I think it also has a lot to do with notions of authority. Catholic doctrine, if I’m not mistaken, prefers that a priest perform a baptism, but recognizes baptisms performed by unordained persons. Mormons of course don’t. Our rejection of Catholic baptisms (as well as all other denominations) boils down, I think, to authority and nothing more.

Of course, at the same time, you could make a case within Mormonism, based on section 35 verse 3, that other denominations’ baptisms, though not valid as a “saving ordinance” immediately preparatory to receiving the holy ghost, are nevertheless valid as a formal sign of a repentant heart and a commitment to follow Christ. Maybe this is not much more than saying that it other baptisms might be valid as a gateway to the universal church and our baptism operates as a gateway to our denomination, but I think there’s more going on here than just denominationalism.

I’m not losing any sleep over the catholic policy. I mean, they can do what they want with it and they don’t need to convince me. I’m not planning on becoming a Catholic, so it’s not like I even have any standing to object. And if I were trying to become a Catholic, I can’t imagine that I would object to being rebaptized, so in one sense, it’s kind of moot. So I agree with you that I’m not really annoyed by it. But I do think the reasoning is unconvincing even on it’s own terms, and it appears to be based on a misunderstanding of my faith. I wish if they were going to take that policy, they would at least do it based on a better understanding of what I actually believe.

I used to be annoyed by the Catholic policy but I’m less so now. Ultimately, I think the two baptisms have different functions. Mormon baptism is the gateway into Mormonism, all other Christian baptisms are the gateway into the church universal. A Roman Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, or Methodist baptism are all Christian baptisms and free of denominational specificity. A Mormon baptism is a Mormon baptism.

I know Matt Grey has written about the relationship between Jewish proselytizing baptisms and Christian baptism. Rather than transmission from one to the other, he sees them as sibling rituals descending from the parent ritual of priestly washing ceremonies from the First Temple period.

Nate’s analogy is good, although I think it breaks down somewhat for a variety of reasons.

LDS theology is more ad hoc. We get answers to specific questions as limited to a particular time and place, which may or may not extend beyond their original context, or may apply to different contexts in different ways. Nate Oman’s analogy to civil law vs. common law jurisprudence is, I think, probably the best analogy to understanding the difference.

(Of course I would dispute that what they think is LDS doctrine really is mandatory doctrine, on the basis of canon/non-canon, and would emphasize that the Book of Mormon itself is pretty darn close to orthodox trinitarianism, and certainly well within the bounds of heretical christianity. And I would argue that the Book of Mormon should be the most important source for determining canonical LDS doctrine. Certainly more authoritative than TJPS or Encyclopedia of Mormonism, at any rate. But that’s another discussion.)

As I said above, I’m inclined to cut them some slack for not really getting what is canon and what is non-canonized teachings. But on the other hand, these are trained theologians, so dealing in obscure nuances and fine details of what is canon and what is just teaching should be their bread and butter, so maybe it isn’t too much to ask that they try to understand how those issues play out in Mormonism before rendering a decision that relies on those issues. Particularly not where the decision is one that they believe affects the eternal salvation of millions of people.

Brian (5) Is that document official in some ways? It’s interesting since I think this is playing fast and loose with how the Trinity is understood. That is I’m not sure the are representing Mormon doctrine nor its ambiguities well. So far as I can tell the main differences Mormons have aren’t over the Trinity but over creation ex nihilo and the embodiment of the Father. There’s nothing in Mormon doctrine denying three persons in one ousia. Indeed Orson Pratt’s theology was a rather odd materialist formulation of just that. The issue of whether the persons can be called gods seems a silly semantic issue and not a substantial one. Although a semantic issue that is long standing in discussions about the Trinity.

Admittedly they do touch on the creation ex nihilo issue and the issue of substantial unity with more persons than the three. That seems a fair point of discussion but isn’t really part of the Trinity formally that I can see. But they embrace a kind of meaning holism where the meaning of “in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost” can’t be separated from these issues. Of course the typical Mormon rejoinder would simply be prior to the later theological debates clarifying those issues as doctrine no one baptized with those theological meanings in mind.

Their point about time and when God became God seems more misleading and certainly isn’t Mormon doctrine although it is a commonly believed theory. But it’s probably a bit much to ask them to not only understand Mormon doctrine but distinguish between what doctrines/teachings are official versus merely widely believed. Heck, even Mormons have trouble with that!

Not that it matters mind you. We don’t recognize their baptism although for us it’s primarily about authority not semantics in the prayer.

From the source reference above – http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/MORMBAP1.HTM –

Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism

Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.

So people were aware that such rites predated Christ, and those who believed in prisca theologia believed that pagan truth came from the patriarchs (ie Adam, then to Abraham then to the Egyptians then the Greeks). Not orthodox Protestantism, but these ideas were around.

The interesting thing about this explanation is that if LDS believe that baptism was instituted before Christ, does that really mean that LDS believe that it wasn’t “instituted by Christ”? I wonder what keeps the Vatican from inquiring into whether, according to LDS doctrine, it was in fact Christ that instituted baptism before his mortal ministry. I mean, the Moses passage cited explains pretty clearly that the baptism it describes is an expression of faith in the Son of God and his sacrifice. It seems like an odd basis on which to conclude that LDS baptisms are more akin to the baptism of John than the baptism of Christ.