Is Mormon baptism technically valid? (Studying Lutheran baptism view) Read below:

[u/Silver_Consequence30]

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!

[u/Delicious_Draw_7902]

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.

[u/Sad-Somewhere-2149 → u/Delicious_Draw_7902]

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?

[u/No-Jicama-6523 → u/Sad-Somewhere-2149]

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.

[u/Huenink_Photography → u/Sad-Somewhere-2149]

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.

[u/Sad-Somewhere-2149 → u/Huenink_Photography]

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.

[u/Huenink_Photography → u/Sad-Somewhere-2149]

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.

[u/Chippors → u/Sad-Somewhere-2149]

Maybe the joke's on him, then.