|
|
Moroni 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moroni 8:1 1 An epistle of my father Mormon, written to me, Moroni; and it was written unto me soon after my calling to the ministry. And on this wise did he write unto me, saying:
In chapter 8 we have an inserted letter. This letter is sent from Mormon to Moroni, and we have at least the connection to Mormon to give us a hint as to what Moroni is doing. Moroni has begun his book with no clear idea of what he wanted to say. His father wrote from an outline that had a specific intent. Moroni writes because he is alone. He conceives of something that might be important to write when he sees that there is no organized church, and understands that someone may someday have such a church again. With that understanding, he describes the practices of the church as he as known them. When he has finished with that, he is still alive and still has charge of the plates. His stewardship of the plates had to recur as a theme in his life, and we may understand if his concern for that charge also led him to want to write on them. When he searches for more to write, he thinks of a sermon from his father. He includes that. It is quite probable that this letter is included at a different time from the sermon. There is no connection between the two save the author, Mormon. There is no theme that says that Moroni was working toward some concept, and therefore included this letter. It would seem that it is what it appears to be, a random insertion of something unrelated. Once again the contrast between Mormon’s writing on the plates and Moroni’s is evident. Mormon consistently elaborated his theme and consistently moved it along. Moroni has a theme only when he has a dictating text such as Ether (or the requirement to close his father’s record). When he writes on his own, he adds short bits of information where the content comes mostly from someone else. It is the liturgy. It is Mormon’s discourse. This chapter and the next are letters from his father. Each is given with a minimal editorial linkage. Moroni is copying, not writing.
2 My beloved son, Moroni, I rejoice exceedingly that your Lord Jesus Christ hath been mindful of you, and hath called you to his ministry, and to his holy work.
First, the fact that it is noted as a particular time, and marked by a congratulatory letter, tells us that this is a specific event. Moroni was not “in the ministry,” and then is “called to the ministry.” This must correlate to the modern calling and setting apart – or perhaps ordination. In any case, Moroni first was not, and now is, called to the ministry. Second, the fact that Mormon would write a congratulatory letter tells us that Mormon considered this an honor, and something not particularly ordinary. For instance, in modern LDS practice, the tone of the letter does not suggest the ordination of a deacon to the Aaronic priesthood, an event that while important, is still reasonably common. Of course even that occasion is worth special note, but this particular letter has the feel of something more out of the ordinary. Lastly, the content of the letter is doctrinal, suggesting that Mormon now believes that Moroni is in a position to do something about that doctrine. In our known catalog of Nephite priesthood positions, we have only three; teacher, priest, and elder (with elder being the equivalent of Apostle). The fact that Mormon feels that Moroni can do something about controlling false doctrine suggests more than a teacher. While teachers may teach correct doctrine, they do not have authority over other teachers of doctrine. That leaves priest and elder. With our understanding of Moroni’s visitations from angels and the Lord, it would seem that Moroni has been called as a elder. That certainly puts him in the position to have authority over the doctrines officially taught in the church. While a priest might have had similar authority, it would have been more localized. As an elder, Moroni would have a wider range of authority, and therefore opportunity to eliminate a rising heretical doctrine.
3 I am mindful of you always in my prayers, continually praying unto God the Father in the name of his Holy Child, Jesus, that he, through his infinite goodness and grace, will keep you through the endurance of faith on his name to the end.
First, he very clearly makes a distinction between God the Father and the Holy Child, Jesus. This attribution of Fatherhood to someone other than the Atoning Messiah represents a difference in the nature of Nephite understanding of God (see the comments following 1 Nephi 11:18). For Mormon, however, there is no indication of any association between the Father and the Messiah. The appearance of the Messiah to the Nephites resolved that theological understanding. Mormon is not preaching the separation of the two, he is simply expressing it as though it is clearly understood, and certainly it was. Second, although pre-Messianic-visit theology emphasized the coming Messiah, this benediction assumes the Messiah. The emphasis is not on the not-yet-achieved atonement, but rather on the effect of the achieved atonement. Mormon cites the “infinite goodness and grace” of Christ. This is a reference to the accomplished atonement. None of the theology of the effect of the atonement is referenced however. There is nothing of the indication that there are two deaths from which man needs to be saved (2 Nephi 9:12; Alma 12:16; Alma 42:7-9; Helaman 14:16). The emphasis in Mormon’s statement is on faith. Faith is a stronger scriptural theme after the atonement than before the atonement, even though faith was a principle understood and taught among the Nephites. Mormon’s introduction reflects a theology that is post-Messianic-visit, in a context where he is not explaining those doctrines, but simply assuming them. Obviously they form the basis of Mormon’s beliefs. Just as clearly, they also form the basis of Moroni’s beliefs, for Mormon is simply able to assume that his son will read this as an introduction, and not require any explanation.
4 And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you.
In contrast to contentions, disputations occur completely internal to the church. These are arguments within the church, that may or may not have any relation to the outside religion. There is no direct competition with a foreign religion, even though some of the ideas from the foreign religion might be entering Nephite faith. In 3 Nephi, the
Savior notes that there are been “disputations among you concerning the points
of my doctrine.” (3 Nephi 11:28.) The
address is to those who are in Bountiful, who by textual definition are the
believers. Thus these disputations are indicated as existing among
the faithful, and specifically concerning points of Christian doctrine (my
doctrine). A specific example of disputations arises when the believing community cannot come to an understanding of the name for the church (see also the commentary following 3 Nephi 27:3). 3 Nephi 27:3 3 And they said unto him: Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter. This issue of internal dissention is not an
issue prior to the arrival of the Messiah because the threat to the Nephite
religion prior to that time was so heavily external. After the arrival of the
Savior, however, the church is formed with even more structure, and apparently
even more independence from governmental issues. The result is that there is
both a greater potential for disputations, and there become a larger set. It is
interesting that when Mormon needs to describe the near-millennial period after
the Savior’s arrival in the New World, one of the specific comments about that
idyllic time is the absence of disputations. 4 Nephi 1:2 2 And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. Although Mormon does not explicitly discuss the dissolution of Nephite religion from the “perfect” state of no disputations to the eventual existence of many disputations, it follows the same spiral of apostasy that he describes for Nephite society, where their eventual state was the loss of the millennial conditions for the first nearly two hundred years after the Savior appeared in the New World.
5 For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children.
It has been asserted, however, that this is an example of how the Book of Mormon responds to issues prevalent in Joseph Smith’s day, when there were certainly disputations concerning the Catholic practice of infant baptism, and the reaction to that which required informed baptisms, necessarily indicating that infants should not be baptized, being unable to intelligently accept the meaning behind the symbol. This assumption of modern issue-influence also assumes that the modern context was the influence because it can be demonstrated, and it also assumes that there was no ancient influence creating the same questions and issues. This is where the difficulties with our Mesoamerican documentation come in to play, for our evidence for the nature of religious rites comes from after the Conquest, and center on the Aztec beliefs, which post-date the Book of Mormon. However, we are now examining a period in the Book of Mormon that is at the close, and the time-depth difference is smaller. Once again, the persistence of religion in non-modern societies does suggest the probability of cultural continuity over much longer time periods than exist in this modern and rapidly changing world. The Aztecs practiced an infant-washing ritual that was so similar to the Catholic baptism that it was declared to be a baptism by sympathetic Spanish Fathers. The presence of a religious belief system that produced the need to wash (and spiritually cleanse the infant) could easily influence Christian baptismal practice, just as it did in the Old World. Some time after 100 AD, the Didache gave the following rules for baptism: “And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (“Didache” Early Christian Fathers. Ed. Cyril C. Richardson. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.1970, p. 174). The
interesting part of this is the dual provision for immersion, and casting water
on the head. The clear preference is for immersion, a point that is clear from
other early sources of baptismal practices (Paul F. Bradshaw. The Search for
the Origins of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, 2002, p. 155).
What makes the casting of the water on the head is that it is specifically
mentioned as requiring the act to be repeated three times. The Didache is a
document written in Greek, and certainly Greek funeral practices would be
familiar to many in the Greek speaking world. The Greek preference for
disposing of the dead was burial, but there was a provision for the merciful
symbolic burial of someone by casting three handsful of dirt on the head. That
was considered a sufficient burial if one did not have the time. This is the
precise model that we see being adopted into the Didache community’s baptismal
practice. The baptism has adopted the Pauline association of death and
resurrection. Therefore, the immersion is the analog of a full burial. When one
is unable to perform the rite properly, however, the Greek symbolic burial
informs the Christian symbolic baptism, and three handsful of water “bury”
where the actually burial was three handsful of dirt. It is this
cross-breeding of symbolic content that could easily have occurred to give rise
to the suggestion for the need of infant baptism.
6 And now, my son, I desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this epistle.
7 For immediately after I had learned these things of you I inquired of the Lord concerning the matter. And the word of the Lord came to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:
This particular exchange allows us to imagine more of the circumstances behind this letter. There is an unrecorded letter than has gone from Moroni to his father. In that letter he tells his father of his call to the ministry. This tells us that his father is far enough from Moroni’s location that the information must be delivered by messenger (there was no postal service, of course). It also tells us that Mormon did not know of Moroni’s call to the ministry, and therefore did not perform the ordination. Obviously, that means that someone else issued the call and performed the ordination. We do not know who it was, but we may suppose that at this time there is still a functioning quorum of twelve leading the Nephite church, even though they are not all in the same location. In this terrible time of war, it might even be that Moroni fills the apostleship of one who had perished in the war. When Moroni writes to his father, it would appear that part of the letter describing his calling also contains this question. We do not know why the question is asked of Mormon rather than of whomever ordained Moroni. Perhaps Mormon has position of senior among the twelve, and such questions are most properly addressed to him. It may also be that it is an issue that Moroni notices more than others, and feels most comfortable taking to his father, who just happens to be in a position to answer.
8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
This first statement declares the positive principle. The final statement indicates the nature of the reasoning that led to the controversy. It comes as a contradiction of the assumptions that lead to the erroneous assumption. It is important to note that while Mormon considers the baptism of children a heretical practice, it was nevertheless one that had a logic to it that was based on certain gospel principles. This was not the wholesale adoption of a pagan rite, but rather a reworking of baptism through a theologizing of principles that existed in the religion. The problem was likely not the intent of the thinking, but rather that the thinking that led to the practice did not come from God, and therefore did not understand the information correctly. [little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin]: This tells us the reason that baptism does not apply to little children. There is a point in the life of man where we are both helpless, and innocent. We are learning to be what we will become, and little children are in that learning process. One of the things that we must learn is right and wrong, and how to distinguish between them. Even though we are born with the Light of Christ, we still must learn what that means and how to apply it. This process of learning to judge for ourselves is the very process of agency, the very reason we come to this earth. Until we have learned, however, we are not capable of committing sin. We are capable of error, of doing the wrong things; but not sin. Sin requires our agency to be behind the selection of the sinful act. Before we are able to understand, before we know the law, we cannot sin. Romans 5:13 13 For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. [wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them]: It is clear from this statement that one of the justifications for the practice was the application of the atonement as a means of countering the Fall of Adam. Of course this is precisely what the atonement does, but the principle was extended past its proper application. The atonement does counter the Fall, as was so succinctly stated by Paul: 1 Corinthians 15:22 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. The problem
is that these absolute balances can be misinterpreted. The presumption is that
there is a complete balance that extends also to time. In Adam we die, and that
applies to us as we are born. Therefore, something must balance that, even as
Paul indicates. What happens, however, is that the dual role of the atonement
of Christ is not clearly understood. The Book of Mormon emphasizes the dual
nature of the atonement as applying to a physical redemption and a spiritual
redemption. Adam caused the condition of mortality into which we are born. That
very condition is completely balanced by the similar universal resurrection.
Death and life are equally and universally balanced. The baptism
of infants uses that model to move the second aspect of the need for the
atonement, and the resolution of that need, to the time of birth. In addition
to the condition of mortality, the Fall places us in the condition of agency –
a condition under which we may sin. Baptism is the covenant that we make that we
accept Christ’s conditional atonement from sin. Because we must voluntarily
sin, we must voluntarily accept the redemption from sin through baptism.
The issue is one of timing. The baptism of little children recognizes the need
for baptism, but misunderstands the relationship of baptism to the ability
to exercise agency. We cannot sin until we are responsible for our actions,
therefore, there is no need for baptism until that time. The idea of baptizing
little children therefore simply misapplies the principles. [and the law of circumcision is done away in me]: The addition of this phrase indicates a second reason that was being given for the baptism of little children. It also tells us that while the baptism was for little children, it was also being applied to infants. Circumcision was to take place after eight days. The argument was being made that baptism of infants was the replacement for this covenant. Circumcision marked the entrance into a covenant people, which is done through inheritance. That initial rite was being replaced by baptism because baptism was also a convenant. However, the nature of the covenant was different, circumcision being applied to the lineage and therefore applicable after birth, but baptism required the prior repentance, and therefore requires the ability to sin. It was another misapplication of principles. Christ notes that circumcision is “done away,” not that it was replaced. There is no need for that prior covenant, and therefore baptism does not take its place, but is a different covenant entirely.
9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
[for how many little children have died without baptism!]: The modern world with our low infant mortality rates cannot truly understand the impact of this statement in the ancient world. The number of infants dying soon after birth was much higher in the ancient world, and the number of children dying was also high. In the community where Mormon made this statement, it was probable that everyone at least knew a mother who had lost a very young child. Mormon’s words were a recognition of the pain of that reality, and the need for reassurance that those young children were not condemned for the simple lack of a religious rite that there was no time to perform. Variant: In the printer’s manuscript the phrase reads: …if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable being a respecter to persons… A correction in the Printer’s manuscript gives us the current reading, which was also in the 1830 edition. (Book of Mormon Critical Text. FARMS 1987). As it read in the Printer’s manuscript it was a better parallel with the way the concept is used later in the same text:
18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.
13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.
Mosiah 3:18 18 For behold he judgeth, and his judgment is just; and the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy; but men drink damnation to their own souls except they humble themselves and become as little children, and believe that salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. If the infant
did not perish that died in infancy, then there was no need for a baptism. The
only reason for baptism of infants was if there was some eternal danger that
could be prevented by a baptism, and that simply did not exist, and was a
teaching from the time of King Benjamin.
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. Moroni 8:16 16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.
17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation. Moroni 8:18 18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.
[God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being]: This statement reprises Mormon’s argument from verse 12.
19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.
21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ.
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.
24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.
[under the curse of a broken law]: When one commits sin, they have “broken the law,” and are therefore under the penalty of the law and sin. It is this condition that requires repentance. One need not repent if one has not sinned.
25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;
26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.
27 Behold, my son, I will write unto you again if I go not out soon against the Lamanites. Behold, the pride of this nation, or the people of the Nephites, hath proven their destruction except they should repent.
28 Pray for them, my son, that repentance may come unto them. But behold, I fear lest the Spirit hath ceased striving with them; and in this part of the land they are also seeking to put down all power and authority which cometh from God; and they are denying the Holy Ghost. Moroni 8:29 29 And after rejecting so great a knowledge, my son, they must perish soon, unto the fulfilling of the prophecies which were spoken by the prophets, as well as the words of our Savior himself. Moroni 8:30 30 Farewell, my son, until I shall write unto you, or shall meet you again. Amen.
Textual: This is the end of a chapter in the 1830 edition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Brant Gardner. Copyright 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
