Mid-Translation Change In Book Of Mormon Baptism Discourse

[altersteve]

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.

The Book of Mormon is "replete with modern concerns," etc., because it, unlike the Bible, was written to us. Moroni, Nephi, and others saw our time and wrote about what they saw, which is why it is directly relevant to us. The book itself explains this. I agree that we may never know how exactly the book was translated, but I don't believe Joseph had any control over the meaning of the text. It was written, abridged, and compiled by prophets who lived on the American continent in ancient times. To claim that Joseph had any sort of influence on the meaning of the text casts doubt on that, and thus calls the very truthfulness of the Book of Mormon into question.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I have no problem with being "unorthodox" in a church in which it is arguable that there is no doctrine, just orthopraxis. I am just a tad "out there" myself for most on this board.

But the issue is communication. We have our own linguistic context in which words mean something specific to us, meaning Mormons. If you describe yourself as a "Trinitarian Mormon" one might argue that you do not indeed have a "testimony of the Restoration" since indeed you still believe doctrine which is not part of the restored church. It is not for me to judge, but it is far from clear to me, between believing that Joseph "wrote" the BOM, questioning if the BOM is the word of God, and calling oneself a "Trinitarian", how it is that you believe that Joseph did ANYTHING at all to "restore" primitive Christianity.

I really don't care what you believe, frankly, it's just that if you are using words in a way only you understand, you are setting yourself up to be misunderstood. And I can't really speak to you because I can't understand your language- you say words to me that I do not understand the meaning of.

That makes conversation impossible.

I mean if you believe Joseph wrote the BOM in a 19th century context, that it is not historical in any way, that God is part of a Trinity, and who knows what else, I would wonder why you would even WANT a temple recommend, or what your understanding of those ordinances are. They aren't exactly Methodist, I know that.

So ultimately I don't care what you believe. But you make it pretty hard to carry on a conversation if all your words mean something else than what they mean to me.

[Nevo]

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.

Um, Wade, I think you know very well that there are numerous NT quotations in the Book of Mormon, even though the NT passages "were first written and published hundreds of years later."

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Yes, but the Book of Mormon does not link the "laying on of hands" with baptism, and does not state that the laying on of hands was a saving ordinance, or that it was in fact the baptism of fire. The baptism of fire came as a result of either faith (3 Nephi 9:20) or water baptism (2 Nephi 31:13, 17) That is consistent with Methodist and Campbellite doctrines, respectively. Thus, it is not surprising that the Book of Mormon describes people with the ability to clap their hands on someone and thereby cause an outpouring of the Holy Spirit (see Alma 31:36, 3 Nephi 18:36-37, and Moroni 2:2). The apostles did that in the Bible, as well, and in most Christian churches including the LDS Church, this has come to take the form of the confirmation ritual after baptism.

[mfbukowski]

poof. gone.

Edited February 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

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 to the biblical language "baptized unto repentance" found in the "Methodist" sections of the book, see my earlier post.

I agree with you as to the separate introduction of the confirmation ordinance and its linking to the baptism of fire. This occurred some time after the Book of Mormon was translated, and prior to April 1830.

[Cobalt-70]

I mean if you believe Joseph wrote the BOM in a 19th century context, that it is not historical in any way, that God is part of a Trinity, and who knows what else, I would wonder why you would even WANT a temple recommend, or what your understanding of those ordinances are. They aren't exactly Methodist, I know that.

You got the first one right, but the second two wrong. I do not believe that the Book of Mormon is ahistorical, and I am not a trinitarian (except to the extent, if any, that Joseph Smith's 1840s theology can be considered trinitarian).

If I suffer from using words in a way that is unfamiliar to many fellow Mormons, I think that works the opposite way, as well. The reason why many other Christians are distrustful of Mormonism, and do not understand Mormonism, is that we Mormons use standard Christian terminology in highly non-standard ways. Moreover, Mormon language has become insular, and has become an echo chamber wherein hardly anybody ever says anything new. What is the point of speaking if everybody knows what you are going to say, before you say it? You might say that Mormonism is not trinitarian. But when is the last time that anybody translated Mormon theology into standard Christian-ese? You might say that the Mormon doctrine of baptism is unique, but when is the last time that anybody actually compared it with other Christian denominations--on their own terms--or allowed for the possibility that the language of the Book of Mormon was more Protestant as viewed by Joseph Smith at the time of translation than it is now, as viewed by 21st century Mormons?

[altersteve]

Cobalt, if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, then it is not true. And if the Book of Mormon is not true, then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not true. I'm simply failing to understand how one can reconcile the theory that Joseph Smith is the author of the Book of Mormon with the idea that it is not "ahistorical." Those two concepts simply do NOT go hand in hand.

[mfbukowski]

You got the first one right, but the second two wrong. I do not believe that the Book of Mormon is ahistorical, and I am not a trinitarian (except to the extent, if any, that Joseph Smith's 1840s theology can be considered trinitarian).

If I suffer from using words in a way that is unfamiliar to many fellow Mormons, I think that works the opposite way, as well. The reason why many other Christians are distrustful of Mormonism, and do not understand Mormonism, is that we Mormons use standard Christian terminology in highly non-standard ways. Moreover, Mormon language has become insular, and has become an echo chamber wherein hardly anybody ever says anything new. What is the point of speaking if everybody knows what you are going to say, before you say it? You might say that Mormonism is not trinitarian. But when is the last time that anybody translated Mormon theology into standard Christian-ese? You might say that the Mormon doctrine of baptism is unique, but when is the last time that anybody actually compared it with other Christian denominations--on their own terms--or allowed for the possibility that the language of the Book of Mormon was more Protestant as viewed by Joseph Smith at the time of translation than it is now, as viewed by 21st century Mormons?

Well we are getting to the point where we are quibbling about words again, and I am not about to say I am not at fault also. But I make a very clear distinction between "Trinitarians" who believe in substance essence and/or being and those who are now known as "social Trinitarians". In fact I would call myself one. So upon reflection, maybe we are closer than I supposed.

But THAT is the importance of talking things out and establishing communication- which usually means a common vocabulary. We are getting there.

http://en.wikipedia...._Social_Trinity

I find this idea totally compatible with LDS beliefs, and arguably similar to the belief found in The Lectures

Edited February 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[wenglund]

Um, Wade, I think you know very well that there are numerous NT quotations in the Book of Mormon, even though the NT passages "were first written and published hundreds of years later."

Yo, Nevo, I also know that there are a number of 21st century Wade quotations in the Book of Mormon as well--like, "language of the Egyptians," "into the wilderness," "could not be restrained," "he confounded them," "arouse your faculties," "they have rejected the gospel of Christ," etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As to the biblical language "baptized unto repentance" found in the "Methodist" sections of the book, see my earlier post.

I did. I can't see where it explains, let alone explains away, the three scriptures that defy, and thus negate, your theory.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

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.

3 Nephi 7:25 refers to baptism in the future tense, but remission of sins in the past tense. It says that people should be baptized (in the future) as a witness that they had received a remission of sins (in the past). I think it's pretty clear.

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.

Moroni 8:11 is no problem. Again, this is biblical language, and Methodists and Campbellists interpret it differently.

As to Alma 7:14, note that Alma 7:15 still describes baptism in very Methodist terms, as a witness of a covenant and a willingness to repent of sins. Alma 7:14 does refer to being "washed from your sins," but I don't see this as inconsistent with Methodism. This is, again, just biblical language. Acts 22:16 uses the same language, and is interpreted by Methodists as stating that baptism symbolizes the washing away of sins that comes about through faith and repentance, but does not actually cause the literal washing away of sins. Baptism is a sign of faith, which is what most directly institutes the grace by which sins are washed away. In fact, that's basically what Alma 7:14 says.

As to 3 Nephi 1:23, the verse does not actually say that the baptism is what brought about the remission of sins. You have to remember, that both Methodists and Campbellites were working with the same biblical terminology, and they are making what seem to us Mormons to be fine distinctions. There is no reason to conclude that Alma 7:14 and 3 Nephi 1:23 are inconsistent with the crystal clear statement in 3 Nephi 7:25 that baptism is a witness to a prior remission of sin, or other passages like Mosiah 18:10 that describe baptism as a witness and testimony of something else, rather than as a transformative act of regeneration in itself.

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.

"Pouring out of the spirit more abundantly," etc. is consistent with Methodism.

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt, if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, then it is not true. And if the Book of Mormon is not true, then The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not true. I'm simply failing to understand how one can reconcile the theory that Joseph Smith is the author of the Book of Mormon with the idea that it is not "ahistorical." Those two concepts simply do NOT go hand in hand.

But the way I see it, if that's how you view the Book of Mormon, you are building your house upon a sandy foundation of apologetic archaeology, linguistics, and genetics, that has thus far been pretty shaky. Why not just accept the Book of Mormon as true, regardless of whether it has any historical connection to actual Native Americans. If you do that, then your faith isn't shaken every time the proposed geographical extent of the Nephite empire is further limited in response to mainstream archaeology. If the Book of Mormon does turn out to have some connection to real history, I'll be pleasantly surprised. In the meantime, I want to find out what the book meant to Joseph Smith in the context in which he lived, because that is more relevant to my religious life than what some Olmecs were thinking in 500 BC.

[mfbukowski]

But the way I see it, if that's how you view the Book of Mormon, you are building your house upon a sandy foundation of apologetic archaeology, linguistics, and genetics, that has thus far been pretty shaky. Why not just accept the Book of Mormon as true, regardless of whether it has any historical connection to actual Native Americans. If you do that, then your faith isn't shaken every time the proposed geographical extent of the Nephite empire is further limited in response to mainstream archaeology. If the Book of Mormon does turn out to have some connection to real history, I'll be pleasantly surprised. In the meantime, I want to find out what the book meant to Joseph Smith in the context in which he lived, because that is more relevant to my religious life than what some Olmecs were thinking in 500 BC.

"Real history" is an oxymoron. The Book of Mormon is as "real" as history can get. This is more a statement about history than it is the BOM though.

Edited February 15, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

"Real history" is an oxymoron. The Book of Mormon is as "real" as history can get. This is more a statement about history than it is the BOM though.

Very true. I like how you put it.

[altersteve]

But the way I see it, if that's how you view the Book of Mormon, you are building your house upon a sandy foundation of apologetic archaeology, linguistics, and genetics, that has thus far been pretty shaky. Why not just accept the Book of Mormon as true, regardless of whether it has any historical connection to actual Native Americans. If you do that, then your faith isn't shaken every time the proposed geographical extent of the Nephite empire is further limited in response to mainstream archaeology. If the Book of Mormon does turn out to have some connection to real history, I'll be pleasantly surprised. In the meantime, I want to find out what the book meant to Joseph Smith in the context in which he lived, because that is more relevant to my religious life than what some Olmecs were thinking in 500 BC.

I don't build my house upon apologetics. I build my house upon the rock of revelation, and God has personally made it known unto me that the Book of Mormon is a historically true account written by ancient American prophets. If your faith is weak enough to be shaken "every time the proposed geographical extent of the Nephite empire is further limited in response to mainstream archaeology," then it is you who has built his house upon a sandy foundation.

Edited February 15, 2012 by altersteve

[wenglund]

3 Nephi 7:25 refers to baptism in the future tense, but remission of sins in the past tense. It says that people should be baptized (in the future) as a witness that they had received a remission of sins (in the past). I think it's pretty clear.

It is interesting that you would now say this since in your original statement you said, in regards to 3Ne 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.'" (emphasis mine).

What is clear is that you are evidently confusing the tenses--likely a function of your theory driving your selective interpretation of the scriptures.

Moroni 8:11 is no problem. Again, this is biblical language, and Methodists and Campbellists interpret it differently.

Not that it matters, but I am issuing a CFR, first in regards to your claim that the phrase "baptized unto repentance" is biblical language (I just did a search and couldn't find it), and second, that Methodists and Campbellites supposedly interpret this phrase differently.

Whatever the case, it is a problem because you are using the language in the Book of Mormon to differentiate between those portions of the book you theorize to be Campbellite as contrasted from those you theorize to be Methodist, and the language of Moroni 8:11, which you list as Campbellite, uses the same language as a number of Alma passages (posted earlier), which you listed as Methodists. Sorry.

As to Alma 7:14, note that Alma 7:15 still describes baptism in very Methodist terms, as a witness of a covenant and a willingness to repent of sins. Alma 7:14 does refer to being "washed from your sins," but I don't see this as inconsistent with Methodism.

It is inconsistent with how you characterized Methodism earlier when you claimed they believed remission of sins preceeded baptism, rather than, as you said of the Campbellites, who believed remission of sins were a result of baptism.

It doesn't matter which way you finally decided to go with this since, if you go with your earlier characterization, your theory fails because of the two defying scriptures I quoted earlier. If you decide to go with what you are now claiming, your theory fails because you are fatally blur the lines of your false dichotomy. Sorry.

This is, again, just biblical language. Acts 22:16 uses the same language, and is interpreted by Methodists as stating that baptism symbolizes the washing away of sins that comes about through faith and repentance, but does not actually cause the literal washing away of sins.

CFR.

As to 3 Nephi 1:23, the verse does not actually say that the baptism is what brought about the remission of sins.

According to a non-theory-laden and reasonable interpretation, it does.

You have to remember, that both Methodists and Campbellites were working with the same biblical terminology, and they are making what seem to us Mormons to be fine distinctions. There is no reason to conclude that Alma 7:14 and 3 Nephi 1:23 are inconsistent with the crystal clear statement in 3 Nephi 7:25 that baptism is a witness to a prior remission of sin, or other passages like Mosiah 18:10 that describe baptism as a witness and testimony of something else, rather than as a transformative act of regeneration in itself.

If highly educated LDS can't see the alleged fine distinction, then what reason do we have to believe that Joseph Smith did, with his limited education and experience with Methodism, and who knows if he was the least bit acquainted with Campbellism?

Now, since you have evidently let your theory drive your selective interpretations, it is understandable that you would now blithly dismiss clear evidence to the contrary, and I am okay with that. It seems that it doesn't matter to you what evidence may be presented counter to your theory, you are bound and determined to believe it nevertheless.To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 15, 2012 by wenglund

[Damien the Leper]

I don't build my house upon apologetics. I build my house upon the rock of revelation, and God has personally made it known unto me that the Book of Mormon is a historically true account written by ancient American prophets. If your faith is weak enough to be shaken "every time the proposed geographical extent of the Nephite empire is further limited in response to mainstream archaeology," then it is you who has built his house upon a sandy foundation.

What about those whom God personally makes it known to that the Book of Mormon isn't literal history but is still inspired scripture? To dismiss my question and saying God wouldn't do that is just ridiculous.

[altersteve]

What about those whom God personally makes it known to that the Book of Mormon isn't literal history but is still inspired scripture? To dismiss my question and saying God wouldn't do that is just ridiculous.

I am not responsible for what God has told someone else, only for what He has told me.

[Cobalt-70]

It is interesting that you would now say this since in your original statement you said, in regards to 3Ne 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.'" (emphasis mine).

"Were" from the perspective of now, but "will be" from the perspective of 3 Nephi 7:25. Besides, who cares how I characterized the text. Look at the tense of the words in the text itself.

Not that it matters, but I am issuing a CFR, first in regards to your claim that the phrase "baptized unto repentance" is biblical language (I just did a search and couldn't find it), and second, that Methodists and Campbellites supposedly interpret this phrase differently.

Whatever the case, it is a problem because you are using the language in the Book of Mormon to differentiate between those portions of the book you theorize to be Campbellite as contrasted from those you theorize to be Methodist, and the language of Moroni 8:11, which you list as Campbellite, uses the same language as a number of Alma passages (posted earlier), which you listed as Methodists. Sorry.

Matthew 3:11 ("baptize you with water unto repentance") and Acts 19:4 ("baptized with the baptism of repentance"), Mark 1:4 ("baptism of repentance for the remission of sins"). This biblical language is interpreted differently by Methodists and Campbellites, so you cannot use this language to distinguish between the two. It is compatible with both.

CFR.

I haven't found an authoritative Methodist source that specifically cites Acts 22:16, but this site http://www.crivoice.org/creedfm.html states a Methodist view on baptism roughly similar to that in the first translated half of Book of Mormon (see XVI The Holy Sacraments) and then cites Acts 22:16 for that view in the endnotes. There might be something more specific out there, but I'm confident that it will not be an admission by Methodists that they were wrong, and that baptismal regeneration is a correct doctrine.

If highly educated LDS can't see the alleged fine distinction, then what reason do we have to believe that Joseph Smith did, with his limited education and experience with Methodism, and who knows if he was the least bit acquainted with Campbellism?

It doesn't really matter whether he did or not. Though he had to have been well familiar with Methodism, I'm not hypothesizing that he had actual knowledge of Campbellism, only that what he translated into the second half of the Book of Mormon was essentially Campbellist. The data is not there to distinguish between whether Smith knew a Campbellist or some other similar variety of Baptist offshoot, whether he came up with the Campbellist baptism ideas on his own, whether Nephi was what we would call a Campbellist on the issue of baptism, and Moroni changed his views upon reading the plates of Nephi, or whatever. It doesn't really matter for purposes of this discussion.