In an age where, sadly, many Latter-day Saints are wishing to engage in theological ecumenism (e.g., some LDS having a positive view of Pope Francis, in spite of his theology and the theology of the office he holds), many are more than willing to attend baptisms of friends and family in non-LDS faiths. The question that must be addressed is this: is this proper? For those who know me will not be surprised to learn that the answer is a resounding no. Latter-day Saints should not attend or celebrate the baptism of people into false churches. I will use the example that is common here in Ireland and elsewhere: the (infant) baptism of a friend/family member’s child into the Roman Catholic communion, though many of these arguments can be transposed to other faiths (e.g., adult baptism into a Baptist group).
The Question of “Active Participation”
One reason for not attending such baptisms is the question of “active participation.” In theology, this refers to the “participation” by those in the congregation and how, by their attendance, they are, ipso facto, “participating” by giving their intellectual and spiritual ascent to the sacrament (in this instance, baptism). While Latter-day Saints may not be in reality participating and giving their ascent to the sacrament (and, ipso facto, the theology of Rome), by being there, they are passively giving an ascent to the teachings of a false church by not protesting such an act. Moreover, from an external perspective (i.e., to the onlooker), one’s attendance at such an ordinance gives the impression that (1) one supports the decision for the person (or the parents of the child) to undergo the baptism and (2)
Rome is a False Church under the Anathema of Gal 1:6-9
Latter-day Saint theology is emphatic that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living church:
And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually. (D&C 1:30)
Furthermore, all other denominations within the broad Christian spectrum, while having some truth (some more than others), falls under the anathema of Gal 1:6-9:
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Rome teaches, as de fide dogmas, beliefs that clearly fall under this condemnation, such as her Marian dogmas and the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice that perverts, not clarifies, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The only true loving thing to do is not to attend her sacraments such as the baptism of a child of a friend/family member, but to refuse and lovingly explain why (e.g., Catholic baptism makes one a member of a false Church and then explain why Rome is not the true church).
Furthermore, it is also a tacit rejection of LDS theology which states that only Latter-day Saint baptisms are truly valid and efficacious and that only the LDS Church has the authority to administer valid ordinances of the gospel.
Infant Baptism is both Heresy and An Abomination
This is the explicit witness of the Book of Mormon. By attending an infant baptism, regardless of the underlying theology (Catholics vs. Presbyterian views of the salvific efficacy of water baptism), one is, in some way, giving credence to a practice that God himself condemned as abhorrent. The prophet Mormon, in an epistle he sent his son Moroni, is explicit that little children are not in need for the saving ordinance of water baptism:
And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among you. For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among you concerning the baptism of your little children . . . Listen to the words of Christ, our Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me. And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children. Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children. And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism? Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what men can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear (Moroni 8:4-5, 8-16, emphasis added)
Such sentiments has always been part of Latter-day Saint teaching on this topic. For instance, James Talmage wrote:
Infant Baptism:—The Latter-day Saints are opposed to the practice of infant baptism, which indeed they believe to be sacrilege in the eyes of God. No one having faith in the word of God can look upon the child as impure; such an innocent being needs no initiation into the fold, for it has never strayed therefrom; it needs no remission of sins, for it is sinless; and should it die before it has become contaminated by the sins of earth, it will be received again, without baptism, into the presence of its God. Yet there are many professedly Christian teachers who declare that as all children are born into a wicked world, they are themselves wicked, and must be cleansed in the waters of baptism to be made acceptable to God. How heinous is such a doctrine!—the child to whom the Savior pointed as an example of emulation of those even who had received the holy apostleship, the Lord's selected type of the kingdom of heaven, the favored spirits whose angels stand forever in the presence of the Father, faithfully reporting all that may be done unto their sacred charges—such souls are to be rejected and cast into torment because their earthly guardians failed to have them baptized! To teach such a doctrine is sin. (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith: A Series of Lectures on the Principle Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1899], 127-8)
In the entry on "Infant Baptism," Bruce McConkie wrote in Mormon Doctrine:
Infant baptism (pedo-baptism) is the practice of performing what is considered to be the ordinance of baptism for children, ordinarily for babies, who have not arrived at the years of accountability. Few practices constitute so gross a perversion of true Christian doctrine as does infant baptism, because the philosophical basis upon which it rests is one that denies the efficacy of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. Infant baptism assumes that all men are born in sin and that to be cleansed from this original sin they must be baptized; that is, its practice denies one of the most basic of all gospel truths, "That the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world." (Moses 6:54.)
Actually, baptism is a spiritual rebirth into the kingdom of God (meaning both the Church on earth and the celestial kingdom in heaven), and since little children are already alive in Christ because of his atoning sacrifice, they do not need to born again to spiritual things. Further: Baptism follows repentance and is for the remission of sins, and because little children cannot sin and have no need of repentance, the false practice of infant baptism is of no avail. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, pp. 49-57.)
Parley P. Pratt, in a sermon dated August 26, 1855, rejected the efficacy of one's baptism as an infant:
And now, what objection can a man have to obeying one part more than another part of the Gospel? Why should men have such various opinions about the Gospel when it is so plainly set forth? One man says, "I suppose that baptizing or sprinkling me when I was an infant was sufficient, for that was the custom in those days, and I suppose they called that baptism." Well, have we not shown you that repentance was of God, and therefore that all men must repent? Jesus Christ did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance, and he also commanded his servants to go forth testifying to those that were seeking the kingdom of God, and gave them power to heal the sick and cast out devils.
Can little children commit sins? Can they hear the Gospel and receive it in their hearts? Can, little children reason, think, repent, and bring forth fruits meet for the kingdom of God? Can little children be instructed to obey the Gospel in their infancy? To all these questions every rational man would answer—No! Well, then, what have we to do with the Gospel as it pertains to little children? We are willing to carry out the instructions of the Savior where we are told to bless them, and this we are willing to do wherever we see them, and to pray for them, but to sinners that are sufficiently grown to be free to act for themselves—persons who are sufficiently grown to be accountable before the Almighty, and to be capable of conceiving sin in their hearts, and of bringing forth the fruits of it, to such was repentance and baptism, and therefore the Gospel could never be applied to little infants; it was a Gospel of voluntary obedience, and therefore it could not apply to the infant in its mother's arms.
Go and "teach" all nations, and baptize the people; not the teaching to "follow" baptism, but teach them to observe all the things spoken by Jesus. Well, now, if you baptize a little infant, then remember to tell it all the things; teach it, then baptize, after which, you must teach it to observe all things.
Then, notwithstanding your infant sprinkling, you never obeyed the Gospel because it was a Gospel of repentance, and is to be so when carried to all whom the Lord our God shall call. The Gospel, which we have to preach, is a Gospel of repentance and of remission of sins, to every one that will obey it, including a baptism, a voluntary baptism, which is applicable to all the truly obedient, in every nation, who are determined to lead a new life, and bring forth fruit meet for repentance, and what was it? The Apostle, in the New Testament, informs us that it was to be buried with Christ by baptism into his death, and rise to newness of life in the likeness of his resurrection. (JOD 1:180-81)
Such are not anomalies in Latter-day Saint teaching, but the scriptural and historical teaching of the Church on infant baptism. It is to be avoided, and one should not give, whether actually or just seemingly, give ascent to such an abhorrent practice.
There are other considerations for other faiths (e.g., the explicit rejection of the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration in some [e.g., Reformed Baptist] churches), but it should be clear that Latter-day Saints should not attend non-LDS baptisms.
