Question Regarding Mormon 'Baptism'.

[JJM]

I know that I am not Catholic but I would like the advice of the people here, and so I hope it is ok if I post it here. I don't want it in the Unorthodox Theology because I'm worried about it being Trolled and I only want responses from people who are commited to the belief that they are not valid Christian Baptisms. However I am having trouble working this out in my head.

So what Mormons refer to as baptisms are not valid baptisms because they do not ultimately refer to the persons of the Trinity due to thier difference in theology. Presumably the reason they are invalid is that their theology regarding the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (as they never say Spirit) is different enough that they no longer in fact ultimately refer to the individual members of the Trinity when they perform their ceremony. Essentially the claim is that some sort of equivocation is going on. This, however, cannot be absolute equivocation or else statements like 'Mormons believe that the Father was once a man' or 'They do not believe that that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are consubstantial in the same way that we do' are in fact false statements. I don't mean that what the Mormons say is false but rather that the statement that they say it is false. In fact they would not make statements about any member of the Trinity because the words simply do not mean the same thing. This seems to not be the case.

So I'm forced to consider an analogy of Theseus's ship. I assume you know the story, but Theseus's sails off in his ship from Athens. During the course of his journey every piece of his ship needs replacing, and he replaces them all. The question is: is he sailing the same ship when he gets back to Athens? The caveat being: what would happen if someone had followed him around and picked up all the old pieces and built a ship out of them, would that be Theseus's Ship? Now I'm of the opinion that as long as during the repairs the first ship never stopped being a ship then it is still the original ship. And for the purposes of this analogy we have to assume that I am right and that this corresponds to the true teaching regarding the Trinity. We also need to assume that basically everyone has agreed with me for hundreds of years. We also need to assume that the name Theseus's Ship is simply a proper name of a ship and it doesn't matter if Theseus still owns it. Finally we need to assume that this hypothetical second ship has in fact never been made. Now a new group of people crop up that think the other thing is Theseus's Ship. Now this group could theoretically fall into one of three groups. A. They could think that there is some imaginary ship in Thrace that is in fact this ship. B. They could have some ship of their own and claim that it is the said ship. C. They could continue to think that the ship that everyone else thinks is the ship is in fact Theseus's Ship, but simply believe that that ship is made from all the old parts. For someone in groups A or B, then we have some group of people who at the present refer to a separate ship than those who are right, but the two have a common reference point such that conversations they have using the words Theseus's Ship do not become simply talking past each other.

There are couple of problems with this analogy. Firstly if one asked a Mormon 'Presume hypothetically that you are wrong. Now consider this analogy which of these groups do you fall into?', they would probably all say number three, and it seems historically this is what happened, ie most of the initial Mormons before becoming Mormons were 'orthodox' enough Christians, or at least existed within an 'orthodox' enough Christian society where if they were using the words Father, Son, or Holy Ghost they would ultimately be making reference to whomever orthodox Christains make reference to. This is even true of Joseph Smith. When Joseph Smith began teaching, then, he presumably meant to make reference to by these words what he had always intended to make reference to, for either he whole heartedly believed it and so this is probably the case or he was a lying conman in which case it is unlikely that he considered the philosophical problems of identity which he was creating. Likewise the people who heard him probably considered themselves to be referring to the same things they always had. If we get to the point where it is really important: an individual Mormon X, before becoming Mormon has been praying to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost his whole life. He becomes Mormon and is still praying to some entities which he refers to as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. He presumably intends to be praying to whom hhe has always been praying, not to deny that those persons to whom we was previously praying were really the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that now he wants to pray to something else which they were only impersonating.

The second is that in the analogy at the very least the ship which is actually Theseus's Ship in physically present in a simple form. If you said to someone take me to the specific ship you are talking about they could easily take you to Theseus's Ship if they wanted to. Prayer and ceremonial reference are more like long distance communication, if you will, so no such test is so obvious either to us or them.

Here's the problem then we have to assume that despite their using the same sound, intending to make reference to the same thing, they don't, without noticing (at least not enough that it convinced them it happened), because of false beliefs regarding that thing, despite the fact that there is some real way that they do make reference to the thing because the equivocation is not absolute. Fine I could see this, but what is it about their false beliefs that puts them over the edge. It cannot be that they don't believe in the Trinity because neither did classical Arians or Modalist really, but no one doubts their baptisms. Nor can it be that they believe the Father to be a finite entity because there was a time in Egypt when most of the Monks there believed God to have a body and for that body to be anthropomorphic (though I suppose they could at the same time believe contradictorily that he was infinite) and no one doubts the validity of their baptisms either. Likewise it cannot be that they do not believe the Father to be the source of all things as there were many early Christians who mistakenly believed that God made things out of preexisting matter and no one is doubting their baptisms. Moreover classical Arians were capable of referring to the Son and Spirit without thinking that they were eternal or the source of all things. The Modalists were capable of referring to all three persons without thinking they were persons at all but simply ways of describing God. As far as I know they wouldn't have said that 'Father', 'Son', and 'Spirit', weren't really any different than 'Love', 'Wisdom', 'Truth'. All are terms that describe some 'aspect' of God but in fact they are all simply the same thing.

The idea that someone could accidentally stop refering to God is an exceedinly scary prospect, especially when the process does not make sense to me.

 

[Tigg]

I was raised Mormon. I am a convert to Catholic. Simply put, the Mormon god is not the same God. I was baptised for real in the Catholic Church. Go to link for a more complete answer. I hope this helps. Take care.

Why doesn't the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism? | Catholic Answers

 

[JJM]

Thank you for the reply I really appreciate it. It doesn't really get to the heart of my question though, which is why is it not the same God, or better put why are the persons not the same persons? It's not that I need a refresher in Mormon theology (though it would help to know if they think that humans can get thier own universes or thier own planets), I otherwise think I have it down quite well; it that I see all of these other groups whose baptisms were not questioned holding the similar beliefs and I cannot figure out where Mormons go over the line.

Before I go on please know that I'm not here to attack Catholic Theology. The Church of England (though I don't know that I can say the same thing about the communion as a whole), and the Orthodox also teach that they have invalid baptisms and so I feel compelled (though I don't know that it is absolutely) to agree and so I really am trying to understand.

I had seen that article before:

From what I see it says the following (taking your assumption that they are saying 'the Mormon god is not the same God'.:

1. That which they refer to as the Father is one in a succession of gods and to is not God.

2. Their god is not infinite, so not God

3. That which they call the Father and the Son are described as superhumans.

4. That which they call the Son came into existance after that which they call the Father

5. Those whom they call the The Father and the Son are not consubstanial (as we mean it).

But of those five as I said above 2-5 have been held by people whose baptism is valid.

Now I could perhaps see 1 as being different, I may have to think on it but here's my problem:
First look at how they express it: 'Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men' therefore they don't believe in God. It's at least an seeming contradiction. That said I'm open to taking it as 'Mormons believe that God the Father is only one of many gods who were once men, therefore they do not ultimately refer to God the Father in prayers and ceremonies. In addition reference to these two is contingent upon reference to the Father from whom they come so they get them off also.' But still it doesn't make a difference for refering to the Son and the Spirit so why should it make a difference for the Father. And it doesn't matter that He be the source of all things because as far as I know there were early Christains who thought matter was uncreated and no one is questioning them. So what exactly is it about this difference that makes it so different? Is it just so many differences all together?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

The problem with using the analogy of Theseus' ship here is that, unlike the ship that was just made by replacing parts, the Mormon god is essentially a different deity given the same name. Think of this in terms of the ship as an idea, rather than a thing. The idea of Theseus' ship started in someone's mind before the ship was ever built. Then, the original ship was built, and it was a representation of that mental idea. The ship was entirely replaced, but it still reflected the same mental idea, and was therefore still Theseus' ship, at least on some level.

The Mormon god is a separate idea from the Christian God. He is, as you put it, one in a long line of gods. He is not eternal, he was once a human being, etc. He is clearly not the same person as the God who we worship in any real sense. This would be similar to taking an Omaha-class Cruiser and saying that it was Theseus' ship because it shared the same name. Arians and Modalists have reinterpreted the Christian God with heretical results, but their image of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit always ties back to the actual original persons, even if their perception of them is drastically incorrect. The Mormon concept of god does not trace back to the Christian God, because it is not just a separate, incorrect perspective on the same being.

 

[JJM]

The problem with using the analogy of Theseus' ship here is that, unlike the ship that was just made by replacing parts, the Mormon god is essentially a different deity given the same name. Think of this in terms of the ship as an idea, rather than a thing. The idea of Theseus' ship started in someone's mind before the ship was ever built. Then, the original ship was built, and it was a representation of that mental idea. The ship was entirely replaced, but it still reflected the same mental idea, and was therefore still Theseus' ship, at least on some level.

The Mormon god is a separate idea from the Christian God. He is, as you put it, one in a long line of gods. He is not eternal, he was once a human being, etc. He is clearly not the same person as the God who we worship in any real sense. This would be similar to taking an Omaha-class Cruiser and saying that it was Theseus' ship because it shared the same name. Arians and Modalists have reinterpreted the Christian God with heretical results, but their image of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit always ties back to the actual original persons, even if their perception of them is drastically incorrect. The Mormon concept of god does not trace back to the Christian God, because it is not just a separate, incorrect perspective on the same being.

Why do you think that it doesn't matter that one believe that the Son and Spirit are eternal?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Why do you think that it doesn't matter that one believe that the Son and Spirit are eternal?

Obviously it does matter. My text that you quoted clearly reaffirms this on several occasions. Believing that the Son and Spirit are not eternal is very serious heresy.

The difference, as far as I understand (which might not be very far, given that I'm not a theologian) is that, when Arians mention the Son and the Holy Spirit in their baptismal formula, they are still referring to the same persons on some level. They have a misunderstanding of them and of their nature, but their misunderstanding does not alter the persons who they refer to. It's similar to when Baptists confer a baptism and say "I baptize you..." believing the baptism to be a symbolic rather than sacramental gesture. The new Christian is still baptized, since they intended to baptize.

Mormons, on the other hand, refer to an entirely different being under the same name as the Christian God, along with two other gods when they refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They don't just misunderstand God, they replace Him with something else entirely. Therefore, they do not refer to God the Father in their baptismal formula.

Again, I will clarify that I'm not absolutely certain. This makes the most sense to me, but I'm conjecturing, based on the fact that Mormon baptisms are not considered valid partly because they do not mention the persons of the Trinity but Arian baptisms are considered valid. It might be best to ask a priest or theologian rather than people on an internet forum.

 

[JJM]

Obviously it does matter. My text that you quoted clearly reaffirms this on several occasions. Believing that the Son and Spirit are not eternal is very serious heresy.

The difference, as far as I understand (which might not be very far, given that I'm not a theologian) is that, when Arians mention the Son and the Holy Spirit in their baptismal formula, they are still referring to the same persons on some level. They have a misunderstanding of them and of their nature, but their misunderstanding does not alter the persons who they refer to. It's similar to when Baptists confer a baptism and say "I baptize you..." believing the baptism to be a symbolic rather than sacramental gesture. The new Christian is still baptized, since they intended to baptize.

Mormons, on the other hand, refer to an entirely different being under the same name as the Christian God, along with two other gods when they refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. They don't just misunderstand God, they replace Him with something else entirely. Therefore, they do not refer to God the Father in their baptismal formula.

Again, I will clarify that I'm not absolutely certain. This makes the most sense to me, but I'm conjecturing, based on the fact that Mormon baptisms are not considered valid partly because they do not mention the persons of the Trinity but Arian baptisms are considered valid. It might be best to ask a priest or theologian rather than people on an internet forum.

Thank you,

I do understand that this is what is supposed to be going on. What I'm wondering about is the cause of this. And it seemed to me that your answer involved the claim that it was a lack of eternity in the concept of the Father. But the case of the Arians shows us that not believing that the Son and the Spirit are eternal does not keep one from referring to them which is what I meant by it not being important. Yes, it is important ultimately.

I also take your point about an internet forum, but there was a time (at least in my estimation) when Christian Forums and OBOB was ripe with amateur theologians who would take a crack at helping someone coming with theological questions.

That said, usually when I end up asking this sort of question on CF it is because I need a quick response or I've exhausted other options. In this case it is a bit of both, as it is affecting me quite badly and I have spoke to three priests regarding this, one Anglican and two Roman Catholic. One (though he was short one time) insisted that it was absolute equivocation and s I need not worry about it, but had contradicted himself by saying something like their concept of God the Father is completely off. If the equivocation is absolute then they can't have an opinion regarding God the Father since they make no reference to Him. I have addressed this above.

The second RC one waffled a bit on the equivocation and said that it was because they have a different understanding of Baptism which lead him to say that Anabaptists have invalid baptisms which is simply false.

The Anglican priest though starting out opposed to the idea ended up saying that maybe they are valid, or in a very Orthodox manner said they could become valid if they corrected their views though he may have simply meant begin working perhaps.

I'd also sent an email to a friend of mine at the NAC and the National Adviser: mission theology, alternative spiritualities and new religious movements for the CoE.

Since posting here I've also gotten a response from the latter and an I'll try to get back to you after exams from the former. The later though focuses on perichoresis, which I feel like cannot be correct as it doesn't seem the Arians held to it, unless he held it to some sufficient degree which the Mormons do not.

I also emailed L'Osservatore Romano to try and get a copy of an article by Fr Luis Ladaria that came out shortly after the Vatican made a decision turns out the CDF had it on their section of the website so they sent me the link this morning. He seems to say:

1. They don't believe in a unified Godhead, but in a divinity which only results from the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost deciding to unite (in purpose?).
2. 'The divinity above and man share the same nature' (though I think he means any constituent member). That is the Father is not formerly a man but still is a man and though exceedingly more powerful or whatever else is not a significantly different kind of thing.
3. The Father has relatives (is an individual in a class with many others? I'm thinking that may be what is relevant to what he is trying to get at)
4. The Father created with a wife and they make persons by some sort of spiritual copulation.
5. Perhaps that the Son is also simply a man.
6. The Son and Holy Ghost were made after the world was created.
7. There is a forth person responsible for the creation of the world.

8. This may also be important. It may be the distinguishing characteristic: 'to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.' I think that all the points above may be trying to argue to this point.
9. He might also say that (and this may be the most important thing) that their idea did not grow out of the Christian Doctrine, but was made up whole cloth and then stuck the same sounds etc. on it. I have my doubts about this, but I need to think about it.

He also speaks about differences in understanding of what each group refers to with 'Baptism'.

1. Mormons don't believe what they refer to to be instituted by Christ. Catholics understand what catholics refer to to be instituted by Christ. So Mormons cannot intend to do the same thing.

To this he adds who lesser objections: 1. Mormons do not believe in original sin and 2. they will do what they refer to with 'baptism' again. These both seem to be unsound as the Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin and Baptists will do what Baptists refer to with 'baptism' again but neither of these groups' baptisms are doubted

Anyway I have a tutorial essay to work on so I cannot digest all of this right now, but I thought I would put it up in case anyone else wants to chime in. I really would appreciate input.
I've got lunch with a lay Orthodox theologian to discuss this tomorrow. Hopefully I can have a think over it maybe in the morning. I'll let anyone know what may come of my conversation, in case there is interest.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

To this he adds who lesser objections: 1. Mormons do not believe in original sin and 2. they will do what they refer to with 'baptism' again. These both seem to be unsound as the Orthodox do not believe in Original Sin and Baptists will do what Baptists refer to with 'baptism' again but neither of these groups' baptisms are doubted

Yeah...even though those two things are grave errors, they do not in and of themselves render a baptism invalid if, by baptizing, the individual intends to do generally "what the Church does" (ie., they actually want to baptize someone). I would wonder whether Mormon baptisms might be invalidated by the fact that they are participating in an act that they do not believe Christ instituted, and therefore aren't really participating in the same act.

Mormonism, in reality, is a very different religion from Christianity, despite using the same words and trappings as the Christian faith. It's different in a way that Arianism, Nestorianism, and others like them never could be.

I'm not trying to say that Christian Forums isn't ever a good source for information. I guess I'm just trying to be careful in what I say because these are ultra-complicated and technical theological issues that normally get discussed by people with multiple letters after their names, and I'm a senior undergrad in a state college learning about secular history. The part I would be most concerned about would be saying that, in some way, Arians still refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, which seems to logically follow from their baptisms being valid (so they do at least refer to the persons of the Trinity in that formula), but their views of the Son and Holy Spirit are very different from those of orthodox Christians, so I don't know whether you can say that they still refer to them outside of the baptismal formula. I can probably tell you more about the atmosphere that Mormonism came out of than I can tell you about what Mormons actually believe

 

[AMDG]

Some years ago I had reason to contact Catholics United for Faith (www.cuf.org ) about Mormon baptism. They did a lot of research for me in order to answer the question (pages and pages--going back to the early Church fathers to...), but basically the reason Mormon baptism is not valid is because they do not intend the same thing. As was said, the Mormon god is not the same as ours. (Ours existed before all time while the Mormon god has a father and he has a father and he has a father and he has a father on and on... According to the LDS, their god became a god through being true to LDS principles--it's confusing.) Also, if you actually read LDS sources, you'll find that their baptism is more of a "regenerative" one like John the Baptist's was. It's simply not the same.

 

[ProScribe]

Proper Baptism would be triple-immersion with the Trinitarian formula along with the Baptismal prayers. . .

 

[JJM]

Ok so the conversation with the lay theologian was almost a complete waste of time. He did point me ot something by a St. Basil which might be helpful, but I looked on New Advent for the stuff by St. Basil the Great and I don't see it. Though I cannot remember the title as it was in Greek and he said it quickly. However, it involved the homoiousians I think (I might have the spelling wrong).

He didn't seemed concerned that the Church be consistant.

Anyway,

Thinking about What Fr. Ladaria said I think that 2 (and probably 5) aren't true. Mormons believe that when the Father copulates with the mother they beget spiritual children not flesh and blood children. They think He has the power to rule a universe or planet and create life. This is not simply a human being. Though I could be wrong.

6 could in a sense be true of modalist I think, they would simply have to argue that the Son didn't exist really until God became incarnate. But the Son is really God who is eternal, so hmm. It is different though.

4 & 7 are different but not entirely unlike the opinion that there also existed eternally Matter. However matter is not a transcendent principle and the people who held it are not likely to believe that it has an active but rather purely passive role in creation. I don't know how Mormons view what they call the Heavenly Mother.

3 is different.

1 depending on how you nuance it might be like Arian teaching, but it may not.

Now all of these are supposed to result in the conclusions 8 and 9 I suppose.

8 ultimately is false, presuming you could begin refering to the right person if you began thinking differently without recognising that you were doing it. Cause take away 1-7 and a number of other beliefs and replace them with the correct ones and you get something which is at least identical to the Christian doctrine in theory (whether or not it would actually switch in practice is something else I don't know what to do with). Now I realise it is a lot to change, but the point is whereas he is trying to turn it into a more qualitative difference in fact it is more quantitative, presuming that that is even a valid destinction. The problem is then that all that one has to say is they have to be different enough. There is a spectrum. It has a point. If you cross that point your on the other side. So you have a sorites occasion. I don't do to well with those.

9 is an interesting point. But its not as though he made something up without reference to Christianity, and then found that you could fit labels to it which were Christian. However I could perhaps see the point that he made up something attempting to fit the Christian labels to it but not really trying to understand the reality or the teaching which was revealed. But the desire to fit the Christian labels to it seems to show that he wanted to keep the terms responding. But thats not to say he could not just make up this story intending to fit the Christian lables to it without thinking that they responed any longer. It just seems far fetched to me.

I thought of another issue that might be relevant. Spinoza with his 'Deus sive Natura'. In other words Spinoza when he talks about God says that he is the laws of the physical universe. But it seems rather clear that he is just looking for a code word to trick people, and that he no longer really means God. Or if he does it is in the sense of well people attribute all of these things to a given entity (order of the universe, large storms, feelings within them, etc) and that entity we will call God and that entity is in fact simply the laws of the physical universe. I don't know how to work that out. Likewise it seems like it could make a difference if he realised he was doing it and if he didn't. Spinoza I think does but it seems the Mormons do not. Though I suppose I cannot speak for Joseph Smith.

Anyway thoughts would still be appreciated.

 

[AMDG]

might be like Arian teaching, but it may not.

The reason it seems like Arian teaching (but again maybe not) is because IMO Mormonism has taken all the heresies and just used parts of them "willy nilly". (I've been down that "rabbit hole" before and found Arianism--with it's claim that the Father and the Son are not one; lots of Gnostism--with its idea of "secret knowledge" that only certain elite know is allowed to know; Albigensianism--with their denial of the Eucharist and all Sacraments, denial of the Trinity, and believing that the clergy should not be supported; a bit of Valentinianism--with its countless geneologies; Montanism--with its prophesizing and harshness, Iconoclasm--with getting rid of any statues and all; Islam--with its teachings that "an angel came down and gave them new writings"; and more "because God's Church went astray"--but what do you expect, of a religion made up in 1830 which depended heavily on the Protestant ideas of the mass Protestant revival area in upstate New York. I was surprised at the Greek ideas of gods and goddesses though.)

My own advise? Forget about this made-up nonsense and study the Church and the early Church fathers. We know the Church is true. Jesus said that "the gates of hell would not prevail against it".

But if you are truly wanting to study Mormonism, you might try the book by Peter Bartley, Mormonism; or the one by Isaiah Bennett (was a Catholic priest then converted to Mormonism then after awhile re-converted to Catholicism again) When Mormons Call. There are probably some other useful books, including the small Beginning Apologetics II book by San Juan Catholic Seminars, How to Answer Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. The LDS (Mormons) are (IMO) a sad group who do not know their history.

 

[AMDG]

5. Perhaps that the Son is also simply a man.

BTW, this is true. They teach their children that He was flesh and bones (just like you).

Also, they do teach that God the Father and God the Son are united only in purpose. I have had missionaries use Genesis 1:26 (the "Let *us* make man in *our* own image") to try to "prove" that. It must be remembered that Joseph Smith was only a boy, with a fantastic imagination, but didn't know different languages and so his BOM was from the English Protestant Bible available at the time.

(Just FYI, the BOM is innocuous. It contains none of the "more strange" teachings of the LDS religion. For that you'll need to go to their Pearl of Great Price and their Doctrines and Covenants. They consider those two books to be equal to the BOM.)

 

[Tigg]

tp AMDG.

To me, not being the same God is enuff. I came to understand as a Mormon, using Church teachings, and BoM etc, that their, or my god at the time, lied. Devastating. IMO God can not lie and if ya catch Him doing so, well.... A whole bunch of contradictions, which I believe the LDS are (or have) cleaned/cleaning up and/or now deny.

Anyhows, JJM, research it all yourself. However I agree with AMDG.
"My own advise? Forget about this made-up nonsense and study the Church and the early Church fathers. We know the Church is true. Jesus said that "the gates of hell would not prevail against it"." - AMDG

 

[AMDG]

9. He might also say that (and this may be the most important thing) that their idea did not grow out of the Christian Doctrine, but was made up whole cloth and then stuck the same sounds etc. on it. I have my doubts about this, but I need to think about it.

I don't doubt it at all. In fact, I see that this is how they are able to get "converts" (well, this and a psychological "wish fulfillment", guilt, and an emphasis on "feelings".) Said that the BOM is innocuous (had to be or it would scare off investigators), so they are able to present their ideas and then put Christian words on it so people don't seem to realize how non-Christian those ideas are until after conversion. (They don't allow the investigators to study it all before they accept it--they are only to know what the missionaries tell them. It's called "milk before meat".)

 

[Joshua G.]

I will admit that I only truly read the first couple posts and then skimmed so if I repeat anything, forgive me.

I have always been taught that the real reason we Orthodox do not accept Mormon baptism is first and foremost because of form.

With the exception of a few canonical jurisdictions, we accept non-Orthodox baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Ghost) with water.

I will add that "accept" is a bit of a misnomer. The teaching is that we don't judge the efficacy of another's baptism. When we chrismate, the Grace from that sacrament, we believe, makes whole/complete whatever may have been missing from the original baptism.

 

[JJM]

With the exception of a few canonical jurisdictions, we accept non-Orthodox baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Ghost) with water.

At first glance if one is unfamiliar with their theology this is exactly what they do.

If one wants to say this and still doubt what they are doing I would think it would have to be because they do not mean the same thing by the words and thus do not actually baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Unless that bit about intention is true.

 

[JJM]

The reason it seems like Arian teaching (but again maybe not) is because IMO Mormonism has taken all the heresies and just used parts of them "willy nilly". (I've been down that "rabbit hole" before and found Arianism--with it's claim that the Father and the Son are not one; lots of Gnostism--with its idea of "secret knowledge" that only certain elite know is allowed to know; Albigensianism--with their denial of the Eucharist and all Sacraments, denial of the Trinity, and believing that the clergy should not be supported; a bit of Valentinianism--with its countless geneologies; Montanism--with its prophesizing and harshness, Iconoclasm--with getting rid of any statues and all; Islam--with its teachings that "an angel came down and gave them new writings"; and more "because God's Church went astray"--but what do you expect, of a religion made up in 1830 which depended heavily on the Protestant ideas of the mass Protestant revival area in upstate New York. I was surprised at the Greek ideas of gods and goddesses though.)

My own advise? Forget about this made-up nonsense and study the Church and the early Church fathers. We know the Church is true. Jesus said that "the gates of hell would not prevail against it".

But if you are truly wanting to study Mormonism, you might try the book by Peter Bartley, Mormonism; or the one by Isaiah Bennett (was a Catholic priest then converted to Mormonism then after awhile re-converted to Catholicism again) When Mormons Call. There are probably some other useful books, including the small Beginning Apologetics II book by San Juan Catholic Seminars, How to Answer Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. The LDS (Mormons) are (IMO) a sad group who do not know their history.

It's not that I want to study them. The problem is twofold, 1. My relationship with God is hampered by the possibility of not actually referring to Him without noticing (seriously so). 2. Add to this the fact that I am getting a degree in theology focusing on patristics and so A. come into contact with a number of those groups on a regular basis, B. have to know Greek Philosophy effecting the time period and should probably know other philosophy from the time periods, which adds extra ambiguity, C. not all of the theologians at Oxford are necessarily sound, especially since the theology faculty also contains the religion faculty, and so not all of them are even trying to be what they would consider Christian. It means I am surrounded by what seem to be similar ambiguities on a regular basis and am expected to make truth claims about them.

 

[Joshua G.]

At first glance if one is unfamiliar with their theology this is exactly what they do.

If one wants to say this and still doubt what they are doing I would think it would have to be because they do not mean the same thing by the words and thus do not actually baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Unless that bit about intention is true.

If they do, then I believe we "accept" it. I couldn't remember which way it was for Mormons. That doesn't mean we believe it means anything before it is fulfilled. It could be as much as an empty vessel that is brought to us. that's not really for us to judge even though most may hold the opinion that indeed it is simply an empty vessel.

Edit: I may be wrong on this or perhaps it is more controversial in the OC than I realized at the time of learning this. IF you are curious, hop on over the TAW and ask.