Whistlers, Whittlers and on Being Called an Anti-Mormon – Mormon Exceptionalism from My Perspective

[Navidad]

24 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Honestly I am feeling somewhat ignored here. 

It seems like you keep thinking that I (other LDS folks) view non-LDS baptisms as not being important, transformative, or otherwise marks of a person truely coming to Christ---  when I have written quite passionately about how a non LDS baptism can indeed have all those qualities.   The disagreement on authority is a separate issue than a baptism being important, transformative, and that person coming closer to Christ. 

Normally, if this were some random conversation I would go "well, the person I'm talking to obviously doesn't want to listen to the truth and would instead rather be needlessly offended", and move on with life.  But you're not some random person- in fact I have a large respect for you, and your ability to listen.  Which is why I keep trying here, even though it's frustrating. 

I think you put it well. I am trying to let you know I am listening to you. I agree with you. I think the disagreement on authority is a separate issue from the one you raise. The authority one is the one that bothers me. Other folks might denigrate the entire process of non-LDS baptism. You do not. So you realize how important my baptism, together with its covenants is to me. The authority is the thing. I don't expect Saints to change their minds about that. My goodness if you look at other posts right now, just a name change is creating very strong discussion. i don't expect the Church to change its view on the exclusive nature of its authority. I just think that view is a barrier; a dividing mechanism. If a tree falls in the woods will anyone hear it? If Navidad says please realize this is a barrier for many non-LDS Christians will anyone hear me? Probably not, but that is ok. At least I said it in my own strange attempt at being helpful. I have two senior LDS elders coming to my house tonight. I will say the same thing to them. They will stare at me and say, but you will have the opportunity in the spirit world. I will sigh and we will take another bite of my wife's wonderful chocolate chip pumpkin cake!

[Jane_Doe]

22 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I think you put it well. I am trying to let you know I am listening to you. I agree with you. I think the disagreement on authority is a separate issue from the one you raise. The authority one is the one that bothers me. Other folks might denigrate the entire process of non-LDS baptism. You do not. So you realize how important my baptism, together with its covenants is to me. The authority is the thing. I don't expect Saints to change their minds about that. My goodness if you look at other posts right now, just a name change is creating very strong discussion. i don't expect the Church to change its view on the exclusive nature of its authority. I just think that view is a barrier; a dividing mechanism. If a tree falls in the woods will anyone hear it? If Navidad says please realize this is a barrier for many non-LDS Christians will anyone hear me? Probably not, but that is ok. At least I said it in my own strange attempt at being helpful. I have two senior LDS elders coming to my house tonight. I will say the same thing to them. They will stare at me and say, but you will have the opportunity in the spirit world. I will sigh and we will take another bite of my wife's wonderful chocolate chip pumpkin cake!

Standing from my shoes though, I don't find the elusive nature of other churches priesthood to be a barrier (I'm thinking of Catholics here, just because it's the one I have the most experience with).  I don't feel any offense or a barrier sitting on the sidelines during their Communion, or that they view me as not having a valid baptism due to perceived lack of authority.  I just... don't.  I get the fact that you do, and thank you for explaining it to me, but the feeling is completely foreign to me.  A Catholic is still my brother in Christ.

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I don't expect the Church to change its view on the exclusive nature of its authority. I just think that view is a barrier; a dividing mechanism.

Jesus Christ Himself is a barrier and a dividing mechanism by means of His authority (sheep and goats; wheat and tares, and all).  He is also an opportunity and a treasure.  Depends on how you choose to see it. 

I think the offense comes when you assume that we conclude that you must be a goat or a tare because you have not been baptized into His church.  We don’t.  That is the beauty of the restored gospel, it allows us to approach everyone without judging them, and without thinking that we are “exceptional” to them.  Even God waits to the end (AFTER the millennium) to judge, so who am I to so prematurely eschew or look down on one who is loved by him.  Not all Latter-day Saints will be exalted, and not all nonmembers will be disqualified.

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by pogi

[Navidad]

21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Standing from my shoes though, I don't find the elusive nature of other churches priesthood to be a barrier (I'm thinking of Catholics here, just because it's the one I have the most experience with).  I don't feel any offense or a barrier sitting on the sidelines during their Communion, or that they view me as not having a valid baptism due to perceived lack of authority.  I just... don't.  I get the fact that you do, and thank you for explaining it to me, but the feeling is completely foreign to me.  A Catholic is still my brother in Christ.

Hi - Catholics do all that; but they don't ban 99.6 percent of all Christian's from eternity with God absent their baptism. Thanks again for your kindness. I have to go get ready for the home ministering visit of our elders!

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

Jesus Christ Himself is a barrier and a dividing mechanism by means of His authority (sheep and goats; wheat and tares, and all).  He is also an opportunity and a treasure.  Depends on how you choose to see it. 

I think the offense comes when you assume that we conclude that you must be a goat or a tare because you have not been baptized into His church.  We don’t.  That is the beauty of the restored gospel, it allows us to approach everyone without judging them, and without thinking that we are “exceptional” to them.  Even God waits to the end (AFTER the millennium) to judge, so who am I to so prematurely eschew or look down on one who is loved by him.  Not all Latter-day Saints will be exalted, and not all nonmembers will be disqualified.

 

Well said. On this forum, from the majority of the Mormons here I feel like a goat or a tare! I am studying the Liberty prison letters of Joseph Smith. How many non-Mormons do you know who can say that? Ha! In one letter he rails against Governor Boggs and says Boggs and his followers are like "Wimbling Willows" on a riverbank. On this forum I often feel like a wimbling willow and I am not even sure what that is. There are three or four of you who are very kind. I have heard Latter-day Saints say that not all Saints will be exalted; but I have never heard another say that "not all nonmembers will be disqualified." So that is hopeful. I am assuming you are saying in the absence of LDS baptism and confirmation, not all nonmembers will be disqualified." If that is what you are saying, that is a ray of hope!. I wonder what would happen if I put that to a vote on the forum? Ooooh, I don't want to know. I am too much of a wimbling willow! Take care and have a great evening.

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi - Catholics do all that; but they don't ban 99.6 percent of all Christian's from eternity with God absent their baptism.

I think you keep viewing Catholicism as a protestant sect or something. We are not. It is dogma that a valid baptism is required for salvation. There are extreme cases where the baptism of blood (martyrdom) or the baptism of desire could work, but these are extreme. As for cases where someone has never heard of Christ, we leave that up to the mercy and understanding of God.

It is important to realize that we have the general rules (valid baptism is necessary for salvation, outside of the Church there is no salvation) but are also ordered to not apply them to specific cases. So, for example, our LDS friends here do not have a valid baptism. However, it would be sinful for me to say they will not be saved. I am not to judge their salvation; only God does that. All I have are general rules to try to apply to my life.

So please, lump Catholics in with LDS, because we are exclusionary, too.

ETA: and please stop promoting a view of Catholicism that is not accurate, as I keep trying to point out to you

Edited October 11, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[Navidad]

49 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think you keep viewing Catholicism as a protestant sect or something. We are not. It is dogma that a valid baptism is required for salvation. There are extreme cases where the baptism of blood (martyrdom) or the baptism of desire could work, but these are extreme. As for cases where someone has never heard of Christ, we leave that up to the mercy and understanding of God.

It is important to realize that we have the general rules (valid baptism is necessary for salvation, outside of the Church there is no salvation) but are also ordered to not apply them to specific cases. So, for example, our LDS friends here do not have a valid baptism. However, it would be sinful for me to say they will not be saved. I am not to judge their salvation; only God does that. All I have are general rules to try to apply to my life.

So please, lump Catholics in with LDS, because we are exclusionary, too.

ETA: and please stop promoting a view of Catholicism that is not accurate, as I keep trying to point out to you

My sense is you are giving a sermon, but not answering my question. I mean no disrespect, but that is frustrating. It would really help me and I say that sincerely if you would answer my question that I have asked several times. I am equally willing to go to our local bishop and ask him, but then the folks here might not believe the answer coming from me. Do Catholics require the non-Catholic Christian population of the world (Protestant and other-wise) to all receive Roman Catholic mode, method, and manner of baptism performed by a Catholic priest in order to spend eternity with God the father? That is it. That is my question. I believe the answer is no, but you have created doubts in my mind, so I am honoring your knowledge of your faith by asking you directly. Do Catholics require the non-Catholic Christian population of the world (Protestant and otherwise) to all receive Roman Catholic mode, method, and manner of baptism performed by a Catholic priest in order to spend eternity with God the father?

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi - Catholics do all that; but they don't ban 99.6 percent of all Christian's from eternity with God absent their baptism.

They don't acknowledge my baptism. Officially I'm not even recognized as a Christian in their circles.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks again for your kindness. I have to go get ready for the home ministering visit of our elders!

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Well said. On this forum, from the majority of the Mormons here I feel like a goat or a tare!

I totally acknowledge that some people can be complete jerks.  Especially people on forums.

But LDS theology does indeed acknowledge your relationship with Christ (I actually really like Pogi's post).

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

How many non-Mormons do you know who can say that? Ha! In one letter he rails against Governor Boggs and says Boggs and his followers are like "Wimbling Willows" on a riverbank. 

And that dedication to truth I have always admired about you.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

but I have never heard another say that "not all nonmembers will be disqualified." 

??? How did that not get said?  Salvation and exaltation is indeed possible for non-LDS folks, that's literally in D&C.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am assuming you are saying in the absence of LDS baptism and confirmation

It's not about "LDS" baptism and confirmation, but CHRIST's baptism and confirmation.  

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Do Catholics require the non-Catholic Christian population of the world (Protestant and other-wise) to all receive Roman Catholic mode, method, and manner of baptism performed by a Catholic priest in order to spend eternity with God the father? That is it. That is my question. I believe the answer is no, but you have created doubts in my mind, so I am honoring your knowledge of your faith by asking you directly. Do Catholics require the non-Catholic Christian population of the world (Protestant and otherwise) to all receive Roman Catholic mode, method, and manner of baptism performed by a Catholic priest in order to spend eternity with God the father?

(I'm not @MiserereNobis, but answering to the best of my ability, having studied the issue thoroughly.  I totally would love to hear @MiserereNobis's own words too). 

@Navidad:   I am NOT validly baptized according the the Catholic Church-- I am EXCLUDED.  My baptism by water immersion, in the name of the Father & the Son and the Holy Spirit amounts to nothing** in the eyes of the Catholic Church.   Why?  Because the man whom baptized me did not adhere Catholic qualifications of being a valid priest able to perform a baptism.  Catholics are refusing to acknowledge my LDS baptism just as much as LDS do not acknowledge Catholic ones.  Moreson, Catholic theology doesn't even acknowledge me as being a Christian.

Do I resent Catholics for not acknowledging my baptism?  Not at all.  I am not offended, I do not consider this to be a barrier, and still consider a Catholic to be 100% my brother in Christ.  They just have their own beliefs on authority, and I actually admire their dedication to it.  

 

** Note on "nothing" here- I'm talk about nothing in terms of valid baptism.  Not talking about salvation (see  @MiserereNobis's excellent earlier post on the matter).  I also don't know how Catholics view LDS baptism in terms of can it be important or transformative (I actually am curious about that, now that I think of the question).

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Do Catholics require the non-Catholic Christian population of the world (Protestant and other-wise) to all receive Roman Catholic mode, method, and manner of baptism performed by a Catholic priest in order to spend eternity with God the father?

Before I answer, I want to reiterate that I will be giving the general doctrines of Catholicism on this matter, but only God knows how they apply to any individual. It is against God's commandments for us to judge the state of salvation of another soul; only He knows. So I can give you the general doctrines, but please don't think that means I am applying them to you or to our LDS friends here or to anyone else.

The absolutely short answer to your question is yes. However, yes and no answers are never complete answers, so here are the details:

Valid baptism is required for salvation. From the Catechism:

Quote

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

For a baptism (and any sacrament) to be valid, it must have valid form, matter, and intention. In the case of baptism, the form is the phrase "I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." This phrase must be Trinitarian (this is why LDS baptism is deemed invalid). The matter is water. The intention is to initiate the one being baptized into Christianity and to cleanse original sin (another reason why LDS is deemed invalid).

While the standard practice is for a bishop, priest, or deacon to baptize, it is not required -- it is not part of the form, matter, or intention. So in your question you mentioned "performed by a Catholic priest." The answer to that is no, a priest is not required. In fact, even non-baptized people, even atheists, can perform baptisms, as long as they do so with proper form, matter, and intent.

From the Catechism:

Quote

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

From this idea it logically flows that if a protestant baptizes someone and does it in the name of the Trinity, with water, and with the intent to initiate into Christianity and to remove original sin, then that baptism is valid.

Now, St. Paul said that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." So, there is only one baptism -- there is not Methodist baptism and Mennonite baptism and Baptist baptism and on and on. There is one baptism, and the Catholic Church, as God's authoritative teacher on the Earth, teaches what that one baptism is: in other words, what baptism is valid in the eyes of God and what baptism isn't. It follows logically then that every valid baptism is in fact a Catholic baptism.

So the joke, based in truth, in Catholicism is that whenever someone is baptized by a protestant, they are actually joining the Catholic Church. The problem is that the other sacraments (confirmation, communion, penance, matrimony, holy orders, and last rites) all require priesthood authority, which the protestants do not have. So after baptism, a protestant is unable to receive the sanctifying grace that comes from the other sacraments, especially Holy Communion and confession. This makes it difficult to remain in a state of grace, in other words, to not commit mortal sin. And then, if a protestant commits mortal sin, the protestant does not have access to the means of forgiveness through confession/penance. Being free of mortal sin is necessary for salvation.

To sum up: a valid baptism is necessary for salvation. All valid baptisms are technically Catholic baptisms. Any individual cases we leave up to the mercy and omniscience of God, including those who never had the opportunity to receive Christian baptism, children who die before baptism, etc.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Please read my response to Jane in my last post. I do not limit eternal life with the Father to only Christians. God only knows who He will accept. It is our faith that gains us entrance to heaven, not necessarily our salvation. This is a very common belief among non-exclusionary evangelicals. It seems that maybe you all are not familiar with that. That kind of point is where I would like to bring a broader and more accurate perspective about Protestants and Evangelicals to the forum. I haven't seen anyone else here doing that except in a rather snarky manner. I have been snarky too, and have apologized. I have repented and changed my ways! I've even been called a follower of Baal and I didn't get snarky. That is good for me!

I don't know what  you mean by "eternal life" or "heaven" or "salvation"

I  also  apologize for being snarky. 

To me, "eternal life" is becoming like God- "the kind of  life God has" ; "heaven" is  spirit paradise, meaning a state of spiritual bliss before the resurrection, which says nothing about which kingdom one would be resurrected to, and "salvation" is often used to mean both as it is used quite ambiguously in a Mormon context.

I doubt that you mean the same thing by these words though of course I could be wrong.

Of course no other Christian group that I know of allows for 3 post-resurrection "heavens" though it is biblical and is originally a Jewish and early Christian idea.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Heaven

I think from now on I will abbreviate "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as CoJCLDS.

That is the full name, just abbreviated.

Edited October 12, 2018 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

40 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

They don't acknowledge my baptism. Officially I'm not even recognized as a Christian in their circles.

It is true that LDS baptism is not recognized as valid. Technically one could argue that this makes you not a Christian. Personally, I don't care for that technical argument. I think your belief and desire to serve Christ is what makes you a Christian. If the conversation with someone went in-depth, though, I would point out that to become a member of the Christ's Church, a valid baptism would be necessary, which is basically what the LDS church says, too.

43 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

It's not about "LDS" baptism and confirmation, but CHRIST's baptism and confirmation.

We believe the same and equate Christ's baptism with Catholic baptism: there is "one baptism" only. I believe your church does the same, right? The only real baptism is LDS baptism, because LDS baptism is Christ's baptism.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

We believe the same and equate Christ's baptism with Catholic baptism: there is "one baptism" only. I believe your church does the same, right? The only real baptism is LDS baptism, because LDS baptism is Christ's baptism.

Re Catholic views: again, I actually admire Catholic dedication here.

Re LDS views:  When talking about terms of authority, yes.  I'm not baptized in the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I'm baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.  It is GOD's baptism.  Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints may indeed serve as His servants and wield His authority in that regard, but they are always servants, not the Master.  It is HIS baptism.

 

Now again, that doesn't mean an LDS person is going to deny how important and transformative a non-LDS baptism is (again, my earlier example of my husband).

[MiserereNobis]

29 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I am NOT validly baptized according the the Catholic Church-- I am EXCLUDED.  My baptism by water immersion, in the name of the Father & the Son and the Holy Spirit amounts to nothing** in the eyes of the Catholic Church.   Why?  Because the man whom baptized me did not adhere Catholic qualifications of being a valid priest able to perform a baptism.  Catholics are refusing to acknowledge my LDS baptism just as much as LDS do not acknowledge Catholic ones.

Actually, as I posted above, the issue is not the authority of the person performing the baptism since a valid baptism does not require a priest (if it did, then all protestant baptisms would be invalid, too). The issue is the lack of belief in the Trinity and not having the intention to remove original sin.

There is a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Inquisition, ha) that explains why. Here are some relevant parts:

Quote

The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed.,Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552).

I appreciate that the document quotes LDS sources and I hope it represents the LDS viewpoint accurately.

Quote

The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. 

Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes.

This clearly speaks to intention, which is followed up with:

Quote

According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.

The document concludes with the following, which is very important:

Quote

It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of JesusChrist of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.

Even though we find LDS baptism to be invalid, that is not a judgement on individual Mormons or all of the good work we can do together.

[MiserereNobis]

45 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I also don't know how Catholics view LDS baptism in terms of can it be important or transformative (I actually am curious about that, now that I think of the question).

I don't know the official answer on this, but I bet it would be something along the lines that the baptism itself doesn't have transformative power, but your desire to be united with Christ and His Church does, and that desire would bring you closer to God.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, as I posted above, the issue is not the authority of the person performing the baptism since a valid baptism does not require a priest (if it did, then all protestant baptisms would be invalid, too). The issue is the lack of belief in the Trinity and not having the intention to remove original sin.

Thank you for the better phrasing.  I was trying to say that but obviously came up short-- in my mind the lack of belief in consubstantiality & original sin being the disqualifier for the LDS baptizer's authority.  Again, thank you for the better phrasing.  

[Calm]

MN, could it be said that authority is given by having proper form, manner, and intention or is authority in terms of Catholic baptism too alien of a term?

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Before I answer, I want to reiterate that I will be giving the general doctrines of Catholicism on this matter, but only God knows how they apply to any individual. It is against God's commandments for us to judge the state of salvation of another soul; only He knows. So I can give you the general doctrines, but please don't think that means I am applying them to you or to our LDS friends here or to anyone else.

The absolutely short answer to your question is yes. However, yes and no answers are never complete answers, so here are the details:

Valid baptism is required for salvation. From the Catechism:

For a baptism (and any sacrament) to be valid, it must have valid form, matter, and intention. In the case of baptism, the form is the phrase "I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." This phrase must be Trinitarian (this is why LDS baptism is deemed invalid). The matter is water. The intention is to initiate the one being baptized into Christianity and to cleanse original sin (another reason why LDS is deemed invalid).

While the standard practice is for a bishop, priest, or deacon to baptize, it is not required -- it is not part of the form, matter, or intention. So in your question you mentioned "performed by a Catholic priest." The answer to that is no, a priest is not required. In fact, even non-baptized people, even atheists, can perform baptisms, as long as they do so with proper form, matter, and intent.

From the Catechism:

From this idea it logically flows that if a protestant baptizes someone and does it in the name of the Trinity, with water, and with the intent to initiate into Christianity and to remove original sin, then that baptism is valid.

Now, St. Paul said that there is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." So, there is only one baptism -- there is not Methodist baptism and Mennonite baptism and Baptist baptism and on and on. There is one baptism, and the Catholic Church, as God's authoritative teacher on the Earth, teaches what that one baptism is: in other words, what baptism is valid in the eyes of God and what baptism isn't. It follows logically then that every valid baptism is in fact a Catholic baptism.

So the joke, based in truth, in Catholicism is that whenever someone is baptized by a protestant, they are actually joining the Catholic Church. The problem is that the other sacraments (confirmation, communion, penance, matrimony, holy orders, and last rites) all require priesthood authority, which the protestants do not have. So after baptism, a protestant is unable to receive the sanctifying grace that comes from the other sacraments, especially Holy Communion and confession. This makes it difficult to remain in a state of grace, in other words, to not commit mortal sin. And then, if a protestant commits mortal sin, the protestant does not have access to the means of forgiveness through confession/penance. Being free of mortal sin is necessary for salvation.

To sum up: a valid baptism is necessary for salvation. All valid baptisms are technically Catholic baptisms. Any individual cases we leave up to the mercy and omniscience of God, including those who never had the opportunity to receive Christian baptism, children who die before baptism, etc.

Thank you all for the wonderful conversation while I was with my visiting ministers. I have found all the posts very helpful and enlightening. The vast majority of Protestant denominations have valid baptisms recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. I am attaching a link to one list of baptisms that are considered valid or not valid by the Catholic Church. It is very helpful to this discussion. I thank our Catholic friend for being so articulate and patient in his comments. I have baptized many people in my pastoral years. It was always a joy, both with children and adults. We baptized by immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These are all difficult conversations and may indeed at times be offensive since they involve very cherished beliefs. Thanks for the great discussion. I want so badly for us all to learn more about each other, especially our deeply held beliefs. Thanks to all.

https://www.colsdioc.org/Portals/0/Departments/DIVW/Valid Baptisms Reference List.pdf

Edited October 12, 2018 by Navidad

[pogi]

18 hours ago, Navidad said:

Well said. On this forum, from the majority of the Mormons here I feel like a goat or a tare! I am studying the Liberty prison letters of Joseph Smith. How many non-Mormons do you know who can say that? Ha! In one letter he rails against Governor Boggs and says Boggs and his followers are like "Wimbling Willows" on a riverbank. On this forum I often feel like a wimbling willow and I am not even sure what that is. There are three or four of you who are very kind. I have heard Latter-day Saints say that not all Saints will be exalted; but I have never heard another say that "not all nonmembers will be disqualified." So that is hopeful. I am assuming you are saying in the absence of LDS baptism and confirmation, not all nonmembers will be disqualified." If that is what you are saying, that is a ray of hope!. I wonder what would happen if I put that to a vote on the forum? Ooooh, I don't want to know. I am too much of a wimbling willow! Take care and have a great evening.

If you feel like a wimbling willow (I like that!), a goat, or a tare, be assured that it is not because of what church you belong to.  It is your presentation and perspective of Mormonism that is eliciting a more defensive stance.  We don't see ourselves as you seem to perceive us as judgmental exclusionists with a superiority complex.  We don't relate with the accusations presented.  

Now, this may hurt a little, but I am going to take that "ray of hope" that you see in me and squelch it...after dashing your hope, I hope to rebuild a better version of hope and reconcile some of our differences.  

1) No, In the absence of authorized baptism and confirmation, exaltation is not possible.  You would be hard-pressed to find a Latter-day Saint who believes otherwise.  When I said "not all nonmembers will be disqualified" I was speaking of nonmembers who die without baptism in this life. 

What does that mean?  Does that mean we are "exceptional"?  Absolutely NOT!  I have no better chance of receiving exaltation then some Brazilian jungle dweller who has never encountered modern civilization.  I don't consider myself to be "exceptional" to him/her...or you in ANY way.  I see us as brothers in Christ.  I see your faith, your religion, your baptism, your service as stepping stones toward Christ.  Important.  Meaningful.  Critical for your faith development.  You may be more spiritually advanced than me in many ways.  Your relationship with Christ may be more profound than mine.  I can't know that.  What I am saying is that I don't see my baptism as making me spiritually exceptional to you in ANY way.  I see authorized baptism and confirmation as a required step, but by no means the most important step.  In many other ways, you are probably more qualified for exaltation than me.  We are simply in different stages, and we each have a LONG way to go before we qualify for deification/exaltation.  

When I said that "not all Latter-day saints will be exalted, and not all nonmembers will be disqualified', let me expand on that even further.  By that I mean that members and nonmembers alike may be considered brothers and members of the same church in some regards......yep, I said it.  As Nephi explains in the BoM, there are save 2 churches.  The Church of the Lamb of God, and the Church of the devil.  I see these descriptions as a typology.  It is clear that no single organization quite fits the description of the church of the devil as depicted by Nephi.  No, it is a type, "designed to represent the work of the adversary among all people, nations, and societies in the world."  So, if the church of the devil is a type, so too must be the Church of the Lamb of God.   

Quote

What, then, are typological implications for the church of the Lamb of God? If we apply Elder McConkie’s logic in both directions, the pavilion under which the church of the Lamb resides must be enlarged to include “every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ” (Moroni 7:16). Membership in the church of the Lamb in this context expands beyond denominational lines to include all who genuinely strive to do good according to the light they have been given. The Savior expressed this idea in the Doctrine and Covenants when he proclaimed, “Let Zion rejoice, for this is Zion—the pure in heart; therefore, let Zion rejoice, while all the wicked shall mourn” (D&C 97:21).

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/things-which-my-father-saw/3-church-lamb-god

THAT is what I was talking about.  Some "Latter-day saints" may actually belong to the church of the devil.  Of that I have no doubt.  And some nonmembers may actually belong to the Church of the Lamb of God.  Of that I also have no doubt.  I see those with pure hearts as brothers in Zion - Latter-day Saints or not.  We are each in different stages of spiritual development towards exaltation.  It is pointless to try and compare who is more qualified, or pretend like one is "exceptional" to the other.  I may be more qualified in some ways, you may be in others.  The point is that we are brothers on the same path - heeding the light within.

I know that you are going to dislike the idea that you still need to be baptized by one holding authority, but we have thousands of years to work that all out.  Don't be offended by it.  It is nothing to be offended over. If what we say is true, and if you have a pure heart, then there is nothing to worry about or be offended over.  If what we say is false, then there is still nothing to worry about or be offended over. Either we will correct our wrongs in time, or you will correct yours.  The point is that if we both work to keep pure hearts before God, then we will both end up in the same place.  There is NO exceptionalism here. That accusation is not fair to my perspective. That is why you are getting push back from your ideas.  We don't see ourselves as any more spiritually exceptional to ANY nonmember, Christian or not. 

Edited October 12, 2018 by pogi

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If you feel like a wimbling willow (I like that!), a goat, or a tare, be assured that it is not because of what church you belong to.  It is your presentation and perspective of Mormonism that is eliciting a more defensive stance.  We don't see ourselves as you seem to perceive us as judgmental exclusionists with a superiority complex.  We don't relate with the accusations presented.  

Now, this may hurt a little, but I am going to take that "ray of hope" that you see in me and squelch it...after dashing your hope, I hope to rebuild a better version of hope and reconcile some of our differences.  

1) No, In the absence of authorized baptism and confirmation, exaltation is not possible.  You would be hard-pressed to find a Latter-day Saint who believes otherwise.  When I said "not all nonmembers will be disqualified" I was speaking of nonmembers who die without baptism in this life. 

What does that mean?  Does that mean we are "exceptional"?  Absolutely NOT!  I have no better chance of receiving exaltation then some Brazilian jungle dweller who has never encountered modern civilization.  I don't consider myself to be "exceptional" to him/her...or you in ANY way.  I see us as brothers in Christ.  I see your faith, your religion, your baptism, your service as stepping stones toward Christ.  Important.  Meaningful.  Critical for your faith development.  You may be more spiritually advanced than me in many ways.  Your relationship with Christ may be more profound than mine.  I can't know that.  What I am saying is that I don't see my baptism as making me spiritually exceptional to you in ANY way.  I see authorized baptism and confirmation as a required step, but by no means the most important step.  In many other ways, you are probably more qualified for exaltation than me.  We are simply in different stages, and we each have a LONG way to go before we qualify for deification/exaltation.  

When I said that "not all Latter-day saints will be exalted, and not all nonmembers will be disqualified', let me expand on that even further.  By that I mean that members and nonmembers alike may be considered brothers and members of the same church in some regards......yep, I said it.  As Nephi explains in the BoM, there are save 2 churches.  The Church of the Lamb of God, and the Church of the devil.  I see these descriptions as a typology.  It is clear that no single organization quite fits the description of the church of the devil as depicted by Nephi.  No, it is a type, "designed to represent the work of the adversary among all people, nations, and societies in the world."  So, if the church of the devil is a type, so too must be the Church of the Lamb of God.   

THAT is what I was talking about.  Some "Latter-day saints" may actually belong to the church of the devil.  Of that I have no doubt.  And some nonmembers may actually belong to the Church of the Lamb of God.  Of that I also have no doubt.  I see those with pure hearts as brothers in Zion - Latter-day Saints or not.  We are each in different stages of spiritual development towards exaltation.  It is pointless to try and compare who is more qualified, or pretend like one is "exceptional" to the other.  I may be more qualified in some ways, you may be in others.  The point is that we are brothers on the same path - heeding the light within.

I know that you are going to dislike the idea that you still need to be baptized by one holding authority, but we have thousands of years to work that all out.  Don't be offended by it.  It is nothing to be offended over. If what we say is true, and if you have a pure heart, then there is nothing to worry about or be offended over.  If what we say is false, then there is still nothing to worry about or be offended over. Either we will correct our wrongs in time, or you will correct yours.  The point is that if we both work to keep pure hearts before God, then we will both end up in the same place.  There is NO exceptionalism here. That accusation is not fair to my perspective. That is why you are getting push back from your ideas.  We don't see ourselves as any more spiritually exceptional to ANY nonmember, Christian or not. 

Wow, so much in there to think about. Thanks for your careful and thoughtful post. A lot in there that I have never thought of. I appreciate that. I like thinking about new things.

And of course, as you have implied the only thing I find sad in your post is your insistence that "you still need to be baptized by one holding authority." I don't need to be baptized again. I understand if I wanted to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I would have to accept baptism again. That is very common. Keep reading please. I have been baptized in a manner described in the New Testament. More importantly, God works and is active in my life. That is why I know I don't need to be baptized again. Let's not talk about thousands of years in the future. Let's talk about yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If my baptism was not authorized, how in the world would I be able to be a minister to so many people over my life. How would I be able to pray and see results? How would people be able to say my ministry has been a blessing to them? If my baptism and my salvation were not authorized, my LDS Christian friends would not be able to tell me how much this or that I have done, a Sacrament talk I have given has blessed them. I think the biggest hurdle to your belief that only LDS baptisms are "valid," "authorized," or whatever term you want is the ministry of thousands, if not millions of non-LDS Christians today, tomorrow, and next week, month, and year.

Without spiritual authority and power, how would we be able to so effectively minister in the name of our shared Lord and Savior? I have described on this forum how I know powerfully spiritually-minded individual LDS Christians. I could only say that because I believe they are fully Christian and fully indwelt by the Holy Ghost. God speaks through them. That validates LDS Christianity for me. I have no doubt about the fact that you are a Godly man just as you are. That is the "proof in the pudding." I would say the same about my deceased Anglican friend John R.W. Stott the great pastor and preacher. He had a personally profound spiritual impact and blessing on my life when I was twenty years old. How could he have done that without the fullness of the Spirit of God in his life? He was the most Godly man I have ever met - LDS Christian or otherwise. Our own testimonies speak contrary to your insistence. Since you don't believe my salvation has begun and I am absent the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit I don't understand how you can say I "may be more spiritually advanced then you in many ways?" Absent the Spirit, there is no way to be spiritually advanced at all. Absent the Spirit one who says he is spiritual is an imposter. Lots to think about! Take care

Again, thanks for your wonderful reply. Be assured I will reflect and honor it with the thought it deserves.

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If my baptism was not authorized, how in the world would I be able to be a minister to so many people over my life. How would I be able to pray and see results? How would people be able to say my ministry has been a blessing to them? If my baptism and my salvation were not authorized, my LDS Christian friends would not be able to tell me how much this or that I have done, a Sacrament talk I have given has blessed them. I think the biggest hurdle to your belief that only LDS baptisms are "valid," "authorized," or whatever term you want is the ministry of thousands, if not millions of non-LDS Christians today, tomorrow, and next week, month, and year.

The simple answer to this is that you don't need baptism to accomplish these things. Baptism doesn't separate good people from bad -- there are plenty of terrible people who are baptized. Baptism doesn't create the ability of people to do good things or to have spiritual insights or to bless other people's lives. Being unbaptized doesn't mean that God won't speak to you or use you to further His means.

You've set up a false situation here. The fact that you have done all of the things you have listed has nothing to do with whether or not you have been baptized. This is from the Catholic point-of-view, but I am pretty certain our LDS friends are going to say the same thing.

[Navidad]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The simple answer to this is that you don't need baptism to accomplish these things. Baptism doesn't separate good people from bad -- there are plenty of terrible people who are baptized. Baptism doesn't create the ability of people to do good things or to have spiritual insights or to bless other people's lives. Being unbaptized doesn't mean that God won't speak to you or use you to further His means.

You've set up a false situation here. The fact that you have done all of the things you have listed has nothing to do with whether or not you have been baptized. This is from the Catholic point-of-view, but I am pretty certain our LDS friends are going to say the same thing.

Fair enough. but I as I understand it, the LDS perspective is no LDS baptism - no LDS confirmation - no indwelling of the Holy Spirit - no salvation - no exaltation (sanctification). And I would add - no genuine presence of the Holy Spirit in your life. I actually agree with you. I don't believe you have to be baptized to have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit but LDS folks do. I am not speaking for them, but I have been told over and over and over and over by LDS local leaders that it is possible I might have a visitation from the Holy Spirit, or a glimpse of the Holy Spirit outside of authorized baptism, but not the permanent (until I become unworthy) indwelling of the Holy Spirit in my life. And I would add no practice of the presence of God on my life. If what I am saying is wrong, then your are right, I have set up a false situation. If, absent an LDS baptism, I can experience salvation and be a Christian who is indwelt by the Holy Ghost with a spirituality that is manifest, then how would I need authorized LDS to enter paradise? Would God reject someone who the Spirit testifies He has indwelt here on earth? Pogi above said without LDS baptism, exaltation is not possible. What is exaltation but the process of becoming more like Christ (or they might say "as Christ") in this world and the next?

BTW are you familiar with the writings of Father John Powell S.J.? I love his little books. Also whenever I sit here to work on a book or an article I play the music of John Michael Talbot. Wonderful stuff.

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Wow, so much in there to think about. Thanks for your careful and thoughtful post. A lot in there that I have never thought of. I appreciate that. I like thinking about new things.

And of course, as you have implied the only thing I find sad in your post is your insistence that "you still need to be baptized by one holding authority." I don't need to be baptized again. I understand if I wanted to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I would have to accept baptism again. That is very common. Keep reading please. I have been baptized in a manner described in the New Testament. More importantly, God works and is active in my life. That is why I know I don't need to be baptized again. Let's not talk about thousands of years in the future. Let's talk about yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If my baptism was not authorized, how in the world would I be able to be a minister to so many people over my life. How would I be able to pray and see results? How would people be able to say my ministry has been a blessing to them? If my baptism and my salvation were not authorized, my LDS Christian friends would not be able to tell me how much this or that I have done, a Sacrament talk I have given has blessed them. I think the biggest hurdle to your belief that only LDS baptisms are "valid," "authorized," or whatever term you want is the ministry of thousands, if not millions of non-LDS Christians today, tomorrow, and next week, month, and year.

Without spiritual authority and power, how would we be able to so effectively minister in the name of our shared Lord and Savior? I have described on this forum how I know powerfully spiritually-minded individual LDS Christians. I could only say that because I believe they are fully Christian and fully indwelt by the Holy Ghost. God speaks through them. That validates LDS Christianity for me. I have no doubt about the fact that you are a Godly man just as you are. That is the "proof in the pudding." I would say the same about my deceased Anglican friend John R.W. Stott the great pastor and preacher. He had a personally profound spiritual impact and blessing on my life when I was twenty years old. How could he have done that without the fullness of the Spirit of God in his life? He was the most Godly man I have ever met - LDS Christian or otherwise. Our own testimonies speak contrary to your insistence. Since you don't believe my salvation has begun and I am absent the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit I don't understand how you can say I "may be more spiritually advanced then you in many ways?" Absent the Spirit, there is no way to be spiritually advanced at all. Absent the Spirit one who says he is spiritual is an imposter. Lots to think about! Take care

Again, thanks for your wonderful reply. Be assured I will reflect and honor it with the thought it deserves.

It sounds like our hang-up and miscommunication is in our different understanding of what baptism is and what it does.  For you to say that if your baptism was not authorized/valid then you would not be able to minister, to pray with results, to bless others, to have the Spirit, to teach with the Spirit, to be led by the Spirit...that is a foreign idea to me. 

More to say, but it will have to wait...

[Navidad]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

It sounds like our hang-up and miscommunication is in our different understanding of what baptism is and what it does.  For you to say that if your baptism was not authorized/valid then you would not be able to minister, to pray with results, to bless others, to have the Spirit, to teach with the Spirit, to be led by the Spirit...that is a foreign idea to me. 

More to say, but it will have to wait...

Ok ....just to be clear I am not saying that baptism enables me to minister, pray, and bless others. I am saying what I think LDS Christians teach. No LDS baptism - no LDS confirmation - no permanent (as long as faithful) indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I know of no way to be spiritual without the Holy Spirit. Maybe that is where we differ. We can be nice, kind, cheerful, polite, attentive, gentle, helpful, etc. but not spiritual without the presence of the Holy Spirit. Also please read my reply to MN. best to you!

[MiserereNobis]

41 minutes ago, Navidad said:

BTW are you familiar with the writings of Father John Powell S.J.? I love his little books. Also whenever I sit here to work on a book or an article I play the music of John Michael Talbot. Wonderful stuff.

I actually am and I'm not really a fan. Father Powell is way too humanistic and secular and is a good example of the "Spirit of Vatican II" that infected the Church post-Vatican II, diluting Catholic doctrine and tradition. ("Spirit of Vatican II" was the excuse many Catholics used post-Vatican II to do some un-Catholic things. Vatican II didn't support these ideas and practices, but people used it as an excuse anyways.)

It's ok that you enjoy it, of course, but I'm much more of a traditional Catholic. The same goes for John Michael Talbot. I've never been a fan of Christian-folk (or Christian-rock or any Christian mix with secular music). If I want folk/Americana music, I'll listen to that. If I want sacred music, I'll listen to polyphonic hymns or Gregorian chant. I find the two don't mix well. For my aesthetic taste, folk-Christian waters down both the folk aspect and the Christian aspect. But again, that's me  I'm glad you find value in it.

I will, however, absolutely argue that folk-Christian music should NOT be a part of Mass. I have a hard time with the direction the Mass took post-Vatican II (again, "Spirit of Vatican II" stuff). I've pretty much stuck with the Tridentine Mass (the traditional Latin Mass, also known as the Extraordinary Form of the Mass) since I found it.

[MiserereNobis]

31 minutes ago, Navidad said:

No LDS baptism - no LDS confirmation - no permanent (as long as faithful) indwelling of the Holy Spirit

I've asked this question of our LDS friends, too. What exactly is the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit as defined by the LDS church? How would my experience of the Holy Spirit change if I were to have it from what I have now?

It's something they have a hard time answering, partly (I think) because they don't want to come across as telling us we're not having the experience of the Holy Spirit that we think we are, or something like that. I can understand the hesitance if that is the case.