Last year, BYU's Maxwell Institute published an incredible new book entitled Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints. I'm still working through it (and through the complimentary and highly recommended podcast Meet the Early-day Saints, presented by Wayfare and hosted by Blair Hodges), but this book seeks to overturn a massive amount of presumptions, assumptions and mistaken ideas and negative stereotypes about the earliest Christian Church (and I'd also say practices by current practitioners of other Christian traditions) that had been promulgated and believed by Latter-day Saints for generations. It's a massive undertaking, and anyone who has seen takes published by Church-owned entities in the past that engages with the Church Fathers and past Christian beliefs and practices likely has a reason to be skeptical. That said, nothing like this has been published before.
I'll likely talk more about this book in more detail at another time, but I wanted to lay out some thoughts I had after reading one of the sidebars in Mark D. Ellison's excellent chapter, "Connecting with Christ: Rituals and Worship". The sidebar is on the topic of Infant Baptism.
After giving 4 paragraphs to an explanation of the origins of Infant Baptism along with generous and sympathetic expressions of why devoted disciples of Christ would be motivated to have their young children baptized, he ends with this paragraph, addressing and confronting how Latter-day Saints approach and think of this practice. I quote:
Though we Latter-day Saints have a different position on this issue (because of Restoration scripture that early Christians did not have, such as Moroni 8 and Doctrine and Covenants 68:27), the idea of accommodations in the performances of ordinances is not foreign to Latter-day Saint thought or practice. Doctrine and Covenants 137:9-10 assures us that children who die before the age of accountability will inherit the celestial kingdom -- and also that the Lord "will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." Surely this includes the heartfelt concerns of parents for the eternal well-being of their little children. The argument against infant baptism in Moroni 8 is important, but it is not directed against ancient Christians in the Old World, nor modern Christians, but against Nephites who Mormon thought should have known better."
That last phrase "Nephites who Mormon thought should have known better", sparked an interest in me to revisit Moroni 8, because I recalled it quoting a revelation from Christ on the topic along with incredibly harsh condemnation for the participants in such a practice.
I'm so glad I revisited it. With the hermeneutic of generosity in mind inspired by the selection in Ancient Christians, I noticed something I never had before: There are two parts to this passage, which is presented by Moroni as part of a letter he had received from his father, Mormon. Following an introduction to the question at hand (whether young children should be baptized), Mormon declares he received a revelation from Jesus Christ, and gives a quotation of what he declared are the words of Christ as an answer to his question.
The second part is Mormon taking a verbal step back, and then giving his personal commentary on his understanding and application of it.
First, here's the words Mormon attributes to Christ (Moroni 8:8):
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.
Take note of what this passage does, and does not do. * The words do answer the question with a gentle top-level doctrinal framework for why a practice understood as for the remission of sins should not be understood as a requirement for children. What they do not do is condemn the practice of baptizing children, or pass a moral judgment in any way on those who have or do participate in or teach the practice.
This is in sharp contrast to what Mormon the Church leader does next. First, he explicitly ends the quotation, ("And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me;") and then gives his interpretation of it. ("Wherefore ... I know that...). Mormon then goes on to impute wicked motivation and condemnation for the practice and the practitioners - right before declaring himself to be "filled with charity" (8:17)!
This is what Mormon says about those who believe in baptizing their children:
- "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." (8:14)
Compare that again to what he reports as Christ's actual response on the topic.**
We have seen in the modern Church many examples of Church leaders taking a teaching of Christ, and then going beyond it to paint with a broad brush imputed motivations and condemnation for anyone who disagrees. I don't feel the need to present examples. If you're reading this, I'm sure you can think of them.
While it may be at times easy to sympathize with the perspective and reason for such rhetoric from the point of view of the one giving it, it must also be appreciated how that rhetoric is received, and often becomes conflated with the original teaching of Christ, and how that can lead to undeserved pain, hurt, and condemnation not condoned by the words of Christ.
This is a good example of how we can take what may be an essentially true uplifting Gospel principle, and then weaponize it in a way that goes devastatingly beyond its intentions. I do believe the words of Mormon as presented in this passage are (and have been) harmful and not representative of the beliefs or status of anyone I know (and the vast majority of those I do not know) of those who incorporate infant baptism as part of their Christian practice and devotion.
That doesn't mean Restoration scripture affirms the practice or beliefs motivating the practice as being correct or necessary - but not being correct or unnecessary doesn't require such motives and assumption of sin that Mormon the Church leader goes out of his way to present.
This passage might just end up being one more (doubtless unintentional) example of why President Nelson might be on to something with encouraging us to center our identity as "Christian" over "Mormon."
____
* While this is somewhat of a tangent topic, it's interesting to note that these words alone do not inherently disregard the notion of Original Sin at this time, but present the teaching using the framework that accountability for what is called "the curse of Adam" in children is removed by Christ without requirement of additional proactive sacramental action. It's also worth noting that the Book of Mormon presents a discussion of a sinless Jesus willingly subjecting himself to baptism, and presenting it as an act of obedience and as an example. (see 2 Nephi 31)
** Significantly, even in a Latter-day Saint scripture that would come later (a Revelation to Joseph Smith eventually canonized as Doctrine and Covenants 29:46) the voice of Christ is represented as repeating essentially the same answer Mormon reports Christ as giving - but also, once again, free from the explicit condemnation of the practice of infant baptism or those who practice it. "But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten;" (D&C 29:46)
