consider the Book of Mormon to be just as much the word of God as you do. Neither of us, of course, thinks that God literally took a pen and wrote the book, and I have been open about my view that the Book of Mormon is (at least primarily) a work of modern scripture. But that's not the only conclusion that could be made from a switch in baptism discourse from something like "Methodism" to something like "Campbellism" around 3 Nephi 9.

[Cobalt-70]

And this amounts to a hill of beans because?

The tacit assumption is that "Joseph wrote the BOM and did not translate it" If that's what you're saying say so and then we can look at that question.

Suppose Joseph WAS "mistaken" about "true doctrine" and God wants us to believe something else. THAT is the question here I suppose ultimately.

That is not much different than "Why aren't we all Evangelical"?

Again, this amounts to a hill of beans because.....? I mean it is an interesting theory, but like all these theories, what is the ultimate value of spending time on this? How does it challenge or not challenge anything relevant to anyone's life?

Because if you want to fully understand what the Book of Mormon says about baptism, you have to understand its theological context. Otherwise, you are reading in a vacuum. Even most of those who think that the Book of Mormon is a literal, word-for-word translation ancient Mesoamerican writings will admit that the wording, and perhaps emphasis, is Smith's, that the author(s) were aware of Modern theology, and that the book was written for modern times.

[Cobalt-70]

That is not a "given," it is merely your assertion, which you have yet to support.

Call for references, please.

For the second time.

Regards,

Pahoran

What's wrong with the references in the OP?

[Cobalt-70]

I would think the evidence would bring both theories into question, or at the very least your interpretation of the evidence (arbitrarily and loosely categorized as "Methodist" and "Campbelite") in relation to the theories.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you think so, I'd be interested in hearing why. That's why I posted it here.

[wenglund]

If you think so, I'd be interested in hearing why. That's why I posted it here.

The "why" ought to be self-evident in my rightly viewing your Methodist/Campbelite categorizations as arbitrary and loose (meaning overly vague and fluid).

There is also your argument from silence--you seem to assume that since certain things weren't mentioned in certain passages, then they weren't believed or practiced by the parties referenced in those passages.

Most impotant, you seem to be pointing almost exclusively to 19th century entities as the basis for comparison rather than to baptismal practices generally pre-Christ and post-Christ.

In other words, your theory is guiding your selection and interpretation of the evidence, rather than rightly the other way around.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

See the OP. There are lots of references there. For example, compare the "Campbellite" 2 Nephi 31:5 and Mormon 7:10 with the "Methodist" Mosiah 18:10-13. In the "Methodist" passage, baptism is done as a witness that the new convert has entered a covenant with God, and it is obedience that causes God to pour out his Spirit more abundantly. By contrast, in the "Campbellite" passages, baptism is not just a witness of a transformation, but the cause of the transformation, in the form of a baptism of fire. Moreover, baptism is itself the commandment to be followed, which is necessary for salvation, and for the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.

Really?

2 Nephi 31:

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

Call for references that this is exclusively, or especially, a "Campbellite" idea.

Note that this verse does not say anything about baptism being the "cause" of any "transformation." Verse 14 indeed talks about the Baptism of Fire, but describes it as the culmination of a process, in which water baptism is only one step, albeit a necessary one.

Your arguments are altogether too glib, Cobalt. You throw around these convenient labels -- "Campbellite" and "Methodist" -- on nothing more compelling than your own say-so, then proceed to build an entire argument from them. Not forgetting that you are the same fellow who tried to claim that the Book of Mormon taught "original sin," and that in an even stronger version than Augustine, who damns unbaptised babies, I find you rather consistently trying to force the evidence to fit your conclusions, and not the other way around.

Both Methodists and Campbellites would agree with you that the Hebrews were "baptized unto Moses."

Yes, and you know why they would do that, Cobalt?

Because they READ THE BIBLE.

The BIBLE, Cobalt.

If you were to set aside your agenda for a moment, you might actually notice that everything you are trying to pigeonhole as "Methodist" and/or "Campbellite" in the service of your revisionist (being charitable here) argument was first biblical.

Why so? If the author of both Mosiah and 3 Nephi was Mormon, then why should the discourse on baptism be different?

Because Mormon wasn't the "author" de novo, he was the compiler/editor/redactor of earlier work. Granted that there is evidence that he sometimes overlays his "New Testatement" views upon the earlier material, the fact remains that the earlier perspectives are still there for the patient student.

But first that student has to take the Book of Mormon at its word.

Also, why should the 1 and 2 Nephi discourse, as well as that of Ether, contain the same doctrinal emphasis as the post-Jesus discourse?

I see no references to 1 Nephi provided by you, except the occasional hand-wave. 2 Nephi 31 is a discourse based upon Nephi seeing a vision of the future baptism of Jesus. Ether was written by Moroni, and his editorial hand is, if anything, heavier than his father's. Furthermore, Ether chapters 4 and 12 are Moroni's contributions, rather than summaries of the Jaredite record.

The fact is that the very features you are talking about are consistent with the Book of Mormon's own claimed textual history, even in detail. Your revisionist (being charitable here) version of that history is not necessary.

I don't think it's appropriate for you to be calling anyone on this board a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and I think your instinctual ad hominem approach doesn't help your cause. Let's talk about the issues, shall we? For the interest of full disclosure, I probably consider the Book of Mormon to be just as much the word of God as you do.

I doubt that very much. Oh, I don't doubt that you can utter the phrase; I just don't think that whatever it means to you bears the slightest resemblance to what it means to a believing Latter-day Saint.

Neither of us, of course, thinks that God literally took a pen and wrote the book, and I have been open about my view that the Book of Mormon is (at least primarily) a work of modern scripture.

A "work of modern scripture" that uncompromisingly insists upon being ancient? A "work of modern scripture" that lies about itself?

Again: whatever "scripture" might mean to you, it is clearly something quite different than what it means to me.

But that's not the only conclusion that could be made from a switch in baptism discourse from something like "Methodism" to something like "Campbellism" around 3 Nephi 9.

But it is the conclusion you're interested in, isn't it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Because if you want to fully understand what the Book of Mormon says about baptism, you have to understand its theological context. Otherwise, you are reading in a vacuum. Even most of those who think that the Book of Mormon is a literal, word-for-word translation ancient Mesoamerican writings will admit that the wording, and perhaps emphasis, is Smith's, that the author(s) were aware of Modern theology, and that the book was written for modern times.

But this doesn't answer the question! It just re-frames it in a different way!

In fact, what you have done is confirm my original idea without answering the question at all. Your clear and no-longer-veiled question is "Did Joseph translate or 'write" the BOM?"

You can answer that question either way and STILL believe it was revealed to him by God.

So my original question stands:

And this amounts to a hill of beans because?

The tacit assumption is that "Joseph wrote the BOM and did not translate it" If that's what you're saying say so and then we can look at that question.

Suppose Joseph WAS "mistaken" about "true doctrine" and God wants us to believe something else. THAT is the question here I suppose ultimately.

That is not much different than "Why aren't we all Evangelical"?

Again, this amounts to a hill of beans because.....? I mean it is an interesting theory, but like all these theories, what is the ultimate value of spending time on this? How does it challenge or not challenge anything relevant to anyone's life?

[mfbukowski]

In other words, your theory is guiding your selection and interpretation of the evidence, rather than rightly the other way around.

And my point is that the theory itself, if we take it in the context of translation- in other words, the "Mosiah first" hypothesis, is irrelevant to what the BOM teaches about baptism, or if we take it in the context of a theological theory, ie: the Methodist vs Campbellite interpretation, it is also irrelevant.

If the theory is correct- and that is a big IF- all it shows is a development in understanding of baptism. And for the life of me, I can't see why that is important.

Revelations are meant to change things or else we would not need them. Theories evolve or else they would not work. This is news?

[mfbukowski]

Your arguments are altogether too glib, Cobalt. You throw around these convenient labels -- "Campbellite" and "Methodist" -- on nothing more compelling than your own say-so, then proceed to build an entire argument from them. Not forgetting that you are the same fellow who tried to claim that the Book of Mormon taught "original sin," and that in an even stronger version than Augustine, who damns unbaptised babies, I find you rather consistently trying to force the evidence to fit your conclusions, and not the other way around.

Because Mormon wasn't the "author" de novo, he was the compiler/editor/redactor of earlier work. Granted that there is evidence that he sometimes overlays his "New Testatement" views upon the earlier material, the fact remains that the earlier perspectives are still there for the patient student.

But first that student has to take the Book of Mormon at its word.

Yeah, I agree. This is about as fishy as it can be. There is no way this guy believes the BOM is the word of God.

If he did, he would see that this distinction he is trying to invent is irrelevant to that larger question. The distinction itself is one that only an anti-Mormon would be interested in. It sounds like an argument Rob Bowman would make.

Edited February 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Pahoran]

Yeah, I agree. This is about as fishy as it can be. There is no way this guy believes the BOM is the word of God.

If he did, he would see that this distinction he is trying to invent is irrelevant to that larger question. The distinction itself is one that only an anti-Mormon would be interested in. It sounds like an argument Rob Bowman would make.

And then stubbornly defend in the face of contrary textual evidence.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

And then stubbornly defend in the face of contrary textual evidence.

Regards,

Pahoran

Exactly.

I am very sensitive to the structure of arguments and who would make them.

Trust me on this one. I saw Rob for what he was before many here, and I knew who Zerinus was just from the way he structured his arguments.

I am not wrong on this one- I know!

[Cobalt-70]

The "why" ought to be self-evident in my rightly viewing your Methodist/Campbelite categorizations as arbitrary and loose (meaning overly vague and fluid).

There is also your argument from silence--you seem to assume that since certain things weren't mentioned in certain passages, then they weren't believed or practiced by the parties referenced in those passages.

Most impotant, you seem to be pointing almost exclusively to 19th century entities as the basis for comparison rather than to baptismal practices generally pre-Christ and post-Christ.

In other words, your theory is guiding your selection and interpretation of the evidence, rather than rightly the other way around.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I disagree. I noted the distinction before deciding on what to label the two eras of discourse. I figured it was likely that one of them was Methodist-like, considering that the Book of Mormon has the greatest affinity to Methodism in general. I was not sure how to characterize the decidedly non-Methodist half of the book until reading up on Campbellite views on baptism. As far as the selection of evidence is concerned, I looked at every single reference to baptism doctrine I could find in the Book of Mormon. There was no picking and choosing. I did not cite every reference to baptism, because most of them don't have any doctrinal content. They are just statements that people got baptized, etc.

The real issue of selection bias is, I think, the thing that almost all Mormons have to grapple with, which is that (1) most of us have a tremendous interest in ensuring that different parts of the Book of Mormon is interpreted consistently, even if a shoehorn is necessary to do so, despite the fact that the Bible is quite inconsistent, and (2) most Mormon writers are not very familiar with, or are generally so dismissive of as to not give consideration to, non-Mormon Christian soteriology.

I disagree as to the vagueness and fluidity of the Methodist/Campbellite distinction. There is a sharp distinction between the Methodist and Campbellite views on baptism, and that distinction is reflected in the two parts of the Book of Mormon. The only thing that is somewhat fluid is how closely the discourse adheres to either strict Methodism or Campbellism. The adherence is so close in both cases that you might have found the language in a Methodist or Campbellite tract, but there are a couple of departures. For example, while both Methodists and Campbellists follow the Trinitarian formula of baptism, Mosiah 18:13 does not, and in fact contradicts 3 Nephi 11:25. The Mosiah 18:13 baptism is not even a modern Pentecostal-approved baptism, because Alma did not mention the name of Jesus, but instead referred to the authority of the "Almighty God." It could have been a Unitarian baptism, but more likely, the author was simply not at that time concerned about the formalities of the ordinance, a concern that did not appear until 3 Nephi 11, which was also probably about the time that Smith and Cowdery baptized each other.

Also, I am referring to "Methodist" views on baptism, even though much about baptism that could be called "Methodist" is also shared with some other mainline Protestant denominations. Calling it "Methodist" is in recognition of the Book of Mormon's Methodist leanings in general. But the distinction between the mainline protestant view and the Campbellite view is a sharp one. The Campbellites were outliers among Protestants in many ways, including on the issue of baptism. I think there is a reason why Sidney Rigdon and his Campbellite congregation were so quickly convinced that the Book of Mormon was true, and this is perghaps one of them. The beginning and the end speak to many of the issues that Campbellites considered very important.

As to the issue of argument from silence, it is not simply a matter of the author omitting material in one section, while presenting it in another. The material that is presented and omitted in one section is the material that would be presented or omitted by a Methodist or Campbellite, respectively. If this happened randomly, then maybe you would have a point. But why does the first section consistently omit and emphasize what a Methodist would omit and emphasize, and the second section consistently omit and emphasize what a Campbellite would omit and emphasize? Plus, although modern Mormons can claim, through modern synthesis, to believe both the "Methodist" and "Campbellite" discourse regarding baptism, the Methodists and Campbellites did not agree with each other, and the respective discourse in the Book of Mormon would not be seen as just sequentially conveying two sides of the same doctrine.

[Cobalt-70]

Really?

2 Nephi 31:

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

Call for references that this is exclusively, or especially, a "Campbellite" idea.

Note that this verse does not say anything about baptism being the "cause" of any "transformation." Verse 14 indeed talks about the Baptism of Fire, but describes it as the culmination of a process, in which water baptism is only one step, albeit a necessary one.

Sorry, I meant to cite 2 Nephi 31:13 rather than verse 5, which contains discourse that is very, very similar to Mormon 7:10, and is highly "Campbellite." These verses say that following water baptism is a baptism of fire, and the verses emphasize the aspect of baptism as an act of obedience to Jesus' example. The distinction with the "Methodist" sections is in the sequence. In the "Methodist" section, one has faith, repents, and receives the Spirit and a remission of sins as a result of the grace of Jesus. Then one is baptized as a witness of one's prior covenant with God and commitment to Jesus, and as a path toward grace and further sanctification by the Spirit (Mos. 18:13, 3 Nephi 7:25). In the "Campbellite" sections, one has faith and repents, and then is baptized, and as a result of the baptism ceremony (if done sincerely) is a remission of sins and a baptism of fire (2 Nephi 31:17).

So the "Methodist" sequence is: faith-->repentance-->remission of sins and receipt of Holy Spirit-->baptism-->further sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

The "Campbellite" sequence is: faith-->repentance-->baptism of water-->baptism of fire and remission of sins.

Your arguments are altogether too glib, Cobalt. You throw around these convenient labels -- "Campbellite" and "Methodist" -- on nothing more compelling than your own say-so, then proceed to build an entire argument from them. Not forgetting that you are the same fellow who tried to claim that the Book of Mormon taught "original sin," and that in an even stronger version than Augustine, who damns unbaptised babies, I find you rather consistently trying to force the evidence to fit your conclusions, and not the other way around.

Off the subject, but my point was that the Book of Mormon teaches that all men are "carnal, sensual, and devilish," and that the "natural man is an enemy to God," whereas the Catholics teach that the "natural man" is merely impaired in his ability to do good, thus, the Book of Mormon original sin doctrine is more in line with the stronger original sin doctrine of Methodism (which also does not teach that unbaptized babies go to hell), than with the weaker Catholic version of original sin.