Dallas Jenkins Walking a Tightrope

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I have to wonder why the Catholic church places a blanket disapproval of Latter-day Saint baptisms if they theoretically could be acceptable if done with proper intent.

The difference here would be LDS baptism vs. an LDS person performing a baptism. LDS baptism has been ruled invalid primarily because of the differences in belief of the nature of God, among other things. Mark also pointed out that an LDS baptism includes a commitment to the specific LDS covenant path. The Catholic Church didn't mention this as a reason for the baptism to be invalid, but it makes sense to me as an additional reason. So a standard LDS baptism is invalid.

However, an LDS person could baptize someone validly outside of the LDS baptism paradigm. This is where intent comes in. The LDS person would have to think of the Trinity when saying "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." They wouldn't have to believe it, just have that as their intent. They would have to intend for the baptism to be Catholic and to wash away original sin, not be an LDS baptism. Again, they don't have to believe it. An atheist can validly baptize someone as long as they have the intent to do so.

[MiserereNobis]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Our understanding of the nature of God and his relationship with man is different enough that though the words in our ordinance are similar, we mean something sufficiently different enough to render our baptism invalid.  If a Latter-day Saint were to baptize someone while envisioning God and Man as Catholics do with the Catholic ordinance that would be valid, as I understand it. But if I have got it wrong, hopefully I will be corrected.

Correct.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

The difference here would be LDS baptism vs. an LDS person performing a baptism. LDS baptism has been ruled invalid primarily because of the differences in belief of the nature of God, among other things. Mark also pointed out that an LDS baptism includes a commitment to the specific LDS covenant path. The Catholic Church didn't mention this as a reason for the baptism to be invalid, but it makes sense to me as an additional reason. So a standard LDS baptism is invalid.

However, an LDS person could baptize someone validly outside of the LDS baptism paradigm. This is where intent comes in. The LDS person would have to think of the Trinity when saying "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." They wouldn't have to believe it, just have that as their intent. They would have to intend for the baptism to be Catholic and to wash away original sin, not be an LDS baptism. Again, they don't have to believe it. An atheist can validly baptize someone as long as they have the intent to do so.

That makes more sense. 

Do you know when and how this idea of "intent" came about?  Was it always this way, or was it a later development?  I hope you are ok with me exploring this a bit further, and being honest with my thoughts on it.  Maybe you could help me resolve some of my thoughts on this.  It is hard for me to grasp the idea that intent could be pure if one simply "thinks of the Trinity", even while disbelieving in their heart.   It seems like an impossibility to me to have pure intent where there is not pure belief.   I don't personally believe that merely thinking on something without actually believing in it has any power to generate pure intent to act in the name of the thing one disbelieves in as if it was real.  How could one legitimately intend to act as a representative of a Trinity one doesn't believe in?  And how could God allow a person to represent Him who doesn't even believe in Him?  It seems hollow to me.   I don't believe a Muslim, atheist, or Latter-day Saints could legitimately intend to wash away original sin when none of those groups believe in original sin.  How could they possibly generate pure intent there? Where there is no belief, it seems like intent would be corrupted.  This all may come off as critical of your beliefs, but I don't intend to be disrespectful.  Just expressing my views to see if you can direct them in a new perspective. 

Are there any historical examples of such baptisms that are considered valid by the Catholic church, or is this just all theoretical? 

Edited June 8, 2022 by pogi

[manol]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It seems like an impossibility to me to have pure intent where there is not pure belief...

Seems to me that intent precedes belief, and that pure intent would precede pure belief (Alma chapter 32).  To put it another way, it seems to me that setting the bar at "pure belief" is too high for what baptism is intended to be... the beginning of a journey.  

 

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, manol said:

Seems to me that intent precedes belief, and that pure intent would precede pure belief (Alma chapter 32).  To put it another way, it seems to me that setting the bar at "pure belief" is too high for what baptism is intended to be... the beginning of a journey.  

 

I agree with this to some extent, but you are talking about the receiver of baptism while we are discussing the one baptizing.  Even for the receiver of baptism, there must be at least some belief though, or there would be no intent to get baptized. The baptismal interview screens out people who have no belief. 

Can one truly have pure intent to baptize someone in the name of a father, son, and holy ghost that one doesn't believe in?  I don't think that is possible.  Can one truly intend to baptize for remission of original sin if one doesn't believe in original sin?

In some ways intent does precede belief, but in other ways belief precedes intent.  It depends on the context. 

Edited June 8, 2022 by pogi

[manol]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree with this to some extent, but you are talking about the receiver of baptism while we are discussing the one baptizing.

Ooops!  My misunderstanding. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Even for the receiver of baptism, there must be at least some belief though, or there would be no intent to get baptized.

Not in Catholic belief where infants can be baptized unless Catholics believe infants’ spirits are aware and can accept it or something like that.
 

 I think Saints may see the purpose of baptism as very different than Catholics do in some ways.

[pogi]

59 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not in Catholic belief where infants can be baptized unless Catholics believe infants’ spirits are aware and can accept it or something like that.
 

 I think Saints may see the purpose of baptism as very different than Catholics do in some ways.

I was speaking of baptism from a Latter-day Saint perspective with Manol.  It sounds like the intent is required for the baptizer rather than the person being baptized in the Catholic church - so no belief or intent is even possible for the one being baptized if they are infants.  

I agree that the purpose is different.  It is not a willful covenant that one enters, but a necessary cleansing of original sin.  

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Then one has to decide how active God was in all of that.

Oh my.

Evolution all over again.

And what truth theory would justify such utterances?

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Navidad said:

Ok. Never thought of it that way. You are bringing up something certainly different than what I am thinking. Good for you. I guess it comes back to how involved was God, the man in pre-Judaic religious rituals that were adopted into both Judaism and Christianity. In your view did Judaism or Christianity initiate the idea or concept of religious ordinances,or were there pre-existing ordinances adopted by those two? If the latter, then how active was God the man in those?

Easy.  "Magic spells" and shamans and healing rites go back forever.

That proves we are programmed "somehow" by "something " or "someone" to WANT such things.  What does such a yearning say about how we are made?

Gosh, who could that be?

Call it "conscience" or "The Holy Spirit", "Light of Christ" "Still Small Voice" or whatever, -- atheists know right from wrong, and admit to conscience.

The question is what human construction fits the times best to give meaning to the lives of millions and who set up cultures along those lines, confirmed in every heart which accepts the paradigm.

I pick the COJCLDS version of Christianity because it's the best logically FOR ME, seeing God as my Father being whom I can grow up and become like after several eons of work on becoming perfect.

But I have to be forgiven freely for that which I have done wrong, after everything I can possibly do to fix it!

And that is Christ, a historical individual who taught that and provides a perfect redemption story!

You can't find any story better anywhere!

And world needs the strong nuclear family more than ever in history, and we offer that subparadigm, and virtually worship the paradigm itself "personified" in the Godhead!

Besides God clobbered me good with a life changing spiritual experience when I asked Him.

I ain't goin' anywhere after all that!

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 6/8/2022 at 7:54 PM, Navidad said:

I am simply saying that I think many religious ordinances preceded Judaism.

Latter-day Saints believe that God instituted ordinances (including baptism) with Adam and Eve, so definitely long before 'Judaism'.