Baptism mentioned in Book of Mormon Isaiah passage

[Scott Lloyd]

In a thread I started a few weeks ago I mentioned that I had begun to re-read the Book of Mormon in response to President Monson's counsel given in general conference. At that time, I pledged to post insights on this board from time to time as they occur to me in my reading.

I now highlight the first verse in 1 Nephi 20, the  beginning of Nephi's quotation of Isaiah from the brass plates of Laban The verse reads:

Quote

Hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, or out of the waters of baptism, who swear by the name of the Lord and make mention of the God of Israel, yet they swear not in truth nor in righteousness.

(Emphasis mine for reference)

This is the first time I have noticed the ordinance of baptism mentioned in the writings of Isaiah. So I got curious and compared it with the verse in the Book of Isaiah in the Old Testament. My hunch was right: The phrase "out of the waters of baptism" is not in there. So that leaves us to conclude that it was among "the plain and precious parts" that were left out of the Bible as we have it today, or that it was an inspired addition or emendation in the Book of Mormon version of Isaiah that has come to us.

Since the resurrected Christ very strongly commended the words of Isaiah when he visited the Nephites ("great are the words of Isaiah"), and since we are taught that the Book of Mormon was prepared and preserved to come forth in our day, I see great significance in this reference to baptism here. To me, it is a message to us living today, a warning that there would be those among us who nominally are members of the Church, having accepted the ordinance of baptism, but are straying from the word of God, or, as it is worded in verse 2, "do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel [Christ] who is the Lord of Hosts; yea the Lord of Hosts is his name."

One manifestation of this is in the propensity of some among our own people to contend or murmur against the inspired words of the prophets and apostles. (See my prior thread about Lehi's and Nephi's vision of the tree of life.)

I recognize that there are earlier applications of Isaiah, but I also recognize that prophecies of the scriptures very often have dual or multiple fulfillments.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

How common was the ordinance of baptism in Israel during the time of Isaiah?

We know that it existed in the time of Adam (i.e., from the very beginning), but there is none to very little indication that it existed under the Law of Moses --- including the time of Isaiah.

This change is one of only a literal handful of textual changes to the BoM that represent a substantial change. It wasn't in the 1830 edition of the BoM, either --- it was added by Joseph Smith in the 1837 edition. Or maybe the 1842. I agree that it is an inspired addition by Joseph Smith, but I'm not sure what to make of the "waters of baptism" in Isaiah.

[Thinking]

The plain and precious parts were also left out of the 1830 Book of Mormon. According to Fair Mormon, the phrase out of the waters of baptism was added in the 1840 edition.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

How common was the ordinance of baptism in Israel during the time of Isaiah?

We know that it existed in the time of Adam (i.e., from the very beginning), but there is none to very little indication that it existed under the Law of Moses --- including the time of Isaiah.

 

True. I wonder if that might be due at least in part to many of "the plain and precious parts" having been left out of the ancient scriptures as they have been handed down to us.

Quote

This change is one of only a literal handful of textual changes to the BoM that represent a substantial change. It wasn't in the 1830 edition of the BoM, either --- it was added by Joseph Smith in the 1837 edition.

That is interesting information. Thank you.

Quote

Or maybe the 1842. I agree that it is an inspired addition by Joseph Smith, but I'm not sure what to make of the "waters of baptism" in Isaiah.

Perhaps I could mention that I approached my reading this morning with the intent in mind (even a prayer in my heart) that I do as Nephi says, to "liken the scriptures unto ourselves." I reiterate that the inclusion of that phrase in the Book of Mormon version of the Isaiah passage strikes me very strongly as a message to us living in the latter days.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The plain and precious parts were also left out of the 1830 Book of Mormon. According to Fair Mormon, the phrase out of the waters of baptism was added in the 1840 edition.

As Rongo has just informed us, it was Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration, who added it.

[clarkgoble]

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

How common was the ordinance of baptism in Israel during the time of Isaiah?

Mikvah's are pretty common. Some of the differences in Book of Mormon baptism likely related to their arising out of the pre-exilic notion of mikvah. (Which is almost certainly somewhat different from the form it took in later Judaism) The nature of John's baptism which Jesus took up is still a bit mysterious in terms of the history. I think most assume it's tied to the Essenes form of Judaism but there's not a lot of evidence about the origins nor its differences. Although in rabbinical Judaism a mikvah was the final step in conversion to Judaism. But I think a strong possibility is that John's baptism of Jesus was tied to the notion of priesthood and the idea of John as the real high priest in exile. It's interesting that the Luke account makes explicit that Jesus is doing this to fulfill the Law. It's just not quite clear what Luke means by that.

The more traditional Jewish mikvah is done for numerous reasons and isn't limited in the way we think of baptism. Men would ritually immerse themselves at least three times a year for the Day of Atonement (the high priest doing it five times during the day), Day of Pentecost and Feast of the Tabernacles. It's also done for other reasons such as ritually cleansing for women after menstruation. In the Torah it marks a move from unclean to purity -- although we have to keep in mind that uncleanliness wasn't always tied to sin but often was simply tied to bodily fluids (male or female) or illness. In modern Judaism one does a mikvah prior to marriage for instance.

Nephi seems to have an expanded practice of mikvah beyond what we really have good records for. I suspect that reflects the post-exilic form of the OT versus whatever was on the brass plates. (There's an argument that Lehi comes from a tradition perhaps tied to the northern tribes which is quite different from the Deuteronomist inspired tradition of Josiah let alone what developed during the exile)

I should note the notion of ritual cleaning by water explains for instance the oddities of Alma's baptism. (Where he washes himself as well as baptizing others -- something that seems alien to us) Yet the early Book of Mormon baptism is tied to a covenant. (See for example Alma 7:15 which significantly inspires how we view baptism)  The big difference in the Book of Mormon is the notion of authority for baptism whereas under the law, outside of certain priestly duties, one did the cleansing oneself. This is a key Mormon concept somewhat alien even to much of Christianity. 

Relative to Isaiah 48 as others noted that was an expansion not even in the original version of the Book of Mormon. It fits as a mikvah symbolism though. The crossing over of the Jordan was a sign they'd been accepted by God and washed clean after their period of tribulation. The Gospel writers obviously make abundant use of the exodus pattern relative to Jesus. (His baptism, his tribulation in the desert, etc.)

Edited May 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Mikvah's are pretty common. Some of the differences in Book of Mormon baptism likely related to their arising out of the pre-exilic notion of mikvah. (Which is almost certainly somewhat different from the form it took in later Judaism) The nature of John's baptism which Jesus took up is still a bit mysterious in terms of the history. I think most assume it's tied to the Essenes form of Judaism but there's not a lot of evidence about the origins nor its differences.

The more traditional Jewish mikvah is done for numerous reasons and isn't limited in the way we think of baptism. Men would ritually immerse themselves at least three times a year for the Passover, Day of Pentecost and Feast of the Tabernacles. It's also done for other reasons such as ritually cleansing for women after menstruation. In the Torah it marks a move from unclean to purity -- although we have to keep in mind that uncleanliness wasn't always tied to sin but often was simply tied to bodily fluids or illness. In modern Judaism one does a mikvah prior to marriage for instance.

Nephi seems to have an expanded practice of mikvah beyond what we really have good records for. I suspect that reflects the post-exilic form of the OT versus whatever was on the brass plates. (There's an argument that Lehi comes from a tradition perhaps tied to the northern tribes which is quite different from the Deuteronomist inspired tradition of Josiah let alone what developed during the exile)

Interestingly, Baptism under Brigham Young started to resemble the mikvah, in that it was done multiple times as a repeatable purification ritual. 

As I understand it, earliest baptisms would have been done similarly to mikvah - in that the person would dunk themselves (not a two-person ritual as we like to think of it). 

[ksfisher]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a thread I started a few weeks ago I mentioned that I had begun to re-read the Book of Mormon in response to President Monson's counsel given in general conference. At that time, I pledged to post insights on this board from time to time as they occur to me in my reading.

I now highlight the first verse in 1 Nephi 20, the  beginning of Nephi's quotation of Isaiah from the brass plates of Laban The verse reads:

(Emphasis mine for reference)

This is the first time I have noticed the ordinance of baptism mentioned in the writings of Isaiah. So I got curious and compared it with the verse in the Book of Isaiah in the Old Testament. My hunch was right: The phrase "out of the waters of baptism" is not in there. So that leaves us to conclude that it was among "the plain and precious parts" that were left out of the Bible as we have it today, or that it was an inspired addition or emendation in the Book of Mormon version of Isaiah that has come to us.

Since the resurrected Christ very strongly commended the words of Isaiah when he visited the Nephites ("great are the words of Isaiah"), and since we are taught that the Book of Mormon was prepared and preserved to come forth in our day, I see great significance in this reference to baptism here. To me, it is a message to us living today, a warning that there would be those among us who nominally are members of the Church, having accepted the ordinance of baptism, but are straying from the word of God, or, as it is worded in verse 2, "do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel [Christ] who is the Lord of Hosts; yea the Lord of Hosts is his name."

One manifestation of this is in the propensity of some among our own people to contend or murmur against the inspired words of the prophets and apostles. (See my prior thread about Lehi's and Nephi's vision of the tree of life.)

I recognize that there are earlier applications of Isaiah, but I also recognize that prophecies of the scriptures very often have dual or multiple fulfillments.

From Brant Gardner's "Second Witness" vol 1

Daniel H. Ludlow notes: The term “or out of the waters of baptism” did not appear in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. It first appeared in the edition of 1840 on page 53, and the sentence in which it appeared was punctuated as follows: “hearken and hear this, O house of Jacob, who are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, (or out of the waters of baptism,) who swear by the name of the Lord,” etc. It is not absolutely clear who was responsible for the insertion of this phrase, although the title page of this edition indicates that it was the “Third Edition, carefully Revised by the Translator” and was published in Nauvoo, Illinois. In the “Committee Copy” of the Book of Mormon that was used by Elder James E. Talmage and his committee in making the changes for the 1920 edition, the words “or out of the waters of baptism” were not printed in the text although they had been inserted in red ink in parentheses. However, the parentheses were crossed out by red pencil. These words are printed in the current edition of the Book of Mormon without the parentheses. 2

Skousen notes that it was Joseph Smith himself who made the addition for the 1840 edition, though it was not consistently inserted. It was originally a marginal note, and included in parentheses. 3

Edited May 12, 2017 by ksfisher

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Interestingly, Baptism under Brigham Young started to resemble the mikvah, in that it was done multiple times as a repeatable purification ritual. 

As I understand it, earliest baptisms would have been done similarly to mikvah - in that the person would dunk themselves (not a two-person ritual as we like to think of it). 

Yeah Brigham's use during the very early Utah period was interesting. There was a lot of fire and brimstone during the period prior to the Utah War and Brigham used re-baptism as a way of recommitment. My sense is that many of those in the Book of Mormon are re-baptisms as well although there's nothing one can point to that's unambiguous. Certainly dissenters are rebaptized where as today we'd not think of rebaptizing inactive members unless they were excommunicated.

The Book of Mormon use seems typically tied to conversion or at least recommitment. The oddity, as I mentioned, is the role authority plays. Why do some require the high priest? I've often wondered if Zechariah 3 isn't the text to look at for understanding the Book of Mormon use.

Edited May 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks to all for the above information and citations.

I wonder if, in Isaiah's day, "the waters of Judah" was a phrase commonly understood to denote baptism.

I have no doubt there are some idioms we use in our Latter-day Saint culture that are not grasped by those outside our culture. Similarly, it makes sense to me there would be some idioms used in ancient Israel that we would not readily understand today without having them explained to us.

Edited to add: There is a possible parallel in the Book of Mormon account wherein "the waters of Mormon" are associated fondly in the minds of many people with their own reconversion and baptism.

"Waters of Judah"; "waters of Mormon": food for thought.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 Certainly dissenters are rebaptized where as today we'd not think of rebaptizing inactive members unless they were excommunicated.

Oh, the humanity!

Can you imagine the increased baptismal interviews if we had recommitment baptisms today?   There are plenty with child of record baptisms as it is. It would also tie up the buildings. One would hope that there wouldn't be full services (prayers, songs, musical numbers, talk on baptism, talk on the Holy Ghost, etc.).  

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Oh, the humanity!

Can you imagine the increased baptismal interviews if we had recommitment baptisms today?   There are plenty with child of record baptisms as it is. It would also tie up the buildings. One would hope that there wouldn't be full services (prayers, songs, musical numbers, talk on baptism, talk on the Holy Ghost, etc.).  

My dad (born in 1903) was baptized in an irrigation canal on the bishop's farm.

We could make do, I suppose, if it came to that.

 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a thread I started a few weeks ago I mentioned that I had begun to re-read the Book of Mormon in response to President Monson's counsel given in general conference. At that time, I pledged to post insights on this board from time to time as they occur to me in my reading.

I now highlight the first verse in 1 Nephi 20, the  beginning of Nephi's quotation of Isaiah from the brass plates of Laban The verse reads:

(Emphasis mine for reference)

This is the first time I have noticed the ordinance of baptism mentioned in the writings of Isaiah. So I got curious and compared it with the verse in the Book of Isaiah in the Old Testament. My hunch was right: The phrase "out of the waters of baptism" is not in there. So that leaves us to conclude that it was among "the plain and precious parts" that were left out of the Bible as we have it today, or that it was an inspired addition or emendation in the Book of Mormon version of Isaiah that has come to us.

Since the resurrected Christ very strongly commended the words of Isaiah when he visited the Nephites ("great are the words of Isaiah"), and since we are taught that the Book of Mormon was prepared and preserved to come forth in our day, I see great significance in this reference to baptism here. To me, it is a message to us living today, a warning that there would be those among us who nominally are members of the Church, having accepted the ordinance of baptism, but are straying from the word of God, or, as it is worded in verse 2, "do not stay themselves upon the God of Israel [Christ] who is the Lord of Hosts; yea the Lord of Hosts is his name."

One manifestation of this is in the propensity of some among our own people to contend or murmur against the inspired words of the prophets and apostles. (See my prior thread about Lehi's and Nephi's vision of the tree of life.)

I recognize that there are earlier applications of Isaiah, but I also recognize that prophecies of the scriptures very often have dual or multiple fulfillments.

This is an interesting topic - thanks for bringing it up. I've never paid attention to this phrase before, nor the phase "the waters of Judah" in Isaiah. I believe this is the only place it occurs in scripture.

Isaiah 48:1

1 Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the ^awaters of Judah, which ^bswear by the name of the Lord, and make ^cmention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.

1 hour ago, rongo said:

How common was the ordinance of baptism in Israel during the time of Isaiah?

We know that it existed in the time of Adam (i.e., from the very beginning), but there is none to very little indication that it existed under the Law of Moses --- including the time of Isaiah.

This change is one of only a literal handful of textual changes to the BoM that represent a substantial change. It wasn't in the 1830 edition of the BoM, either --- it was added by Joseph Smith in the 1837 edition. Or maybe the 1842. I agree that it is an inspired addition by Joseph Smith, but I'm not sure what to make of the "waters of baptism" in Isaiah.

I believe the phrase the waters of Judah bears some need of attention and is actually the key element here. As Clark has pointed out Mikvah's can be viewed as a precursor of baptism. But I also believe the sea of the Temple is relevant as I see baptism as a token of our immersion in the sea of the world to rise out of it in Christ and resurrection. Of course the washing of the priests in the sea was also a repetitive cleansing type of ritual the priests were to perform before each "atonement" or sacrifice for sin, and is I believe symbolically represented in the baptism of our Savior before making His atonement for us.

I must say that I really am not sure what the waters of Judah may have been specifically referring to, and the usage of the Hebrew umimme is rare. ū·mê·mê·hem in Ezekiel 12:18 seems to be universally accepted as water. However, some versions translate Umimme as referring to coming out of the loins of Judah. The NKJV says wellsprings of Judah. Most versions keep the usual usage of water, which I believe is more accurate. I don't believe the original passage was meant to refer only to the descendants of Judah. So I believe the waters of Judah is referring to the land of Judah, and the "baptism" of the people through the country of Judah and its temple. Perhaps it is also an allusion of Judah getting "baptized" in war by Babylon, but I doubt that. I am somewhat open to ideas here. It is somewhat of a puzzlement, but I believe a later passage in the chapter gives us an idea of what the Lord is talking about:

   Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.

In other words the Lord has "baptized" them in trials. These are the "waters of Judah." Being immersed or tried in the waters of the world in order to make them appreciated the things of the Lord. Thoughts?

Edited May 12, 2017 by RevTestament

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I must say that I really am not sure what the waters of Judah may have been specifically referring to, and the usage of the Hebrew umimme is rare. ū·mê·mê·hem in Ezekiel 12:18 seems to be universally accepted as water. However, some versions translate Umimme as referring coming out of the loins of Judah. The NKJV says wellsprings of Judah. Most versions keep the usual usage of water, which I believe is more accurate.

One meaning for baptism is that we are "spiritually begotten" by Jesus (that is one way he is the Father, per the 1916 FP statement). So, that is an interesting tangent or parallel to this, tying baptism with the "loins of Judah."

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This is an interesting topic - thanks for bringing it up. I've never paid attention to this phrase before, nor the phase "the waters of Judah" in Isaiah. I believe this is the only place it occurs in scripture.

Isaiah 48:1

1 Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the ^awaters of Judah, which ^bswear by the name of the Lord, and make ^cmention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.

I believe the phrase the waters of Judah bears some need of attention and is actually the key element here. As Clark has pointed out Mikvah's can be viewed as a precursor of baptism. But I also believe the sea of the Temple is relevant as I see baptism as a token of our immersion in the sea of the world to rise out of it in Christ and resurrection. Of course the washing of the priests in the sea was also a repetitive cleansing type of ritual the priests were to perform before each "atonement" or sacrifice for sin, and is I believe symbolically represented in the baptism of our Savior before making His atonement for us.

I must say that I really am not sure what the waters of Judah may have been specifically referring to, and the usage of the Hebrew umimme is rare. ū·mê·mê·hem in Ezekiel 12:18 seems to be universally accepted as water. However, some versions translate Umimme as referring coming out of the loins of Judah. The NKJV says wellsprings of Judah. Most versions keep the usual usage of water, which I believe is more accurate. I don't believe the original passage was meant to refer only to the descendants of Judah. So I believe the waters of Judah is referring to the land of Judah, and the "baptism" of the people through the country of Judah and its temple. Perhaps it is also an allusion of Judah getting "baptized" in war by Babylon, but I doubt that. I am somewhat open to ideas here. It is somewhat of a puzzlement, but I believe a later passage in the chapter gives us an idea of what the Lord is talking about:

   Behold, I have refined you, but not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.

In other words the Lord has "baptized" them in trials. These are the "waters of Judah." Being immersed or tried in the waters of the world in order to make them appreciated the things of the Lord. Thoughts?

Interesting suggestions.

Given that (as Rongo pointed out) baptism has existed from the time of Adam, I wonder if the mikvahs, rather than being a precursor to baptism, are something of a later corruption of the original practice as taught by the Lord to Adam.

 

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Interesting suggestions.

Given that (as Rongo pointed out) baptism has existed from the time of Adam, I wonder if the mikvahs, rather than being a precursor to baptism, are something of a later corruption of the original practice as taught by the Lord to Adam.

 

For what it’s worth: this verse might be talking of two kinds of covenant people: 1) those physically born of Jacob and called Israel, and 2) those strangers who were baptized into Israel, or born of the waters of Judah (baptism). Both sets of followers were guilty, as both “swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness.” The corruption was through-and-through.

[clarkgoble]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Interesting suggestions.

Given that (as Rongo pointed out) baptism has existed from the time of Adam, I wonder if the mikvahs, rather than being a precursor to baptism, are something of a later corruption of the original practice as taught by the Lord to Adam.

It's so prominent in the law including the parts of the law considered the oldest that I'm skeptical. Likewise even in our tradition while we have baptisms we have other washings and anointings modeled on the text of the Torah that deals with mikvah and other rites.

Again though I suspect that the deuteronomist and priesthly traditions prior to the exile and during the exile gave a lot of the final form. You have the centralization of the cult (whereas the Lehite tradition allowed sacrifices in high places) and a lot else. Even Zechariah, which I mentioned, is seen as emphasizing the priestly tradition. 

I  bet that if we had solid records from the time of the Judges that a lot of the practices would look quite different than we expect.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

It's so prominent in the law including the parts of the law considered the oldest that I'm skeptical. Likewise even in our tradition while we have baptisms we have other washings and anointings modeled on the text of the Torah that deals with mikvah and other rites.

Again though I suspect that the deuteronomist and priesthly traditions prior to the exile and during the exile gave a lot of the final form. You have the centralization of the cult (whereas the Lehite tradition allowed sacrifices in high places) and a lot else. Even Zechariah, which I mentioned, is seen as emphasizing the priestly tradition. 

I  bet that if we had solid records from the time of the Judges that a lot of the practices would look quite different than we expect.

Do you believe that Adam was baptized?

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Interesting suggestions.

Given that (as Rongo pointed out) baptism has existed from the time of Adam, I wonder if the mikvahs, rather than being a precursor to baptism, are something of a later corruption of the original practice as taught by the Lord to Adam.

 

Clearly, many things were lost from the time of Adam. We have no mention of baptism at the time of Abraham. We have no records of any scriptures surviving from Adam's day. They were apparently restored by the Lord - perhaps it was just kept as oral tradition. I believe the word of God became quickly corrupted. Clearly, by Noah's day not much of it survived. Only the foreordained of YHWH preserved it.

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you believe that Adam was baptized?

Are Mormons the only ones who teach he was baptized?  I'd never thought that much about this, but when I type in "Adam baptized" for a Google search, it's LDS sources that come up.

What do we believe he was baptized into since Christ hadn't established his church yet?  Was it just symbolic?

When I looked up what baptism meant, it states this:

"(in the Christian Church) the religious rite of sprinkling water onto a person's forehead or of immersion in water, symbolizing purification or regeneration and admission to the Christian Church. In many denominations, baptism is performed on young children and is accompanied by name-giving."

[JulieM]

Thinking more about this...

it must just be symbolic, correct (Adam's baptism) or just spiritually done?

Who could have physically baptized Adam?

Edited May 12, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses.

Yes, we're the only ones who believe that Adam was baptized. He was baptized by the Spirit. 

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As Rongo has just informed us, it was Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration, who added it.

It doesn't matter who added it if it wasn't in the original manuscript. This raises the question, "Why not?"

Was its omission a mistake? Was the addition merely a clarification?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses.

Yes, we're the only ones who believe that Adam was baptized. He was baptized by the Spirit. 

Thanks, rongo.  

So, it was spiritual rather than an actual physical baptism?  

Edited May 12, 2017 by JulieM

[rongo]

No, Mormons believe that he was actually immersed in water, and that this was an ordinance. Assuming that's what you mean by "spiritual baptism." That this was done by the Holy Ghost makes it a unique occurrence, but still physical. I don't know any active Mormon who believes that what is in Moses 6 is just allegorical and symbolic, but didn't physically happen. There may be some who don't believe Adam existed, but then they would not believe any of the ordinances actually took place with the patriarchs (and they probably don't believe most or any of the patriarchs were real people, either).

In the Book of Mormon, you have Alma immersing himself as he baptizes the first person at the Waters of Mormon. John the Baptist was baptized as an infant. There are instances in the scriptures where baptism doesn't follow a 2017 model.