Was the Vatican ruling against Mormon baptisms unprecendented?

[Aramis]

Were the Arians referring to “the same ones that traditional Christians are”? Wouldn’t that make them traditional Christians? Arians were non-Trinitarians, yet their baptisms were apparently accepted as valid. What is the difference?

The Arians had a defective but still roughly trinitarian view… Seeing Christ as as a Created being…

Still, some of the heresies whose baptisms were rejected still used the trinitarian formula…

Would you be able to tell me if the Orthodox has ‘conditional baptisms’? Have they ever validated, or invalidated the baptisms performed by Mormons?

thanks and God’s peace

micah

They rebaptise pretty much everyone, tho’ sometimes they’ll accept trinitiarian baptisms from Catholic, Old Catholic, Anglican or Lutherans, and rarely other protestants, as an oikonomia/economia (relaxation of the disciplines of the church for the good of souls). They do, however, Chrismate (Confirm) those who join, even if the baptism was accepted. They have no equivalent of conditional baptism - when in doubt, the whole thing is redone.

Do you think this implies that Mormon baptisms are principally for initiation, rather than for the forgiveness of sins?

Actually, I had to find out whether this was true, and it is not. Theirs is a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. So which of the three requirements for a valid baptism is missing, and how so?

answeringantimormons.com/baptism.htm

God’s peace

micah

They see it as a form of initiation - they don’t do baptism until at least age 8 - age of reason - because they believe it absolutely requires consent. But so do the Catholics.

Both also see it as being for the forgiveness of sins. And in either case, one can’t legitimately claim either trumps the other.

 

[gazelam]

Frankly I agree with 90% of what you said. mercytruth seemed to argue against revelation and you said that the Catholic Bishops are guided by the Holy Ghost, which means that you believe they are receiving revelation. LDS also agree that doctrine is unchanging, but that practices can change. Peter’s vision gave him a revelatory nudge to put into practice Christ’s commision to preach the Gospel to all the world.

No new doctrine was given here. Jesus had already commissed the disciples:

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Matthew 28:19-20

The Holy Spirit was given by Jesus to his Church at Pentecost. Doctrines represent the truth of Jesus Christ, therefore, they cannot change. To say doctrines change implies that Jesus changed, from moment to moment, creatong no sure place to stand. Truth doesn’t change with the times. Guidance is given to the Church and all the faithful, by the Holy Spirit. Guidance is for the faithful through the ages. If a moral position changes from day to day or year to year, what does that say about the claims a person or group is making?

Jesus also taught:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” Matthew 5:17

The later vision, given to Peter, shows the implications of Jesus in relationship to the law. Christ fulfills the law. This is a Christian doctrine, that doesn’t change with the times. We conform ourselves to Christ, though the temptation is always there to turn that backwards, and try to make Christ conform to us, or "our times"and our ideas. Peter’s vision showed him how to conform to Christ.

Christ’s Church has never been orphaned. The Apostles ordained their successors, who are our Bishops. They are guided by the Holy Spirit, no less than Peter was.

 

[mercytruth]

The Arians had a defective but still roughly trinitarian view… Seeing Christ as as a Created being…

Still, some of the heresies whose baptisms were rejected still used the trinitarian formula…

They rebaptise pretty much everyone, tho’ sometimes they’ll accept trinitiarian baptisms from Catholic, Old Catholic, Anglican or Lutherans, and rarely other protestants, as an oikonomia/economia (relaxation of the disciplines of the church for the good of souls). They do, however, Chrismate (Confirm) those who join, even if the baptism was accepted. They have no equivalent of conditional baptism - when in doubt, the whole thing is redone.

They see it as a form of initiation - they don’t do baptism until at least age 8 - age of reason - because they believe it absolutely requires consent. But so do the Catholics.

Both also see it as being for the forgiveness of sins. And in either case, one can’t legitimately claim either trumps the other.

Thank you for answering some questions which were not yet clear to me. For the Orthodox then, as I understand your answer, the issue of not baptizing twice is not an issue in most cases, because in most cases, the first baptism is not considered valid, or is doubtful.

From the standpoint of the Orthodox, are doctrines and the person who performs the baptism a consideration for the invalidation of previous baptisms?

God’s peace

micah

 

[twopekinguys]

Thank you for answering some questions which were not yet clear to me. For the Orthodox then, as I understand your answer, the issue of not baptizing twice is not an issue in most cases, because in most cases, the first baptism is not considered valid, or is doubtful.

From the standpoint of the Orthodox, are doctrines and the person who performs the baptism a consideration for the invalidation of previous baptisms?

God’s peace

micah

Did I miss something here?

Did you change your religous affiliation from lds to Catholic?

 

[mercytruth]

Did I miss something here?

Did you change your religous affiliation from lds to Catholic?

I have never been LDS.

Does your question have to do with the practice of re-baptism as regard to the Roman Catholic Church and the LDS, and how the Orthodox practice of re-baptism became part of the discussion? Maybe I think it is applicable to this topic, since we can learn, or at least understand from our brothers of the Orthodox faith of their approach to this issue of re-baptism. Eventhough, I asked someone who is not of the Orthodox faith, but seems to know something of their practice.

(The confusion might have been from the fact that Aramis answered one question from an LDS member, and one question from myself in the same posting.)

God’s peace

micah

 

[twopekinguys]

I have never been LDS.

Does your question have to do with the practice of re-baptism as regard to the Roman Catholic Church and the LDS, and how the Orthodox practice of re-baptism became part of the discussion? Maybe I think it is applicable to this topic, since we can learn, or at least understand from our brothers of the Orthodox faith of their approach to this issue of re-baptism. Eventhough, I asked someone who is not of the Orthodox faith, but seems to know something of their practice.

(The confusion might have been from the fact that Aramis answered one question from an LDS member, and one question from myself in the same posting.)

God’s peace

micah

No, I could have sworn you were listed as lds prior to this morning.

 

[mercytruth]

I can’t let that one go by. Revelation is precisely what Peter received when he was being divinely prepared for Cornelius. The wind was blowing Gentile… Acts 10:9-17 (KJV) states:

9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,

Because of this revelation the ancient Church expanded from proselytizing just Jews to also proselytizing Gentiles. This was a divinely encouraged and divinely approved change of position for the ancient Church. Since God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, it’s reasonable to assume that He could want His church to change a position on something in modern times. That would require a modern-day revelation. Ancient apostles received revelation at address ancient problems and modern apostles receive revelation to address modern problems.

Aside from the Book of Mormon and other additional books of the Mormon faith, the teachings of Joseph Smith were an addition to the apostolic faith and to the holy scriptures. Some of the ‘prophecies’ of Joseph Smith are yet expected to be fulfilled. Such as the New Jerusalem being established in the Western Hemisphere. Such as the White Horse prophecy when the Constitution will be saved by a thread through Mormon intervention.

This ‘prophetic/teaching gifting’ is passed on to succeeding Presidencies as I understand Mormon teaching.

God’s peace

micah

 

[mercytruth]

No, I could have sworn you were listed as lds prior to this morning.

That’s OK. You want to hear a personal story that involves my search for the ‘truth’ that goes back to 1972? During this time I was looking into many different philosophies, religions, esoteric teachings and the like. Because of my scant acquaintance with Freemasonry during this search, when I came to read about the Mormon faith, intuitively from God (or who knows where since I was an agnostic at the time), I just knew that the book of Mormon was written by a Freemason.

It was not until the last few years that I learned that Joseph Smith was a Freemason along with his own father. So no, I have never been with LDS, and I have always had a dark cloud of discernment with regard to Freemasonry and also with the Mormons.

God’s peace

micah

 

[gazelam]

Because of this revelation the ancient Church expanded from proselytizing just Jews to also proselytizing Gentiles.

RebeccaJ,
Upon a more careful reading of your response I agree that Christ clearly expanded the scope of missionary work with the verse you cite. But I believe it is fair to assert that the story I related shows that revelation helped Peter fulfill the divine mandate.

 

[GaryTaylor]

66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith.
It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations.”

 

[gazelam]

Aside from the Book of Mormon and other additional books of the Mormon faith, the teachings of Joseph Smith were an addition to the apostolic faith and to the holy scriptures. Some of the ‘prophecies’ of Joseph Smith are yet expected to be fulfilled. Such as the New Jerusalem being established in the Western Hemisphere. Such as the White Horse prophecy when the Constitution will be saved by a thread through Mormon intervention.

This ‘prophetic/teaching gifting’ is passed on to succeeding Presidencies as I understand Mormon teaching.

God’s peace

micah

LDS belief is that through revelation from God, Joseph Smith restored the original teachings of Jesus and the Apostles (i.e., the nature of God and baptism by only immersion are two good examples of that.) It would also be appropriate for an LDS prophet to reveal something new in the latter days that wasn’t needful for the ancient Church. Joseph Smith has prophesied of events that have since happened (i.e., the American Civil War), and events that haven’t happened (New Jerusalem built in the Americas). I don’t have the time now but it would not be hard to find Biblical prophesies that both have occurred and that haven’t yet happened.

No where in the Bible does It state that there will be no additional revelation beyond what’s in the Bible.

The LDS Ninth Article of Faith states “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.” I hope this helps better undertsand LDS belief on revelation.

 

[Aramis]

Thank you for answering some questions which were not yet clear to me. For the Orthodox then, as I understand your answer, the issue of not baptizing twice is not an issue in most cases, because in most cases, the first baptism is not considered valid, or is doubtful.

From the standpoint of the Orthodox, are doctrines and the person who performs the baptism a consideration for the invalidation of previous baptisms?

God’s peace

micah

The Eastern Orthodox question all sacraments outside their own communions, as a rule.
They sometimes rebaptise even Orthodox from certain other Orthodox churches…
THey claim not to know about the validity of any group outside their own, current communion. They studiously avoid formal statements about other churches’ sacramental practices. (Tho’ for a short period in the early 20th C, Constantinople was in communion with the Anglicans.)

So when a national church breaks communion for some reason, even its members may wind up being rebaptized should they join a different one.

(I’ve known a couple Ukrainians who became Catholic because the local OCA priests wouldn’t accept their Kyiv Patriarchate Ukrainian Orthodox baptism - the UOC-KP isn’t in communion with the Eastern Orthodox.)

 

[mercytruth]

The Eastern Orthodox question all sacraments outside their own communions, as a rule.
They sometimes rebaptise even Orthodox from certain other Orthodox churches…
THey claim not to know about the validity of any group outside their own, current communion. They studiously avoid formal statements about other churches’ sacramental practices. (Tho’ for a short period in the early 20th C, Constantinople was in communion with the Anglicans.)

So when a national church breaks communion for some reason, even its members may wind up being rebaptized should they join a different one.

(I’ve known a couple Ukrainians who became Catholic because the local OCA priests wouldn’t accept their Kyiv Patriarchate Ukrainian Orthodox baptism - the UOC-KP isn’t in communion with the Eastern Orthodox.)

Thank you very much. This is a learning curve for myself, and maybe for others.

God’s peace

micah

 

[mercytruth]

LDS belief is that through revelation from God, Joseph Smith restored the original teachings of Jesus and the Apostles (i.e., the nature of God and baptism by only immersion are two good examples of that.) It would also be appropriate for an LDS prophet to reveal something new in the latter days that wasn’t needful for the ancient Church. Joseph Smith has prophesied of events that have since happened (i.e., the American Civil War), and events that haven’t happened (New Jerusalem built in the Americas). I don’t have the time now but it would not be hard to find Biblical prophesies that both have occurred and that haven’t yet happened.

No where in the Bible does It state that there will be no additional revelation beyond what’s in the Bible.

The LDS Ninth Article of Faith states "We believe all that God has revealed,

all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

Manifesto is an example of change within Mormon doctrine of which I was speaking

Manifesto.
A declaration signed by fourth LDS President Wilford Woodruff in 1890, officially promising the abolition of the practice of polygamy. This was in response to allegations that Mormon leaders were still teaching and encouraging the practice of plural marriage though it was illegal. Woodruff claimed these charges were false and that the leaders were not “teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice.” Long after this promise was made, future presidents Joseph F. Smith and Heber J. Grant were arrested, tried, and convicted of unlawful co-habitation (polygamy). Early Mormon leaders taught the doctrine of polygamy could not be overturned as this was an essential step to godhood. Interestingly, Wilford Woodruff, who signed the Manifesto in 1890, made this statement in 1869: “If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians …” (Journal of Discourses 13:166).

mrm.org/a-z

God’s peace

micah

 

[RebeccaJ]

Frankly I agree with 90% of what you said. mercytruth seemed to argue against revelation and you said that the Catholic Bishops are guided by the Holy Ghost, which means that you believe they are receiving revelation. LDS also agree that doctrine is unchanging, but that practices can change. Peter’s vision gave him a revelatory nudge to put into practice Christ’s commision to preach the Gospel to all the world.

You need to understand revelation as Catholics do. Jesus Christ is God’s final and perfect Word. Mormonism doesn’t accept this, and seems to be always in search, and claiming to have found, something that Jesus left out. What that is, who can say. I’ve asked Mormons and none can seem answer what it is they are looking for, that isn’t found in Jesus Christ.

But, Mormonism and therefore Mormons have pride in themselves for having something more than Christ Himself. Additional so-called scripture, some of that is in complete opposition to the Word of God.

Mormons never seem to be satisfied that Truth is found in a person, Jesus Christ. Not in Joseph Smith, his successors, or in the casting of net out to “truth” in a myriad of beliefs and practices. You look to false prophets to give you something more, when everything has already been given to us by Christ.

You should have concern for your soul. Turn away from false prophets and turn to Christ.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

66 “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith.
It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations.”

This is backed up by St John’s gospel:
John XV:
15 I do not speak of you any more as my servants; a servant is one who does not understand what his master is about, whereas I have made known to you all that my Father has told me; and so I have called you my friends. 16 It was not you that chose me, it was I that chose you. The task I have appointed you is to go out and bear fruit, fruit which will endure; so that every request you make of the Father in my name may be granted you. 17 These are the directions I give you, that you should love one another.[a]

Christ has made all things pertaining to salvation known to his apostles.

 

[gazelam]

micah,
I sincerely wish God’s peace to you too.

Manifesto is an example of change within Mormon doctrine of which I was speaking

God’s peace

micah

The manifesto is not a change in Mormon doctrine, but rather a change in Mormon practice. Regarding polygamy, the Book of Mormon in Jacob 2:26-30 (with verse 30 referring to polygamy without specifically using the word) states:

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

So, Mormon belief is that God can command the practice of polygamy if He sees fit to do so. In these last days God introduced and initiated the practice via Joseph Smith and ending it via Wilford Woodruff. No doctrine changed when Wilford Woodruff declared God’s commandment to end polygamy.

Regarding the term “revelation”, perhaps we are speaking past each other per RebeccaJ’s recent comment. For LDS, revelation is any time knowledge is divinely communicated to an individual. Revelation can be a thought placed in someone’s mind by the Holy Ghost to help someone in need, it can be a vision, it can be a dream, and it can be new guidance and/or doctrine from God to the entire Church via the Prophet. If the revelation you’re referring to is the Church-wide type then I agree that there may be times when God directs his Church to change course. The Bible recounts various course corrections based on the condition of the people.

Finally, regarding the Wilford Woodruff comment from 1869, I’d say that’s his opinion and God later corrected his. In explaining the 1890 Manifesto to the Latter-day Saint Wilford Woodruff wrote this:

"The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?"

I hope this help. I’m probably in somewhat over my head now!

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

micah,
I sincerely wish God’s peace to you too.

The manifesto is not a change in Mormon doctrine, but rather a change in Mormon practice.

I made a new thread for this subject to keep this thread on topic.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9920379

 

[mercytruth]

micah,
I sincerely wish God’s peace to you too.

The manifesto is not a change in Mormon doctrine, but rather a change in Mormon practice. Regarding polygamy, the Book of Mormon in Jacob 2:26-30 (with verse 30 referring to polygamy without specifically using the word) states:

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

So, Mormon belief is that God can command the practice of polygamy if He sees fit to do so. In these last days God introduced and initiated the practice via Joseph Smith and ending it via Wilford Woodruff. No doctrine changed when Wilford Woodruff declared God’s commandment to end polygamy.

Regarding the term “revelation”, perhaps we are speaking past each other per RebeccaJ’s recent comment. For LDS, revelation is any time knowledge is divinely communicated to an individual. Revelation can be a thought placed in someone’s mind by the Holy Ghost to help someone in need, it can be a vision, it can be a dream, and it can be new guidance and/or doctrine from God to the entire Church via the Prophet. If the revelation you’re referring to is the Church-wide type then I agree that there may be times when God directs his Church to change course. The Bible recounts various course corrections based on the condition of the people.

Finally, regarding the Wilford Woodruff comment from 1869, I’d say that’s his opinion and God later corrected his. In explaining the 1890 Manifesto to the Latter-day Saint Wilford Woodruff wrote this:

"The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?"

I hope this help. I’m probably in somewhat over my head now!

I would never judge another person’s heart, who has the faith that is preached by apostolic tradition and holy scriptures. As I said earlier, literally, the Mormon church teaches the gospel rightly for the most part, but the esoteric terms of the leaders of the church mean something else. This is where the deception arises, along with the false teachings of the false prophet, Joseph Smith.

"Revelation’ can mean different things to different people. The source of revelation can come from God, from Satan or from self-deception. If it contradicts the holy scriptures it is not from God.

Joseph Smith’s revelation that New Jerusalem will come to the United States is not from God. It is a representation of the ‘capstone’ descending upon the pyramid of the dollar bill.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I would never judge another person’s heart, who has the faith that is preached by apostolic tradition and holy scriptures. As I said earlier, literally, the Mormon church teaches the gospel rightly for the most part, but the esoteric terms of the leaders of the church mean something else. This is where the deception arises, along with the false teachings of the false prophet, Joseph Smith.

"Revelation’ can mean different things to different people. The source of revelation can come from God, from Satan or from self-deception. If it contradicts the holy scriptures it is not from God.

Joseph Smith’s revelation that New Jerusalem will come to the United States is not from God. It is a representation of the ‘capstone’ descending upon the pyramid of the dollar bill.

God’s peace be with you

micah

Again, I made a thread just for this discussion. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9920379