Mormons and the Trinity

[majick275]

Everything I said is easily verifiable from LDS sources. Sometimes the truth is difficult to deal with. As to putting words in the mouth of the pontiff, it’s not necessary. First of all He is the vicar of Christ, NOT a prophet. It’s not the same. Second, Canon Law has already defined what is necessary for valid baptism. That makes it obvious why LDS baptisms are not valid. The concept of “authority” being required for baptism is certainly not a Catholic one and renders that entire line of speculation pointless. Your own examples of buddhist, atheist, etc. being able to validly baptize demonstrates how that is NOT plausible.

If you feel that the previous LDS teachings on the Trinity were in error then you might want to consider what that says about your “standard works” where they were (and some still are) published. To claim the prophetic ability/authority to write scripture and then just change it when you realize it was wrong (without changing all of the perceived errors) seems to prove that the LDS church is really based on the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. We can all read the original BoM and book of commandments for ourselves, we can still see in the current BoM and D&C the vestiges of previous Trinitarian beliefs that they contain.

The sad fact is that Mormons still don’t understand just who and what God is. They should try worshipping and praying to God, ALL of him… Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They might then finally realize that he is not an exalted man. There are no other Gods, never were and more importantly never will be. We are his creations. Don’t be like the foolish people who built the tower of Babel. We cannot work our way to divinity and rule over our own kingdoms. We CAN be brought into the presence of God to enjoy the beatific vision forever. We should be thankful and stop these prideful ambitions to be more.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

The Mormon Church is NOT the restoration of Early Christianity.
Search high and low in the early Christian writings and you will not find ANYONE who believed that God the Father has a wife in Heaven, that God and his wife procreate spirit beings (one of which is the pre-human Jesus). Nor will you find the slightest evidence of the early church apostatizing into Catholicism. It was Catholic from the beginning. I was raised Jehovah’s Witness and we too believed that the early church apostatized, becoming Catholic largely due to the influence of Constantine the Emperor. Yet in my research I was shocked to find that NOTHING could be further from the truth.

THAT being said, if you want to know what Mormons believe, do a google search for DESERET BOOK COMPANY. They publish a nice Mormon book which explains Mormon belief. It is called
A MARVELLOUS WORK AND A WONDER. You can get it from them either in paperback or in a nice hardbound edition. Or you can obtain a book called MORMON DOCTRINE by
Bruce McConkie ( I hope I spelled that right ).

As for Mormon baptisms, they are not recognized by Rome because the Mormons do not intend to baptize in the name of Trinity as the Catholic Church understands the Trinity.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

 

[Pjs2ejs]

Amgid,

Your Mormon baptism is not in the name of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You believe in many gods. A valid baptism must center around the Trinity.

Although many non-Catholic Christian churches have different doctrine on many things than the RCC, they all believe in the same baptism. Mormons don’t.

It makes no difference when Rome made the statement. They made the statement. They never accepted them before. They just clarified it.

 

[oat_soda]

The Catholic decision not to accept Mormon baptisms is quite a recent phenomenon, and it is both theologically and historically inconsistent. It is historically inconsistent because the Catholic Church has always accepted baptisms by other churches, even by those whose theologies have been more outlandish than anything on offer in the LDS Church.

i think you are correct in that at one time, there was confusion on weather mormon baptism is valid, probably because the words are the same. but the church issued a statement to clarify after further investigation showed that mormon baptisms are not done with the intent of the church because mormons intend to baptize in the name of three seperate and not equal “gods”.

this is why it is possible for a priest to perform a non-valid concecration during the mass if he intends to not give the body and blood of Christ but a only symbol -even if the words are exactly the same.

The LDS doctrine of the Trinity is consistent with what is taught in the Bible, and what was believed by the early Christian church.

give me a break. no one other then mormons believe that. and please don’t give us a link to that silly fairs website. mormon apologetics is an oxymoron. your faith is based entirely upon feelings and not objective historical facts and reason. no serious theologian takes mormonism seriously.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by oat soda
no serious theologian takes mormonism seriously.

Nor do serious historians.

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

You are wasting your time I am afraid, and beating about the bush, and trying to divert attention from the real issue. The real issue is that your Pontiff has not declared the real reason for his decision

So you know the real reason, huh? Boy am I glad we have you here to tell us all what the pope is thinking and why he makes certain decisions.

and I suggest that you don’t try to put words in his mouth.

But you can, because you know the real reason for the decisions our pope makes.

If you believe that the Pope is God’s mouthpiece on earth, then I suggest you don’t try to put words in his mouth. He can speak for himself. I don’t think you are in a position to guess what the Pope is thinking.

But you claim this ability for yourself, Amgid. You know the real reasons why our pope decides something. Maybe you should write the pope a letter and tell him what his real reasons are and then ask him to admit it to the world, beacause “It is perfectly clear to anyone who examines the documentary evidence that the “Trinity” had nothing to do with the Pope’s decision.”

 

[TheRaiders]

Amgid is right. Though we may be right in why the Vatican made their decision not to accept Mormon baptism there may be other reasons. We should find some document about the Pope’s decision. Thank you Amgid for reminding us that we Catholics should always also look to sources of authority, and not completely our own intelect. That is one thing that sets us apart from other Christians and makes us more humble. I’ve also found people of other religions respect it when I say “You know what, I think I know the answer to your question, but let me do some research.” People find it fascinating that we have a source to go to in order to find truth.
You know, LDS and Catholicism have more in common than you people think. They are the only two churches I know of that are based on divine authority, and revelation. Only one can be right though, and Catholicism is what I perscribe to. We will search for your query my LDS friends and come up with an answer.
Patrick

 

[oat_soda]

You know, LDS and Catholicism have more in common than you people think. They are the only two churches I know of that are based on divine authority, and revelation. Only one can be right though, and Catholicism is what I perscribe to. We will search for your query my LDS friends and come up with an answer.
Patrick

patrick, i can tell you’re from humbodlt. you’re too laid back. but it is possible both religions could be wrong. divine authority alone will not convince people to be catholic. i think the historical evidence that we are the same church that Jesus founded is what our faith rests on. we are the one holy and Apostolic church, not the one holy divine authority church.

also, we do not have much at all in common with the LDS. while they hold to many true and good things, their erroneous doctrine on the Trinity only can lead to trouble. one of which is their concept of “industriousness”, which can lead to the notion the being poor is somehow evil, which is completely contrary to the messege of the gospel. the fact that they don’t pray to Jesus is reason enough to be concerned that their faith is objectively gravely deficent.

ultimately, we find that mormons in their quest to become gods exalt themselves which is exactly what the devil wants. clearly, this religion was inspired by a demon as the scriptures testify that any angel, even appearing as an angel of light, which contradicts the gospel is the anti-christ.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

My dear amgid;

amgid:

You are wasting your time I am afraid, and beating about the bush, and trying to divert attention from the real issue. The real issue is that your Pontiff has not declared the real reason for his decision, and I suggest that you don’t try to put words in his mouth. If he is willing to tell us the real reason, why don’t you ask him? Then we will all be enlightened. If not, then my explanation is a lot more plausible than yours.

Actually, the “real” question posted to this thread is: Why does the Catholic Church not recognize an LDS baptism as valid? Or, stated another way, what is it about the LDS baptism that makes it so different from the baptismal formula that is acceptable to the Catholic Church. I believe this question has been answered capably - with little beating about the bush.

If it is your contention that the Church’s decision not to recognize the validity of LDS baptisms is a “tit-for-tat” response to the LDS Church’s refusal to acknowledge the baptism of *any * other alleged “apostate” church, then the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to come forward with some evidence beyond your own fevered imagination to support the charge. Absent any supporting evidence, it appears from the documentation and links provided above that the Church’s decision was made when and how it was as a response to growing concern among the faithful regarding the issue, and not for any punitive or spiteful purpose.

amgid:

What you have written is in the main a great load of nonsense, and it does not deserve a reply. I only decided to reply to it because you had made the effort to research the information I had asked. Thank you for that, but the rest of what you have said is not true, and does not merit a response.

So, you’re not going to respond, but you are responding, and your response is that you’re not going to respond. Thanks.

amgid:

If you believe that the Pope is God’s mouthpiece on earth, then I suggest you don’t try to put words in his mouth. He can speak for himself. I don’t think you are in a position to guess what the Pope is thinking. It is perfectly clear to anyone who examines the documentary evidence that the “Trinity” had nothing to do with the Pope’s decision.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and by virtue of his office he received the charism of infallibility when teaching on behalf of the Church on issues of doctrine and morals. We don’t speak for the Pope, but as members of the Church we are certainly entitled to discuss his statements as well as any other other official church teachings.

If you contend there is “documentary evidence” showing that the decision of the Church on the issue of the validity of the LDS baptismal formula had nothing to do with the LDS trinitarian doctrine, then please produce the documentary evidence supporting your position for all of us to consider and evaluate. If not, then please concede the glaringly obvious truth that the rationale for the decision is the great distinction that exists between LDS and Catholic trinitarian doctrine.

This seems like a no-brainer to me. I really don’t understand why you would get your nose all bent out of shape about the issue. As you noted, the LDS church does not recognize any other form of baptism, so why should it take offense at the Catholic Church’s recognition of the distinction between the two faiths in a similar conclusion that its baptism is not the equivalent of LDS baptism.

It sure seems to me that you’ve not come to this thread to discuss the issue rationally. Instead, it seems to me that you’ve come to this thread to “pick a fight” with someone. Why else would you use such inflamatory rhetoric? I’ve seen much better from you amgid. What’s really bothering you? (PM me if you want.)

 

[Neilbass2]

amgid:

The Catholic Church has traditionally accepted baptisms of all other Churches. Even an atheist can perform a valid baptism for the Catholic Church in an emergence. So it is a bit odd that they should not accept Mormon baptisms.

The Church has allowed baptisms even by athiests in the event of an emergency, yes. But let it be understood that it is not about the person doing the babtism, but about the person being baptised. A person being baptised into the Mormon Church is intentionally baptising themself into the Mormon Understanding of what God is. Since this is completely different from the monotheist view of a Christian, it is not valid. A protestant is baptised in the name of the true Christian God, and the Catholic Church recognizes that. They are intentionally baptising themselves into that body.

But since the Mormon view of God is so different, the person being baptised is not going into communion with the traditional Christian trinity.

Baptisim isnt just a physical act, it is coming into unity with God and his Chruch. Since the Catholic Church recognizes protestantants as real Christians, thier baptisms are recognized. And if a person in an extreme emergency wants to be baptised into communion with Christ in a Christian way, thier baptism is acceptable. It is about what is the desire of the person being baptised, not the berson performing the baptism.

Similarly, if it were a tradition for Muslims to baptise in the name of allah, the church would not accept that either. But if a person, in a time of grave emergency, asked a muslim to baptise them in the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, and that person in danger knew that they were intending to be baptised into unity with God the Father, Son, And Holy Ghost, One God, then that baptism would be acceptable. Do you understant the difference?
So, in fact, a mormon person caould administer an acceptable baptism for a catholic in a time of grave emergency, but a mormon baptism is not acceptable to a catholic person. It is A mormon doing a Christian Baptism vs a Mormon doing a mormon baptism.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

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.

 

[PaulDupre]

There are other religions besides LDS who imagine themselves to be Christian, yet whose baptisms are not accepted by the Catholic Church. One example is the “Oneness” or “Jesus Only” churches who deny the trinity and baptize in the name of Jesus only. They naturally have many other strange deviations from historic Christianity. If you get the nature of God wrong, then everything else is equally up for grabs.

 

[mormon_fool]

I have been looking into why the Catholic church won’t accept mormon baptisms. I think the RCC changed its position based on learning more about the LDS church. Looked at from an historical perspective, it is interesting what aspects of the Mormon faith did not bring about rejection before 2001.

Consider a 1991 exchange between a US diocese and Cardinal Ratzinger. The diocese’s understanding of the LDS church is that the LDS use a correct baptismal formula but that LDS 1) are polytheists, 2) the members of the Godhead have bodies, 3) The Father is an exhalted man, 4) Jesus and the Holy Ghost resulted from sexual intercourse, 5) make apostasy and restoration claims. Even though these purported beliefs were taken into consideration the Pope ruled that “there are insufficient grounds to change the current practice not to contest the validity of Mormon baptism.”

Why the policy changed in 2001, I can not really tell. I have only seen a few newspaper reports announcing it, with some quotations from some RCC authorities that point towards theological differences over the Trinity and divinity. The link above has one such report and another is found here.

A then Catholic priest – Jordan Vajda – made some interesting observations in his 1998 Master’s Thesis (Partakers of the Divine Nature)
The Catholic Church, albeit a bit inarticulately, has now recognized that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represents not just another development of Protestantism, but is truly a “new religious tradition” (as also noted by Professor Jan Shipps in her landmark study Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition). Thus, the Catholic Church has recognized that the baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the baptism of a different gospel dispensation; and if a person wants to “cross-over” from one gospel dispensation to another, the baptism of the other dispensation will not and cannot be regarded as valid.
–fool

 

[oat_soda]

Why the policy changed in 2001, I can not really tell. I have only seen a few newspaper reports announcing it, with some quotations from some RCC authorities that point towards theological differences over the Trinity and divinity. The link above has one such report and another is found

it changed because the church didn’t fully understand the theology of mormonism. at the time, they probably assumed that they believe in the same God christians do. with further study, it was clear that they did not. mormonism is just starting to be recognized as a religion that must be reckoned with.

this is nothing new in catholicism. even the deuterocanonicals were not offically recognized as being equal to the other scriptures until the council of trent. while they were always part of the bible, there has always been differing opinons on there status. another good example is pope viligius and the “three chapters” debacle. he flip-flopped twice on his decision to reject these writtings causing him to be excommunicated by eastern bishops!!

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

oat soda:

this is nothing new in catholicism. even the deuterocanonicals were not offically recognized as being equal to the other scriptures until the council of trent. while they were always part of the bible, there has always been differing opinons on there status. another good example is pope viligius and the “three chapters” debacle. he flip-flopped twice on his decision to reject these writtings causing him to be excommunicated by eastern bishops!!

the deuterocanonicals have always been accepted as scripture up until the protestant reformation (thus the need for a counter reformation, namely the council of trent). your statement has no basis in history. you are correct that there have been differing opinions, but there had never really been a need for a definitive statement, because the church officially accepted them as scripture, and only reaffirmed that fact at the council.

 

[oat_soda]

you are correct that there have been differing opinions, but there had never really been a need for a definitive statement, because the church officially accepted them as scripture, and only reaffirmed that fact at the council.

i agree that the truth always held was that they were equal to the scriptures in status but the church had to reaffirm their status at trent because of the reformation. by the middle ages, there was a wide opinion on the matter.

i’m assuming there was a wide opinion on the matter because it wasn’t officially defined as being equal to the rest of the scriptures. the council of carthage and rome i believe among others were either not infallible or just said what books constituted the canon. though it appears from the earliest days, it was held to be equal, especially by st. augustine. but that through the middle ages, people began to doubt their degree of inspiration because of what jerome wrote about them.

it is analogous, though poorly, to the understanding of mormon baptism. sometimes it takes years for the church to come to a definitive conclusion.

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity.

 

[BryPGuy89]

BeluvdLily:

I heard tonight that the Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism and that they do not believe in the Trinity. If not, who/what do they think Jesus was? I was really surprised by this. I do not know anything about the Mormon religion but just found it puzzling.

Amie

That is because they are looked at as a cult. They lack the truth. The deny the truths of the Bible and thus aren’t really accepting God. The Catholic Church is were the full truth is.

 

[Brad_Haas]

The reason for the Church’s rejection of LDS baptism can be found in very condensed form, right in the Catechism, #1284:

In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

I was a little surprised when I first read that. I had always heard that all one needs is proper form and matter, but I never heard anyone mention the intention of doing that which the Church does.

If a Protestant means to initiate someone into the life of the infinite God, whose love is our origin, vocation, and destiny, then he intends to do what the Church does.

If an atheist means to give a dying man baptism into the Church, then he intends to do what the Church does.

I’m also surprised that nobody has mentioned this excellent EWTN article. It’s the clearest explanation I have seen of the decision. I would ask that everyone in the thread read it before adding more to the discussion.

Amgid:

We certainly do believe in the Trinity; but the Trinity that we believe in is the Trinity of the Bible, not the incomprehensible monstrosity that post-apostate Christendom has invented in the name of the Trinity—the three in one and one in three!

In the name of God, be charitable. The spirit of this kind of message is not the Spirit of God.

 

[BryPGuy89]

Thats a very interesting article I learnd something new and that is always good. I encourage anyone whos come by to visit the site.

 

[mormon_fool]

Brad Haas:

I’m also surprised that nobody has mentioned this excellent EWTN article. It’s the clearest explanation I have seen of the decision. I would ask that everyone in the thread read it before adding more to the discussion.

Thanks, Brad for finding this article. You are the man! I didn’t think to look for this document because I assumed it would be in a different language or otherwise unavailable.

I personally have a number of difficulties when the article attempts to portray mormon beliefs. I looked up some of the references they cite, like the *Encyclopedia of Mormonism *and LDS scriptures and it appears they misread them, IMHO. At least I can’t read the sources and come to the same conclusion they do. I imagine I would bore everyone by nit-picking at the details though. What I get out of it is that LDS are not just practicing heresy, but they are going above and beyond it.

One catholic poster to mormon forums has mentioned that he thinks that the ruling was unfair to LDS, because it relies on non-canonical statements, which strictly speaking aren’t binding doctrines of the LDS. However, I searched in vain to find a link describing his opinion.

-fool