2 Nephi 31, Mosiah 18, and 3rd Nephi: Baptism

Baptism was under debate in the nineteenth century. Was it necessary to salvation (a sacrament or ceremony required for heavenly admittance)? Part of inclusion into a particular order/society (and was that necessary)? Did it regenerate the sinner or simply offer the possibility of regeneration? 

The issue of authority—does a church need educated clergy/bishops to carry out such sacraments or ordinances?—was also under debate.

The issue was of such importance in the nineteenth century that Joseph Smith paused his translation--Oliver Cowdery as scribe--in May 1829 to receive a series of revelations that resulted in baptism by men holding the Aaronic Priesthood. The passage that inspired this act was apparently from 3 Nephi, but the "problem" of baptism shows up in The Book of Mormon earlier. 

2 Nephi presents baptism as following the Son's example--the particular "how" of the act is not addressed, other to separate the remission of sins from the act of baptism. Mosiah 18 follows suit: baptism is presented as admittance into the community. Repentance is more about the individual's relationship with God and is not accomplished instantly or permanently. 

3rd Nephi 11:38 presents baptism (or at least the inner change that accompanies baptism) as a necessary ordinance--"And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God." Chapters 7 and 11 both stress baptism as an act that takes place after repentance: "Verily I say unto you, that whoso repenteth of his sins through your words and desireth to be baptized in my name, on this wise shall ye baptize them" (3 Nephi 7:25). Baptism by "fire and the Holy Ghost" is emphasized in all remaining chapters. That is, baptism by water leads to the second less calculable (and observable) yet apparently more necessary experience. 

Questions about the actual act of baptism in response to 3rd Nephi are understandable. And if one needs to explain Joseph Smith’s ability to attract members, the events here go a long way towards that explanation. Not only does Joseph Smith use The Book of Mormon to inspire him and Oliver Cowdery to direct action, he resolves several issues at once in the form of a straight-forward ritual carried out by ordinary guys who experience a vision. The act and the accompanying ordination back a belief in revelation/divine intervention as well as the position that the gospel is to repentance what baptism is to a remission of sins (baptism remits sins but doesn't accomplish repentance instantly or permanently). The visual, outward ceremony is accompanied by inward grace.

In effect, in response to The Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith pulled together high church and low church approaches—visions, authority, scriptural deference, personal revelation, lay people, rituals, and long-term progress--with one act.

I will post more about Joseph Smith later. Here, I will say that over and over, Joseph Smith's response to religious queries was to go out and make something. If he was a painter, he would have surprised the world with Under the Wave off Kanagawa. If he was a musician, he would have pulled a Beethoven. 

He was an American populist religious leader with a grounding in New England religious thought: therefore, he had wide-reaching revelations that tackled ongoing religious problems in everyday, physical ways.