The Flood and the Baptism of Fire

Brigham Young is often cited as the origin of the teaching that Noah's Flood was the earth's baptism. However, although he did draw the comparison, he did so without much elaboration.

We are of the earth, earthy, and not only will the portion of mother earth which composes these bodies get a resurrection, but the earth itself. It has already had a baptism. You who have read the Bible must know that that is Bible doctrine. What does it matter if it is not stated in the same words that I use, it is one the less true that it was baptized for the remission of sins. The Lord said, "I will deluge (or immerse) the earth in water for the remission of the sins of the people;" or if you will allow me to express myself in a familiar style, to kill all the vermin that were nitting, and breeding, and polluting its body; it was cleansed of its filthiness; and soaked in the water, as long as some of our people ought to soak. The Lord baptized the earth for the remission of sins, and it has been once cleansed from the filthiness that has gone out of it, which was in the inhabitants who dwelt upon its face. [Journal of Discourses 1:274]

Orson Pratt took this idea to the next level and his logic seems to have become lodged in Mormon consciousness.

The first ordinance instituted for the cleansing of the earth, was that of immersion in water; it was buried in the liquid element, and all things sinful upon the face of it were washed away.... The second ordinance instituted for the sanctification of the earth, is that of fire and the Holy Ghost. The day will come when it shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, and all that do wickedly shall be as stubble; after which, the glory of God shall cover the earth, as the waters cover the deep. Here then is a baptism of fire first, then of the Holy Spirit. As man receives the baptism of fire and the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the hands of a legal administrator, so the earth receives the same, not through its own agency, but through the agencies ordained of God.... As man becomes a righteous man by the new birth, so the earth becomes a righteous earth through the same process. [Journal of Discourses 1:331 - 332, emphasis added]

A couple of months ago it occurred to me that there is a fundamental asymmetry here. The Flood was necessary and had to cover the whole earth, the logic goes, because it was a baptism, and we all know that baptism must be by immersion. But this pickiness for literalism in correspondence suddenly disappears when it comes to the baptism of fire. The problem is summarized with the following table:

Baptism:----Water----Fire

People-----Literal-----Metaphorical

Earth------Literal------Literal


I see two ways to salvage Pratt's logic. The first is to say that the burning of the earth at the second coming is metaphorical. The second:




Of course we could dispense with Pratt's logic and chalk the whole thing up to pioneer speculation, but that would remove one of the claimed imperatives for a literal global flood. What to do? Well, I'm definitely not going along with one of these options. I'll let you guess which one.

---