The particular disputation that concerns Mormon is the baptism of “little children.” This is not specifically infant baptism, though it certainly would include that practice. The distinction between “little” children and “infants” may not, however, be significant since we lack the information necessary to clearly understand the disputed rite. This particular contention has been cited as Joseph’s response to controversies of his own day. Of course, if the Book of Mormon is assumed to be a modern creation this perspective is logical. Unquestionably, the Catholic and Anglican practice of infant baptism was controversial in Joseph’s religious climate, with a customary argument being that an infant was incapable of deciding to become a Christian. However, attributing the issue to controversy in Joseph Smith’s day assumes that no ancient influence could have inspired an ancient doctrinal discussion on the topic.
It is true that information on Mesoamerican religious rites are all post-conquest and are, furthermore, focused on Aztec beliefs, which post-date the Book of Mormon. However, A.D. 400 is closer to Aztec culture than to earlier events in the Book of Mormon, and there is considerable evidence that ancient societies changed much more slowly than contemporary societies.
The Maya practiced an infant-washing ritual so similar to Catholic baptism that Diego de Landa declared it to be a baptism in fact. Archaeologist Warwick Bray describes the Aztec practice: “The baby was carried out into the courtyard of the house to be bathed in an earthenware tub placed on a layer of rushes. Water was sprinkled on the child’s mouth, chest, and head, while the appropriate incantations were made. Then the midwife washed the baby all over and recited the prayer to keep away evil.” A religious belief system that produced the need to wash (and spiritually cleanse the infant) could easily influence Christian baptismal practice, just as it did in the Old World.
Some time after A.D. 100, the early Christian “Didaché” (perhaps from Syria), gave the following rules for baptism: “And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head unto the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
The interesting part of this is the dual provision for immersion and also pouring water on the head. The clear preference is for immersion, a point that is made in other early sources of baptismal practices. It is significant that, if the second-preferred method of pouring water on the head was used, it had to be repeated three times. The “Didaché” is written in Greek. Christian baptism, as Paul taught, represented death and resurrection/rebirth (Rom 6:4, Col. 2:12). Greek funeral practices provide a plausible reason for the triple pouring. Although the Greeks and Romans preferred burial, such a burial could be mercifully symbolized under difficult conditions or time pressures by casting three handfuls of dirt on the corpse’s head. The “Didaché” community used the Pauline explanation of baptism as the candidate’s death and resurrection. Therefore, immersion was the analog of a full burial. If sufficient “live water” was lacking for the full ritual, then the three handsful of earth that symbolized the burial of a corpse became the three pourings of water that symbolized a full baptism.
I hypothesize that a similar case of applying symbols from death rituals to baptism rituals could have produced the Nephite argument for infant baptism. Familiar cultural practices would have supplied the context to incorporate Christian themes and, then, to influence Nephite understanding of the Christian practice.