The baptism of Jesus

[Auzy]

 As I started to read the New Testament again a thought popped into my head. Now I know this doesn't have anything to do with my salvation but it has been on my mind for a while and I can't seem to find anything on it. So I'm going to put all of your brilliant minds to use.  Why did Jesus wait until he was 30 to be baptized? Was this some part of Jewish tradition? I understand why he was baptized. D&C 93 gives the testimony of John that Jesus grew grace by grace, wouldn't being baptized in his youth and recieving the Holy Ghost be beneficial for that? I'd love to hear you thoughts. 

[omegaseamaster75]

James E talmage give a good explanation of John's role and the baptism of Christ: 

The man was John, son of Zacharias, soon to be known as the Baptist. He had spent many years in the desert, apart from the abodes of men, years of preparation for his particular mission. He had been a student under the tutelage of divine teachers; and there in the wilderness of Judea the word of the Lord reached him;d as in similar environment it had reached Mosese and Elijahf of old. Then was heard “The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.”g It was the voice of the herald, the messenger who, as the prophets had said, should go before the Lord to prepare His way.h The burden of his message was “Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” And to such as had faith in his words and professed repentance, confessing their sins, he administered baptism by immersion in water—proclaiming the while, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire.”i

Neither the man nor his message could be ignored; his preaching was specific in promise to the repentant soul, and scathingly denunciatory to the hypocrite and the hardened sinner. Where Pharisees and Sadducees came to his baptism, prating of the law, the spirit of which they ceased not to transgress, and of the prophets, whom they dishonored, he denounced them as a generation of vipers, and demanded of them: “Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” He brushed aside their oft-repeated boasts that they were the children of Abraham, saying, “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”j The ignoring of their claims to preferment as the children of Abraham was a strong rebuke, and a cause of sore affront alike to aristocratic Sadducee and rule-bound Pharisee. Judaism held that the posterity of Abraham had an assured place in the kingdom of the expected Messiah, and that no proselyte from among the Gentiles could possibly attain the rank and distinction of which the “children” were sure. John’s forceful assertion that God could raise up, from the stones on the river bank, children to Abraham, meant to those who heard that even the lowest of the human family might be preferred before themselves unless they repented and reformed.k Their time of wordy profession had passed; fruits were demanded, not barren though leafy profusion; the ax was ready, aye, at the very root of the tree; and every tree that produced not good fruit was to be hewn down and cast into the fire.

The people were astonished; and many, seeing themselves in their actual condition of dereliction and sin, as John, with burning words laid bare their faults, cried out: “What shall we do then?”l His reply was directed against ceremonialism, which had caused spirituality to wither almost to death in the hearts of the people. Unselfish charity was demanded—“He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.” The publicans or tax-farmers and collectors, under whose unjust and unlawful exactions the people had suffered so long, came asking: “Master, what shall we do? And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.” To the soldiers who asked what to do he replied: “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.”m

The spirit of his demands was that of a practical religion, the only religion of any possible worth—the religion of right living. With all his vigor, in spite of his brusqueness, notwithstanding his forceful assaults on the degenerate customs of the times, this John was no agitator against established institutions, no inciter of riot, no advocate of revolt, no promoter of rebellion. He did not assail the tax system but the extortions of the corrupt and avaricious publicans; he did not denounce the army, but the iniquities of the soldiers, many of whom had taken advantage of their position to bear false witness for the sake of gain and to enrich themselves by forcible seizure. He preached, what in the now current dispensation we call the first fundamental principles of the gospel—“the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God,”n comprizing faith, which is vitalized belief, in God; genuine repentance, which comprizes contrition for past offenses and a resolute determination to turn from sin; baptism by immersion in water at his hands as the hands of one having authority; and the higher baptism by fire or the bestowal of the Holy Ghost by an authority greater than that possessed by himself. His preaching was positive, and in many respects opposed to the conventions of the times; he made no appeal to the people through the medium of miraculous manifestations;o and though many of his hearers attached themselves to him as disciples,p he established no formal organization, nor did he attempt to form a cult. His demand for repentance was an individual call, as unto each acceptable applicant the rite of baptism was individually administered.

To the Jews, who were living in a state of expectancy, waiting for the long-predicted Messiah, the words of this strange prophet in the wilderness were fraught with deep portent. Could it be that he was the Christ? He spoke of One yet to come, mightier than himself, whose shoe-latchet he was not worthy to loosen,q One who would separate the people as the thresher, fan in hand, blew the chaff from the wheat; and, he added, that mightier One “will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.”r

In such wise did the predicted herald of the Lord deliver his message. Himself he would not exalt; his office, however, was sacred to him, and with its functions he brooked no interference from priest, Levite, or rabbi. He was no respecter of persons; sin he denounced, sinners he excoriated, whether in priestly vestments, peasant garb, or royal robes. All the claims the Baptist had made for himself and his mission were later confirmed and vindicated by the specific testimony of Christ.s John was the harbinger not alone of the kingdom but of the King; and to him the King in person came.

The Baptism of Jesus—To Fulfil All Righteousness
When Jesus “began to be about thirty years of age,”t He journeyed from His home in Galilee, to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.”u

John and Jesus were second cousins; as to whether there had existed any close companionship between the two as boys or men we are not told. It is certain, however, that when Jesus presented Himself for baptism, John recognized in Him a sinless Man who stood in no need of repentance; and, as the Baptist had been commissioned to baptize for the remission of sins, he saw no necessity of administering the ordinance to Jesus. He who had received the confessions of multitudes now reverently confessed to One whom he knew was more righteous than himself. In the light of later events it appears that at this time John did not know that Jesus was the Christ, the Mightier One for whom he waited and whose forerunner he knew himself to be. When John expressed his conviction that Jesus needed no baptismal cleansing, our Lord, conscious of His own sinlessness, did not deny the Baptist’s imputation, but nevertheless pressed His application for baptism with the significant explanation: “Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.” If John was able to comprehend the deeper meaning of this utterance, he must have found therein the truth that water baptism is not alone the means provided for gaining remission of sins, but is also an indispensable ordinance established in righteousness and required of all mankind as an essential condition for membership in the kingdom of God.v

Jesus Christ thus humbly complied with the will of the Father, and was baptized of John by immersion in water. That His baptism was accepted as a pleasing and necessary act of submission was attested by what immediately ensued: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”w Then John knew his Redeemer.

The four Gospel-writers record the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the baptized Jesus as accompanied by a visible manifestation “like a dove”; and this sign had been indicated to John as the foreappointed means by which the Messiah should be made known to him; and to that sign, before specified, was now added the supreme testimony of the Father as to the literal Sonship of Jesus. Matthew records the Father’s acknowledgment as given in the third person, “This is my beloved Son”; while both Mark and Luke give the more direct address, “Thou art my beloved Son.” The variation, slight and essentially unimportant as it is though bearing on so momentous a subject, affords evidence of independent authorship and discredits any insinuation of collusion among the writers.

The incidents attending the emergence of Jesus from the baptismal grave demonstrate the distinct individuality of the three Personages of the Godhead. On that solemn occasion Jesus the Son was present in the flesh; the presence of the Holy Ghost was manifest through the accompanying sign of the dove, and the voice of the Eternal Father was heard from heaven. Had we no other evidence of the separate personality of each member of the Holy Trinity, this instance should be conclusive; but other scriptures confirm the great truth.x

 

[Larry Cotrell]

Jesus did not have to be baptized, because He never sinned. (Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.)

Jesus was baptized to set an example for us, so it didn't matter when He did it.

[Rhoades]

Here's an old Q&A from the New Era 1978 asking why Jesus wasn't baptized at age 8:

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1978/01/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng

The author, J. Richard Clarke, says he needed to be baptized by John who was in the wilderness in his earlier years. He provides some other reasons and things to consider.  He concludes with:

"In summary, then, my view is that Jesus was not baptized in his childhood because he had no need, as we do, for remission of sin, for he is the author of our salvation and provider of the means by which we may have our sins remitted. He began his official rabbinical ministry at age 30, as was the custom, by being baptized to “fulfil all righteousness.” (Matt. 3:15.) He came to John in recognition of John’s role as an Elias who was the only one authorized to perform the baptism and witness before men that Jesus had “come not to destroy, but to fulfil [the law] in every way. (Matt. 5:17.)"

[Just_A_Guy]

16 hours ago, Auzy said:

 As I started to read the New Testament again a thought popped into my head. Now I know this doesn't have anything to do with my salvation but it has been on my mind for a while and I can't seem to find anything on it. So I'm going to put all of your brilliant minds to use.  Why did Jesus wait until he was 30 to be baptized? Was this some part of Jewish tradition? I understand why he was baptized. D&C 93 gives the testimony of John that Jesus grew grace by grace, wouldn't being baptized in his youth and recieving the Holy Ghost be beneficial for that? I'd love to hear you thoughts. 

My understanding is that John the Baptist was basically taking the existing Jewish custom of ritual baths, or mikvot, and attaching a new (to the Jews) theological significance to it.  I think it's fair to assume that as a Jew Jesus participated many mikvot in His youth.  But part of John the Baptist's preparatory role was to teach mikvot/baptism as something that was done in remission of sins and as a harbinger for the impending Kingdom of God.  Once John had restored this truth, it was appropriate for Jesus to receive baptism at his hands--as @Larry Cotrell says, primarily as an example rather than because He Himself had sins in need of remission.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Auzy]

6 hours ago, Rhoades said:

Here's an old Q&A from the New Era 1978 asking why Jesus wasn't baptized at age 8:

https://www.lds.org/new-era/1978/01/qa-questions-and-answers?lang=eng

Thanks for posting that Q&A. I found it very useful in answering my question. I love finding gems like this that were published before I was even born. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Auzy said:

Thanks for posting that Q&A. I found it very useful in answering my question. I love finding gems like this that were published before I was even born. 

I'm glad you were able to find an answer to your question.  But I believe there is something deeper.

1) We are baptized for the remission of sins.  But we are also baptized to make a covenant -- to stand as a witness of God in all times and in all places...  Jesus is God.  So, with whom would He be covenanting?  And the covenant is to be a witness of Himself?  Why does He need an ordinance for that?  To always remember Him?  Uhmm.  Yeah.  To keep His commandments...???  So, all this is to re-emphasize that He had no need except to fulfill all righteousness.

2) That article that Rhodes linked to did mention that the commandment to baptize at 8 only exists in the D&C.  My suspicion is that this commandment is really only for our dispensation.  There was no such commandment at the time of Christ.   Given that, I'd wager He found it most appropriate when He was about to commence His public ministry as a milestone in His life.  This at least seems to make sense to me.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Guest

[Colirio]

10 hours ago, Carborendum said:

 

2) That article that Rhodes linked to did mention that the commandment to baptize at 8 only exists in the D&C.  My suspicion is that this commandment is really only for our dispensation.  There was no such commandment at the time of Christ.   

Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 17:

11 And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know forever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.

 

Moroni Chapter 8 also speaks to the baptism of children.

 

I tend to think that baptism at 8 years old has been the standard God established since the beginning. It seemed to be discussed and known in the two dispensations mentioned above. However, I also agree that at the time of Jesus the corruption had done away with these plain and precious parts of the gospel. 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Colirio

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Colirio said:

Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 17:

11 And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know forever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.

Moroni Chapter 8 also speaks to the baptism of children.

I tend to think that baptism at 8 years old has been the standard God established since the beginning. It seemed to be discussed and known in the two dispensations mentioned above. However, I also agree that at the time of Jesus the corruption had done away with these plain and precious parts of the gospel. 

I'm not sure if you caught my earlier meaning.  I was NOT arguing that baptism should have been younger.

While the concept of accountability is eternal, and baptizing prior to the age of accountability is a violation, I believe the setting of a particular age for baptism (such as 8) was just for this dispensation.  There is no mention of a specific age of baptism or need to baptize at a particular age in any older writings or in the JST.  NO prophetic statements have been made to that effect.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Guest

[Colirio]

I guess I would ask, if accountability has been set at 8 years of age, what are they specifically accountable for?

Leading to the next question, I would ask if baptism is a necessary ordinance. 

 

To recap:

So, baptism has been around since the time of Adam. We have a record of 8 years of age being the age of accountability since at least Abraham's time. Repeated during the time of the Nephites is that "young children" should not be baptized as they are not yet accountable. Baptism IS a necessary ordinance for salvation to those who have reached the age of accountability. 

 

Perhaps it is just my tendency to simplify things, but it seems rather obvious that this has been consistent among God's people since the beginning. 

 

 

EDIT: I went and reread the JST for Genesis 17. It is specifically referencing baptism in that chapter:

 

JST Genesis 17:4 And God talked with him, saying, My people have gone astray from my precepts, and have not kept mine ordinances, which I gave unto their fathers;

5 And they have not observed mine anointing, and the burial, or baptism wherewith I commanded them;        

6 But have turned from the commandment, and taken unto themselves the washing of children, and the blood of sprinkling;

 

And then:

11 And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know forever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Colirio

[Larry Cotrell]

1 hour ago, Colirio said:

I went and reread the JST for Genesis 17. It is specifically referencing baptism in that chapter:

This is new to me as I haven't spent much time in the JST. So to clarify, the LDS belief is that baptism was practiced before Jesus' earthly appearance?

[estradling75]

Moses 6:  (which is the JST)

 64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.

 65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.

 66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever;

Edited October 7, 2016 by estradling75

[Colirio]

13 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

This is new to me as I haven't spent much time in the JST. So to clarify, the LDS belief is that baptism was practiced before Jesus' earthly appearance?

Larry, as estradling75 quoted the account of Adam's baptism, we believe that baptism is an essential ordinance to enter the Celestial Kingdom. It has been performed since the beginning. 

 

Likewise, the Book of Mormon is full of references to baptism hundreds of years before the Savior's earthly ministry. 

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/baptism-baptize?lang=eng

 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Colirio said:

I guess I would ask, if accountability has been set at 8 years of age, what are they specifically accountable for?

Leading to the next question, I would ask if baptism is a necessary ordinance. 

Of course it's a necessary ordinance.  

My point was that prior to this dispensation, there doesn't appear to be a set age where everyone got baptized.  So, to the OP, it wouldn't have been at all peculiar for a man to be baptized at any age.  I believe that commandment (setting the age of baptism for everyone born in the covenant) was only for this dispensation.  

So, there was no real reason why Jesus was baptized at any particular age other than His personal circumstances, scheduling, and milestones in His life.

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

This is new to me as I haven't spent much time in the JST. So to clarify, the LDS belief is that baptism was practiced before Jesus' earthly appearance?

Yes, as has been pointed out; but it should also be noted that Mormonism sees earth's history as a series of "dispensations" where divine truth and authority is revealed/restored to the earth, and then lost or deteriorated over time.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that "baptism", as such, was being practiced by Roman-era Jews prior to John the Baptist's ministry; we assume that the true form and authority of the rite would have disappeared sometime after the ministry of the last of the Old Testament prophets.

[Colirio]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

My point was that prior to this dispensation, there doesn't appear to be a set age where everyone got baptized.  So, to the OP, it wouldn't have been at all peculiar for a man to be baptized at any age.  I believe that commandment (setting the age of baptism for everyone born in the covenant) was only for this dispensation.  

 

I agree with you about it not being peculiar for Jesus as an adult to be baptized by John the Baptist. In fact, it appears from the record that many of John's disciples were grown ups; much akin to the converts during the time of Joseph Smith at the beginning of this dispensation. 

 

Where I disagreed, and continue to disagree, is the assertion that only this dispensation set the age of 8 as when a person reaches the years of accountability to be baptized. 

As I see this as being important to the discussion, it seems clearly laid out in the record that the Abrahamic dispensation also set the age of baptismal accountability at 8 years old.  

 

I will quote again and bold the pertinent parts:

 

 

Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis 17:4 And God talked with him, saying, My people have gone astray from my precepts, and have not kept mine ordinances, which I gave unto their fathers;

5 And they have not observed mine anointing, and the burial, or baptism wherewith I commanded them;        

6 But have turned from the commandment, and taken unto themselves the washing of children, and the blood of sprinkling;        

7 And have said that the blood of the righteous Abel was shed for sins; and have not known wherein they are accountable before me.        

8 But as for thee, behold, I will make my covenant with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.

9 And this covenant I make, that thy children may be known among all nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be called Abraham; for, a father of many nations have I made thee.

10 And I will make thee exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come of thee, and of thy seed.

11 And I will establish a covenant of circumcision with thee, and it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know forever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old.

[Traveler]

On ‎10‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 10:41 AM, Larry Cotrell said:

Jesus did not have to be baptized, because He never sinned. (Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.)

Jesus was baptized to set an example for us, so it didn't matter when He did it.

Jesus did have to be baptized - by his own words it was "necessary" to fulfil all righteousness. I also do not believe Jesus would provide a unnecessary example.  But his necessary example was not just any baptism by anybody performing baptisms in his day or circumstance.  Jesus was baptized by John that had been given divine commission (authority) to act as proxy for G-d for a covenant.  Jesus was not baptized by any other priests – only by John. 

Jesus could have been baptized by others but his example was to wait until the proper authority was restored which was only given to John at that time.  In addition John was a predecessor that fulfills the promise and prophesy of a prophet to come before the advent of Christ.  It is what LDS understand to believe in Christ – that some believe to be a different Christ but we LDS understand to be very Christ manifested 2000 years ago but rejected by the experts in scripture  then called the Scribes and Pharisees.   All of which is an example (type and shadow) for our day and when he will return.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Colirio said:

Where I disagreed, and continue to disagree, is the assertion that only this dispensation set the age of 8 as when a person reaches the years of accountability to be baptized. 

I read all the scriptures.  But this ^^ is the problem.  You're conflating these two ideas into one.  

1) Yes the approximate age of 8 seems to be universal.  

2) But the age set as the common practice or commandment to be baptized is not to be found except in this dipensation.  Notice that your quote deals with circumcision, not baptism.

[Colirio]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I read all the scriptures.  But this ^^ is the problem.  You're conflating these two ideas into one.  

1) Yes the approximate age of 8 seems to be universal.  

2) But the age set as the common practice or commandment to be baptized is not to be found except in this dipensation.  Notice that your quote deals with circumcision, not baptism.

That's because they are one. 

You agreed that baptism is essential for everyone, in all dispensations. (2 Nephi spells this out that it is a commandment, even hundreds of years before Christ.) 

Are you trying to say that the Lord didn't want those who have arrived at the age of accountability to be baptized for the remission of sins in previous dispensations? 

 

Responses to your numbers:

1. So, we agree that there existed an age of accountability. If a person is accountable, are you saying only this dispensation required baptism for those accountable?

 

2. Then you need to reread again what the scriptures say. Circumcision was performed at 8 days old specifically to show that the age of accountability for baptism was 8 years old. The Lord specifically says this covenant of circumcision pertains to baptism. 

 

If I understand your logic, which I might be missing what you are trying to say, I guess the biggest question I have for you is:

 

Why? Why would the Lord give an age of accountability for those who were baptizing their children at too young an age unless He intended for them to be baptized at that age of accountability? 

 

(Just as a side note, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you, Carb. I have reread your post about your volunteer service and the Sacrament you guys attended multiple times with tears in my eyes. Your efforts here on the forums, too, do not go unnoticed.) 

[estradling75]

The requirements for baptism can be found here

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/baptism-qualifications-for?lang=eng

Including a minimum age of of 8 years of (age of accountability).  Not everyone who meets the minimum is going to meet the other requirements.  So just because they are 8 it doesn't mean they should be baptized.  They need to meet the other requirements as well, and take a good look at those requirements... I would be hard pressed to honesty say that most 8 year-old can be expected to meet all those requirements.

That being said the D&C does command Parents "in Zion" to teach and instruct their kids so that they can be baptized.  Note the qualifier "in Zion" that means these are kids that are going to have a strong support network of family and church to help prepare them for baptism, and guide them after

The idea that someone turns 8 and therefore should automatically be baptized is insane in any other situation...   

As for other dispensations could someone as young as 8 be baptized...  Sure if Zion had been established and maintained to support such... otherwise I think not.

 

[Colirio]

@estradling75, I agree with a lot of what you said. 

 

So, was there an established commandment of baptism during the Abrahamic dispensation? 

 

If not, could you please explain verses 5 and 6? 

 

If so, then are we able to tell from the record what the commandment concerning the baptismal age of children would be? 

 

[estradling75]

You say you agree... then you post showing you missed the point entirely.

 

Baptism is not and has been/never should be about age.

 

It has been/should always be about the person being able to understand the covenant and agree to it

[Colirio]

I feel like we are talking in circles here...

 

@estradling75, great! Thanks for clarifying your views about baptism.

 

I'm not trying to address the "why's" of baptismal age. Simply whether it had been the same in past dispensations as it is today...

That was the entirety of my reason for posting in this thread and I've made my point as clearly as I can. 

[Guest]

On 10/7/2016 at 8:12 PM, Colirio said:

That's because they are one. 

OK.  I'm not sure if I can follow that line of reasoning.  Could you expound a bit?

On 10/7/2016 at 8:12 PM, Colirio said:

...

2. Then you need to reread again what the scriptures say. Circumcision was performed at 8 days old specifically to show that the age of accountability for baptism was 8 years old. The Lord specifically says this covenant of circumcision pertains to baptism. 

...

OK.  I re-read it in case I missed something.  I don't see anything in the entire passage that would seem to say that baptism was prescribed at 8 years old.  I can see some linkages in the verses.  But, no disrespect to you personally, I just don't see that as the message being given.

I used the ellipsises because I believe all of the other statements can be responded to with the following two points.

1) What I get from these verses is that the Lord was proscribing infant baptism.  The actual prescription of an age that they need to be baptized was not the intent of the verses.  I believe that to interpret such would be a prejudice from our dispensation.  

There is a difference between:

            "You may begin baptizing at 8 years old" (which I believe He was saying) vs.
            "Thou Shalt baptize your children upon turning 8 years old" (which was the commandment for this dispensation only).

2) I am not declaring this as doctrine.  I'm just formulating an opinion/interpretation based on what I've read thus far and find that it does not violate any doctrine I am aware of.  So, it may very well be as you say.  But based on what I've read so far, my interpretation would fit everything I've read, and at the same time, it may also allow for your interpretation as well. I am just personally inclined to believe the former rather than the latter.

On 10/7/2016 at 8:12 PM, Colirio said:

(Just as a side note, I have nothing but the utmost respect for you, Carb. I have reread your post about your volunteer service and the Sacrament you guys attended multiple times with tears in my eyes. Your efforts here on the forums, too, do not go unnoticed.) 

You really have no idea how much I needed to hear something like that.  I'm very happy to take this compliment with a very heartfelt "thank you".  

Thank you.  You really made my day.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Guest

[Blackmarch]

On 10/7/2016 at 9:18 AM, Larry Cotrell said:

This is new to me as I haven't spent much time in the JST. So to clarify, the LDS belief is that baptism was practiced before Jesus' earthly appearance?

it is and it was. it would have been called something else tho; as baptism is a greek term.  it would probably be wise to look at other terms used by the hebrews that involved water. (the washing and anointing rites would be a good one to look at)
Further evidence that baptism was practiced before christ's time also comes from all the spinoff religions since the time of adam, in which being dipped under water plays a part in some ritual.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Blackmarch