Mormon baptism validity

  • Thread starter Thread starter had_matter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

had_matter

Guest
I know the CDF declared Mormon baptism invalid. Why, however? The answer is usually that their understanding of Trinity is so remote from ours that they cannot possibly have the intention to do what the Church is doing despite using trinitarian formula.
But, didn’t Arians, too, have a mistaken idea of the Trinity but their baptisms were valid? Or Gnostics?
Even if one supposes that their (Arians’, Gnostics’, etc.) differences weren’t that drastic, so their heretical baptism was valid, even Jews, Muslims, pagans or atheists can validly baptise. As a Muslim doesn’t believe in Trinity at all, but a baptism conducted by him would be valid, why not the Mormons?

Edit: or perhaps is it so that persons other than Catholic priests may validly baptise only in the case of emergency? If there’s no emergency, perhaps, such a baptism would be invalid - I’ve never known the answer, is there?

Regardless, wouldn’t at least Mormon emergency baptisms be valid?
 
Last edited:
Mormons are the ones who rewrote the bible not us. Take Genesis - may as well just rip that right out of the bible - may as well just tear up the whole Torah not to mention the new Testament - you will get no where here you have a different bible and a different God then what we believe in.
 
I have no reason to defend Mormons (their cosmology is crazy) but the question can be summed in two points:
  1. if a Hindu person can validly baptise someone using the words “I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost”;
  2. why can’t a Mormon?
 
When a Mormon say’s ‘in the name of the Father’ it isn’t in the Name of the Father as the Church intends They don’t intend to Baptize into the same Persons Having faith in a different Trinity. When a Mormon is saying the word ‘Name’ it’s not the same person the Church intends when the Church uses the word ‘Name’ Making it impossible for a Mormon to intend for it to do what the Church intends
 
I get what the OP is asking since among many Christian denominations a “Trinitarian formula” baptism of another is accepted. Here’s what I as a Latter-day Saint see as problematic in the question.
  1. It’s well understood that the doctrine of the Trinity is not found in the Bible and not fully accepted until the Fourth Century AD. Therefore, that begs the question as to whether any baptism before Fourth Century AD are valid. The OP alluded to such an issue by asking about the Arian baptisms.
To quote a couple of Catholic scholars:

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature. (William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God (Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 27.)

There is no formal doctrine of the Trinity in the New Testament writers, if this means an explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. (Edmund J. Fortman, The Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1972), 44

“Indeed, until Athanasius began writing, every single theologian, East and West, had postulated some form of Subordinationism. It could, about the year 300, have been described as a fixed part of catholic theology.” (R. P. C. Hansen)
  1. What is a “Mormon emergency baptism”? Is that where someone desires to receive an Orthodox Christian deathbed baptism requests that a Mormon perform it? In LDS theology only those who hold Priesthood keys (such as, the local LDS bishop) can authorize that a baptism be performed. And then only one who holds the Priesthood can actually perform the baptism. And the baptism would be for entrance into the LDS Church only.
So, a Mormon performing an Orthodox Christian deathbed baptism would be violating his own faith by performing an unauthorized ordinance/sacrament.

I hope this helps…
 
had_matter said:
I know the CDF declared Mormon baptism invalid. Why, however? The answer is usually that their … As a Muslim doesn’t believe in Trinity at all, but a baptism conducted by him would be valid, why not the Mormons?

Edit: or perhaps is it so that persons other than Catholic priests may validly baptise only in the case of emergency? If there’s no emergency, perhaps, such a baptism would be invalid - I’ve never known the answer, is there?

Regardless, wouldn’t at least Mormon emergency baptisms be valid?
Click to expand...
The words and intention must be the same as the Catholic: Trinitarian. In the name of “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” in Mormon usage, has a polytheistic meaning. For Islam, Jesus Christ is not consubstantial with the Father so that is not Trinitarian. If the words and intention and use of water is correct than anyone can validly baptize, however, there is also baptism of desire for that that want the baptism but were not able to receive the sacrament.
 
Vico said:
For Islam, Jesus Christ is not consubstantial with the Father so that is not Trinitarian.
Click to expand...
And Jesus wasn’t consubstantial with the Father in the Bible either.

John 17:22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one

Does Jesus really pray here that his disciples become consubstantial with each other?
 
gazelam said:
40.png
Vico:
For Islam, Jesus Christ is not consubstantial with the Father so that is not Trinitarian.
Click to expand...
And Jesus wasn’t consubstantial with the Father in the Bible either.

John 17:22 And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one

Does Jesus really pray here that his disciples become consubstantial with each other?
Click to expand...
Consubstantiality is used for the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Jesus Christ said he was “I AM” same as Moses was told in Exodus 3:14.

The person, the Son of God (divine nature), assumed human nature in the created Jesus Christ. Thus there are two natures in Jesus Christ.

John 14
7 If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him. 8 Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. 9Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? 10 Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
had_matter said:
I have no reason to defend Mormons (their cosmology is crazy) but the question can be summed in two points:
  1. if a Hindu person can validly baptise someone using the words “I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost”;
  2. why can’t a Mormon?
Click to expand...
Fair question.

First, the Church does not say that a baptism performed by a Mormon person is invalid. Instead, an attempt at baptism according to the Mormon faith and form is invalid. There is a difference.

If a Mormon person performs a Catholic baptism and intends to baptize the child Catholic, then it’s a valid baptism. An example might be a Mormon nurse in a Catholic hospital. How “likely” this might be is irrelevant. I know someone is going to say “how can we be sure?” but that is not the point. I am saying “if the Mormon person truly intends a Catholic baptism.”

So yes, the same standard applies to a Mormon person as would apply to a Hindu or Buddhist, or anyone else. If the person has the intention to do as the Catholic Church does, and follows the proper form, then it is a valid baptism.
 
I’m a former Mormon looking to be baptized Catholic this year. I’m glad they don’t recognize Mormon baptisms. I would feel totally dirty if I only had a Mormon baptism.
 
Vico said:
Consubstantiality is used for the three persons of the Holy Trinity. Jesus Christ said he was “I AM” same as Moses was told in Exodus 3:14.
Click to expand...
So, what logic entails going from “I AM” to consubstantiality?
Vico said:
The person, the Son of God (divine nature), assumed human nature in the created Jesus Christ. Thus tehre are two natures in Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
Where does the Bible state that Jesus has (or had during his mortal life) two natures?
Vico said:
John 14 7 If you had known me, you would without doubt have known my Father also: and from henceforth you shall know him, and you have seen him. 8 Philip saith to him: Lord, shew us the Father, and it is enough for us. 9 Jesus saith to him: Have I been so long a time with you; and have you not known me? Philip, he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father? 10 Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works.
Click to expand...
2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless, of course, you fail the test

So by your interpretation of John 14, are followers of Jesus referred to by Paul in this verse also consubstantial with Jesus?
 
I’m not sure if Arian baptisms were valid. Were they?
 
Last edited:
Mormons also baptize living people in place of their dead who weren’t baptized during their lifetimes. Do you consider those baptisms valid? Mormons do.
 
As one poster on the now defunct Amazon threads was fond of saying, “All that does is get the person wet.”
 
gazelam

Where does the Bible state that Jesus has (or had during his mortal life) two natures?

Where does it say He didn’t?

Who is His Father?
Who is His mother?

His Father is Divine (God).
His mother is human (not deity).

Therefore, Jesus was born with two natures, one fully Divine, the other fully human.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top