Moroni declares that his next topic is baptism. In this chapter there will be more than one description of an aspect of liturgy, but baptism is the first. In contrast to the fixed-form prayers that were given for the elements of the sacrament, there is no description of practice in this discussion of baptism. Rather than a description of the actions or the words, the emphasis is on the qualifications and the covenants.
Moroni’s liturgical instructions become interesting as much for what is left out as for what is put in. Chapters two through 6 are all explicitly liturgical in intent. That is, they all tell us something about the way church was practiced among the Nephites. However, there is quite a bit of instruction that is specifically left out, and in some cases, they are details that one might expect to be included if this were what critics of the Book of Mormon suggest that it is, a polemic to resolve modern issues of church practice.
In the case of baptism, there is ample opportunity for the current chapter to provide a description of practice. Since the issue of immersion versus sprinkling was a potential difference in modern practice, this is the opportune time to resolve the issue to giving a definitive example of the Nephite practice. Similarly, the issue of infant baptism ought to be resolved in a section that explicitly deals with liturgy. Instead, we do have a discussion of infant baptism, but it comes in an inserted letter from Mormon to Moroni. Moroni has established a precedent for recording a form-prayer, as he did for the sacrament in chapters 4 and 5, but he does not do it. Instead, modern LDS takes its standard form-prayer from 3 Nephi 11:35.
The presence of information in these chapters therefore tells us something of what Moroni considers exceptional. If we take the contrast between the inclusion of the prayers for the sacrament and the absence of such an inclusion for baptism, we can understand something of what Moroni is saying “between the lines.” Both the sacramental prayers and the baptismal prayer have antecedents in the visit of Christ to the Nephites in Bountiful. There is a difference, however. When the sacrament is established, there is only a tenuous relationship between the words and actions of that event and the forms that Moroni elects to preserve. This contrasts to the baptismal prayer, which is given at least as a potential form-prayer in 3 Nephi:
3 Nephi 11:24-26
24 And now behold, these are the words which ye shall say, calling them by name, saying:
25 Having authority given me of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
26 And then shall ye immerse them in the water, and come forth again out of the water.
The 3 Nephi instructions on baptism are very clear. There is a prayer-form assigned, and the mode of baptism is very clearly indicated as immersion. With such a precedent, Moroni sees no reason to repeat that information, for it is unambiguous, and it is unchanged. What does require clarification are those things that have become codified after the visit of the Savior. Thus he establishes the current liturgical forms for aspects of the practice of religion that are not otherwise clear from his father’s writing of the events of the visit of the Savior.
[Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized]: This statement should not be seen as exclusive, but rather with the intent to be inclusive. The reason for telling us that elders, priests, and teachers were baptized is not that they were the only ones baptized, but that they also required baptism. There must have been those who assumed that their more prominent position might exempt them from the need for baptism, and Moroni is indicating that all, even the leaders of the church, were required to be baptized.
[and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it]: While all required baptism, all were not uniformly acceptable to the rite itself. There were qualifications imposed on those who wished to be baptized. While this does not specifically discuss infant baptism, it effectively excludes those who would not be capable of meeting the conditions, and surely infants would be unable to meet the qualification of “fruit meet” for baptism. The term “meet” in this context means “equal to/worthy of.” It is a parallel to the usage of “help meet” in Genesis 2:18 where Eve is to be a “help meet” (help equal to/help worthy of) Adam. Here the understanding is that prior to baptism one’s actions should be in accord with the way they will be after the baptism. We enter in to a covenant with God that we will obey his commandments. It is a poor covenant if we cannot enter into it already living the conditions that we are covenanting to live. Of course this does not mean that we must live every commandment perfectly, as this is the lifelong task that lies before us. However, the minimum “fruit meet” for baptism is true repentance, that places us in the position of humility necessary to desire not only the baptismal cleansing, but the baptismal covenant of a change in our life to accord with the ways of God.