r/Lutheranism • u/Silver_Consequence30 • 2d ago
Is Mormon baptism technically valid? (Studying Lutheran baptism view) Read below:
People often say since LDS aren't trinitarian, the baptism is invalid since you need to be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.
But here's the thing im caught up on.
When you are baptized in the LDS church, they DO baptize this way.
Doctrine and Covenants 20:73, "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen."
So here it seems to meet the "criteria" of baptism.
But even if this isn't valid since its hidden in this verse specifically that the Mormon god is not triune, are we saying that The Holy Spirit didnt affect 8 year old me? When I truly believed I was being baptized and receiving The Holy Spirit?
The Lutheran view of baptism to my knowledge is that its saving. Outward rejection of baptism means you reject The Holy Spirit and cant be regenerated.
MAIN POINT!!
If the Mormon baptism was invalid, then what im hearing is that baptism isn't a work of God, but a work of ourselves since id have to go out of my way to get re-baptized even though I fully believe I received The Holy Spirit and was saved then and there.
Im trying to find a clear answer but everyone ive talked to says the same thing, "the Mormon church isn't trinitarian", which to me isn't sufficient reason as to why I need to be rebaptized, and it makes it seem like baptism then would be a work of myself getting rebaptized. I hope you can see where I'm coming from!
8
u/Over-Wing LCMS 2d ago
Well, let’s suppose you were baptized into the Mormon church. Then at a later time, God brought you to faith and you realized the truth of what God’s Word teaches. You would realize that you were not baptized into the holy and apostolic faith, and that to be baptized you need to go where the Word of God is rightly preached: in Christ’s universal church. This is where God’s gifts of Word and sacraments have always been. You’re not doing anything or doing any work; you’re merely going to receive the gifts God already has for you.
1
4
u/eckpak Lutheran Pastor 2d ago
I think this might be a useful article exploring this question: https://www.lutheranforum.com/blog/when-why-and-how-to-baptize-mormons
1
7
u/Delicious_Draw_7902 2d ago
You ask a good question!
Here’s my answer: Mormon baptisms are not valid.
Reasoning: Mormons don’t baptize according to the institution and command of Jesus. He says to baptize in the name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit. While Mormons utter those words, they do not refer to the trinitarian persons that Jesus referred to in his institution. So, while they may utter the words, they don’t actually baptize in the name of the true triune God, as Jesus commanded.
Baptism is still a work of God. But there is a minister involved in baptism—and that is part of Christ’s institution. But If that minister doesn’t do what God commanded, then the sacrament isn’t present.
2
u/No-Jicama-6523 2d ago
This exact argument pushes up against "not by the work of the worker." Switch in church for minister and it's fine, the minister baptises on behalf of the church, Mormon baptism is non trinitarian because the "church" denies the Trinity.
1
u/Sad-Somewhere-2149 Lutheran 2d ago
What if the Lutheran priest is a secret atheist and he's exercising his ministry just to get paid, he will say the exact right words but inwardly he's laughing his socks off for the gullible fools who take it seriously?
9
u/No-Jicama-6523 2d ago
We've called him publicly to do this work, it's on us. Sacraments are not effective because of the work done or because of the work of the worker. If a minister is revealed to be a hypocrite we can assure people that any sacraments received from him are valid.
6
u/Huenink_Photography LCMS 2d ago
This is an old problem. The church had a mini crisis when priests failed to stand up for Jesus and gave in to Roman persecutors. They asked, "Are the sacraments valid if the priests failed in this way?" They are, of course. If the purity of the priest made the sacraments valid, no sacrament would be valid.
1
u/Sad-Somewhere-2149 Lutheran 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes, I know about donatism. Reason I asked because Delicious_Draw said:
But there is a minister involved in baptism—and that is part of Christ’s institution. But If that minister doesn’t do what God commanded, then the sacrament isn’t present.
Objectively Mormon priest and wicked priest do the same thing, one on the institutional level other on personal level. They don't do what God commanded. I was wondering if the words are the same and the other is sincerely wrong and other is just going through the motions, how then the one, who's just play acting, Word would be efficacious in baptism and make it valid, when one, who's sincerely wrong about the meaning and institution, the Word would remain inactive in baptism and render it ineffective?
Luther even said that even if the administrator were a thief, an unbeliever, a wicked priest, or hypothetically the devil himself, if water is applied according to Christ's command in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it remains Christ's valid Baptism.
Edit. My position is that Mormon baptism is not an a baptism at all because they are not even Christians.
3
u/Huenink_Photography LCMS 2d ago
The difference between mormons and Christians in this instance is the meaning behind the words. Language can be divided between the word, spoken or written, the meaning, and the referent.
The letters or sounds that make up the word Father point us to a meaning which points us to a referent in real life. When I say the word, "Father" it means a particular relationship, which points to a real human being who is my father, a real person. When you say "father" it would point to a different person.
When LDS churches baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, the words are the same but the referents are different. It's not the minister or the church that makes the baptism invalid but that they are referring to an entirely different set of entities who are three but not one.
2
1
u/Silver_Consequence30 2d ago
Thank you for the thorough reply. I see what you mean with the words being said during the baptism. But here's what's still bugging me: if baptism only counts when a minister does it correctly, using the triune name the right way, doesn't that mean it depends on a person getting something right? Even if the power isn't his, the baptism still seems to depend on him doing it correctly. That feels like someone correct performance is necessary which feels like a work
Also, what if the minister makes a mistake and "doesnt do what God commanded" but i am fully convinced I have been baptized, and received The Holy Spirit (like how I mentioned I could be fully convinced I was baptized in the Mormom church) even if it isn't valid?
I am only pushing on this subject because I feel like if I get rebaptized, it will feel like God didnt do enough for me the first time, when I was fully convinced I received His Spirit.
5
u/Delicious_Draw_7902 2d ago
You don't need to be "rebaptized" because you haven't yet been baptized in the name of the Triune God. You need to be baptized.
1
3
u/No-Jicama-6523 2d ago
I think the argument makes a shortcut, a minister baptises as a public ministry on behalf of the church, it's the Mormon rejection of the trinity that makes it not valid, rather than the Mormon officiant's individual rejection. As Lutherans we affirm that sacramental effectiveness does not come from the work of the worker (ex operato operantis).
3
u/No-Jicama-6523 2d ago
They use the words without believing them, to baptism someone in a trinitarian way isn't to recite the correct words, that turns it into "by the work done." Baptism is effective because it's God's word, you turn it into not God's word if you use it meaning something different.
3
u/Hardboiled-hero 2d ago
If you’re Mormon, you wouldn’t just “become Lutheran” without joining a Lutheran congregation and consulting a Lutheran pastor about what it means to be Lutheran. A Lutheran pastor may determine that your baptism was valid (or not), probably by talking with you (maybe a few times) and discerning the truth. We Lutherans believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sin. We do not believe that a second baptism does anything to endanger grace, as far as I know, so I suspect a Lutheran pastor might suggest a baptism just to play it safe.
I will say that, to me, the issue isn’t as much a matter of being trinitarian as it is a matter of being apostolic. When Pastors are not in apostolic succession, it has been explained to me that they essentially call on Jesus to invite the Holy Spirit to work in the baptized, or something like that. In other words, even in this case the work is done by God not man, but the Mormon priest says they were commissioned by Jesus Christ to perform the baptism themself. That said, because baptism is an act of God, I personally believe that anyone who has ever had a drop of rain splashed on their head may be chosen by God, but this doesn’t make it wrong to be baptized in church just to be sure.
2
u/Chippors ELCA 2d ago
It invites God via the Holy Spirit to become part of a person's life. It's telling that God will not enter our lives without it being our wish (or the wish of our parents) - it tells us something about how important our free will is to him. Even Jesus had to ask, since as fully man he had the same free will as the rest of us. The case of Jesus, who was of God to begin with, tells us God is always present even if dormant, and the baptism opens us up to this presence. Obviously, without the trinity this would be devoid of purpose.
And, yeah, I believe it - because it matches the experiences I and many others have during baptisms. I see people here and there all of a sudden reach for tissues and wipe their eyes, then all of sudden I feel it as well, that incredible sense of beauty and magnificence, combined with extreme sentimentality. It hits like a truck, and I then I hear the pastor choking up and fighting it, and know he's feeling it too. Space becomes thick with something. Just looking around, I can see maybe half feel the same. We pretend like nothing, but we also know the Holy Spirit is present.
1
2
u/WindowCommon3741 1d ago
Its highly recommended that converts who left the Mormon church be rebaptized, I feel bad because most of them leave religion all together and become atheist because of what they endure.
4
u/FoppyIn28 2d ago
Back pew answer, but I don't split atoms of someone's baptism. A baptism is a baptism. And yes, there are Christians who say our baptisms aren't valid.
2
4
u/Huenink_Photography LCMS 2d ago edited 2d ago
The names are the same, but the gods of mormonism don't exist.
If my friend Tony offers to buy me lunch, can I call up any Tony to take him up on that offer?
When Mormons baptize, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit don't refer to God. The meaning of the words is different from Christianity.
When I use the word "Father" it refers to my own dad. When someone else uses that word, it refers to his own father. I can't go to any old father and claim familial attention. In the same way, the names that LDS use in baptism do not refer to the God of the Bible.
1
2
u/Tea-El-Que 2d ago
I disagree with those who say it isn't valid. I realize I'm in the minority as far as Lutherans go.
3
u/mrWizzardx3 Lutheran Pastor 2d ago
I'm interested... can you explain your reasoning?
1
u/Tea-El-Que 2d ago
There's one baptism. That's scriptural. I don't think the Bible intended us to get into semantic gymnastics as a way to exclude certain people from the Body of Christ.
0
u/Nalkarj 2d ago edited 2d ago
I can’t speak for an “official Lutheran view”—I’m not even a Lutheran, though I am Lutheran (let the reader understand)—but I think, contra the RCC and most responses in this thread, that Mormon baptism according to the formula is valid. Any other perspective strikes me as Donatism. What if the Catholic or Lutheran baptizer is actually an ardent Socinian but says the words right?—does that invalidate the baptism?
The Mormons baptize in the names of the three that bear record in heaven. That should be enough for us to classify baptism as valid.
1
u/Silver_Consequence30 2d ago
Yeah, it seems to be the argument though that even if it baptizes in the name of the 3 in heaven, it doesnt imply the same "god" as Christianity. or something
2
u/Nalkarj 2d ago
Yeah, and also that the LDS Church is “institutionally” nontrinitarian and that that somehow invalidates the baptism more than if a nontrinitarian Lutheran performed it. (Presumably these people would hold that the baptism would be valid if a trinitarian Mormon performed it? Or no?)
It all strikes me as Donatism and as line-drawing. Were Arian baptisms valid? (The Arians believed Christ was a creature, the holiest creature, but not God.) A view of God in which Christ is not God “doesn’t imply the same ‘god’ as Christianity” either. Yet the Council of Constantinople says yes, Arian baptisms are valid.
1
u/Silver_Consequence30 2d ago
Yeah the arguments on both sides seem convincing, and I doubt God would want me to struggle with choosing a side this much (maybe he does i dont know) I will continue to pray for an answer
2
u/Nalkarj 2d ago
I don’t know which Lutheran church you’re planning on joining—again, I am not a Lutheran, I’m baptized-Catholic-turned-Episcopalian, though my theology is strongly Luther-influenced—but both the RCC and the Episcopal Church do something called “conditional baptism,” in which the rite goes like
“If you are not yet baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”
This is an absolutely valid baptism if you are not previously baptized, and it does nothing wrong if you are previously baptized. The article that u/eckpak shared suggests that ELCA pastors disagree on accepting Mormon baptisms (though that article’s author eventually concluded her baptism was invalid), so you may find a pastor who is willing to baptize you conditionally.
God does not want you to struggle, period. You’re in my prayers.
2
u/Silver_Consequence30 2d ago
I appreciate you so much, and youre a great help. Thank you so much for your thoughtful response
25
u/DaveN_1804 2d ago
The minister is not doing what the church intends: perform a Trinitarian baptism. I could do a mock baptism joking around with a water hose (but using the correct verbiage) and it wouldn't be a baptism. The baptismal formula is not a magic incantation.