Mormons and the Trinity

[Brad_Haas]

Fool,

Whether the article has everything precisely correct or not (and I know how difficult that can be when one faith deals with another), I still think the right decision was made. Do LDS baptisms have the intention of the Catholic Church? I really don’t think so. Would you disagree, based on what the Church believes about the requirements for valid baptism?

Unlike Amgid, I see the length of time it took for the decision to be made as an indication that the matter was considered very seriously and carefully. The Church would be happy to recognize LDS baptism, because baptism is so important. But the theological differences, far from the petty hair-splitting a lot of people (on both sides) make them out to be, are really that important too.

 

[mormon_fool]

Brad Haas:

Fool,

Whether the article has everything precisely correct or not (and I know how difficult that can be when one faith deals with another), I still think the right decision was made.

Well, let us just say that I am glad I don’t have to be the one making the decision. For this decision, the RCC should foremostly be concerned about the welfare of converts from the LDS church. If it feels their salvation is in danger, I say better safe than sorry.

To a lesser degree that RCC has to worry about the setback of this decision causes in regards to ecumenical outreach to the LDS church. It really seems like the LDS church is being singled out, while some heretics are being given a free pass. My reaction as an LDS is one of (mildly) hurt feelings, I feel like my status as a Christian is being marginalized. But I like the focus Jordan Vajda brings to the discussion: concentrate on the 1 to 1 relationship between the churches which reciprocally don’t accept the other’s baptism and both claim to be from a different gospel dispensation.

Do LDS baptisms have the intention of the Catholic Church?

The difficulty of answering this question is perceiving where the RCC sets the boundaries. Obviously there is a wide variety of different beliefs about baptism and the trinity in historic Christianity. Determining whether someone’s intentions are sufficiently compatible seems rather abstract and fluid.

Unlike Amgid, I see the length of time it took for the decision to be made as an indication that the matter was considered very seriously and carefully.

I think they would have benefitted from consulting with an LDS scholar to make sure they were correctly understanding LDS doctrine. I do commend them for considering important LDS works in their deliberations.

–fool

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by mormon fool
It really seems like the LDS church is being singled out

The Holy Mother Church also does not accept a jehovah witness baptism. There to is a complete difference in the understanding of The Godhead and, in fact, jws do not believe in The Trinty at all.
FYI, I always appreciate your kindness when posting. You are never aggressive, arrogant nor confrontational and I have learned a lot about your faith and how to discuss without anger from you. Thanks!

 

[StMarkEofE]

Semper Fi:

We do not accept the Mormon baptism because their view of the Godhead is a henotheistic view, not the traditional Trinitarian view. It has nothing to do with the reason that they do not accept our baptism, because we believe the LDS are not Christians because they do not accept the Trinity and accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. Thus, they do not believe in the same God and also believe that men can become their own God. We accept the baptisms of all other Christian denominations which share the belief in the Trinity that we do, that is that there are 3 persons in One God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Any person coming from a background which they may believe doesn’t subscribe to the Catholic view of the Trinity may be baptized with a conditional baptism if they have already been baptized. We believe a person can only be validly baptized once, because it leaves a mark on the soul of the one being baptized and makes one a Christian.

Baptisms performed by non-Catholic faiths must be Trinitarian and not just “I baptise you in Jesus’ name” penticostal stuff. Neither the Orthodox or Roman church should accept baptisms which do not include being baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

StMarkEofE:

Baptisms performed by non-Catholic faiths must be Trinitarian and not just “I baptise you in Jesus’ name” penticostal stuff. Neither the Orthodox or Roman church should accept baptisms which do not include being baptized in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The only baptisms we accept are done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit & they must have our understanding of the Trinity as well. If you’re a oneness pentecostal, you would need to get a conditional baptism.

 

[imroc]

LDSGuy:

Oh don’t worry, I didn’t think you were being offensive I just find similarity in the Latter-Day Saint view of baptism and the Catholic view of the Eucharist.
I’m actually a relatively recent convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints from the Catholic Church. I find much beauty in Catholicism, as I find in all religions. However, after much prayer, reading, research, discussing, I came to be baptized into the CoJCoLDS. I hope you find peace in your spiritual quest.

LDSGuy,

Please don’t take me wrong by thinking that I’m lashing out on you. I love you as a fellow member of Christ’s body, whether or not it is determined which of us is not truly of such. Please forgive my insertion and hijacking of this thread, but I feel the need to do such. I cannot understand how you can say that you became baptized into a faith in which it’s “founder” can make such claims as this:

God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil–all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. - Joseph Smith

I cannot and will probably never understand how the chuch that the “Latter-day Saints” is called to be the Church of Jesus Christ in the same sentence? Especially if Joseph Smith’s and the LDS claim is that the church that Jesus “founded” (or whatever term is used) is an apostate failure. Even more-so when Joseph Smith, himself, claims that he has done more than Jesus? The complete and blatant change of theology, doctrine and statements in the LDS church is sickening when one looks into this “faith”. Heck, If Jesus were to tell the apostles that they could change any and all of the doctrine He introduced or fulfilled, there probably wouldn’t have been any amount of apostacy, because everybody could be happy that we change with social, economic and political changes in our society. I’m sorry, but I just had to insert just that small piece among 100’s of reasons why I find mormonism completely false.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

One of the interesting factors that the article pointed out was the LDS view on Original Sin. (I have also read official lds pages that say they dont believe in OS) That is a very important point when it comes to the intention of what the CC understands as a function of Baptism.

 

[imroc]

I honestly believe that as long as the LDS keeps changing their doctrinal position on the Trinity, the catholic Church will have to keep changing their position on acceptance/denial of mormon baptism. When a faith changes its doctrine over and over, the true Church will have to examine those very same doctrines and make it’s decision. But based on the current mormom belief of the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit, true baptism will need to be performed.

 

[Brad_Haas]

Catholic Dude, good point about original sin.

Mormon Fool, the Catholic Church is very careful about making sure that all converts have been baptized. Catechumens must provide a record of their prior baptism, and if there is any doubt about whether the baptism occurred, whether it was valid, or whether the church in which it was received performs valid baptisms, then the Church performs a conditional baptism. That is, basically, “if you are not already baptized, then I baptize you…” This is what then-Cardinal Ratzinger recommended to continue, in the documents someone posted. The decision by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith just means there’s no doubt any more; conditional baptism is unnecessary because regular baptism is needed.

Again, baptism is extremely important, and as I’m sure you recognize, ecumenism takes a back seat to truth. There probably aren’t a lot of people as sorry as I am that there are such huge differences between our faiths, but the salvation and glorification of souls is what always concerns the Church.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mormon fool:

To a lesser degree that RCC has to worry about the setback of this decision causes in regards to ecumenical outreach to the LDS church. It really seems like the LDS church is being singled out, while some heretics are being given a free pass. My reaction as an LDS is one of (mildly) hurt feelings, I feel like my status as a Christian is being marginalized. But I like the focus Jordan Vajda brings to the discussion: concentrate on the 1 to 1 relationship between the churches which reciprocally don’t accept the other’s baptism and both claim to be from a different gospel dispensation.

I am sure that they did. I appreciate your non-hostile attitude on here, but it is pretty obvious that Mormons do not have the same view of the Trinity that we do. If you can subscribe to the Athanasian creed; then we have the same faith. However, as long as the current Mormon doctrine states that you can only be a Christian if you are a member of the Mormon church, then we will have no where to go with ecumenical discussions because the Catholic Church will never become Mormon. Here is the Athanasian Creed:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One, the Glory Equal, the Majesty Co-Eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father Uncreate, the Son Uncreate, and the Holy Ghost Uncreate. The Father Incomprehensible, the Son Incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost Incomprehensible. The Father Eternal, the Son Eternal, and the Holy Ghost Etneral and yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal. As also there are not Three Uncreated, nor Three Incomprehensibles, but One Uncreated, and One Uncomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not Three Almighties but One Almighty.

So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not Three Lords but One Lord. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there be Three Gods or Three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

So there is One Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not Three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is afore or after Other, None is greater or less than Another, but the whole Three Persons are Co-eternal together, and Co-equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity is Trinity, and the Trinity is Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother, born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man, so God and Man is one Christ. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

 

[Will_Pick]

LDSGuy:

I am a Latter Day Saint(ie. a Mormon). We do not subscribe to the belief in a Trinity, meaning that God is three persons in one Being, consubstantial(of the same substance), etc.
We believe that God is comprised of three separate beings, Gods if you will. They are One God, in the sense that they are united in purpose and will. However they are not of the same substance, and are separate Beings. Thus there is still a unity and diversity, but it is different from the traditional Trinitarian view of God. This is why the Catholic Church does not accept the baptisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. However, we require all converts to the Church of Jesus Christ to be baptized, even if they already were. So this really isn’t of concern to Latter Day Saints.

I may be wrong but don’t they the LDS also have a baptism for the dead ? If I’m right how does that work ? Thank you

 

[BryPGuy89]

In historic Christianity it has been the same beleif of the Catholic Church for two millenia,but there have been heretics and small groups of uneducated people who thought differently. In the history of the Church there has not been a wide range of differ beleifs until most resently in the last 400 hundred years. The reformation is were these differ views started apearing in large numbers, leaving the other 1600 yrs of the Church being unified and following the same beleif as it does now.

 

[mormon_fool]

Brad,

Thanks for your information about what I would call “just in case” baptisms being required in some circumstances. The presence of this aspect of baptism in the RCC helps explain the lack of urgency to have a firm ruling prior to 2001 on whether LDS baptisms are valid or not. It was also interesting for me to learn that the RCC wouldn’t call it a re-baptism if a prior iffy baptism was in fact valid, hence it being called a conditional baptism.
Brad Haas:

Catholic Dude, good point about original sin.

With all due respect to Catholic Dude, especially with his dilligence in researching the LDS Church website, I am not sure he understands the nuances of LDS belief about original sin. I am not even sure I get all the differences in LDS Christian thought and non-LDS Christian thought. One article that is helpful to that end is in the EoM. The key difference:
Latter-day Saints believe that infants inherit certain effects of the Fall, but not the responsibility for any sin as a result of Adam’s or Eve’s transgression. From the foundation of the world, the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes amends “for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam” (Mosiah 3:11). Therefore, baptism is not needed until children reach a state of accountability, generally at the age of eight years, for little children cannot sin and are innocent.
The key point is that other Christian faiths (e.g. Baptists) whose baptisms are considered possibly valid by the RCC also do not practice infant baptism and prefer baptism to occur after until a level of maturity is reached. Therefore this heresy of the LDS church can not be considered deterministic all by itself, but I can see where it might contribute to a network of heretical ideas that in sum are deemed to be intentionally at cross purposes to the RCC baptisms.

Again, baptism is extremely important, and as I’m sure you recognize, ecumenism takes a back seat to truth. There probably aren’t a lot of people as sorry as I am that there are such huge differences between our faiths, but the salvation and glorification of souls is what always concerns the Church.

I would consider ecumenicalism to be one pathway to discover truth, but whenever it generates more heat than light or compromizes values, than yes it should take a backseat to the more standard, in-house ways of finding and maintaining truth.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Semper Fi:

it is pretty obvious that Mormons do not have the same view of the Trinity that we do. If you can subscribe to the Athanasian creed; then we have the same faith.

You are right, of course, that there is a difference between what Mormons believe and orthodox Christianity. The creed you so thoughtfully drew my attention to makes a number of statements I can’t accept. The problem with using it in a debate over whether LDS baptisms should be considered valid is that some of the same ideas that LDS reject were also not advocated by mainstream Christians before the creeds were formulated. Presumably the RCC accepts the baptisms of several centuries of pre-Nicene subordinationalists, therefore citing differences in beliefs of the Trinity can be no more deterministic than someone’s stance on infant baptism as I showed in my previous post.

However, as long as the current Mormon doctrine states that you can only be a Christian if you are a member of the Mormon church,

Mormon doctrine does not say that only Mormons are Christians. If you were to poll LDS members, they would probably agree with Webster’s dictionary definition of a Christian and accept just about anyone or any denomination wishing to have themselves viewed as Christian as such. Not everyone is an LDS Christian, though.

then we will have no where to go with ecumenical discussions because the Catholic Church will never become Mormon.

I agree that the Catholic Church will never fold up and become Mormon, however that is not the goal of ecumenical discussions.

–fool

 

[mormon_fool]

BryPGuy89:

In historic Christianity it has been the same beleif of the Catholic Church for two millenia,but there have been heretics and small groups of uneducated people who thought differently. In the history of the Church there has not been a wide range of differ beleifs until most resently in the last 400 hundred years. The reformation is were these differ views started apearing in large numbers, leaving the other 1600 yrs of the Church being unified and following the same beleif as it does now.

I respect your read of history, however I think it too simplistic to suggest that same beliefs were uniformly held through all Christian history, and if anyone held otherwise than they were heretics. I think you might be surprised in who you would be calling heretics. I get the sense that informed Catholics understand that theology developed, albeit in inspired and appropriate ways. Right now I am reading a translation of the works of 4th century Catholic historian Eusebius and it is interesting for me to observe this dynamic.

–fool

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mormon fool:

The key point is that other Christian faiths (e.g. Baptists) whose baptisms are considered possibly valid by the RCC also do not practice infant baptism and prefer baptism to occur after until a level of maturity is reached. Therefore this heresy of the LDS church can not be considered deterministic all by itself, but I can see where it might contribute to a network of heretical ideas that in sum are deemed to be intentionally at cross purposes to the RCC baptisms.

In our theology we acknowledge that it is not the person who is doing the baptizing, but the Lord. Therefore, as long as you have a proper understanding of the Godhead and baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as prescribed by the Athanasian creed, you are validly baptized.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mormon fool:

I respect your read of history, however I think it too simplistic to suggest that same beliefs were uniformly held through all Christian history, and if anyone held otherwise than they were heretics. I think you might be surprised in who you would be calling heretics. I get the sense that informed Catholics understand that theology developed, albeit in inspired and appropriate ways. Right now I am reading a translation of the works of 4th century Catholic historian Eusebius and it is interesting for me to observe this dynamic.

–fool

While the theology “developed” insofar as the words that we used got bigger, the basic understanding has always been there. Had everyone had access to all the documents and such that most of our early apologists had access to, I doubt that there would have been much strife about the concept of the Trinity. Usually, a lot of times people were accused of being heretics when in fact they were speaking of the same thing just because the language translations didn’t work out too well. I mean, the Jews which were the early Christians have always believed in one God. They also believed that Jesus & the Holy Spirit were God. The only way to reconcile this belief with their stout monotheism was the Trinity. The Trinity didn’t “develop” insofar as you read the Gospels, Jesus said the only unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. You can only sin against God. Also, John 1:1 clearly spells out our theology. Just go read some early Catholic Apologists such as Justin Martyr.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

mormon fool:

With all due respect to Catholic Dude, especially with his dilligence in researching the LDS Church website, I am not sure he understands the nuances of LDS belief about original sin. I am not even sure I get all the differences in LDS Christian thought and non-LDS Christian thought. One article that is helpful to that end is in the EoM. The key difference:Latter-day Saints believe that infants inherit certain effects of the Fall, but not the responsibility for any sin as a result of Adam’s or Eve’s transgression. From the foundation of the world, the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes amends “for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam” (Mosiah 3:11). Therefore, baptism is not needed until children reach a state of accountability, generally at the age of eight years, for little children cannot sin and are innocent.
The key point is that other Christian faiths (e.g. Baptists) whose baptisms are considered possibly valid by the RCC also do not practice infant baptism and prefer baptism to occur after until a level of maturity is reached. Therefore this heresy of the LDS church can not be considered deterministic all by itself, but I can see where it might contribute to a network of heretical ideas that in sum are deemed to be intentionally at cross purposes to the RCC baptisms.

After reading that article I agree there are nuances and similar terms that can get confusing. Like in one part of that article it says:
The doctrine of original sin as taught traditionally states that, due to the Fall of Adam, infants are born tainted with actual sin, resulting in the “privation of sanctifying grace”; this dogma “does not attribute to the children of Adam any properly so-called responsibility for the act of their father,” nor is it a voluntary sin “in the strict sense of the word,” yet it is a “real sin” (S. Harent, “Original Sin,” in Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 ed., Vol. 11, p. 315).
Im not sure what the term “actual” means in this case but in the Catholic Church that is an important distinction. As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains under the heading “Sin” (chapter II):
As regards the principle from which it proceeds sin is original or actual. The will of Adam acting as head of the human race for the conservation or loss of original justice is the cause and source of original sin. Actual sin is committed by a free personal act of the individual will.
Right here is a major distinction, and the the CC explains that infants cant commit actual sin because they dont have the ability to reason at that stage in their life.

As for the Baptists, that is an intersting point which I didnt think about. Im pretty sure they believe in OS but they dont Baptize infants so how much of their “intentions” line up with the CC’s? Good question, Im not sure.
Maybe it goes as you said that its more of a summation of all heretical ideas can be a deciding basis rather than an individual.

 

[mormon_fool]

Will Pick:

I may be wrong but don’t they the LDS also have a baptism for the dead ? If I’m right how does that work ? Thank you

The LDS church does have a practice where we can be baptized for and in behalf of (as a stand in or substitute for) our unevangelized ancestors. The rite is performed on the lowest floor of a dedicated LDS temple by someone who has been commisioned of Jesus Christ to perform ordinances that are binding in heaven and earth. The person being baptized for actually has a choice to accept or reject the baptism done for them as they await judgement in the next life. Further info can be found at the first google hit for “Baptism for the Dead”.

-fool

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mormon fool:

The LDS church does have a practice where we can be baptized for and in behalf of (as a stand in or substitute for) our unevangelized ancestors. The rite is performed on the lowest floor of a dedicated LDS temple by someone who has been commisioned of Jesus Christ to perform ordinances that are binding in heaven and earth. The person being baptized for actually has a choice to accept or reject the baptism done for them as they await judgement in the next life. Further info can be found at the first google hit for “Baptism for the Dead”.

-fool

This is another key point in that our baptism and understanding of theology that sins can only be forgiven if you are living. Your baptism of the dead is also possibly another reason that Mormon baptism was rejected as valid by the CC.