Mid-Translation Change In Book Of Mormon Baptism Discourse

[Cobalt-70]

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?

No, I don't think Joseph Smith was mistaken about "true doctrine." I think that there are two legitimate Mormon ways of looking at baptism, and that Smith switched from one perspective to the other mid-way through translation. My thesis is limited here, and I'm not being so grand as to propose a mechanism for how, or why, this occurred.

[Cobalt-70]

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?

When doctrines evolve, the best way to understand the doctrines is to look at what came before, look at what came after, and compare the two. If there is historical context that may be even remotely pertinent, you should look at that too. Some people may find this uninteresting or irrelevant to their daily lives, but that's the nature of textual criticism.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

You're dead wrong, mfbukowski. I've had good conversations with you in other contexts, but you don't know me, and I think your insinuations are inappropriate and insulting.

[Pahoran]

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.

Which is clearly irrelevant to what the scriptures actually say. Let's look at them:

2 Ne. 31:

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

Morm. 7:

10 And ye will also know that ye are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; therefore ye are numbered among the people of the first covenant; and if it so be that ye believe in Christ, and are baptized, first with water, then with fire and with the Holy Ghost, following the example of our Savior, according to that which he hath commanded us, it shall be well with you in the day of judgment. Amen.

Mos. 18:

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.

3 Ne. 7:

23 Thus passed away the thirty and second year also. And Nephi did cry unto the people in the commencement of the thirty and third year; and he did preach unto them repentance and remission of sins.

24 Now I would have you to remember also, that there were none who were brought unto repentance who were not baptized with water.

25 Therefore, there were ordained of Nephi, men unto this ministry, that all such as should come unto them should be baptized with water, and this as a witness and a testimony before God, and unto the people, that they had repented and received a remission of their sins.

26 And there were many in the commencement of this year that were baptized unto repentance; and thus the more part of the year did pass away.

Note verse 26, Cobalt. What does "unto" mean to you?

Nephi wasn't baptising people after they'd received a remission of sins; he was baptising them UNTO repentance.

Your imaginary dichotomy fails as soon as we look at the context of your cherry-picked verses.

Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

You're dead wrong, mfbukowski. I've had good conversations with you in other contexts, but you don't know me, and I think your insinuations are inappropriate and insulting.

Cobalt,

What MF sees, and what I see, is that you use Mormon phraseology, but when it comes down to what those phrases might mean, they seem to mean something different to you than they do to the Latter-day Saints we know. For instance, when we say the Book of Mormon is "the Word of God," we mean to affirm that it is the authentic writings of actual ancient prophets, translated by the Gift and Power of God, by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Neither of us has any idea what you might mean when you use that phrase, but an unwary reader might assume that you mean the same as we do. So we are concerned by word choices that seem to convey one meaning but that actually denote something else.

This is the Internet, Cobalt, and you are an anonymous participant in this forum. We don't know you from a bar of soap. For all we know, you may do 100% of your home teaching in the first week of every month so that you can spend the rest of the month providing service to the widows in your ward. Equally, for all we know, you may be some EV kid sitting in a basement at Melodyland Bible College, posing as a Mormon and laughing at us for being gullible enough to take you seriously. Except for the very few participants who are known to us IRL, all any of us has to go in is what people write in their posts. And when we see you using "Mormon" terminology to dress up what are at best highly heterodox opinions, we have to wonder.

And you really don't have any basis to feel insulted about it. It was you who decided to play the game this way. You had to know that eventually we might start to notice that you might sing the same words, but you're clearly singing them to a different tune.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited February 14, 2012 by Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Post edited

Cobalt:

I didn't mean to insult you, but nevertheless I am as confused as Pahoran. Maybe I have been on these boards too long but it is just not adding up to me. Pahoran is exactly right- you may be totally "orthodox LDS" whatever that means, but it seems that you are presenting yourself as an Evangelical under it all. Your views are quite unusual- not that that is bad, but they do not seem consistent with the LDS world view.

Edited February 14, 2012 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

No, I don't think Joseph Smith was mistaken about "true doctrine." I think that there are two legitimate Mormon ways of looking at baptism, and that Smith switched from one perspective to the other mid-way through translation. My thesis is limited here, and I'm not being so grand as to propose a mechanism for how, or why, this occurred.

If Joseph was the one who "switched," then wouldn't that mean that he was the author of the Book of Mormon? How could he have "switched" if he translated it?

[Pahoran]

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.

Incidentally, the LDS sequence is:

Faith --> Repentance --> Baptism by immersion for the remssion of sins --> The laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

If Joseph was the one who "switched," then wouldn't that mean that he was the author of the Book of Mormon? How could he have "switched" if he translated it?

Good catch! While a translator may "switch" words, phrases or other modes of expression, the underlying ideas he is trying to convey are not within his control.

Not like they are for an author.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nevo]

If Joseph was the one who "switched," then wouldn't that mean that he was the author of the Book of Mormon? How could he have "switched" if he translated it?

I think it's very likely that Joseph influenced the English text in some fashion. This isn't a completely heterodox view, by the way. Brant Gardner's recent work, The Gift and Power, and Blake Ostler's expansion theory both allow for varying degrees of input from the Prophet.

[mfbukowski]

I think it's very likely that Joseph influenced the English text in some fashion. This isn't a completely heterodox view, by the way. Brant Gardner's recent work, The Gift and Power, and Blake Ostler's expansion theory both allow for varying degrees of input from the Prophet.

I agree. That's why I was trying to get Cobalt to tell me what the upshot of his distinction was. The question is not whether Joseph had "input" but what the implications of that are.

[altersteve]

I think it's very likely that Joseph influenced the English text in some fashion. This isn't a completely heterodox view, by the way. Brant Gardner's recent work, The Gift and Power, and Blake Ostler's expansion theory both allow for varying degrees of input from the Prophet.

I know he, as translator, had influence on the English text, but not the meaning of the text. Only the author of a work can have any legitimate control over its meaning.

[Nevo]

I know he, as translator, had influence on the English text, but not the meaning of the text. Only the author of a work can have any legitimate control over its meaning.

Well, I am suggesting that Joseph, as translator, also influenced the meaning of the text.

As Blake Ostler puts it, Joseph was a "creative co-participant" in the translation who "imposed an interpretation on the text which was foreign to the ancient text, but not an interpretation alien to his revelatory experiences which produced the book" (Ostler, "The Book of Mormon as Modern Expansion," 111–112). Hence the apparent anachronisms and expansions apparent in the text.

[wenglund]

Nephi wasn't baptising people after they'd received a remission of sins; he was baptising them UNTO repentance.

Perhaps Cobalt-70 missed this as well, but the phrase, "baptized unto repentance," was not only common within the set of scriptures that he capriciously identified as "Methodist" (Alma 5:62; 6:2; 7:14; 8:10; 9:27; 48:19; 49:30; Hel. 3:24; 5:17; 5:19; 3 Ne. 1:23; 7:26), but it was also mentioned in at least one passage he referred to as "Campbelite": Moroni 8:11: "Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins."

So, as you said, in at least two respect Cobalt-70's false dichotomy fails.

Aside from divergent patterns in speaking about baptism within the Book of Mormon, which, from what I could tell from my own research, tended to match up better with the different authors rather than chronologically (which I view as a telling), the only significant point of evolution I detected wasn't within the Book of Mormon itself, or even the D&C revelations that occurred during the time of the translation of the Book of Mormon, but rather after reception of the Melchezidek priesthood and formal establishment of the Church, where once the reception of the Holy Ghost and baptism of fire appear to have been a part of a single ordinance of baptism, the twain later became two separate ordinances (Doctrine and Covenants 20:41).

As such, the Book of Mormon fits within its stated historical context, while the restored gospel also fits it claim to continued revelation.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 14, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Having said this, I think the principle of baptism in the Book of Mormon may still be a fair test, one of many, of ancient vs. modern authorship.

Given Joseph Smith's limited knowledge of ancient history, it seems odd to me to find mention in the Book of Mormon of baptisms predating the time of John the Baptist. From what I can tell, the Bible doesn't mention the words "baptism," or "baptize," or "baptized" in the Old Testament. So, I would think it unlikely that Joseph, were he the author, would have placed baptisms in Old Testament times.

Yet, with the advent and advancement of archeology, Egyptology, anthropology and the like, and the discovery of ancient documents like the Dead Sea Scrolls, if not also modern revelation, much of which growth in knowledge came long after the Book of Mormon was published, we have learned of baptismal/purification rituals, not entirely dissimilar to those mentioned in the Book of Mormon, that were not uncommon in a number of cultures dating back even before the time of Abraham.

Again, I find that somewhat telling.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nevo]

...we have learned of baptismal/purification rituals, not entirely dissimilar to those mentioned in the Book of Mormon, that were not uncommon in a number of cultures dating back even before the time of Abraham.

We have? I am not aware of any ancient baptismal rituals similar to those found in the Book of Mormon—predating the New Testament, that is.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Nevo

[wenglund]

We have? I am not aware of any ancient baptismal rituals similar to those found in the Book of Mormon—predating the New Testament, that is.

There were several threads here in the not-to-distant past that discussed various purification, washing and anointing, deification and coronation rituals, which date back to early Egyptian times, and which contain key elements of modern baptisms and confirmations. I will see if I can find some links for you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

There were several threads here in the not-to-distant past that discussed various purification, washing and anointing, deification and coronation rituals, which date back to early Egyptian times, and which contain key elements of modern baptisms and confirmations. I will see if I can find some links for you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here you go:

(particularly starting at post #38)

(particularly post #39 and beyond)

(particularly beginnign with post #13, Robert F. Smith's post #18 is also very informative)

There were other threads, but I was unsuccessful in finding links to them. I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nevo]

Here you go:

There were other threads, but I was unsuccessful in finding links to them. I hope this helps.

Thanks for tracking down those threads, Wade.

The first two threads relate to washing and anointing rituals but I see no obvious correspondence between these ANE coronation rituals and the baptisms practiced in the Book of Mormon.

Regarding the third thread, I agree that the closest analog to Christian baptism (which derived from John's baptism) was Jewish proselyte baptism. But Jewish proselyte baptism is not what we find in the Book of Mormon.

[Cobalt-70]

Note verse 26, Cobalt. What does "unto" mean to you?

Nephi wasn't baptising people after they'd received a remission of sins; he was baptising them UNTO repentance.

Your imaginary dichotomy fails as soon as we look at the context of your cherry-picked verses.

The term "baptism unto repentance" is a reference to Matthew 3:11, in which John the Baptist said that his baptism was "unto repentance," but when Jesus comes, he would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Methodists interpret that as meaning that baptism is an outward expression of repentance. Campbellites, on the other hand, interpret this to mean that baptism is the culmination of repentance, but that a remission of sins does not come until after a baptismal transformation.

The "Methodist" sections of the Book of Mormon teach that baptism is a sign of a remission of sins brought about by grace. This is most explicity shown in 3 Nephi 7: 25, which says that people were "baptized with water" as a "witness and testimony before God, and unto the people, that they had repented and received a remission of their sins." Note the past tense of the word "had...received a remission of their sins." This is quite opposite the Campbellite soteriology, which says that the remission of sins does not come until the baptism (see also 2 Nephi 31:17: "and then cometh a remission...").

[wenglund]

Thanks for tracking down those threads, Wade.

The first two threads relate to washing and anointing rituals but I see no obvious correspondence between these ANE coronation rituals and the baptisms practiced in the Book of Mormon.

Regarding the third thread, I agree that the closest analog to Christian baptism (which derived from John's baptism) was Jewish proselyte baptism. But Jewish proselyte baptism is not what we find in the Book of Mormon.

I think if you look closely at the key elements (washing and anointing) in the purification and deification rituals you might see, at least symbolically, a correspondance with modern baptism and confirmation, and more particularly with baptism and the Holy spirit in the Book of Mormon. I am not suggesting an exact parallel, just close approximation that allows for evolutionary and cultural influences. But, then, not everyone may see it the way I do. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

And you really don't have any basis to feel insulted about it. It was you who decided to play the game this way. You had to know that eventually we might start to notice that you might sing the same words, but you're clearly singing them to a different tune.

The issue is the ad hominem attacks. Just because I may use words in ways that a few of you are not accustomed to, doesn't mean that someone is justified in calling me a "wolf in sheep's clothing," or suggesting that I'm really an anti-Mormon posing as a Mormon. I'm not, but does it even matter? So what if I were? That doesn't change the argument. It just diverts the discussion so that you don't have to address the issues head-on.

[Cobalt-70]

I didn't mean to insult you, but nevertheless I am as confused as Pahoran. Maybe I have been on these boards too long but it is just not adding up to me. Pahoran is exactly right- you may be totally "orthodox LDS" whatever that means, but it seems that you are presenting yourself as an Evangelical under it all. Your views are quite unusual- not that that is bad, but they do not seem consistent with the LDS world view.

Again, not that it's relevant or anyone's business, but as to my "orthodoxy," you could say that I am "orthodox" enough to get a temple recommend, but not "orthodox" enough that I am unable to think far outside the box, or to find common ground with traditional Christianity.

[Cobalt-70]

If Joseph was the one who "switched," then wouldn't that mean that he was the author of the Book of Mormon? How could he have "switched" if he translated it?

I'm not addressing that issue, and I don't really know. I do, however, think it is pretty clear that the Book of Mormon may primarily be characterized as modern scripture, as opposed to ancient scripture. It is replete with modern concerns, modern terminology, and modern Protestant doctrines. The exact translation mechanism that went on inside Smith's mind, I don't know, and I don't think anyone will ever know. It is pretty clear he didn't just mechanically read the text from his stone, word-for-word, as Joseph Knight and David Whitmer claimed, because that is inconsistent with D&C 9, and also inconsistent with the many elements of Smith's background that are found within the book.

[wenglund]

The term "baptism unto repentance" is a reference to Matthew 3:11, in which John the Baptist said that his baptism was "unto repentance," but when Jesus comes, he would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Methodists interpret that as meaning that baptism is an outward expression of repentance. Campbellites, on the other hand, interpret this to mean that baptism is the culmination of repentance, but that a remission of sins does not come until after a baptismal transformation.

The "Methodist" sections of the Book of Mormon teach that baptism is a sign of a remission of sins brought about by grace. This is most explicity shown in 3 Nephi 7: 25, which says that people were "baptized with water" as a "witness and testimony before God, and unto the people, that they had repented and received a remission of their sins." Note the past tense of the word "had...received a remission of their sins." This is quite opposite the Campbellite soteriology, which says that the remission of sins does not come until the baptism (see also 2 Nephi 31:17: "and then cometh a remission...").

This is a tortured reading of the many Book of Mormon passages that speak of "baptism unto repentance." As I understand it, the past tense in 3Ne. 7:25 was in relation to all the ordinances that had previously been performed, and not in reference to the remittance of sin in relation to the ordinance of baptism.

To see why, in addition to my mention in a previous post of Moroni 8:11, which speaks of baptism unto repentance, but which, inconvenientely for your theory, falls within the set of scriptures you list as "Campbelite," there is also Alma 7:14 (see 3 Nephi 1:23 as well), which speaks of baptism as the means by which "ye may be washed from your sins," yet it, inconveniently for your theory, falls within the set of scriptures you list as "Methodist." So, there are at least three scriptures which defy, and thus negate, your theory. Sorry.

For that matter, except for your odd interpretation of the phrase "baptised unto repentence," I couldn't find a single explicit or implicit statement within the whole of the Book of Mormon suggesting that a remission of sins was thought to have occurred prior to baptism. Rather, the only differentiation I could find is whether remission of sins was a result of water baptism and/or baptism of fire.

By the way, most of the instances of the phrase "baptised unto repentence" in the Book of Mormon, predate the birth of John the Baptist and Jesus, and so they couldn't refer to Mt 3:11, which was first written and published hundreds of years later. Their meaning of that phrase was similar to the phrase, "baptized unto the Lord," used by the same authors. And, it should also be noted that in the Book of Mormon, the reception of, or pouring out more abundantly of the Holy Spirit/grace of God/fire, was affected by baptism prior to the coming of Christ (see, for example, 2Ne. 31:12; Ether 12:14; Mosiah 18:10-17), and thus in this way as well they didn't have reference to Mt. 3:11. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-