Morman baptism age/ceremony technicalities

  • Thread starter Thread starter armywife
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

armywife

Guest
Hello All,

This is my first thread here although I like to respond and read the other threads on CAF.

Anyway, I have a great friend who is Morman and she was telling me since her oldest daughter turned eight she will be baptised. They were also happy that her dad would be back (he is deployed currently with the Army) to do the baptism. Her grandfather was going to do it if her dad couldn’t be back.

My question is why age eight. I am assuming it has something to do with the “age of reason” test we Catholics have for our sacraments. Secondly, is it common for a parent to perform the baptism. I guess I thought the bishop of their ward would do it.

Just curious and thanks
 
40.png
armywife:
My question is why age eight. I am assuming it has something to do with the “age of reason” test we Catholics have for our sacraments.
Yep, that’s it.
Secondly, is it common for a parent to perform the baptism.
Yes.
I guess I thought the bishop of their ward would do it.
If there is no one in the family that has the priesthood, then someone else (not necessarily the bishop) would do it.

God love you,
Paul (an ex-Mormon, now Catholic)
 
That was quick and easy!

It just confuses me more as to thier beliefs.

Does their have to be witnesses and how can a parent do this and not a “cleric”. I am just too used to the Catholic way of doing things, but it seems a little too simple for a parent to simply say, ok, you are baptised. Aside from the christian formula, this must have something to do with Catholics not accepting their baptism’s as valid. Also, have morman baptisms always been done this way and what teaching to they justify parents performimg it?

Thanks
 
You have to remember that every Mormon male is a member of the priesthood. There is little difference between clergy and laity in the LDS church. Every Mormon male is a priest and every Mormon male has the authority to perform the baptismal rite according to the beliefs of the LDS church. I don’t know about the witnesses thing, but I imagine that having the father serve as both priest and witness isn’t much of a big deal. From what I understand, most baptisms have plenty of witnesses, both family and other members of the congregation.

They’re also extremely picky about the whole total immersion thing. The baptised must be totally immersed without even a pinky breaking the surface of the water. If they don’t get it right the first time, they dunk again.

The primary reason the Catholic Church doesn’t accept Mormon baptism really has nothing to do with who performs the rite. From what I understand, it’s primarily because the Mormon church does not recognize a trinitarian God. An understanding of the trinity is one of the primary requirements of a Christian baptism according to the church and some protestant baptisms aren’t recognized for exactly the same reason.
 
In the Mormon Church, every male in good standing over the age of 12 holds some level of priesthood. “Priests” and “Elders” are authorized to baptize, but only with the permission of their bishop and under his direction. It is the bishop that approves the candidate for baptism and the one doing the baptizing.

Remember that to Mormons, baptism is not a sacrament - that is, it doesn’t actually accomplish anything of itself. Baptism in Mormonism is an “ordinance” - an outward symbol of an inner reality - in this case the faith and repentance of the candidate and her new status as a member of the Church. However, at age eight, though technically the “age of reason”, I see little difference from an infant baptism. The child has not really made a choice - the parents have. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

And yes, there are witnesses.

Bear in mind that for Catholics, anyone (even non-baptized persons) can baptize in an emergency if they have the proper intent to do what the Church does. But since the Bishop, or a priest that he delegates, is the ordinary minister of baptism, it is normative for him to perform the sacrament.

One thing I took away from Mormonism is an appreciation for the Catholic belief in the “common priesthood of the faithful”. That is, every baptized Christian shares in the everlasting Priesthood of Christ and is therefore a priest to his family and within his sphere of stewardship. (see CCC paragraphs 1546-1547, 1591) A parent can bless his children, his home, his aged parents, his place of business, etc. I fear that most Catholic laity do not make full use of the priesthood they bear.

God bless you,
Paul
 
This all makes more sense now that I know it is not considered a sacrament.

It is interesting to parallel how we bless our children, as I do my kids before I put them in bed.

Thanks for your answers
 
40.png
armywife:
My question is why age eight. I am assuming it has something to do with the “age of reason” test we Catholics have for our sacraments.
Yes, kind of. We call it the “age of accountability”. LDS Church does not allow “infant baptisms”. We believe that children reach the age of accountability at eight. There is a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants to that effect.
Secondly, is it common for a parent to perform the baptism.
Yes, if they hold the priesthood and are considered worthy (i.e. are in full fellowship in the Church).
I guess I thought the bishop of their ward would do it.
In the LDS Church, all worthy male members hold the priesthood, which means that they have the authority to baptize, and perform many other rites of the priesthood.
Does their have to be witnesses …
Yes! There must be two witnesses specially assigned to act as such, and they act as “witnesses” as well as ensuring that the baptism is correctly performed (i.e. the correct formula is pronounced, and person is totally immersed).
…and how can a parent do this and not a “cleric”.
The LDS Church does not have a paid, trained, or professional clergy. All worthy male members of the Church above the age of 12 hold some office in the priesthood. That means that most fathers in the Church would have the priesthood authority to baptize their children, and would consider it a privilege to do so.
I am just too used to the Catholic way of doing things, but it seems a little too simple for a parent to simply say, ok, you are baptised.
No, that is not how it is done. All baptisms are approved by the Bishop. The bishop interviews the person to be baptized in private, to ensure first of all that they have a genuine testimony and really wants to be baptized (e.g. have not forced by their parents to do so), and secondly, that they have not committed any serious transgressions which they have not repented of, which would render them unworthy to be baptized. An eight year old child is perfectly capable of understanding all of this. Thirdly, there must be official and proper records kept of baptisms, therefore the bishop must be in charge of the process to ensure that such records are properly kept, and the person’s name is officially enrolled in the membership records of the Church, thus effectively making him or her a member of the Church. You are not considered member of the Church until your name is enrolled in the membership records of the Church. And lastly, there is a whole ceremony associated with the baptism, where lots of people (especially the relatives of the child) are invited to attend, and a number of people are assigned to speak and offer a prayer. The whole congregation then gathers round the baptismal font to witness the baptism. If you are really interested, you can ask your friend to invite you to the baptismal ceremony of her child to find out for yourself what it is like. She will be glad to invite you.
Aside from the christian formula,…
I am not sure what you mean by the “Christian formula,” but we baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
…this must have something to do with Catholics not accepting their baptism’s as valid.
No, that has nothing to do with it.
Also, have morman baptisms always been done this way …
Yes, it has always been done that way.
…and what teaching to they justify parents performimg it?
As I said, all fathers in the Church would normally hold the priesthood to be able to baptize their own children, and would consider it an honor and a privilege to do so.

amgid
 
40.png
MEP:
There is little difference between clergy and laity in the LDS church. Every Mormon male is a priest and every Mormon male has the authority to perform the baptismal rite according to the beliefs of the LDS church.
Not quite correct. An LDS male has to be “ordained” to the priesthood before they can hold the priesthood, and they are interviewed for worthiness before they are ordained. There is nothing equivalent to Protestantism’s “priesthood of all believers” or “priesthood of all the baptized” in the LDS Church.
I don’t know about the witnesses thing,
Yes, there must be witnesses.
but I imagine that having the father serve as both priest and witness isn’t much of a big deal.
No, that is not how it is done. Two people are assigned to act officially as witnesses.
From what I understand, most baptisms have plenty of witnesses, both family and other members of the congregation.
Even so, two persons are assigned to act as witnesses.
They’re also extremely picky about the whole total immersion thing. The baptised must be totally immersed without even a pinky breaking the surface of the water. If they don’t get it right the first time, they dunk again.
That is correct.
The primary reason the Catholic Church doesn’t accept Mormon baptism really has nothing to do with who performs the rite. From what I understand, it’s primarily because the Mormon church does not recognize a trinitarian God.
I doubt if that is the real reason. The Catholic Church accepts baptisms performed by a dog! LDS baptize in the name of “the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” which about as “Trinitarian” as you can get. My guess is that the Catholic Church refuses to accept LDS baptism in retaliation to the LDS practice of not accepting baptisms performed by other churches, including by the Catholic Church. In the LDS Church, proper priesthood authority is absolutely essential for any rite of the priesthood to be validly performed, and no other Church possesses that authority but the LDS Church. Hence other baptisms are not recognized by the LDS Church as valid baptisms. The Catholic Church is simply retaliating in kind.

amgid
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
In the Mormon Church, every male in good standing over the age of 12 holds some level of priesthood. “Priests” and “Elders” are authorized to baptize, but only with the permission of their bishop and under his direction. It is the bishop that approves the candidate for baptism and the one doing the baptizing.
Yes, that is correct!
Remember that to Mormons, baptism is not a sacrament - that is, it doesn’t actually accomplish anything of itself.
That is entirely incorrect. Baptism is a sacrament, and it effects a remission of sins.
Baptism in Mormonism is an “ordinance”
In LDS parlance, the word “ordinance” is synonymous with “sacrament” as generally understood or defined by the Christian world in general. In the LDS Church, the word “sacrament” has acquired a specialized meaning, and it is used exclusively to refer to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. The word “ordinance” commonly used to refer to the other “sacraments” of the gospel.
  • an outward symbol of an inner reality -
You appear to be extremely confused about both Catholic as well as LDS theology. A more blunt way of putting it is that you don’t know what you are talking about! LDS do not use that expression to define an ordinance (although they wouldn’t have any serious problems with it either). That expression comes straight out of the language that the Christian world has traditionally used to define a sacrament. The Protestants define a sacrament as “an outward sign of inward grace”. The Catholic Church, following the Council of Trent, has defined a sacrament as “a visible sign of invisible grace instituted for our justification”. This slight change in the definition has been affected in order to get over the difficulties presented by the differences between the two theologies concerning grace and justification. LDS in principle would not have any difficulty with either of those two definitions of sacrament (or LDS ordinance), although they have never traditionally used that language to define and ordinance.
in this case the faith and repentance of the candidate and her new status as a member of the Church.
Like I said, you haven’t a clue what you are talking about—and neither do I!
However, at age eight, though technically the “age of reason”, I see little difference from an infant baptism. The child has not really made a choice - the parents have. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…
Sorry to be so blunt about it, but you are talking a load of nonsense. In the LDS Church it is frowned upon for parents to try to force their children to be baptized, and every child that is presented for baptism is interviewed by their bishop in private to ensure, among other things, that they have a real testimony, and really want to be baptized, and that they are not doing it just to please their parents. As a general rule, most children want to be baptized, and there is no reason why they should not want to. But I know of some children who have not wanted to be baptized, therefore they have not been.
And yes, there are witnesses.
That is correct.
Bear in mind that for Catholics, anyone (even non-baptized persons) can baptize in an emergency if they have the proper intent to do what the Church does.
That is quite correct. The dogs in my neighborhood can perform valid baptisms for the Catholic Church!
But since the Bishop, or a priest that he delegates, is the ordinary minister of baptism, it is normative for him to perform the sacrament.
I want to be baptized by my dad!
One thing I took away from Mormonism is an appreciation for the Catholic belief in the “common priesthood of the faithful”. That is, every baptized Christian shares in the everlasting Priesthood of Christ and is therefore a priest to his family and within his sphere of stewardship. (see CCC paragraphs 1546-1547, 1591) A parent can bless his children, his home, his aged parents, his place of business, etc. I fear that most Catholic laity do not make full use of the priesthood they bear.
Sounds awfully confused to me. I am glad I am LDS!

amgid
 
40.png
amgid:
Baptism is a sacrament, and it effects a remission of sins.
You’re right, I misspoke. Sorry. After nearly 20 years away from Mormonism, I have apparently forgotten some details.
Paul
 
40.png
amgid:
“The Catholic Church accepts baptisms performed by a dog!”
I find this statement disturbing, almost offensive. An equivalent statement on my part would be to say LDS baptize corpses. Both are absolutely incorrect.
40.png
amgid:
"LDS baptize in the name of “the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”
This is true but you mean different things when you say it. All Christians believe in the Trinitarian formula of three persons one God. LDS believe don’t believe in one God, but rather, three seperate gods that make a up a godhead, a divine board of directors if you will. In LDS theology the Father and the Son are completely seperated by virtue of the fact that both possess physical bodies. The Catholic church has decided that there is enough of a difference in belief to question the efficacy of the baptism. Thus, LDS converts are baptized “conditionally” just in case the LDS baptisms aren’t valid. If LDS had a valid understanding of the Trinity their baptisms would be accepted, period.
40.png
amgid:
“My guess is that the Catholic Church refuses to accept LDS baptism in retaliation to the LDS practice of not accepting baptisms performed by other churches”
This statement shows just how much you have to learn about the Catholic church. It’s a petty way to think and frankly it makes me sad. It also makes me want to no longer respond to your posts.
 
I would add something to the free agency piece. When my son was interviewed for baptism my wife and I were both present. I would also question wehter or not an 8 year old can truly make a decision like this independent of parental influence. It is true that no one is forcibly baptized kicking and screaming but when a child is raised to believe that this is their destiny then it’s not exactly an informed decision at age 8. I’m not sure an 8 year old can have a true testimony about anything of consequence.

Just for clarification the witnesses in LDS baptisms are to ensure that correct procedure is followed. They serve no prebaptismal or post baptismal function like sponsors or godparents, etc. do in other churches.

And No, dogs can not baptize.
 
40.png
amgid:
I doubt if that is the real reason. The Catholic Church accepts baptisms performed by a dog! LDS baptize in the name of “the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” which about as “Trinitarian” as you can get. My guess is that the Catholic Church refuses to accept LDS baptism in retaliation to the LDS practice of not accepting baptisms performed by other churches, including by the Catholic Church.
This is absolutely wrong. The Mormon godhead is not the same thing as the Catholic Trinity (as has been pointed out numerous times on these forums). The lack of trinitarian faith is the primary reason why the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize Mormon baptism as being Christian.

BTW, we don’t retaliate. We’re not petty like that. We accept Protestant baptisms from some churches that accuse of us of not even being Christian.

I think your post falls very solidly under the category “troll”.
 
I was going to say what Tmaque said, but he beat me to it. Every time I see a child baptised, or adult for that matter I am so full of joy in seeing a pure soul joining Christ’s church. To degrade it by saing dogs do it, is most demeaning.

Now I just want to know what makes every male a priest, or member of a priesthood. I will not hijack my own thread, though.
 
40.png
amgid:
That is quite correct. The dogs in my neighborhood can perform valid baptisms for the Catholic Church!
I don’t know what your intent was with this comment, but it comes across badly. We are quests here, some respect please.
 
40.png
armywife:
I was going to say what Tmaque said, but he beat me to it. Every time I see a child baptised, or adult for that matter I am so full of joy in seeing a pure soul joining Christ’s church. To degrade it by saing dogs do it, is most demeaning.
Yes, my apologies for that to you and others. I tend to use too much hyperbole in my language, and got carried away this time. One reason for it is that I have been used to posting on Evangelical boards, and over there debates tend to be much more hostile and confrontational than here. You are in fighting mood all the time, and habits are hard to shake off. I will try to be more careful in the future.
Now I just want to know what makes every male a priest, or member of a priesthood. I will not hijack my own thread, though.
Interesting question. I will try to answer that as best I can. As I explained earlier, the LDS Church does not have a professional clergy. All is done voluntarily by the members. My bishop is a professional man, with his own job and a family to look after. He is not paid a cent for the work he does for the Church, but instead pays 10% of his income to the Church as tithing (plus other donations and offerings). He will serve as a bishop for a few years (usually around five years), and then is released and another is appointed to serve in his stead. But he will then continue to serve in other capacities in the Church. The Church has need of other priesthood officers. The bishop has two counselors who serve the same way as he does. Likewise there are many other callings and positions in the Church requiring priesthood authority, all of which are performed voluntarily by the members in the same way. There are plenty of indications that that is also how things were originally done in the early Christian church. There were no paid clergy initially. The Apostles would go into a town or city, preach the gospel, convert a whole bunch of people, then ordain some of them to various priesthood callings, instruct them as to their duty, and then move on to somewhere else to do the same thing. Those who were thus called were ordinary professional people. It was not a paid job to begin with. The institution of a paid or professional clergy developed in the church later on. We are merely following the practices of the early Christian Church. If you want to go deeper into the theological reasons for it though, there is a passage in the Book of Mormon that explains that:

Mosiah 18:

26 And the priests were not to depend upon the people for their support; but for their labor they were to receive the grace of God, that they might wax strong in the Spirit, having the knowledge of God, that they might teach with power and authority from God.
This, however, still does not explain why in the LDS Church every worthy male member needs to be ordained to the priesthood. We are now getting deeper into the theology of it still. The answer is that LDS regard the ordination to the priesthood as one of the necessary sacraments (we call them ordinances) of the gospel that are actually necessary for our salvation. Just as baptism is necessary for our salvation, and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands is necessary for out salvation, ordination to the priesthood is equally necessary for our salvation. There are several passages in LDS scripture, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants in particular, which would take too long to discuss. I will just quote one passage for you interest:

D&C 84:

33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.
There are passages in the Bible too which suggests this. Peter, addressing the saints of his day, says to them:

1 Peter 2:

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
I hope this is sufficient. If you really want to know more, you will have to do more private study. It is hard to explain everything on a board like this.

amgid
 
40.png
amgid:
As I explained earlier, the LDS Church does not have a professional clergy. All is done voluntarily by the members. My bishop is a professional man, with his own job and a family to look after. He is not paid a cent for the work he does for the Church…snip… There are plenty of indications that that is also how things were originally done in the early Christian church. There were no paid clergy initially. The Apostles would go into a town or city, preach the gospel, convert a whole bunch of people, then ordain some of them to various priesthood callings, instruct them as to their duty, and then move on to somewhere else to do the same thing. Those who were thus called were ordinary professional people. It was not a paid job to begin with. The institution of a paid or professional clergy developed in the church later on. We are merely following the practices of the early Christian Church.
amgid
It is misleading when you say that LDS do not have a paid clergy. All of the General Authorities of the LDS church are paid a stipend. This is because they spend all of their time working in the church and have no other job. So, it would be more correct to say that full time LDS clergy(GC’s) are paid a stipend and part time LDS clergy(bishops, stake presidents, etc.) are not paid. It would also be correct to say that full time Catholic clergy(bishops, priests) are paid a stipend and part time Catholic clergy (deacons)are not paid.

The determining factor here is that those being paid are devoting all of their time to their respective church and consequently have no time for a job. If being an LDS bishop was a full time job there would be a stipend. LDS wards are structured so that being an LDS bishop is NOT a full time job. Catholic parishes are structured so that being a priest IS a full time job.

Didn’t mean to hijack the thread. I just needed to get the facts out there.
 
40.png
amgid:
The Catholic Church accepts baptisms performed by a dog!
Well, Amgid, I thought you said some outrageous things on the Mary forum, but this one tops them all! What are you thinking? Don’t you know that saying such things destroys any credibility you may have? Everything you write after a statement like this might as well be “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah” because your credibility is shot. Look, I think it’s great that we have some brave Mormons willing to converse with us here, but believe me, you are not helping their cause.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
It is misleading when you say that LDS do not have a paid clergy. All of the General Authorities of the LDS church are paid a stipend. This is because they spend all of their time working in the church and have no other job.
That is not entirely correct. There are still some important differences that need to be taken into account. Firstly the proportion between unpaid and paid clergy in the LDS Church is extremely high, something like 3000 to one (I am guessing, I haven’t worked out the figures). I don’t know what the figure is for the Catholic Church. Secondly, even those handful who do receive an allowance are not “professional” in the recognizable sense of the term. They did not start out as professional clergymen. Before they were called to that position, they had their own (non-clerical) professions in the world like everyone else does. They had to give up their professions in order to give their fulltime service to the Church. Many of them had been highly successful professionals in their fields before they were called, and could have earned far greater sums of money by continuing in their chosen fields of profession than by becoming a fulltime LDS Church officer. Elder M. Russell Nelson, Apostle, had been an internationally renowned heart surgeon before being called an Apostle. He could have earned vastly more money as a surgeon than he hopes to get as an Apostle. Even as a retired heart surgeon he could earn far more money (by lecturing and counselling) than as an Apostle. Elder Richard G. Scott had been a very successful nuclear scientist before being called an Apostle, again earning vastly more sums in that profession than as an Apostle. Elder Iring and Elder Perry, both Apostles, had been highly successful professionals in the business field, before being called to the Apostleship, again earning vastly more sums in their fields of professions than as Apostles. Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle, had been a skilled lawyer, and had just been appointed to serve as one of the justices in the Utah Supreme Court, before he was called as an Apostle. He had to give up that position in order to become an Apostle. Again, he would have earned far more money if he had continued in that profession, instead of accepting the call to become an Apostle. One of the latest Apostles to be called, Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf had previously been the chief airline pilot in the Lufthansa airlines before being called an Apostle. There is an interesting biography of him written by Elder Holland in the March 2005 issue of the Ensign. You can read it from the LDS website. The list is endless!

The newest kinds of General Authorities, called “Area Seventies,” are not even always called to that position for life. Some of them are called to serve for a limiter period, at a much reduced salary from their professional careers, and then they are released, and have to go back to the professional world to earn their living—and hope to find a job at the end of it when they go back! Another group of people who receive a limited allowance for their services in the Church are mission presidents. They are in the same situation. They are usually highly successful professionals who are called to make this enormous sacrifice of giving up a lucrative profession to serve as mission presidents for five or six years, and then go back to their field of profession again to earn their living. I know of one such mission president who would have been earning 30 times more in his chosen profession had he continued in it, than he did during his term of services as mission president. Again the list is endless!

Indeed, it would be correct to say that the LDS Church does not have a “professional” clergy at all! Nobody in the LDS Church ever goes to college or seminary to “train” or “qualify” to become a clergyman. Such a thing does not exist in the LDS Church. They learn their skills on the job. They are taught by the Spirit of the Lord as they devote their lives to the service of God during a lifetime of service in the Church.

That is how it was in the early days of the Christian church. There were no paid or trained clergy back then. They had all been professional people. Luke had been a physician. Peter and John and many others had been fishermen. Jesus had been a carpenter! I don’t know what Timothy had bee; but he didn’t go to the seminary to train to become a clergyman. Paul is the only one who had received some kind of priestly training. He had trained to be a Jewish Pharisee under a famous rabbi called Gamaliel; and look at all the trouble that that got him into! In the end he had to “unlearn” it all in order to qualify to become a true Apostle of the Lord.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top