Which of these baptisms should be considered valid?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As long as it involves the Trinitarian formula, is done by somebody who's in some vague sense in a clerical or familial position to do so, and is done on someone who's alive, I'd consider it valid for spiritual purposes, but I don't think my church would consider baptism by a relative or somebody 'ordained' only a very loose sense valid for canonical purposes. I'm not sure about the official position on Mormon baptism, but I'd consider it spiritually valid as long as the catechumen was, well, physically present, shall we say.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As long as it involves the Trinitarian formula, is done by somebody who's in some vague sense in a clerical or familial position to do so, and is done on someone who's alive, I'd consider it valid for spiritual purposes, but I don't think my church would consider baptism by a relative or somebody 'ordained' only a very loose sense valid for canonical purposes. I'm not sure about the official position on Mormon baptism, but I'd consider it spiritually valid as long as the catechumen was, well, physically present, shall we say.

I don't know of any churches that accept Mormon baptisms because the LDS view of the Trinity is viewed as too deviated. If the Episcopal one does it's the first one I know of. Mormons of course don't accept any other churches' baptisms because they aren't considered being done with a proper priesthood. I'd be surprised if the Episcopal church would reject baptisms by a Vineyard church (kind of what I was thinking of as my personal experience in "loose ordination" example, there's lots of other modern established church associations that are similar in this sense though), even though the idea of "ordination" in them is quite different and certainly wouldn't be accepted for someone wishing to convert and become an Episcopal priest.

You're right. The Episcopal Church doesn't consider Mormon baptisms canonically valid.

What I'm more interested in is the folk family-member baptism example. You're probably right about Vineyard churches, too, but I honestly don't know what the Episcopal position on that is likely to be. We could say that it wouldn't count because it's not by a priest, but there has been traditionally some leeway granted to aspects of the parent-child spiritual relationship (the tradition of paedobaptism itself is an example of this type of leeway). My first instinct would be to say that it would at least have to be confirmed by a priest later, but I'm not positive. I, at least, would consider it spiritually valid if not canonically so.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How on Earth did we end up with an overlap between people who think that 1 and 3 are valid? Do we have people who actually believe that one can get validly baptized multiple times?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How on Earth did we end up with an overlap between people who think that 1 and 3 are valid? Do we have people who actually believe that one can get validly baptized multiple times?

I think both can be valid. It's largely up to the person later if they think an infant baptism is sufficient and valid (that's basically what my pastor said when he announced baptisms the next month in one sermon about the baptism of Jesus, if you were baptized as a baby and are OK with that, fine he is too, but they'll baptize anyone who signs up for it and if you're interested it's heavily encouraged.)

Okay, that makes sense, in terms of the 'outward sign'.

But in terms of the 'mark of inward grace', I'd definitely say baptism's a one-time thing, pretty much by definition.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nathan did you watch LOST? The baptism of Claire and her son is interesting compared to that theology.

No, how did the baptism in that go?

I was unaware that one could be a memorialist about baptism.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Basically Claire was a girl with a very late term pregnancy when the plane crashed, she gave birth near the end of season 1. In season 2 some drug addled rock star believed he was getting visions to baptize the baby in the ocean and kidnapped him to try it, before being stopped by the rest of the people. After this Claire, who was implied to be raised in a non-religious family asked Eko, a "priest" from Nigeria about what baptism is and means and if her baby was baptized and she wasn't if that meant they couldn't be together if they didn't live, and Eko agreed to baptize them both.

The issues:

-Eko wasn't a real priest. He was a drug smuggler who obtained forged ordination papers to make it easier to smuggle heroin into the US and had been using this to live in hiding when he left Australia. Of course there was no real priest on the island.
-When asked by Claire what baptism meant, he replied that "It is said that after baptizing Jesus John the Baptist said he knew he had cleansed this man of sin." which goes against any Christian denomination's view that Jesus never sinned, perhaps to give hints that Eko wasn't a real priest.
-No Christian denomination would ever allow the baptism of an adult who did not express belief in Christ, and at no point did Eko ask Claire if she believed, nor did she ever imply it.

Of course after everything else that happened on the show later whether the baptism was valid upon leaving the island would be pretty low on the list of concerns...

I was unaware that one could be a memorialist about baptism.

See what dead0man said.

^ Bizarre BRTD hypothetical #82,093.

To be fair, this was apparently J.J. Abrams's bizarre hypothetical before it was BRTD's.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1, 2, 5, 7, and 8

7 is Mormons baptizing dead people. Did you mean 8 and 9?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1, 2, 5, 7, and 8

7 is Mormons baptizing dead people. Did you mean 8 and 9?

Whoops you're right...

I ended up agreeing with the same ones as you. I'm pretty sure this is roughly the standard broad-view officially taken in our respective churches.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

1, 2, 5, 7, and 8

7 is Mormons baptizing dead people. Did you mean 8 and 9?

Whoops you're right...

I ended up agreeing with the same ones as you. I'm pretty sure this is roughly the standard broad-view officially taken in our respective churches.

Yes and that's largely to be expected. For a baptism to be valid:
-It must be done with the Trinitarian formula
-It must use water (sprinkling and total immersion are both acceptable)
-It must use the verb baptize or something similar if in another language there is another word for it, ie. "I baptize you..."
-The person being baptized must not already be baptized.

Exactly. Normatively in Anglicanism (and I'd certainly assume Roman Catholicism too) it's supposed to be done by a priest, but there are exceptions for emergencies or unique situations.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Are those the founts that have the oxen or bison (I forget which they're meant to be) on them sometimes? If so, those are some nice founts.