Socio-cultural: The waters of Mormon are described as a “fountain of pure water” in verse 5. In Jacobean English, the “fountain” might have been a stream. John L. Sorenson has made his case that the waters of Mormon could have been Lake Atitlan. There is a significant difference between a spring and a lake. While the evidence that Sorenson cites indicating that Jerusalem which was in the borders of the land of Mormon was submerged appears to lean toward the lake as the waters of Mormon, they may be insufficient grounds for a complete determination.
There is an interesting difference, however, in Old World and New World conceptions about bodies of water that may have some relevance. The Didache (a “church manual” dating to soon after 100 AD) indicates that one should be baptized in running water:
“Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, then ”baptize“ in running water, ”in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.“ If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm.” (“Didache.” In: Early Christian Fathers. Macmillan Publishing Company. 1970, p. 174.)
This in the Old World, the symbolism of the water was one that was natural (cold, not warm) and “living” in that it had a current. It was “alive” rather than stagnant. In the New World, the conceptual meanings favored the still water rather than the running water:
"A common divination method directly linked to this function and to water was scrying. This technique involved interpreting the light seen on reflective surfaces such as natural bodies of pooled water (particularly those found within caves), the liquid in a bowl and a circular mirror which was often placed in the bottom of a bowl. In addition, the lots used in divination casting were sometimes placed in a bowl of liquid. As the reflective surfaces of these circular divination tools represented the pooled water of the sea, the implication is that divination knowledge was linked to the waters of the sea and, by extension, to the creator grandparents who lived there…
The belief that water plays a fundamental role in divination is found in the world view, initiation rituals and divination methods of the modern Quiche. Like many traditional Maya communities, the Quiche of Momostenango have sacred mountains that define their community. They also have four sacred lakes, one for each direction (B. Tedlock 1982:139). Their directional nature and locations at the edges or beyond the limits of the Momostenango community strongly suggest that each lake represents one quadrant of the mythological sea (Bassie 1996:69-70)…. Dreaming of a lake is one indication that the ritual specialist is ready to receive divination knowledge (B. Tedlock 1982:54, 139). The lake is described as a mirror. (Bassie, Karen. From unpublished MS 1999, personal communication).
With this cultural background, it is quite possible that Alma would have preferred to baptize in a lake rather than a stream. Just as the river in the Old World held important symbolic connotations, so too would the lake in the New World. Since the people that were being baptized were some who had been under the influence of Noah’s more apostate version of religion, it would not be surprising at all if they had absorbed at least the general conception of the lake as a sacred location with greater connections to the divine than a stream or a river.
Historical: We are introduced to Helam (verse 12) with the phrase “he being one of the first…” Because he clearly is the first to be baptized, this reference to being one of the first cannot refer to Helam’s order of baptism. When combined with the naming of the land of Helam after him (see Mosiah 23: 19) we may presume that Helam was a man of some importance in Lehi-Nephi - an importance sufficient to warrant right of first place in the order of baptism, as well as right of name in the naming of the land. See the comments on Mosiah 23:19 for more assumptions on the nature of Helam the man.
Scriptural: One of the questions that has been raised concerning these verses is the source of Alma’s authority and his possible previous baptism. Joseph Fielding Smith suggests:
If he had authority to baptize that is evidence that he had been baptized. Therefore, when Alma baptized himself with Helam that was not a case of Alma baptizing himself, but merely as a token to the Lord of his humility and full repentance. In Alma 5:3 we learn that Alma was consecrated the high priest over the Church under his father. Now Alma did not organize the Church with the idea that they had no church before that time. They had a church from the days of Lehi and Alma only set things in order.
Remember that the Book of Mormon is an abridgment of former records, and like the Bible, does not furnish many details. If I remember correctly, there is no reference to the baptism of Alma the elder or Helaman nor of Nephi and his brother Jacob, but we know they were baptized as were all the faithful members in the Church (Smith, Joseph Fielding. Answers to Gospel Questions. Deseret Book. 1960, v.3, p. 203).
Daniel Ludlow examined the same verse, and suggests:
The first point where both authors are clear, and the basis upon which this discussion must rest, is that there is no definitive answer. The Book of Mormon is not clear on this subject, and so all answers are speculative, and must be based on the information gleaned from the text. In the case of Joseph Fielding Smith, his interpretive model is very clearly the modern church, and therefore he must presume that “We may conclude that Alma held the priesthood before he, with others, became disturbed with King Noah….,” and “we know they were baptized as were all the faithful members in the Church.”
Just as does Joseph Fielding Smith, Daniel Ludlow also suggests the possibility of an ordination. For Ludlow, the ordination may have occurred through Abinadi. In my reading of the historical situation in Lehi-Nephi, neither of those possibilities appears to be probable. First, we must remember that Alma was a priest of Noah, and therefore was not one of the priests of Noah’s father, Zeniff. All of Zeniff’s priests had been deposed; “For he put down all the priests that had been consecrated by his father, and consecrated new ones in their stead, such as were lifted up in the pride of their hearts” (Mosiah 11:5).
As one of the appointed priests of Noah, Alma could not have been a priest (the position, not the priesthood meaning here) of his father. Even had Alma received the priesthood prior to his appointment by Alma, it would have been a hollow ordination as Alma followed Noah’s view of the law of Moses rather than the one that emphasized the atoning Messiah. This was precisely the reason Abinadi preached to the priests, to deliver the message that they were in error. Had Alma ever received the priesthood, he would have been in an apostate state during his time as a priest of Noah. Since the D&C declares:
D&C 121:36-37
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
Priesthood ordination and priesthood power and authority are not necessarily one and the same. Alma’s apostate state would have placed him in a position where his effective priesthood had been withdrawn, regardless of any prior ordination.
If Alma could not have carried over his ordination from the days prior to his appointment as a priest of Noah, could he have received it later, under the hands of Abinadi, as Ludlow suggests? The only way this would be possible is if Abinadi were to have been able to preach to and convert Alma prior to Abinadi’s arrest and trial before Noah and the priests. There was certainly no possibility of any ordination occurring after that time, as Alma had fled and Abinadi was put to death. This scenario appears unlikely also, as Abinadi would have had little access to Alma prior to that tribunal. Indeed, from the Lord’s standpoint, it would appear that Abinadi’s very mission was to convert Alma, else his death had no meaning whatsoever. If Alma had already been converted, Abinadi stood before the court and went to his death for no overarching reason. The events appear to indicate that Alma was indeed in a state of apostasy, and that Abinadi’s preaching converted Alma.
That brings us back to Alma’s authority and baptism. First, Alma does declare the source of his authority in verse 13; “having authority from the Almighty God.” There is no reason to doubt him. This is the same issue as the nature of the priesthood for Nephi, who was not of the lineage of Levi. To him to whom God gives authority, we need not question any other source. That the circumstances of the ancient world might have been different and that the provision of priesthood and authority may have come in multiple ways should not surprise us. It is quite possible that Alma received his authority from some angelic visitor, though Alma declares that it comes directly from “Almighty God.”
Peterson separates the initial priesthood ordination into the aspect of ordination and divine authority. For Peterson, even a corrupt ordination would hold validity for the possession of the legalistic authority. The sanctification would come through God. Thus for Alma, he might have been legitimately “ordained” by Noah, but have his true authority through God (see Peterson, Daniel C. “Priesthood in Mosiah.” The Book of Mormon: Mosiah, Salvation Only Through Christ. Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1991, pp. 197-198).
What of Alma’s prior baptism? Joseph Fielding Smith indicates that he must have been baptized because he was a faithful member of the church. This is too simple a reading of the historical situation presented in the Book of Mormon. Baptism does not appear to have been quite the same, as has been noted above, and discussed as part of Nephi’s introduction of baptism. Alma was creating a new entity in the New World, and he established baptism as a new covenant of entry into the new community of Christ. The very fact that he baptized himself suggests that even had he ever been baptized before, he saw it as important that he be baptized into this new covenant along with the rest of those who joined his “church.” The baptism of Alma and Helam in these verses has direct parallel to the experience of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery:
JS-H 1:68-71
68 We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:
69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.
70 He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.
71 Accordingly we went and were baptized. I baptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me-after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood-for so we were commanded.
There are more details in Joseph Smith’s account than we have for Alma, but the baptism of the first two is clearly similar. While Alma and Helam entered the water together and Joseph and Oliver baptized each other, the conditions are similar in that we have the previously unbaptized performing a baptism. Joseph Smith is explicit in that the authority to perform the baptism is given to then, and the record in the Book of Mormon in silent, but there is no reason to doubt that the Lord could easily have provided the necessary authority in the same way. The similarities in form suggest a similarity that goes beyond the form, and suggests a similarity of occasion as well. Both of these occasions were the introduction of the priesthood-authorized baptism to a new generation.
Scriptural: Baptism and the Spirit: One of the distinguishing differences between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus was the accompaniment of the “baptism” by the Spirit:
“…it may be that in the early Gentile Church John’s baptism was counted with Christian baptism as being in some way initiatory. A Gentile understanding of the gospel stories could easily have led to this assumption. In Acts, John‘s baptism seems to have been considered adequate for participation in the community of Jesus’ first disciples, though after Pentecost and the reception of the Holy Spirit, distinctive Christian baptism had a different, two-pronged character: it involved water and the Holy Spirit, as opposed to water alone (though Philip was permitted to continue a water-only baptism by full immersion, as long as apostles such as Peter and John made sure to follow in his tracks). The idea that being immersed with the ”immersion of John“ gave one a certain status in the community of Jesus’ disciples is reflected in the story that the man chosen to replace Judas had to be someone who had been with Jesus and the others ”beginning with [or:from] the immersion of John“ (Acts 1:22; cf. John 1:35-51). Yet there is the idea that those who were baptized by John - or were immersed in accordance with the kind of baptism John performed - and only an inferior sort of immersion and had to be baptized again with the Holy Spirit. The Pentecost experience apparently completed the process, so that those immersed were immersed not only in water but also by the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4).” (Taylor, Joan E. the Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1997. p. 71-72).
When verse 12 has Alma say: “O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart,” we may see a direct invocation of this later conception of baptism. Alma does not have a separate ordinance of baptism and then a laying on of hands, but does at least invoke the Spirit in a way that uses a form of water imagery to describe the effect of the Spirit; “pour out they Spirit….”
There is insufficient data here to know if Alma’s baptism precisely foreshadowed the Christian double-pronged “immersion” in water and spirit. Even if Alma was not precisely conferring the Spirit, he was certainly invoking the presence of the Spirit. This may be a small difference, but is important in the understanding of the development of the baptism ideology in the Book of Mormon.
Translation: The printer’s manuscript for verse 12 contains the name Helaman rather than the current Helam. This change occurs in changes to the printer’s manuscript. Thus the change is made quickly, and appears in the first edition of the Book of Mormon as Helam. This precise change from Helaman to Helam occurs 12 times in the corrections to the printer’s manuscript: Mosiah 18:12,13,14; Mosiah 23: 19, 20, 25, 26, 29, 35, 37, 38, 39 (see Book of Mormon Critical Text. FARMS. 1987, pp. 453-4, 475-479).
Up to this point in the text, each reference to Helaman was changed to Helam. This pattern in the printer’s manuscript changes with the next two references to our current Helam: Mosiah 27:16, Alma 24:1 (see Book of Mormon Critical Text. FARMS. 1987, pp. 497, 670).
The pattern here indicates that the first twelve occurrences of Helaman were an error, which was caught by the time the printer’s copy was written up to Mosiah 27:16. Finding that error, all of the “errors” were corrected simultaneously to the correct Helam.
What does this say about the translation process? Absolutely nothing for certain, because the information comes in the printer’s manuscript in a portion where we cannot check it against the original. Since the printer’s manuscript was a copy, it is entirely possible that Oliver simply misread the name and made a substitution based upon the Helaman who has his own book later in the text.
The only argument against this scenario is the massive repetition of the error. We expect scribal errors to be localized and more limited. While the change does centralize in two locations, those locations are separated by a fair amount of text. If, and only if, the transcription of Helaman accurately reflected the original manuscript, this would call into question some of the evidence from the original that is used to show that there was close control over the spelling (see Skousen, Royal. “Evidence from the Original Manuscript.” In: Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. 7:1:27). We cannot know, however, what was on the original, and what the source of this mis-transcription was. In the absence of any other hypothesis, the copying error from the original to the printer’s manuscript is probably the best answer.