Why are Mormon baptisms invalid?

[Andrew_Larkoski]

“[T]he Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith determined that the faith of Mormons is sufficiently different from Christian doctrine so that the baptism conferred by that sect has a different significance. The Congregation notes that the Mormons believe that ‘God the father had a wife, the Celestial Mother, with whom he procreated Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.’ The Vatican concluded, therefore, that ‘this is not the Baptism that Christ instituted.’”
-Catholic World News

 

[Apologia100]

Because to be validly baptised you have to have a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead. Since the Mormons teach a very corrupt version of the nature of God, their baptisms cannot be considered valid.

 

[larryo]

Apologia100:

Because to be validly baptised you have to have a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead. Since the Mormons teach a very corrupt version of the nature of God, their baptisms cannot be considered valid.

Exactly right! In addition, Mormons practice baptism of the dead. That is why the Mormons gather all that genealogical information that is stored in Salt Lake City. The Mormons also believe in a plurality of gods and that Jesus was originally a man who became a god.

 

[darcee]

Personally I was glad to be baptized when I became Catholic even though I had been baptized in the LDS church.What I found a bit more confusing was that LDS temple marriages are considered valid.
-D

 

[rod_of_iron]

Apologia100:

Because to be validly baptised you have to have a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead.

Really? I don’t remember Jesus telling His disciples to baptize only those who have a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead. According to the Great Commission in Mark 16, the apostles were to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the Triune Godhead. All who believed were to be baptized, and in turn, were to receive salvation.

Apologia100:

Since the Mormons teach a very corrupt version of the nature of God, their baptisms cannot be considered valid.

I don’t see how a person’s understanding of the nature of God affects his or her baptism. Legitimate baptism depends on what authority the one performing the baptism has when baptizing. It’s all about authority, not understanding the nature of God. Of course, you must have enough understanding that you are sinful and need Jesus to atone for your sins. Then you must have faith that Jesus can atone for your sins, and then you must repent of those sins. But a proper understand on the Triune Godhead is not a requirement I have found in the Bible.

But let’s presume that such a requirement does exist. If a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead is required before a valid baptism can take place, the Catholic church would be greatly condemned. Since a majority of Catholics were baptized as babies, how could the above requirement apply? How many newborn babies have you witnessed being baptized who have a proper understanding of anything, let alone the Triune Godhead. If such a requirement does exist, the Catholic church is obviously failing to obey it.

 

[Writer]

I think the plain and simple fact is that the Mormon Chuch, although filled with very nice folks, is a false belief system. It is authored by a man (who, as I recall reading in college, stole the whole religious system from a fiction writer he was rooming with) and not by Christ. It is a perversion of the Gospel and therefore not given weight or authority within the true Church.

 

[Katholikos]

darcee:

Personally I was glad to be baptized when I became Catholic even though I had been baptized in the LDS church.What I found a bit more confusing was that LDS temple marriages are considered valid.

-D

Didn’t know that! Would you share your source? Thanks. Jay

 

[darcee]

Katholikos:

Didn’t know that! Would you share your source? Thanks. Jay

My archdiocese’s tribunal.

-D

 

[AmandaPS]

What was the reason why temple marriages were valid?

 

[Katholikos]

Mormon baptism is not valid because it isn’t Christian baptism. Mormons aren’t Christians. They have tried to hijack the Christian religion by using Christian names for their “gods,” but it’s false Christianity. Mormons begin with polytheism, and it goes downhill from there. Their idea of who Jesus is, and his pre-existence, is shocking to a Christian (at least to this one!).

David B. Barrett in his World Christian Encyclopedia (2001) lists Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others as “marginal Christians.” I think even that’s a stretch. There is nothing Christian about them.

“The Father [God the Father] has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son [Jesus] also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit” Doctrine and Covenents 130:22 (one of four “scriptures” Mormons use). The Father, one of many gods, is the God of the planet earth. He lives on the planet Kolob. Lucifer (aka Satan) is the brother of Jesus.

Mormon men – if they give 10% of their income to the Mormon Church and meet other requirements – are promised that after death they, too, will become gods and rule over their own planet, just like Heavenly Father, who was once a man like them.

Christian? Uh uh.

Houston, we got a problem.

Roma locota est; causa finita est. Rome has spoken, the case is closed.

JMJ Jay

 

[darcee]

AmandaPS:

What was the reason why temple marriages were valid?

A marriage is assumed valid unless it is not valid.

My thought was that the marriage would be invalid along that same lines of why the baptizm was, a completely different understanding of what marriage is. I could also have seen a case for Pauline Privilege.

I can see why that would not be the case now, but I was somewhat surprised.

-D

 

[Robert_in_SD]

rod of iron:

Really? I don’t remember Jesus telling His disciples to baptize only those who have a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead. According to the Great Commission in Mark 16, the apostles were to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the Triune Godhead. All who believed were to be baptized, and in turn, were to receive salvation.

I don’t see how a person’s understanding of the nature of God affects his or her baptism. Legitimate baptism depends on what authority the one performing the baptism has when baptizing. It’s all about authority, not understanding the nature of God. Of course, you must have enough understanding that you are sinful and need Jesus to atone for your sins. Then you must have faith that Jesus can atone for your sins, and then you must repent of those sins. But a proper understand on the Triune Godhead is not a requirement I have found in the Bible.

But let’s presume that such a requirement does exist. If a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead is required before a valid baptism can take place, the Catholic church would be greatly condemned. Since a majority of Catholics were baptized as babies, how could the above requirement apply? How many newborn babies have you witnessed being baptized who have a proper understanding of anything, let alone the Triune Godhead. If such a requirement does exist, the Catholic church is obviously failing to obey it.

Dear rod of iron;

With all charity, I think the point being made was that the church that does the baptizing - and not the one being baptized - must have a proper doctrinal understanding of the nature of the triune Godhead to perform a baptism “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spriti” that would be recognized as valid. Because the LDS church professes a very unique understanding of the Trinity that is far removed from the doctrine accepted by the Catholic Church (and most other mainstream Christian religions), a baptism performed by an LDS member - regretably - cannnot be deemed valid by the Catholic Church.

Perhaps LDS marriages are acknowledged because the LDS understanding of marriage is sufficiently similar to the Catholic understanding of the sacrament of marriage? I don’t know the answer to that one, but would guess that’s probably the reason why LDS marriages are found to be valid while LDS baptisms are not.

Yours in Christ,
Robert in SD

 

[Katholikos]

darcee:

A marriage is assumed valid unless it is not valid.

My thought was that the marriage would be invalid along that same lines of why the baptizm was, a completely different understanding of what marriage is. I could also have seen a case for Pauline Privilege.

I can see why that would not be the case now, but I was somewhat surprised.-D

The Church assumes all marriages are valid unless granted a declaration of nullity. This includes marriages between upbaptized couples, Christians of any denomination, JWs, Mormons, Jewish and Moslem couples, atheists, civil marriages, any marriage.

In other words, unless a marriage is submitted to the Church’s court (marriage tribunal) for a determination of its validity, the Church would not call it into question. But that’s not the same as holding that all such marriages are, in fact,valid. The Church passes judgment only when she is asked to do so. The question for the Church is, was the marriage sacramental.

A divorced Mormon who became a Catholic would have to go through the tribunal for a ruling on their original marriage if they wished to marry again in the Church, just as a divorced former Methodist would. But a Mormon couple who both converted could simply be married by a priest or deacon. It would only be a problem if there were a second marriage, with a different spouse, involved.

I think I got that right. Someone will let me know if I didn’t.

JMJ Jay

 

[Dr_Paul]

rod of iron:

Really? I don’t remember Jesus telling His disciples to baptize only those who have a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead. According to the Great Commission in Mark 16, the apostles were to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not the Triune Godhead. All who believed were to be baptized, and in turn, were to receive salvation.

Take a look at Matthew 28:19

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

 

[darcee]

Katholikos:

The Church assumes all marriages are valid unless granted a declaration of nullity. This includes marriages between upbaptized couples, Christians of any denomination, JWs, Mormons, Jewish and Moslem couples, atheists, civil marriages, any marriage.

In other words, unless a marriage is submitted to the Church’s court (marriage tribunal) for a determination of its validity, the Church would not call it into question. But that’s not the same as holding that all such marriages are, in fact,valid. The Church passes judgment only when she is asked to do so. The question for the Church is, was the marriage sacramental.

A divorced Mormon who became a Catholic would have to go through the tribunal for a ruling on their original marriage if they wished to marry again in the Church, just as a divorced former Methodist would. But a Mormon couple who both converted could simply be married by a priest or deacon. It would only be a problem if there were a second marriage, with a different spouse, involved.

I think I got that right. Someone will let me know if I didn’t.

JMJ Jay

Almost… or I should say right in so far as it is. If a Mormon couple converted their marriage would only be blessed they would not have to be re-married in the Catholic Church is my understanding.

The marriage is on the first face valid just not sacramental.

-D

 

[Tmaque]

It’s ironic that Rod of Iron takes offense at the Catholic Church for not recognizing Mormon baptisms but is perfectly fine with the LDS doctrine of rejecting baptisms of any religion but their own.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Dr Paul:

Take a look at Matthew 28:19

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

I don’t see what the problem is. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three titles that the one being we know as God has been called. They are three titles for one being, one person. But yet in Matthew 28:19, Jesus does not ask His apostles if they have a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead. I do not find that requirement anywhere. The Catholic church obviously has made up that stipulation, for it is not found in scripture. The only thing that is important for the one performing the baptism to have is the proper authority from God to baptize. When Jesus commanded His apostles in the above scripture, His command was the giving of that authority. By Jesus commanding them to baptize, He was giving them the authority to do so. But again, Jesus never made the stipulation to them that they had to have a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead. That stipulation is not supported by the Bible.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Tmaque:

It’s ironic that Rod of Iron takes offense at the Catholic Church for not recognizing Mormon baptisms but is perfectly fine with the LDS doctrine of rejecting baptisms of any religion but their own.

Who said that I recognize LDS baptisms? I am not LDS. Why would I recognize the baptism of a church that I do not believe has authority from God? I do not believe that the Roman Catholic church nor the LDS church have the authority to baptize, so your point seems irrelevant.

 

[Tmaque]

rod of iron:

Who said that I recognize LDS baptisms? I am not LDS. Why would I recognize the baptism of a church that I do not believe has authority from God? I do not believe that the Roman Catholic church nor the LDS church have the authority to baptize, so your point seems irrelevant.

I didn’t say you recognize anything. I said “It’s ironic that Rod of Iron takes offense at the Catholic Church for not recognizing Mormon baptisms but is perfectly fine with the LDS doctrine of rejecting baptisms of any religion but their own.”

So my question to you is why aren’t you criticizing Mormons for not recognizing the baptisms of ANY church but their own? After all, you’re criticizing Catholics for not recognizing Mormon baptisms in particular.

 

[Tmaque]

rod of iron:

I don’t see what the problem is. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three titles that the one being we know as God has been called. They are three titles for one being, one person. But yet in Matthew 28:19, Jesus does not ask His apostles if they have a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead. I do not find that requirement anywhere. The Catholic church obviously has made up that stipulation, for it is not found in scripture. The only thing that is important for the one performing the baptism to have is the proper authority from God to baptize. When Jesus commanded His apostles in the above scripture, His command was the giving of that authority. By Jesus commanding them to baptize, He was giving them the authority to do so. But again, Jesus never made the stipulation to them that they had to have a proper understanding of the Triune Godhead. That stipulation is not supported by the Bible.

Are you saying that all you need is the proper verbage to have a valid baptism? So if I’m baptizing and I believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are really Larry, Moe and Curly or the Three Little Pigs the baptism is still valid?