SPLIT: Mormon teaching and Trinitarian baptism

I’m not a Protestant, so I didn’t take any personal offense. This is more of a general respect thing. From your quote in the OP (starting “Protestants don’t have a Deposit…”) you make several blanket statements, such as

  1. Protestants don’t have a Deposit of Faith
  2. nor do they have Liturgy (or Liturgical Calendar)
  3. they don’t really have doctrines.
  4. They see the Christian faith as something we all individually derive from scratch for ourselves, with each of us deciding what is and is not doctrine.

None of these statements are true for all Protestant groups, or even most of them.

Well then let me ask you this. Are you what’s known as “a true blue” Mormon?

Getting to know people is great and I’m all in favor of it, but isn’t it a fundamental Mormon belief that Jesus was not god but became God here on this earth and that faithful Mormons can do that same thing on other worlds?

Also, can you please explain to us Mormon teaching on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

These may seem off topic but they are directly related to it.:thumbsup:
Thanks in advance.

Could you help me understand how this relates to the topic at hand? Mormons aren’t even Protestants. (I’ll gladly answer your questions, I’m just trying to figure if this is right venue or a new thread would be better).

Sure! :slight_smile:

You see, Mormon teaching on the Trinity and deity of Jesus is relevant to this topic with regard to validity of baptism.

The question of being a “true blue” is just so I know how closely you follow your faith. No offense intended at all.

I too considered the possibility of a new thread, but if we keep it in this context it should be fine.

Thanks.:thumbsup:

I think a new thread would be best, since this thread is about Protestants. (I’m big on trying not to de-rail)

Jesus is God, the Son of God to be specific.

Anything about “other worlds” is speculation. There are no scriptures on such thing (LDS do have an open cannon) or official statements, nor is it actually discussed in LDS church. All in all not much known, nor is it deemed of importance. Yes, I know a Catholic will jump and say “how is that not of critical importance” but from the LDS perspective it is totally not. I can elaborate more on this, if desired.

Actual LDS belief: yes, a person may become like God and join Him as a joint-heir in Christ. Excellent resource on this: lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

(Doing this in quick sum up mode, and tying it to baptism as requested)
LDS and Nicene Christian all agree on the following:
There is ONE God.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are all God.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are all three different persons, none of them being the other.
Baptisms are done in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost”
There is still only ONE God.

The key differences between the views are:
The way in which these three person are ONE God. Followers of the Athanasian Creed, point to consubstantiality. LDS point to unity.

Catholic views on LDS baptism:
LDS baptize by immersion in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost”. This is the proper form and implements (pardon me if I’m not remembering the appropriate terms here) needed for a Catholic baptism. But the understanding of the how the 3 are 1 differs. Upon much deliberation, recently (1990’s?) the Catholic Church officially declared that an LDS baptism was not valid. This is despite the fact that an atheist made validly baptize according to the Catholic church (granted this is not the desired route at all, done for emergencies).

LDS views on Catholic baptism:
LDS require a baptized person to be an accountable believer, the baptizer to be a LDS priest, and following the proper methodology (immersion, prayer). Therefore, LDS do not view Catholic baptisms as valid.

The views on what baptism is and what it means also differs between the two churches.
[/quote]

Just wondered, since I had learned the “true blue” term from Mormons on one of their forums.:shrug:

It seems similar to what we would refer to as a devout practicing Catholic.

(Rest of these questions have been rehashed a million times so I’ll just give you the quick sum up of both sides)

Jesus is God, the Son of God to be specific.

Anything about “other worlds” is speculation. There are no scriptures on such thing (LDS do have an open cannon) or official statements, nor is it actually discussed in LDS church. All in all not much known, nor is it deemed of importance. Yes, I know a Catholic will jump and say “how is that not of critical importance” but from the LDS perspective it is totally not. I can elaborate more on this, if desired.

Actual LDS belief: yes, a person may become like God and join Him as a joint-heir in Christ. Excellent resource on this: lds.org/topics/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

Thank you. I’ll check the link. :slight_smile:

(Doing this in quick sum up mode, and tying it to baptism as requested)
LDS and Nicene Christian all agree on the following:
There is ONE God.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are all God.
The Father, Son, and Spirit are all three different persons, none of them being the other.
Baptisms are done in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost”
There is still only ONE God.

The key differences between the views are:
The way in which these three person are ONE God. Followers of the Athanasian Creed, point to consubstantiality. LDS point to unity.

Can you explain what exactly you mean by that unity as opposed to consubstantiality?

[FONT=Verdana][size=2]Catholic views on LDS baptism:
LDS baptize by immersion in the name of the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit/Ghost”. This is the proper form and implements (pardon me if I’m not remembering the appropriate terms here) needed for a Catholic baptism. But the understanding of the how the 3 are 1 differs. Upon much deliberation, recently (1990’s?) the Catholic Church officially declared that an LDS baptism was not valid. ** This is despite the fact that an atheist made validly baptize according to the Catholic church (granted this is not the desired route at all, done for emergencies)**[/size].[/FONT]

This is correct. If the person is in danger of death then that is the mitigation. Is it not reasonable and does Mormonism have any similar provisions?

LDS views on Catholic baptism:
LDS require a baptized person to be an accountable believer, the baptizer to be a LDS priest, and following the proper methodology (immersion, prayer). Therefore, LDS do not view Catholic baptisms as valid.

Understood. Has this always been so or is it also a more recent decision?

The views on what baptism is and what it means also differs between the two churches.

Thank you.

Are you familiar with the King Follett Discourse?

Also, with regard to baptism*, can you explain your baptism for the dead. *What exactly do you believe that baptism does?

Ah, I see. An “active” Mormon would be more of a synonym to “devout practicing Catholic” (which I certainly am). The term “true blue” Mormon comes with connotations of traditionally, a certain culture, and a few other stereotypes (hence my personal resistance to using the term at all- I really dislike stereotypes).

I’m sure you’re very aware of consubstantiality, so I’ll focus on unity. Throughout scripture God commands people to be one (spouses, families, nations, etc). This oneness is commanded through unity: be of one heart, one mind, one will, etc. Nothing about sharing of a substance. Likewise, Christ prays that we be one with God as He and the Father are one: sharing a of a single unified heart/mind/will/etc. Nothing about substance.

From the Catholic theology on baptism, it is pretty reasonable. I am unclear as to the logic behind why (for example) baptized LDS during their life and then dies is considered unbaptized at death, however an atheist baptized by an atheist in considered validly baptized at death.

From the LDS theology on baptism there is no such thing as an emergency baptism because a person may be baptized after death. More on that: lds.org/topics/baptisms-for-the-dead?lang=eng

Correct.

Thoroughly. A critical note on that: it is speculation, not scripture cannon nor infallible.

LDS perspective on what baptism is NOT: an erasing of guilt/sin from Adam’s fall. No one besides Adam is held responsible for that, and each of us carry no guilt from that.

LDS perspective on what baptism IS: that person and the Lord entering into a covenant. Therein, that person’s sins are watched away and they are reborn as a disciple of Christ, covenanting to follow Him. This is essential for salvation of accountable individuals (whether the baptism happen in this life or the next). Little children are not accountable for their transgressions and are redeemed straight through the grace of Christ.

Just to be clear: consubstantiation is a Protestant doctrine, as opposed to transubstantiation which is held by the Catholic Church? Also, when you say “correct,” which statement are you referring to: did the LDS recently state that Catholic baptism is invalid or is this a long-held belief? Finally, are the LDS “unified” in their belief about baptism as you describe it, or are there different beliefs depending on divisions among Mormons?

Could you elaborate on the difference?

It has always been thus. My apologies for the poorly phrased answer before.

The is only one Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nicknamed LDS or Mormon. It has one leadership and one belief, such as the key issue of baptism. There are no rites or such divisions. Minor/speculative beliefs will vary between different Mormons, but we all attend the same church and congregations are not aligned one way or the other.

Groups which have left the LDS church are not part of the LDS church, have different beliefs, and (from the LDS perspective) do not hold the priesthood. They cannot validly baptize.

You must have mistaken me for another user, as I can assure you my post was two sentences long and did not include any of the above list you mentioned.

Oh, my mistake. I thought that original post quote was yours.

Sorry my friend but you’re confused on that.

Transubstantiation refers to the real presence of the body and blood, soul and divinity of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist (communion) but does not refer at all to the Trinity nor the Deity of Jesus, and in that regard we do indeed profess that all members of the Trinity are consubstantial or "one in Being. " and all equally divine. See the Nicene Creed below.

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I hope that helps you both. :slight_smile:

Jane,
A couple of points:

  1. While its true that an atheist could, in theory, validly baptize someone, he or she would still have to consciously intend to “do what the Church does” when the Church baptizes. It would have to be a pretty extraordinary situation for an atheist to have such an intention. Of course ultimately all sacraments are actions of Christ the High Priest, so if such a baptism was valid, it would only be so because Christ acted through the imperfect vessel of this hypothetical atheist.

  2. While Mormon baptism is not considered valid ,that doesn’t necessarily mean that all Mormons die without the graces of baptism. Catholicism has always taught the doctrine of “baptism of desire”. It is understood that this desire can be implicit…as in, if one understood that Christ commands baptism, one would be baptized. Trusting in the Lord’s mercy, I would hope that many well meaning Mormons fall into this category and thus, by means known only to God, receive the graces of baptism before entering into eternity.

  3. Your characterization of Mormon baptism is not, I think, at odds with the Catholic understanding of baptism. Your characterization of Catholic baptism is a bit off. While it is a common misconception that Catholics believe that all men are born guilty of Adam’s sin, this is not actually the Church’s teaching. I quote from the Catechism:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

My atheist aunt is a labor and delivery nurse. As part of her training, she is trained in how to administer an infant baptism, in case of imminent death and at the parents’ request. Does that count as such an intention? She has never attended Catholic church and is quite biased agains them (and pretty much any organized faith).

I am actually aware of that :slight_smile:

How do you figure? Catholics do not view baptism as a covenant/promise between God and the person being baptized.

I actually specifically did not characterized the Catholic baptism. I figured that the knowable Catholics on the forum didn’t need a student like me imperfectly telling them their own doctrine ;). Hence I just covered what the LDS baptism is and is not. I do very much appreciate the Catechism quote.

Regarding your aunt, I’m not familiar with that sort of situation. Was her training provided by a Catholic chaplain, or is it more generic? There are, after all, various traditions that practice infant baptism: Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians… probably others.
I would think Catholic parents would do it themselves in an emergency situation, unless physically unable to do so.

I’m not sure why Catholic baptism wouldn’t be seen as a covenant - or at least the means by which one enters into the New Covenant between Christ and the Church. It is the fulfillment of circumcision which was the means by which one entered into the Old Covenant - CCC:

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: “Therefore . . . we are members one of another.” Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”

OK - I just wanted to clarify as original sin is often misunderstood. Baptism is ultimately about “putting on Christ”, as Scripture says…it is the first step in theosis…man’s mystical union with God.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.