Was the Vatican ruling against Mormon baptisms unprecendented?

[Stephen168]

If that’s true then how can an emergency baptism by an atheist be considered valid, when the atheist’s view of the Trinity is that it doesn’t exist?

The atheist would have to have proper intent. If they don’t, it isn’t valid.
An atheist might have proper intent but the Mormon Church does not.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

If that’s true then how can an emergency baptism by an atheist be considered valid, when the atheist’s view of the Trinity is that it doesn’t exist?

The atheist would have to have proper intent. If they don’t, it isn’t valid.
An atheist might have proper intent but the Mormon Church does not.

You haven’t answered Yarb’s question, Stephen.

 

[Stephen168]

This doesn’t in any way answer my question, and I’m starting to come up short with more ways to explain something that should be patently obvious to anyone reading. Nobody here (as far as I can tell) is taking with issue with non-Trinitarianism theoretically informing the intent of a baptizer or the baptized. I’m taking issue with that explanation not being universally applied leading to historical contradiction. Maybe some propositional logic is in order by means of the old Modus Ponens:

If P, then Q
P is true
Therefore Q is true

P=Proper Intent
Q=Valid Baptism

If the baptizer or baptized profess non-Trinitarian belief, then the baptism is invalid.
X professes non-Trinitarian belief,
Therefore X’s baptisms are invalid.

This is a sound deductive argument. IF premises used to arrive at conclusion Q are true, then the conclusion must be true (this is a logical proof). X can be any group that in fact is non-Trinitarian.

X is one of many factors to arrive at P. ABC…YZ are unknown, so P is unknown.

Now let’s plug and chug X with real examples and see if Q universally comes up as true in regards to the Catholic Church’s teachings:

Mormons are non-Trinitarian. I assume you don’t dispute this premise. X = Mormons:
We therefore have:

If the baptizer or baptized profess non-Trinitarian belief, then the baptism is invalid.
Mormons profess non-Trinitarian belief,
**Therefore Mormon baptisms are invalid.
**
The conclusion is undeniably true (The Church has in fact said Mormon baptisms are invalid).

The Church said Mormon baptism is invalid due to P and X is one of the factors to arrive at P.

But are the premises which lead us to that conclusion true? That’s what I’m doubting, simply because if we substitute “Arians” for X, we get:

If the baptizer or baptized profess non-Trinitarian belief, then the baptism is invalid.
Arians profess non-Trinitarian belief,
**Therefore Arian baptisms are invalid.
**
Notice that the structure of this deductive argument has not changed. It is still a perfectly sound deductive argument. We know matter-of-fact that the conclusion (Arian baptisms are invalid) is false because the Church does not view Arian baptisms as invalid. One or more of the premises which led us to this false conclusion must be false, otherwise we end up with a logically contradictory statement of Q & not Q.

There are only two premises in this syllogism, so which one (if not both) are false:

1. If the baptizer or baptized profess non-Trinitarian belief, then the baptism is invalid.
2. Arians profess non-Trinitarian belief

Since premise #2 is undoubtedly false, as history can attest, premise #1 must be false.

Again P does not equal X, so depending on ABC…YZ , P can have different valid outcomes.

 

[Stephen168]

You haven’t answered Yarb’s question, Stephen.

yes, I did.

 

[Stephen168]

(S)he is, like myself, taking issue with the Trinity being used as an explanation in and of itself.

The Church never used the trinity as an explanation in and of itself. Something, I’ve been trying to explain. As long as s/he just looks at one reason s/he will only see it as a reason in and of itself.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

P=Proper Intent
Q=Valid Baptism

X is one of many factors to arrive at P. ABC…YZ are unknown, so P is unknown.

The Church said Mormon baptism is invalid due to P and X is one of the factors to arrive at P.

Again P does not equal X, so depending on ABC…YZ , P can have different valid outcomes.

I cannot make any sense of this since you’re redefining variables.

In any case we seem to be talking past each other. We agree that Matter and Form is satisfied in LDS baptisms but proper intent is lacking, yes?

How is the intent insufficient? Is it because the LDS consider baptism a pre-Christian ordinance? I can get on board with this. Is it because the LDS don’t intent to wash away Original Sin as they don’t believe it exists? I can get on board with this.

What I cannot get on board with is that non-Trinitarianism is even sufficient to show that LDS lack proper intent, otherwise we’d have to conclude that Arian baptism also lacks proper intent for the same reason, and would therefore also be invalid. This would be logically contradictory as I proved above with a Modus Ponens.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

If that’s true then how can an emergency baptism by an atheist be considered valid, when the atheist’s view of the Trinity is that it doesn’t exist?

The atheist would have to have proper intent. If they don’t, it isn’t valid.
An atheist might have proper intent but the Mormon Church does not.

You haven’t answered Yarb’s question, Stephen.

yes, I did.

In other words:

Atheists have proper intent and Mormons do, because they just don’t? This is circular reasoning.

 

[Stephen168]

In other words:

Atheists have proper intent and Mormons do, because they just don’t? This is circular reasoning.

no, in other words:
An Atheist may or may not have proper intent, we don’t know because the Atheist is an individual. Of course claiming an atheist would have proper intent is highly unlikely but theoretically possible. The Mormon Church does not have proper intent; no chance.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

The Church never used the trinity as an explanation in and of itself. Something, I’ve been trying to explain.

With due respect, it seems to me that you’ve been talking out of both sides of your mouth. In some posts you seem to agree that non-Trinitarianism is not sufficient to deem proper intent lacking, and yet in others you seem to be arguing in favor of proper Trinitarian belief as satisfying proper intent. So which is it?

Concerning what the Church has said, I haven’t seen anyone yet provide definitive teaching by the Magisterium as to why LDS baptisms lack proper intent. All we have are us individuals here speculating as to what it may be, which is fine. We have some good hypotheses here (lack of Original Sin, baptism as a pre-Christian ordinance, among others), and we also have one awful hypothesis which has been advanced by a number of people here, which I have subsequently disproved using propositional logic.

As long as s/he just looks at one reason s/he will only see it as a reason in and of itself.

And? What’s wrong with that? It’s a good exercise in critical thinking to dissect an argument and weed out false premises or unsound logic even if your conclusion is true.

If folks were arguing that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west because:

1. The Earth rotates on its axis in an east-to-west fashion, and
2. Gremlins in the core of the Earth are effecting such a rotation through a complicated system of levers and pulleys.

most reasonable people would say “Dude, you have a true conclusion (The Sun rises in the east), and some of your premises are true (The Earth rotates on its axis in an east-to-west fashion), but Gremlins? Seriously?” and wouldn’t be accused of some kind of a special agenda.

 

[Stephen168]

I cannot make any sense of this since you’re redefining variables.

I was defining terms to make the ideas accurate.

In any case we seem to be talking past each other. We agree that Matter and Form is satisfied in LDS baptisms but proper intent is lacking, yes?

Yes

How is the intent insufficient? Is it because the LDS consider baptism a pre-Christian ordinance? I can get on board with this. Is it because the LDS don’t intent to wash away Original Sin as they don’t believe it exists? I can get on board with this.

The article said it was because Mormons believe in three gods and consider baptism a pre-Christian ordinance.

What I cannot get on board with is that non-Trinitarianism is even sufficient to show that LDS lack proper intent, ………

It is one thing, not the only thing. And as we have said, there are many, many, ways to not be orthodox Trinitarian but still be close enough. Mormons are not even close.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

no, in other words:
An Atheist may or may not have proper intent, we don’t know because the Atheist is an individual. Of course claiming an atheist would have proper intent is highly unlikely but theoretically possible. The Mormon Church does not have proper intent; no chance.

And why is that? What about LDS intent makes it improper?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I was defining terms to make the ideas accurate.

You only redefined P and Q, and then brought in X without redefining it, while I defined X as any non-Trinitarian group. To make your own Modus Ponens argument you need to define all your variables please. Better that you just take the argument I made and either

1. Agree with it
2. Show me how the logic is not valid (i.e. that the actual form of the argument does not follow),
3. Show me how the premise(s) are false.

If you cannot do #2 or #3, then by definition I have a sound, deductive argument, and the conclusion must be true. Are you familiar with propositional logic?

The article said it was because Mormons believe in three gods and consider baptism a pre-Christian ordinance.

Fair enough. We now have:

Premise 1: If the baptizer or baptized profess belief in multiple gods, then the baptism is invalid.
Premise 2: Mormons profess belief in multiple gods.
Conclusion: Therefore Mormon baptism is invalid.

Are the premises true? Check! I cannot think of any cases where a non-monotheist has been deemed to have effected a valid baptism, and Mormons indeed profess belief in multiple gods.

Is the form of the argument valid? Check! This is a classical Modus Ponens deductive argument.

The conclusion thus naturally follows.

It is one thing, not the only thing. And as we have said, there are many, many, ways to not be orthodox Trinitarian but still be close enough. Mormons are not even close.

Ah, this special pleading rears its ugly head again. So how close is close enough?

 

[Stephen168]

With due respect, it seems to me that you’ve been talking out of both sides of your mouth. In some posts you seem to agree that non-Trinitarianism is not sufficient to deem proper intent lacking, and yet in others you seem to be arguing in favor of proper Trinitarian belief as satisfying proper intent. So which is it?

There are many, many, ways to not be orthodox Trinitarian but still be close enough. Mormons are not even close

Concerning what the Church has said, I haven’t seen anyone yet provide definitive teaching by the Magisterium as to why LDS baptisms lack proper intent.

I provided a link to an article quoting a spokesman from the Church. In almost every post of mine I have referenced that article.

All we have are us individuals here speculating as to what it may be, which is fine. We have some good hypotheses here (lack of Original Sin, baptism as a pre-Christian ordinance, among others), and we also have one awful hypothesis which has been advanced by a number of people here, which I have subsequently disproved using propositional logic.

Again the ARTICLE said Mormons believe in three gods and baptism as a pre-Christian ordinance. You have logically disproved nothing.

And? What’s wrong with that? It’s a good exercise in critical thinking to dissect an argument and weed out false premises or unsound logic even if your conclusion is true.

If there are a list of reason to explain something and you insist on one it is just the opposite of critical thinking. It is sticking your head in the sand.

 

[Stephen168]

And why is that? What about LDS intent makes it improper?

Are you reading my responses?

The article said it was because Mormons believe in three gods and consider baptism a pre-Christian ordinance.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

There are many, many, ways to not be orthodox Trinitarian but still be close enough. Mormons are not even close

I provided a link to an article quoting a spokesman from the Church. In almost every post of mine I have referenced that article.

Are you talking about this article?
wwrn.org/articles/5920/?&place=vatican&section=mormon

 

[Stephen168]

So how close is close enough?

The article said it was because Mormons believe in three gods and consider baptism a pre-Christian ordinance.

Believing in one God would be closer. Not considering baptism a pre-Christian ordinance would be closer.

 

[Stephen168]

You only redefined P and Q, and then brought in X without redefining it, while I defined X as any non-Trinitarian group.

You had no defintion for P and Q, so I defined them. You defined X and then tried to make P and X the same. They are not.

 

[runningdude]

I would accept your understanding of the issue at hand more readily if it was not for the fact the Christadelphian Church has been around as long as the LDS, and the Christadelphian church is much, much smaller than the LDS.

However, I do not know at which point in time the Roman Catholic Church ruled that the baptisms of the Christadelphian Church were invalid. As for other ‘Christian groups’ having their baptisms ruled as invalid, it historically begins with an invalid means of matter and form. I do not know of any other ‘christian group’ besides the Christadelphians and the Mormons whose baptisms are ruled invalid because of ‘intent’ when they were using the correct matter and form, unless it is the Gnostic church in the U.S.

I respect your viewpoint on this issue.

God’s peace be with you

micah

I do not know the circumstances of the rejection of the Christadelphian baptism, whether it was a formal ruling by the Vatican, or if it were always presumed invalid by the local bishops where Christadelphians exist. I’ve tried finding documentation online, but couldn’t.

My belief is that the Vatican look into Mormonism when asked at a time when the LDS Church had grown substantially. If Christadelphian baptisms were rejected first, then it just means a bishop asked the Vatican about them first. Either Christadelphian baptisms were ruled invalid first, and thus served as precedent for rejecting Mormon baptism, or it was the other way around.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I really want to answer this post, Stephen, but I need to know if this is the article you’re referring to:

wwrn.org/articles/5920/?&place=vatican&section=mormon

There are many, many, ways to not be orthodox Trinitarian but still be close enough. Mormons are not even close

I provided a link to an article quoting a spokesman from the Church. In almost every post of mine I have referenced that article.

Again the ARTICLE said Mormons believe in three gods and baptism as a pre-Christian ordinance. You have logically disproved nothing.

If there are a list of reason to explain something and you insist on one it is just the opposite of critical thinking. It is sticking your head in the sand.

 

[Stephen168]

Are you talking about this article?
wwrn.org/articles/5920/?&place=vatican&section=mormon

I was curious what this means:

[The second key reason for the ruling, the Osservatore says, is the origin of the LDS baptism.

"The Mormon baptism, which would have its origins not in Christ but at the start of creation, is not a Christian baptism,"](http://wwrn.org/articles/5920/?&place=vatican&section=mormon) the Osservatore wrote.