|
|
Moroni 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moroni 6:1 1 And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it.
Moroni’s liturgical instructions become interesting as much for what is left out as for what is put in. Chapters two through 6 are all explicitly liturgical in intent. That is, they all tell us something about the way church was practiced among the Nephites. However, there is quite a bit of instruction that is specifically left out, and in some cases, they are details that one might expect to be included if this were what critics of the Book of Mormon suggest that it is, a polemic to resolve modern issues of church practice. In the case of baptism, there is ample opportunity for the current chapter to provide a description of practice. Since the issue of immersion versus sprinkling was a potential difference in modern practice, this is the opportune time to resolve the issue to giving a definitive example of the Nephite practice. Similarly, the issue of infant baptism ought to be resolved in a section that explicitly deals with liturgy. Instead, we do have a discussion of infant baptism, but it comes in an inserted letter from Mormon to Moroni. Moroni has established a precedent for recording a form-prayer, as he did for the sacrament in chapters 4 and 5, but he does not do it. Instead, modern LDS takes its standard form-prayer from 3 Nephi 11:35. The presence of information in these chapters therefore tells us something of what Moroni considers exceptional. If we take the contrast between the inclusion of the prayers for the sacrament and the absence of such an inclusion for baptism, we can understand something of what Moroni is saying “between the lines.” Both the sacramental prayers and the baptismal prayer have antecedents in the visit of Christ to the Nephites in Bountiful. There is a difference, however. When the sacrament is established, there is only a tenuous relationship between the words and actions of that event and the forms that Moroni elects to preserve. This contrasts to the baptismal prayer, which is given at least as a potential form-prayer in 3 Nephi: 3 Nephi 11:24-26 24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying: 25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water. The 3 Nephi instructions on baptism are very clear. There is a prayer-form assigned, and the mode of baptism is very clearly indicated as immersion. With such a precedent, Moroni sees no reason to repeat that information, for it is unambiguous, and it is unchanged. What does require clarification are those things that have become codified after the visit of the Savior. Thus he establishes the current liturgical forms for aspects of the practice of religion that are not otherwise clear from his father’s writing of the events of the visit of the Savior. [Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized]: This statement should not be seen as exclusive, but rather with the intent to be inclusive. The reason for telling us that elders, priests, and teachers were baptized is not that they were the only ones baptized, but that they also required baptism. There must have been those who assumed that their more prominent position might exempt them from the need for baptism, and Moroni is indicating that all, even the leaders of the church, were required to be baptized. [and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it]: While all required baptism, all were not uniformly acceptable to the rite itself. There were qualifications imposed on those who wished to be baptized. While this does not specifically discuss infant baptism, it effectively excludes those who would not be capable of meeting the conditions, and surely infants would be unable to meet the qualification of “fruit meet” for baptism. The term “meet” in this context means “equal to/worthy of.” It is a parallel to the usage of “help meet” in Genesis 2:18 where Eve is to be a “help meet” (help equal to/help worthy of) Adam. Here the understanding is that prior to baptism one’s actions should be in accord with the way they will be after the baptism. We enter in to a covenant with God that we will obey his commandments. It is a poor covenant if we cannot enter into it already living the conditions that we are covenanting to live. Of course this does not mean that we must live every commandment perfectly, as this is the lifelong task that lies before us. However, the minimum “fruit meet” for baptism is true repentance, that places us in the position of humility necessary to desire not only the baptismal cleansing, but the baptismal covenant of a change in our life to accord with the ways of God.
2 Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins.
Psalms 34:18 18 The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. The connection of this verse in Psalms to the baptismal condition is particularly appropriate. The unrepentant man who declines baptism is necessarily defined as the natural man, who is “an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord... (Mosiah 3:19.) The acceptance of the atonement of Christ the Lord occurs in the ordinance of baptism. Thus when one is qualified for baptism, and accepts that ordinance, the natural man is put away, and man literally is more “nigh” to God. The implication of the need to bring fruits of life to the baptismal covenant is that one must have had the gospel taught prior to baptism. One cannot properly approach the baptism without the prior instruction in the gospel so that one might understand the nature of the “fruits” to be brought to the baptism. While Moroni does not describe this pre-baptismal cathechism it is well known from the Old World baptismal rites. (Paul F. Bradshaw. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 155).
3 And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end.
For the ancient world, taking the name of Christ would have had significant implications that modern man has forgotten. The implication is not simply an identification, but a imitation. We are not just to adopt the name Christian, but the attitude and actions of Christian.
4 And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.
“Joseph Smith explained that "baptism is a sign to God, to angels, and to heaven that we do the will of God, and there is no other way beneath the heavens whereby God hath ordained for man to come to Him to be saved, and enter into the Kingdom of God, except faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, and baptism for the remission of sins, and any other course is in vain; then you have the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 198). We often speak of being baptized to wash away our sins. That symbolism is helpful, and there is something to be gained from understanding water baptism as a cleansing. But the more powerful symbol is baptism as the death and burial of the old man of sin and the rise to newness of life (Romans 6:3-5). The truth is, our sins are not really remitted in the baptism of water. In setting forth the doctrine of Christ, Nephi called upon his readers to "do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost" (2 Nephi 31:17; emphasis added). Truly, after people are received unto baptism, they are "wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost" (Moroni 6:4). The Holy Ghost is a sanctifier. After baptism we are "sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost" (3 Nephi 27:20). If we were to be immersed in water and then never be confirmed a member of the Church and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, we would still be in our sins. "You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man," Joseph Smith pointed out, "if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting of the Holy Ghost. Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half—that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 314; see also 360).” (Robert L. Millet, Alive in Christ: The Miracle of Spiritual Rebirth [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1997], 102.) This dual aspect of baptism is also a feature of the many of the known descriptions of the early Christian baptismal practice in the Old World. The rite of immersion in water is accompanied with an anointing with the Holy Ghost. The two pieces might be differently ordered, with one preceding the other, or in one case, the anointing with the Holy Ghost occurring as the candidate was under water, but the connection between the two parts of a Christian baptism are quite clear in the ancient records. (Paul F. Bradshaw. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 144-170). [they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken]: The taking of the names is reminiscent of the covenant made by the people of Benjamin: Mosiah 6:1 1 And now, king Benjamin thought it was expedient, after having finished speaking to the people, that he should take the names of all those who had entered into a covenant with God to keep his commandments. The purpose of taking the names is not simply to have an official roll of the church, but to make explicit the covenant of the name. Each person has taken the name of Christ, and Christ has taken their name. There is an exchange of covenants and promises. Those who accept Christ have entered into a new relationship, and the taking of the names is symbolic of the receipt of that covenant. [that they might be remembered]: The human aspect of taking the names allows the human officiators of God’s church to care for those who have made the commitments to the church. Without the names, there is no known community. In a sense, the ancient Christian was adopted into a new family. Christ was the new father, and they were sons and daughters of this new father: Mosiah 5:7 7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. It is interesting that it is this rebirth symbolism that dominated some ancient commentaries on baptism, rather than the Pauline death/resurrection symbolism: “A man comes out of that water reborn as a “son” of God… So it was that, in allusion to the concept of rebirth, some ancient commentators referred to the font as a womb, but never as a graved, and the idea of Romans 6:3-5 (of Christians being baptized into the death and resurrection of Christ) made no mark upon early Syrian thought about baptism.” (Paul F. Bradshaw. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 149). The Book of Mormon would follow this rebirth symbolism. The death/resurrection symbolism does not appear to play in the Nephite symbolic associations, and that would be consonant with the absence of the overt cross/death theology that was so important to the Old World that had to deal with a dying Savior, rather than the transcendent Atoning Messiah who appeared to the Nephites. [and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way]: The baptism into the church was an adoption into a new family of God. In the ancient world, families had responsibilities to each other. Those who were of the same kin-group were expected to care for others of their kin. In this way, when one became “adopted” into the new “kin” of the church, there were social responsibilities owed by that new fictive kin-community to the newly baptized member. Their new brothers and sisters were to continue to teach them, and they were to encourage them to “keep… in the right way.” These responsibilities of the community of faith continue in the latter day. The Lord has specifically directed us to teach our brethren: Doctrine and Covenants 88:77 77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. (italics added). Similarly, the modern member of the church is also to care for our brethren, and see that we walk in the ways of the Lord: Doctrine and Covenants 20:42 42 And to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church; (italics added) [to keep them continually watchful unto prayer,]: One of the evidences of our continued relationship to God is prayer. If we continue in humility, we will continue to approach God in prayer, something that can only truly be done in humility. Once we attempt to pray without humility, our prayers are not longer directed to God (regardless of what we say in the prayer) but are rather directed to our vanity or our pride before men. [relying alone upon the merits of Christ]: Christ is the only one capable of providing for our salvation: Acts 4:12 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. [who was the author and the finisher of their faith.]: This phrase might be difficult to understand if we read “finisher” with the meaning of one who “ends” something. Of course Christ does not end our faith. However, a finisher is also one who completes something, and it is in that context that we can more readily understand this phrase. Christ is the author and the concluder. In other words, the analog of Alpha and Omega – the beginning and the end.
5 And the church did meet together oft, to fast and to pray, and to speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls.
The first new statement that we have deals with liturgical time,
or the repeated frequency of the acts of “church.” In modern LDS practice, we
are very familiar with the weekly observance of special activities associated
with the gospel. We go to church. We pray publicly. We sing songs. We partake
of the sacrament. We hear people teach us. All of these are elements of the practice of church, but so is the fact that we do it
every Sunday. We do now know on which day of the week the
Nephites met. Nor can we be certain that they met weekly (or only weekly).
Moroni simply tells us that they “did meet together oft.” That would appear to
suggest a frequency that is greater than once a month, and certainly allows for
a weekly meeting as a congregation. What went on when they met together “oft?” Moroni tells us that they fasted and prayed. We may expect that fasting is therefore a part of the communal practice. We do not know how often they fasted, but enough that it was considered a part of regular church practice. They also prayed together. While not specifically stated, we may assume that there were public, oral, prayers. Nephi prays on his tower in his garden (Helaman 7:10-11), so we know that vocal prayers are considered acceptable. In addition to public prayer, the also “speak one with another concerning the welfare of their souls.” It is probable that this constitutes some form of instruction or teaching. Thus we can cautiously reconstruct a Nephite “church meeting” as having public prayers, and some form of instruction. With the presence of an office labeled teacher we would suppose that such a person would be at least one of those who would instruct the congregation.
6 And they did meet together oft to partake of bread and wine, in remembrance of the Lord Jesus.
7 And they were strict to observe that there should be no iniquity among them; and whoso was found to commit iniquity, and three witnesses of the church did condemn them before the elders, and if they repented not, and confessed not, their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ.
When those rules of the community were violated, the only enforcement given is the exclusion of such a person from the community. There is not indication that the church formed the temporal government of the city, for the penalty is not death or incarceration. Nor is the penalty ostracism from the overall social community. The Nephite church functioned in its social setting in the way that the church had functioned from Alma’s time. It was a subset of the larger community. At times the political leadership would be part of the religious community, but it was possible to have a segregation between the church and state. Therefore, the only “punishment” available for one who did not obey the rules of the Christian church was excommunication from that congregation. This was not an abstract issue, but one that must have been implemented. Moroni gives us the method for removing someone from the church, a process that had to be well defined only if it was put to use. In this case, the procedure was that three witnesses “of the church” were to present the person and the violation “before the elders.” This suggests that such actions were handled from inside the church organization, without the participation of whatever legal procedures might have been present in the rest of the society. People who were “of the church” would be church members, and the unstated presumption was that those who stood as witnesses would themselves be in good standing (this is at least the implication of being “of the church”). The three witnesses fulfilled the more difficult requirement of the Deuteronomic law of witnesses: Deuteronomy 19:15 15 ¶ One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. When this accusation was presented, it was presented “before the elders.” These “elders” might simply be the more respected members of the priesthood, but other references to the elders in the Book of Mormon appear to imply the twelve. These twelve would be the ultimate governing body, and the ones who were authorized to make decisions regarding those who were able to be associated with the name of Christ. During the presentation of the case, the person accused by the witnesses had the opportunity to repent. Judgment was rendered “if they repented not, and confessed not.” The final judgment was: “their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ.” This is a cancellation of the covenant. When their name is blotted out of the records of the church, Christ’s name is also blotted out of them. This is the dual aspect of the names. They took the name of Christ, Christ took their names. When their names were blotted out of Christ, the reversal of the covenant required that the name of Christ also be blotted out from them. They were no longer sons and daughters of Christ. Their membership in the kin-community of the church was ended. They were no more kin of Christ.
8 But as oft as they repented and sought forgiveness, with real intent, they were forgiven.
Acts 4:12 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Without the name the person is damned. This terrible consequence of blotting out the name required that every opportunity for sincere repentance be recognized. This is the reason that both before the statement of the penalty, and after it, we have the statement that repentance was allowed and recognized. The intent was to maintain the faithful community rather than to cut one off from it. All of us fall short of perfection, or even of expectations. Repentance is one of the most marvelous of all of the principles of the gospel, and we must all take full advantage of sincere repentance. Of course, there is the recognition that repentance might be a form, and not an impulse of the heart. For that reason the repentance is qualified as “with real intent.”
9 And their meetings were conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost; for as the power of the Holy Ghost led them whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing, even so it was done.
Synopsis of Nephite Liturgy: There are two time periods for which we may be concerned with the practice of Nephite “church,” or their liturgy. The first period is prior to the coming of Christ to the New World, and the second period is the time following that appearance. In the pre-Messianic-appearance liturgy, we begin with the continuation of the Law of Moses. Nephi I builds a temple that is modeled after Solomon, and one would expect that there was an attempt to continue to Mosaic sacrificial rites that would be associated with the temple. Lehi sacrifices in the Old World, so he was familiar with sacrificial forms and could teach those to his descendants in the New World. The change in the location to the New World has two important effects upon the Nephite practice of the Mosaic Law. The first was that the conception of priesthood necessarily changed. The Nephites did not have the lineage connection to the priesthood that was typically presumed for the priests in the temple in Jerusalem. Therefore they had to adopt an alternative link to the authority of God, just as did any other group of Israelites separated from the temple. The Nephites would have used the same understandings of priesthood that allowed rituals to be performed in Qumran, and even in the temple when the king replaced the Levites with his own line of priests. The second major change occurred in the different animal catalog of the New World. The specifically indicated animals could not be sacrificed because they did not exist. Therefore, some symbolic shift must have occurred in early Nephite liturgical practice to retain the form of sacrifice while altering the specific species sacrificed. Similar alterations almost certainly occurred in the location of sacrifices and the structural form of sacrificial locations. Just as the Old World Israelite locations of worship imitated forms available in the surrounding cultures, we can expect that the Nephite structural forms were altered to adapt to the culturally accepted sacrificial locations and forms of the New World. Thus we find in Nephite cities Mesoamerican temples, not Solomonic temples. There are some slight indications of an understanding of ritual purity in Nephite practice, though such concerns do not show forth as clearly in the text as they do in the Old and New Testaments. This may be due to the fact that Mormon is writing after four hundred years have diminished ritual purity as a concern due to the new covenant of Christ. During the pre-Messianic-visit times, Book of Mormon authors use scripture in ways that suggest the expectation of recognition. This suggests either widespread literacy (which is doubtful) or more probably, the frequent reading of scriptures in public worship. This public reading was part of the Old World practice, and would be a natural continuation in the New World. The difficulty of teaching reading and writing, as well as the difficulty of mass-producing texts, would lead to oral citation as the best means of establishing an understanding of the scriptures. When Abinadi is before the court of Noah, the citations to scriptures are frequent, and intermingled with commentary. There is simply an expectation that the hearer (or reader, in our case) will be sufficiently familiar with the text that no citation (and no reading!) is required. It is therefore same to assume that early Nephite liturgy included some frequent public reading from the scriptures. Given the types of citations extant in the Book of Mormon, the most popular text would have been the brass plates. The pre-Messianic-visit religious organization already had a minimum of two types of officials, priests and teachers. These two offices continue through to the post-Messianic-visit era. In spite of the continuation of named positions, there must have been some change in the function of those positions when the Nephite religion shifted from a communal expectation to a sub-community at the time of Alma the Elder in Zarahemla. Alma the Elder reforms the religious community and effectively creates a divisibility between church and state that had not existed prior to that time. Even after that time, the division was not absolute, but the point is that is was possible in the post-Alma creation of a church where prior to that time no such separation would have been conceived. A similar shift appears to revolve around the practice of baptism. Nephi clearly understands a baptism, but it does not seem to have much presence in the text until the time of Alma the Elder. Certainly, the form would have been known, but Alma appears to begin to use it as an initiation into the church. The early baptismal rite consists of a promise of cleansing through the coming atonement, and as an initiation rite into this new church. After the visit of the Messiah, there was more continuation
than there was change in the religious life of the people. The major changes were
the cessation of the practices of the Law of Moses, and the introduction of the
sacrament. It is possible that there was a conceptual linkage between the
previous sacrifices as a pre-cursor to the ultimate sacrifice of Christ, and
the sacrament that remembers
that sacrifice. After the visit of
Christ, there is an additional priesthood organization of the twelve that is
added to church organization, but the church continues as a viable sub-society
within the larger community. Priests and Teachers continue to be priesthood
offices in the Christian church. The post-Christ church teaches doctrine. While
there is no official mention of the public reading of scriptures, this is
probably assumed as part of the public teaching of the members of the church. Although
Moroni emphasizes that meetings were led by the Spirit, there were at least two
prayers that had specific forms. It is quite probable that the baptismal prayer
also followed the form set down in 3 Nephi. Textual: This is the end of a chapter in the 1830 edition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Brant Gardner. Copyright 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
