Why Is Baptismal Authority Necessary?

[Just_A_Guy]

Jinc, one thing that did come to mind as I was pondering our exchange later this morning, was Acts 8 (Rameumptom touches on this). Here we have the story of Simon of Samaria, who believes and is baptized (v. 13). Then Peter and John are sent from Jerusalem and lay hands on the other converts of Samaria, who then receive the Holy Ghost. Simon offers Peter and John money in exchange for this power (vv. 18-19), and earns a strong rebuke from the other two (vv. 20-24).

Now, this doesn't speak to baptism specifically; but it does indicate that there are some spiritual rituals that a regular believer--like Simon--can't do; but that a holder of a particular place in church hierarchy--like Peter or John--can. You can see this, too, in Acts 19, where the sons of Sceva at least believed in Jesus enough to attempt to cast out evil spirits in His name--and their authority was rebuffed.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

That's not accurate. Based on the logic you use, virtually ANYTHING is possible then. We could argue that Paul was really from Mars and dropped off on planet earth by aliens...Why? Because it doesn't say he wasn't. We have to weigh the evidence we have and make decisions on what we know.

If you refuse to accept any canon besides the Bible, then you're correct. It all boils down to what we define as "evidence". How's the praying going?

It doesn't make sense to assume they had priesthood rights that are never mentioned anywhere.

The idea of "priesthood" itself is somehow so pervasive in the Bible that pretty much every organization that purports to follow it, has created one. What that priesthood could and couldn't do, of course, is somewhat hairier.

[Guest]

Jnc, I'm going to answer this question from your Catholic background.

Okay, in the Catholic Church, the only time that a person without priesthood authority can baptize someone is in emergencies only. This is by Sacred Tradition. The reason being, the priest has specific instructions on trinitarian baptism formula and they have the authority to record the baptism in the books. But, anyone (even non-Catholics) can baptize in an emergency - imminent death - as long as the baptism follows the trinitarian baptism formula of being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The reason being - baptism is a necessary ordinance and cannot be impeded.

This same reasoning applies in LDS teaching. BUT, the main difference is - Catholicism is missing the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead. In LDS teaching, those who die without having been baptized on earth may still receive the ordinance by proxy. Therefore, there is no need to perform emergency baptism on the threat of death. Therefore, there is no reason why a priest cannot perform the baptism.

So, the issue left is whether you subscribe to sola scriptura (which then makes the Catholic practice also in question) or you believe that there are things preserved outside of the Bible about the way things are supposed to be done in the Church.

Edited November 14, 2013 by anatess

[Connie]

That's not accurate. Based on the logic you use, virtually ANYTHING is possible then. We could argue that Paul was really from Mars and dropped off on planet earth by aliens...Why? Because it doesn't say he wasn't. We have to weigh the evidence we have and make decisions on what we know. It doesn't make sense to assume they had priesthood rights that are never mentioned anywhere.

I was describing your logic, not mine. And you’re right, argumentum ad ignorantiam make virtually anything possible. That’s why it’s a fallacy.

I have weighed the evidences from the story itself, as mentioned by JAG; the evidence from other similar stories, as mentioned by Ram; the evidence from other scriptures of the restored gospel that speak of priesthood authority (there are plenty in the Bible itself) and what I have learned about priesthood authority from the Holy Spirit. I’d take that over “there’s no mention of it, so therefore he didn’t have any authority” (aka argumentum ad ignorantiam) any day of the week. The scriptures should be taken as a whole. The story of Paul’s baptism doesn’t belong in a vacuum.

[bytebear]

One question. If anyone can baptize, why don't other Christians accept Mormon baptisms?

[mnn727]

There is absolutely no mention of it anywhere. There is no reason at all to believe that he did. It's as simple as that.

The Bible doesn't mention anyone 'answering natures call' either, shall we assume no one ever did?

You say you have rejected Catholic teachings, yet you fall back on them in every discussion, so which is it; you believe Catholic Dogma or you don't?

[Guest]

The Bible doesn't mention anyone 'answering natures call' either, shall we assume no one ever did?

You say you have rejected Catholic teachings, yet you fall back on them in every discussion, so which is it; you believe Catholic Dogma or you don't?

He never said he rejected Catholic teachings. That's silly. I have a strong testimony of the Restored Gospel and even I do not reject Catholic teachings. The teaching that Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Heavenly Father doesn't all of a sudden become false just because a Catholic said it.

He is trying to understand Mormon doctrine. That is all he wants to do.

[Guest]

One question. If anyone can baptize, why don't other Christians accept Mormon baptisms?

Because Mormons are not Trinitarians. That makes our "Jesus" different from their "Jesus" which invalidates a baptism performed in the name of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Now, if a Mormon baptizes a dying person in water according to the faith of the dying person or the faith of the one baptizing in the Trinity, then it is a valid baptism.

Edited November 15, 2013 by anatess

[bytebear]

Because Mormons are not Trinitarians. That makes our "Jesus" different from their "Jesus" which invalidates a baptism performed in the name of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

Now, if a Mormon baptizes a dying person in water according to the faith of the dying person or the faith of the one baptizing in the Trinity, then it is a valid baptism.

Too many legalistic loopholes. I don't believe God works that way.

[Guest]

Too many legalistic loopholes. I don't believe God works that way.

Legalistic??? Nope.

So, you're saying that if a person believes Jesus Christ is a sparkling green lephrechaun, he should still be able to baptize Christians in his name?

[mnn727]

He never said he rejected Catholic teachings. That's silly. I have a strong testimony of the Restored Gospel and even I do not reject Catholic teachings. The teaching that Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Heavenly Father doesn't all of a sudden become false just because a Catholic said it.

anatess, come on, it appears you are intentionally trying to misunderstand. I am talking about his always going to the "Early Church Fathers" writings to promote Catholic teachings rather than LDS or even Protestant beliefs.

I'm not talking about his belief in Jesus Christ.

I like the Catholic Church, married a Catholic girl in a Catholic Church (before I was LDS) been to Mass many times, but in a lot of their teachings they are wrong. Just because Iranius or Clemont or Polycarp or others wrote something in the 1st-3rd century does not make it correct, especially since there was a lot of writings at odds with each other.

I can tell you are passionate about your Catholic upbringing however, at some point even you have to admit a lot of what they teach is wrong or you would not have left them.

[Guest]

anatess, come on, it appears you are intentionally trying to misunderstand. I am talking about his always going to the "Early Church Fathers" writings to promote Catholic teachings rather than LDS or even Protestant beliefs.

I'm not talking about his belief in Jesus Christ.

I like the Catholic Church, married a Catholic girl in a Catholic Church (before I was LDS) been to Mass many times, but in a lot of their teachings they are wrong. Just because Iranius or Clemont or Polycarp or others wrote something in the 1st-3rd century does not make it correct, especially since there was a lot of writings at odds with each other.

I can tell you are passionate about your Catholic upbringing however, at some point even you have to admit a lot of what they teach is wrong or you would not have left them.

Of course he goes back to the Early Church Fathers! He's not Mormon! And outside of the restored gospel, the "Early Church Fathers" is pretty important in trying to figure out what is true or not true!

Sure, you can say a lot of what they teach is misguided, but... different catholic sects as well as protestants say the same thing and you say they're wrong too! How do you know which is true or not true? You have to go study them against everything else! And that's what jnc is doing.

Edited November 15, 2013 by anatess

[skippy740]

Sure, you can say a lot of what they teach is misguided, but... different catholic sects as well as protestants say the same thing and you say they're wrong too! How do you know which is true or not true? You have to go study them against everything else! And that's what jnc is doing.

Or you can do as Joseph Smith did... and pray about it. :)

So far, he's collecting a lot of information, and he's being very open-minded, considering the questions being asked.

What we don't yet know about his journey, is his spiritual progression. Knowledge is helpful, but it's more important to seek divine guidance.

[mnn727]

Of course he goes back to the Early Church Fathers! He's not Mormon! And outside of the restored gospel, the "Early Church Fathers" is pretty important in trying to figure out what is true or not true!

Actually having grown up Protestant and investigated many Churches; other than Catholics and their direct, close offshoots (like Lutherern, Angelican, etc) most Christian religions don't study or even care about what the Early Church Fathers wrote.

When I investigated the LDS Church I went to the Bible, the BoM and also to God in Prayer.

The Early Church Fathers have almost nothing to do with the LDS church, its teachings and doctrines, so if you are truly investigating the LDS Church why keep bringing a source of info that has nothing to do with the Church, and by his own statement early on, he rejected the Church that bases their teachings upon?

[mnn727]

How do you know which is true or not true? You have to go study them against everything else! And that's what jnc is doing.

No, I went in prayer to God and got a direct testimony from HIM that what I was being taught was true and that He wanted me to be a full part of it.

Did you join for a different reason?

Edited November 15, 2013 by mnn727

[Guest]

No, I went in prayer to God and got a direct testimony from HIM that what I was being taught was true and that He wanted me to be a full part of it.

Did you join for a different reason?

Funny, mnn.

You can be holier than thou if you like. Just because people approach gospel study through conventional research doesn't make their study any less valid than yours. God gave us brains for a reason. God might speak to you through fuzzy feelings when you close your eyes and pray (although, even that, you have to know how to pray and listen to the spirit before it makes any sense), God may speak to others through a light bulb turning on in their heads when they ponder books and encyclopedias and scriptures with the sincere desire to find truth. For you to discredit jnc's methods is quite contrary to your Articles of Faith.

Edited November 15, 2013 by anatess

[mnn727]

jinc has not weighed in on it as of yet, only you, and I am not sure why you are being so antagonistic about this, nor why you appear to be demeaning someones testimony.

I will bow out of this until jinc answers as I was trying to answer jinc, not pick a fight with you.

[bytebear]

Legalistic??? Nope.

So, you're saying that if a person believes Jesus Christ is a sparkling green lephrechaun, he should still be able to baptize Christians in his name?

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jinc1019]

Actually having grown up Protestant and investigated many Churches; other than Catholics and their direct, close offshoots (like Lutherern, Angelican, etc) most Christian religions don't study or even care about what the Early Church Fathers wrote.

When I investigated the LDS Church I went to the Bible, the BoM and also to God in Prayer.

The Early Church Fathers have almost nothing to do with the LDS church, its teachings and doctrines, so if you are truly investigating the LDS Church why keep bringing a source of info that has nothing to do with the Church, and by his own statement early on, he rejected the Church that bases their teachings upon?

Mnn,

With all due respect, I think you totally misunderstand your own church's position.

Your church claims to be the restored church of Christ, correct? Your church claims to teach what the apostles taught (plus some additional teachings as well), correct?

The early church fathers then matter quite a bit. If your church claims one thing is true and has always been true, such as believer's baptism for instance, then the apostles must also have believed the same thing. So, it's reasonable to go back as far as I can and see, historically, what the earliest Christian leaders taught. It's one way of trying to verify if Joseph Smith was really restoring the original church or making things up.

Now, this way of looking back at early church fathers and comparing those teachings to Smith is greatly flawed, and I admit that. I don't discount Mormonism just because it disagrees with what early church fathers taught. Why? Because many so-called "early" church fathers wrote 300 years after Christ! However, I think it's fair to examine the earliest sources, such as the Didache, Ignatius, Clement, etc. and see what they had to say on certain issues. Many of these men actually knew the apostles, so it's fair to say that there opinion, which is still fallible, should at least be considered. Again, I am not dismissing your religion because of it, but it definitely factors into the equation.

The disconnect here is due in part to the fact that you base every argument you have on the assumption that Smith was a real and true prophet. I don't...I can't...and I won't. I am willing to consider that possibility, but I can't assume that. Because I can't assume it, I need to look at the remaining evidence available, weight it, and come to the best conclusion possible. I shouldn't be disparaged for that.

Further, your suggestion that the early church fathers don't matter to anyone but Catholic offshoots is embarrassingly incorrect. Obviously you never read anything Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, etc. wrote...they speak A LOT about the early church fathers. Even Baptists argue that one of the best reasons why believer's baptism is the right doctrine is because they have studied the early church fathers and can't find infant baptism mentioned in the first 200 years or so of the Christian Church.

Further, I have read MULTIPLE Mormon sources, including Jeff Lindsay and many of the Mormon apologists he quotes, that have stated that it is a fact that Joseph Smith himself read works of the early church fathers. Why? Because it does matter. It doesn't matter to you because, again, you have the benefit of looking at the world from the perspective of having a relatively recent prophet in your corner. I don't.

Further, to say I am espousing "Catholic" dogma is incredibly unfair. Roughly 80% or more of all Christians in the world are in agreement about 95% of all theological points (Including Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Oriental, etc.). Your view, which is supported by one relatively small church (very small in fact), should not be dismissed just because a few people agree with it, but neither should my view because it happens to coincide with what the overwhelming majority of Christians believe.

EVEN further, the principle argument I made was that virtually ALL CHRISTIANS, with very, very limited exceptions, teach that baptisms done by baptized Christians are valid, no matter what denomination the person belongs to. Baptisms by Baptists are accepted by Eastern Orthodox and baptisms by Non-denominational Christians are accepted by Catholics. It's one point the vast majority of Christians agree on today. Mormons, on the other hand, teach the opposite. It's fair to ask, "why?" No one interprets the NT passages involving baptism the way you do except other Mormons...and all I wanted to know is...Why?

Many forum members helped to answer that question. I, with a good degree of politeness (I hope), disagreed.

I think these questions are fair and important, at least they are to me!

[jinc1019]

Funny, mnn.

You can be holier than thou if you like. Just because people approach gospel study through conventional research doesn't make their study any less valid than yours. God gave us brains for a reason. God might speak to you through fuzzy feelings when you close your eyes and pray (although, even that, you have to know how to pray and listen to the spirit before it makes any sense), God may speak to others through a light bulb turning on in their heads when they ponder books and encyclopedias and scriptures with the sincere desire to find truth. For you to discredit jnc's methods is quite contrary to your Articles of Faith.

Anatess has nailed my feelings on this! A great deal of thanks goes out to her.

[Guest]

jinc has not weighed in on it as of yet, only you, and I am not sure why you are being so antagonistic about this, nor why you appear to be demeaning someones testimony.

I will bow out of this until jinc answers as I was trying to answer jinc, not pick a fight with you.

Jinc has actually weighed in on this in his many threads that he has started all inquiring of LDS beliefs which I've tried to weigh in on. I'm not demeaning your testimony. I'm trying to stop you from demeaning jinc's.

[Guest]

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorrect. Nice try though.

[bytebear]

Incorrect. Nice try though.

Completely accurate. but not going to argue against the age old "nuh uh" rebuttal.

Edited November 18, 2013 by bytebear

[Guest]

Completely accurate. but not going to argue against the age old "nuh uh" rebuttal.

Spoken from the point of view of somebody who only vaguely understands Trinitarian view. For Trinitarians - your Jesus might as well be a little green man.

[bytebear]

Spoken from the point of view of somebody who only vaguely understands Trinitarian view. For Trinitarians - your Jesus might as well be a little green man.

The LDS Godhead and the Trinity are essentially the same. Arguments end up being about semantics, like what's the difference between a person and a being. Ultimately, it's not about the Trinity or the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but what their relationship is with Man. Are we literally in the image of God? Are we the offspring of Deity? Is God of the same species as Man? Can we achieve the same state of being as God. Is our ultimate destiny to become one with God? And what is the nature of our being one with God.

So, when one argues that we believe in a different Jesus, I understand they don't really mean that it's because of our interpretation of the Trinity even though it's always presented that way. And it's not really about what is the species of God. It's ultimately about our "heretical" belief that we can literally be gods. All other arguments are red herrings. By the way, this is the exact same argument that Jesus was accused of, and why he was crucified.

The reason we don't use the term Trinity, is because God is not limited to three persons. God is much larger than that. But the three we call the Godhead fits very well within Trinitarian definitions.