Circle Squared
A Textual Analysis of the Book of Mormon
Chapter 31: "Be Thou Badunk-A-Dunked"
Chapter Summary:
Nephi tells why Christ was baptized--Men must follow Christ, be baptized, receive the Holy Ghost, and endure to the end to be saved--Repentance and baptism are the gate to the strait and narrow path--Eternal life comes to those who keep the commandments after baptism. About 559–545 B.C.
In his usual state of self-contradiction, Nephi spends the first few verses of this chapter emphasizing his "plainness" in prophesying, only to make much muddier the matter of Jesus' future baptism:
"5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!"
Note that Nephi, in his plainness, is attempting to explain why a perfect and sinless person, like the savior of mankind, would need to be baptized. Typically, the need for baptism for regular folks is for the remission of sins. Since Jesus apparently did not sin, baptism would not absolve him of any misdeeds. So, Nephi offers another reason for the future baptizing of Jesus: "to fulfill all righteousness."
Unfortunately, I have no idea what Nephi means when he says Jesus will be baptized "to fulfill all righteousness." As far as I can tell, Jesus was baptized as a sort of hat-tipping to god. Ultimately, though, it served no useful purpose. But the same could be said of baptism in general, I suppose.
Interestingly, and perhaps somewhat damning, is Nephi's inconsistent grammatical tense. He goes back and forth between saying that Jesus "will do" this or that, and that Jesus "did do" this or that. This may be a small thing, easily explained away by the inherent imperfections of the translation process. But keep in mind that Mormons believe that god himself dictated the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith word by word. There should be no translation errors.
It seems more likely to me that Joseph, living in the early 19th century and posing as an ancient prophet, fumbled between tenses. As Mark Twain so aptly put it, the trouble with telling a lie is that it is difficult to keep the story straight.
Nephi explains further Jesus' need to be baptized by saying Jesus wanted to follow god's commandments:
"7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments."
First of all, no where in Judaism is there a commandment to be baptized. Other religions in the area incorporated baptism, but not Judaism. Some historians hypothesize that early Christians made up the doctrine of baptism to appeal to these other groups, in much the same way they hijacked pagan holidays, like Christmas and Easter. Whether this happened or not, ancient Jews did not baptize by immersion in water. This raises the question: why does Nephi act like baptism was common place in ancient Jewish culture?
This is easily explained as yet another retrofitted prophecy by Joseph Smith to make the Book of Mormon seem prophetic. All of the details Nephi describes about Jesus' baptism, like John the Baptist and the dove which "ascended" (past tense) into heaven, etc., were common knowledge in Joseph's day. It makes perfect sense that he would exploit this common belief when starting his own religion and writing his own holy book.
Most bothersome to me is the presumption that because Jesus was baptized, we should follow suit. Jesus, being fully god and fully man (whatever that means), would have been omniscient. This means that he would have known for certain that god the father exists and that he should be baptized. Non-gods, such as every person I have ever met, have no such knowledge, as far as I can tell. Why would god hold us to the same standard?
How can we know that Jesus really was to son of god? How can we know that Jesus really was baptized, according to god's undocumented commandments? How can we know that Joseph Smith did not simply retrofit the baptism of Jesus to make his unverified holy book seem totally legit?
Mormons will tell you that god has told them through a "burning in their bosom." In other words, they get a good feeling about it when they pray. But is this a reliable way to acquire knowledge? Not if empirical evidence has anything to do with it.
Nephi offers his own method of how he came to know all this woo-woo stuff: the voices in his head tell him so:
"12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do."
Some may ask, "what makes Nephi so special that he is privy to this miraculous method, but not I?" Well, Mormons have an answer for that, too. Typically, they will start by pointing out that Nephi was a prophet, and as such he needed a more certain way to knowledge about god. If we were given the same evidence as Nephi then we would be held to the same standard of obedience. God knows that not everyone would be able to live up to this higher standard, so in an act of mercy, god gave us a lesser standard through a lesser method to attain knowledge. This infantile cop out is the charlatan's way of ominously saying, "If I tell you, you won't like it." And of course, this is presented as god doing us a favor by keeping us in the dark about the most important questions.
I'm sorry, but this line of reasoning is utter crap. It is insulting on the most fundamental levels. But this form of blatant hucksterism is not nearly as slimy as their second common answer: god does talk you through a still, small voice.
Mormons love this concept. It allows them to conflate their own thoughts to a supernatural level. Effectively, Mormons have psychologically conditioned themselves to call their own conscience "god." This is what is meant by the common phrase "god has written [moral precepts] on the hearts of men." In addition to allowing Mormons to justify believing things which they want to believe, this also explains why god so often agrees with religious people. Yet, religious people rarely agree with each other.
Luckily for those who willingly take everything Nephi says at face-value, Nephi explains the requirements and for those saps who want to be baptized:
"13 ...with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism--yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water..."
This is a pretty thorough list, which implies a great deal of forethought and philosophical understanding--especially the part about "acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God."
This is interesting for two reasons. First, Mormons like to point out that, unlike those evil Catholics who baptize infants, they baptize their children when they reach the age of reason: 8 years old. The phrase "age of reason" is used by modern psychologists to describe the age at which most people begin to understand good and bad, and can start to make moral assessments on their own. Sure, they still borrow much of their moral understanding from their parents--and Mormons exploit this--but on a most basic level they can think in moral terms. To a Mormon, this offers justification for the church's stance on baptizing 8 year olds and counting them as members of their religion.
This verse, however, indicates that the decision to be baptized requires more than a cursory understanding of right and wrong. Given that most 8 year olds will do just about anything to please their parents, how can anyone think that children at that age could possibly make an informed decision on such an important matter, especially one which implies severe and eternal consequences for hypocrisy or deception? I doubt most adults could honestly meet such a standard for baptism.
The second reason is more personal. One of the driving forces for my departure from Mormonism is that I felt like a hypocrite. I felt intellectually dishonest going through the motions of belief in order to save face with others (in particular with family members). Once I realized that I had no good reason to believe any of the claims of Mormonism, my feelings of hypocrisy amplified many times over. I initially stopped going to church to avoid being reminded of my hypocritical shortcomings.
As is typical of unfounded religious pronouncements, Nephi issues a warning to those who are baptized, yet fall away: "it would have been better for you that ye had not known me."
If god would actually punish someone, such as myself, who was coerced by family ties to be baptized at 8 years old, and after reaching adulthood, leaves the church because they realized how ridiculous it was to join a religion under these circumstances, such a god is not worthy of worship or admiration. It is more likely that such a god does not exist and religious leaders understand that snatching members while they are young, and scaring them into self-perpetuating belief, is a most effective manner through which to attain high numbers in the pews. Just ask the Catholic Church.
The remainder of the chapter is reiteration after reiteration of the unverified "too good to be true" promise that after death the faithful (those who fully commit their lives to a decision they made at 8 years old) will make it in to heaven.
Nowhere in this chapter is an explanation offered for why god requires the arbitrary gesture of baptism in the first place. Why can't god just forgive without the charade? Perhaps omnipotence is not all its cracked up to be.