Keys to Administer Ordinances

[hyloglyph]

Hello guys!

I am wondering if anyone knows of any scripture or revelation that touches on the “keys” to perform Aaronic ordinances like sacrament and baptism.

I am aware that the Church Handbook of Instructions (the portion given to leadership) has guidelines that outline the church’s policy on where when how and by whom ordinances like sacrament can be performed.

It is my understanding that these instructions are just modern church policy and are not necessarily required doctrinally.


For example— Moroni gives instructions on how to bless the bread and wine towards the end of his account. It seems like this was added in so that all worthy priests and elders could administer the sacrament when needed.

I do not know of any instructions from the Lord that require authorization from a bishop or stake President.

Same with baptism. The scriptures lead me to believe that a worthy priest or elder may baptize for remission of sins.


Does anyone have any information on this that I am unaware of?

Thanks!

[Luke]

I do not know of any instructions from the Lord that require authorization from a bishop or stake President.

Because it doesn’t exist. The only person you need permission from is Christ.

[hyloglyph]

I do not know of any instructions from the Lord that require authorization from a bishop or stake President.

Because it doesn’t exist. The only person you need permission from is Christ.

That’s what I think may be the case.

I guess the argument I have ran into by people who I have asked is: “well it would be chaotic and the lords house is a house of order”

To which my reply is something like— maybe... but I’m looking for the Lords words on the matter not your opinion. And respectfully— are you really concerned that if you don’t control them via some legend/policy about “keys” that people will start *gasp* getting together and partaking of the sacrament *gasp*

I don’t see harm in having the sacrament on your own with friends or family. It might even be a good thing. And I’m not aware of any scripture advising not to— in fact the scriptures seem to encourage it. Right?

[hyloglyph]

And to clarify:

In this case I am not talking about some random person just going for it.

I am talking about people like myself— have been ordained and confirmed in all the appropriate ways through the LDS church priesthood channels.

I have a priesthood lineage that goes through my grandpa to Joseph Smith to Peter James and John.

I am a normal family man with a lot of kids— nothing to worry about as far as me being prone to start up some strange cult or anything... I am just noticing that the scriptures seem to point out that ordinances like baptism and sacrament should be handled more like a priesthood blessing— there is no requirement to run over and seek authorization from central command. It is on the worthy priesthood holder to judge when performing these ordinances is appropriate and approval from the church hierarchy to do this WAS GIVEN AT ORDINATION.

[Prana]

If you place such high emphasis on your priesthood lineage through LDS Church channels, you may as well stick with the program. I mean, if one aspect is valid, the others likely are. Conversely, if some are bogus, they likely all are as well.

[XEmilyX]

I don't see a problem with it. If you follow the spirit it's never unorganized. It may not make sense now but it will later.

[oneClimbs]

It does seem that having some sort of order is helpful. Moroni wrote this about the order of the church in his day:

"And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith."

If names were not taken, you'd never really know for sure who had actually been baptized and by one with authority. If someone was baptized by a random member and wandered off, they would be like a sheep added to another shepherd's fold without them knowing. How would that shepherd know if the sheep was lost or even existed?

The shepherd knows his sheep and the order we have works well for this.

[hyloglyph]

If you place such high emphasis on your priesthood lineage through LDS Church channels, you may as well stick with the program. I mean, if one aspect is valid, the others likely are. Conversely, if some are bogus, they likely all are as well.

Thank you for the response.

I didn’t mention anything about me having a high emphasis on LDS priesthood lineage or not.

But having some type of priesthood lineage does seem to be talked about in scripture.

I included that part because— there are obviously many people in Mormonism that DO place a high emphasis on LDS priesthood lineage and so I just include this detail to show that I satisfy all their requirements in that way and just would like some commentary on any restrictions that people might be aware of because I am not aware of any.

[hyloglyph]

It does seem that having some sort of order is helpful. Moroni wrote this about the order of the church in his day:

"And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith."

If names were not taken, you'd never really know for sure who had actually been baptized and by one with authority. If someone was baptized by a random member and wandered off, they would be like a sheep added to another shepherd's fold without them knowing. How would that shepherd know if the sheep was lost or even existed?

The shepherd knows his sheep and the order we have works well for this.

Thank you for the response.

As for baptism— I would obviously have no problem providing my name, along with the name of the person baptized, along with the names of two witnesses to the church. The witnesses could vouch for the fact the the baptism did indeed occur in an appropriate way.

Submitting the names is not an issue.


This is obviously how they did it in the early church both in Joseph’s time and in John the Baptists time.


Names will not be an issue at all.


And as far as sacrament goes— names are not required as far as I know.

[LukeAir2008]

Common sense says that in any organisation there has to be some element of control and responsibility. The Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage of the Melchizedek Priesthood so with regard to keys the Melchizedek Priesthood presides over any activity. Who is it you want to administer the sacrament to or baptise? Supposing you wanted to carry out these ordinances and did so. Which Church is it you think you’re baptising them into? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? But you want to bypass priesthood leaders and you want to decide who gets baptised? The next question would be why do you want to do this? Was the ordinance performed correctly? Were there witnesses? Was the person taught and prepared prior to baptism? Why didn’t you want to go through the usual channels etc? Yes you have the authority to baptise and administer the sacrament but you are also part of a priesthood structure with authority, responsibility and control. Your Bishop and Stake President are not going to recognise any ordinances you’ve performed unless they have given you permission. The same as they are not recognised in their callings unless authorised by the First Pres & Twelve. It feels restrictive but it stops apostasy and chaos.

[hyloglyph]

Common sense says that in any organisation there has to be some element of control and responsibility. The Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage of the Melchizedek Priesthood so with regard to keys the Melchizedek Priesthood presides over any activity. Who is it you want to administer the sacrament to or baptise? Supposing you wanted to carry out these ordinances and did so. Which Church is it you think you’re baptising them into? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? But you want to bypass priesthood leaders and you want to decide who gets baptised? The next question would be why do you want to do this? Was the ordinance performed correctly? Were there witnesses? Was the person taught and prepared prior to baptism? Why didn’t you want to go through the usual channels etc? Yes you have the authority to baptise and administer the sacrament but you are also part of a priesthood structure with authority, responsibility and control. Your Bishop and Stake President are not going to recognise any ordinances you’ve performed unless they have given you permission. The same as they are not recognised in their callings unless authorised by the First Pres & Twelve. It feels restrictive but it stops apostasy and chaos.

Thank you for your response.

I think you are sort of understanding what I’m asking but not fully.

I have been in the church my whole life— I understand what you are getting at.

I guess one of the main points to look at is this:

You have an assumption that the church was intended to have some centralized control structure that rules over who can bless the sacrament and baptize. But other ordinances— even higher ones like Melchizedek level blessings do not need express permission from the central command.

I want to know if you are aware of any revelations that forbid a worthy priest from performing sacrament and baptism for worthy people.

I appreciate your opinion but I’m looking for the word of the lord on the matter.

I believe that you are right— common sense tells us that the organization needs to okay it— (this is the main point) —- it appears that the scriptures consider your ordination and confirmation to office of priest or higher to be the church granting you permission to perform these ordinances and then the scriptures provide instructions on how to do this.

Do you understand what I’m asking? I appreciate your input. I don’t want to go down a rabbit hole if he said she said opinions. Just point to the revelation if available

[hyloglyph]

So this is the main point or close to the main point:

The church gives permission for you to baptize and administer the sacrament when it ordains and confirms you to the office of priest or higher.

Just like it gives you permission to perform Melchizedek level blessings for comfort or healing and the use of consecrated oil when it ordains and confirms you as an elder.

This might be what the scriptures and revelations are saying. But I am open to other ideas if there is something I’m missing.

Don’t get confused and think that this means you don’t need authorization from the church. That is a separate issue. This issue is: the authorization was already given when you were given the office of priest or higher by the church.

This is important because it is related to the RIGHTS that are associated with having the priesthood

[oneClimbs]

It does seem that having some sort of order is helpful. Moroni wrote this about the order of the church in his day:

"And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith."

If names were not taken, you'd never really know for sure who had actually been baptized and by one with authority. If someone was baptized by a random member and wandered off, they would be like a sheep added to another shepherd's fold without them knowing. How would that shepherd know if the sheep was lost or even existed?

The shepherd knows his sheep and the order we have works well for this.

Thank you for the response.

As for baptism— I would obviously have no problem providing my name, along with the name of the person baptized, along with the names of two witnesses to the church. The witnesses could vouch for the fact the the baptism did indeed occur in an appropriate way.

Submitting the names is not an issue.


This is obviously how they did it in the early church both in Joseph’s time and in John the Baptists time.


Names will not be an issue at all.


And as far as sacrament goes— names are not required as far as I know.

Well, consider that the way it was done in John the Baptist's time seems different even than in Moroni's time. Even in John's day, the apostles established an order and a church that John did not have. The way the Nephite's practiced things changed and evolved over time, many things were unique to certain periods like Alma's system of checks to keep the members of the church in the right way.

Today is a day where we are building toward Zion. How far from Zion we are is unknown but there will be Zion and what that may look like nobody knows. There has never been a situation among the church of God like there has been today.

I know that many look and see things they don't like; I know that I do. Yet collectively, we are the only people on earth that stand by Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the temple work to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant.

You get only rare, fleeting glimpses of what a perfect kingdom looks like in scripture. The vast majority of time it is flawed men doing their best but God still works through it. Remember the allegory of the Olive Tree, even when the fruit turns wild, the Lord of the vineyard and his servants still seek to redeem it. In the end, the olive tree once again begins to bear the good fruit and so it will be in the end.

[LukeAir2008]

Common sense says that in any organisation there has to be some element of control and responsibility. The Aaronic Priesthood is an appendage of the Melchizedek Priesthood so with regard to keys the Melchizedek Priesthood presides over any activity. Who is it you want to administer the sacrament to or baptise? Supposing you wanted to carry out these ordinances and did so. Which Church is it you think you’re baptising them into? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? But you want to bypass priesthood leaders and you want to decide who gets baptised? The next question would be why do you want to do this? Was the ordinance performed correctly? Were there witnesses? Was the person taught and prepared prior to baptism? Why didn’t you want to go through the usual channels etc? Yes you have the authority to baptise and administer the sacrament but you are also part of a priesthood structure with authority, responsibility and control. Your Bishop and Stake President are not going to recognise any ordinances you’ve performed unless they have given you permission. The same as they are not recognised in their callings unless authorised by the First Pres & Twelve. It feels restrictive but it stops apostasy and chaos.

Thank you for your response.

I think you are sort of understanding what I’m asking but not fully.

I have been in the church my whole life— I understand what you are getting at.

I guess one of the main points to look at is this:

You have an assumption that the church was intended to have some centralized control structure that rules over who can bless the sacrament and baptize. But other ordinances— even higher ones like Melchizedek level blessings do not need express permission from the central command.

I want to know if you are aware of any revelations that forbid a worthy priest from performing sacrament and baptism for worthy people.

I appreciate your opinion but I’m looking for the word of the lord on the matter.

I believe that you are right— common sense tells us that the organization needs to okay it— (this is the main point) —- it appears that the scriptures consider your ordination and confirmation to office of priest or higher to be the church granting you permission to perform these ordinances and then the scriptures provide instructions on how to do this.

Do you understand what I’m asking? I appreciate your input. I don’t want to go down a rabbit hole if he said she said opinions. Just point to the revelation if available

Thank you for your response. I did understand that you were asking for specific revelation which expressly states that you must not baptise etc without express permission. No, I don’t think there is a specific revelation that states that just as there is no specific revelation for lots of things. You can however work out from other revelation that you are subject to Priesthood authority. Those who are called to direct the work preside over you. The Lord instructs in D&C 107 that there must be those who preside over everyone else. They direct the work either generally over the whole Church or locally in stakes and wards.
I would recommend that you read D&C 107, the entire section, and then ask yourself the question - is it the Lords will that I should be allowed to do whatever I please without permission - or am I accountable and subject to higher authority?

[inho]

In the original post, you liked to limit the discussion to Aaronic ordinances. Since baptism without confirmation is worth nothing, that doesn't really work.

I would turn to D&C 20. You asked for information you might be unaware of. I am sure you are aware of this information, but maybe you interpret it differently.
I find verse(s) 64 (and 65) interesting:

64 Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.
65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

Priest can not function without the approval of an elder. You might say that this only refers to being sustained by the appropriate body of members and after the sustaining and ordination, priest can perform any ordinances. That is the letter of the verses, but I don't think that is the spirit of the verses. Especially, if we are talking about baptism, then confirmation must follow. Now you may say that you are an elder and you can confirm too.

Baptism and confirmation makes person a member of the church. D&C 20:

37 ... shall be received by baptism into his church.

41 And to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the scriptures;

The ordinances involve not just the person administered and the priesthood holder, but the whole church. Those willing to be baptized "witness before the church":

37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

To be honest, one can question if (or how) that happens in the church today. I would say that a missionary or a bishop interviewing the candidate is representing the whole church. Thus, to fulfill this commandment one cannot just go rogue and baptize whosoever without approval, if the church has been organized.

Sacrament is even more clearly about the whole church:

75 It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus;

Unlike most ordinances, sacrament is not a personal ordinance. The one receiving the bread and water is not called by name. There is wisdom in this. It is the whole congregation that makes the covenant. When the priesthood is organized through the church (not through individual families as it would be in patriarchal system), the sacrament is meant to be taken in congregation. I think the intimate setting of Jesus instituting the sacrament during a common meal highlights the communal character of the ordinance. It is not just something I do, but it is something we do together. If we want to learn the things we need in order to be exalted, we need communal participation. Church organization offers us chances to "bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; mourn with those that mourn; and comfort those that stand in need of comfort." The communal character of the sacrament reminds us that we need each other.

Note that Moroni 4:1 says too that sacrament is administered "unto the church".

D&C 20 mentions also another ordinance that one could think to be very personal, but which is commanded to be performed before the church:

70 Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name.

[mcusick]

When I was more active, I thought it was curious that you needed extra authorization to use your priesthood authority.

[hyloglyph]

In the original post, you liked to limit the discussion to Aaronic ordinances. Since baptism without confirmation is worth nothing, that doesn't really work.

I would turn to D&C 20. You asked for information you might be unaware of. I am sure you are aware of this information, but maybe you interpret it differently.
I find verse(s) 64 (and 65) interesting:

64 Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.
65 No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

Priest can not function without the approval of an elder. You might say that this only refers to being sustained by the appropriate body of members and after the sustaining and ordination, priest can perform any ordinances. That is the letter of the verses, but I don't think that is the spirit of the verses. Especially, if we are talking about baptism, then confirmation must follow. Now you may say that you are an elder and you can confirm too.

Baptism and confirmation makes person a member of the church. D&C 20:

37 ... shall be received by baptism into his church.

41 And to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the scriptures;

The ordinances involve not just the person administered and the priesthood holder, but the whole church. Those willing to be baptized "witness before the church":

37 And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

To be honest, one can question if (or how) that happens in the church today. I would say that a missionary or a bishop interviewing the candidate is representing the whole church. Thus, to fulfill this commandment one cannot just go rogue and baptize whosoever without approval, if the church has been organized.

Sacrament is even more clearly about the whole church:

75 It is expedient that the church meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus;

Unlike most ordinances, sacrament is not a personal ordinance. The one receiving the bread and water is not called by name. There is wisdom in this. It is the whole congregation that makes the covenant. When the priesthood is organized through the church (not through individual families as it would be in patriarchal system), the sacrament is meant to be taken in congregation. I think the intimate setting of Jesus instituting the sacrament during a common meal highlights the communal character of the ordinance. It is not just something I do, but it is something we do together. If we want to learn the things we need in order to be exalted, we need communal participation. Church organization offers us chances to "bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light; mourn with those that mourn; and comfort those that stand in need of comfort." The communal character of the sacrament reminds us that we need each other.

Note that Moroni 4:1 says too that sacrament is administered "unto the church".

D&C 20 mentions also another ordinance that one could think to be very personal, but which is commanded to be performed before the church:

70 Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name.

Thank you for your reply! That’s what I’m looking for. That is a very helpful perspective

Yes I believe that an ordination record might fulfill the requirement of the certification that a priest has to show the elders in order to performs the functions of his office and that the congregation raising their hands to sustain him in his new office is their consent for him to be able to exercise his priesthood.

I believe all the requirements you've listed are easily met without a redundant sign off by the local leaders.

BUT the point is well taken— it could be that this type of thing is not available to priests only to elders. Again— I’m not sure of anywhere where it says that but the scriptures you provided do almost say that but stop short. In fact the verses you brought up prove that what I’m saying is not far off because—- the priest has to show his certificate to an Elder. Doesn’t say bishop or stale President or anything. It says elder. This goes along with the whole big picture that the scriptures are painting and that is— elders have more autonomy in baptizing and blessing sacrament than is currently understood.

This is also related to why when we send missionaries out we make sure they have the office of Elder. Originally missionarys were expected to baptize whomever they found to be needing/wanting it.

Even when I was in the mission field years ago— our baptisms were done without express permission— we interviewed them ourselves and then went out to the nearest river or beach and baptized them. The local leadership would be informed but never asked permission of. In fact just letting the relief society prez or the elders quorum prez know what was going on was usually sufficient.


As for sacrament being reserved for big congregations only— we’ve seen this past year that that is not a requirement. I do agree however that it seems to be a communal ordinance requiring at least a few people.

As for confirmation after baptism— I purposely have not brought that up because I am not studied up on what the scriptures say about that and I do agree that there seems to be another level to that one and the church administration may need to be involved for it. Not sure.

[EmmaLee]

Welcome to LDSFF, hyloglyph!

Here's another thread that had a good discussion on performing the sacrament at home, etc.. It may provide some insight into that ordinance and the questions you're asking about it -

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=60998

[inho]

BUT the point is well taken— it could be that this type of thing is not available to priests only to elders. Again— I’m not sure of anywhere where it says that but the scriptures you provided do almost say that but stop short. In fact the verses you brought up prove that what I’m saying is not far off because—- the priest has to show his certificate to an Elder. Doesn’t say bishop or stale President or anything. It says elder. This goes along with the whole big picture that the scriptures are painting and that is— elders have more autonomy in baptizing and blessing sacrament than is currently understood.

I wouldn't read too much into the revelation saying Elder instead of Bishop or Stake President. The church organization wasn't complete when Joseph received the revelation. That is clear from verses 2 and 3, which says that Joseph and Oliver the first and second elder of the church (i.e., no church presidency yet). The office of bishop wasn't even introduced at the time of the revelation. Joseph did edit Section 20 later, and in the current version bishops are mentioned in verses 66 and 67, but the revelation as whole should still be read in the light of the church organization at the time.

As for sacrament being reserved for big congregations only— we’ve seen this past year that that is not a requirement. I do agree however that it seems to be a communal ordinance requiring at least a few people.

I think my main point is that salvation is not just an individual achievement. We don't know much about the life in celestial kingdom, but the closest we can come here on earth is to build Zion. Communality was a key aspect in the life in the City of Enoch or among the Nephites after the visit of the resurrected Jesus. The priesthood ordinances are not solely check marks on the row of one's name in the book of life, but they also tie us into the community of Saints. During some periods, this community has been organized patriarchally in family units and at other times a church has been organized. Whatever the organization is, it makes sense that ordinances are given with oversight from leaders in the organization.

[hyloglyph]

BUT the point is well taken— it could be that this type of thing is not available to priests only to elders. Again— I’m not sure of anywhere where it says that but the scriptures you provided do almost say that but stop short. In fact the verses you brought up prove that what I’m saying is not far off because—- the priest has to show his certificate to an Elder. Doesn’t say bishop or stale President or anything. It says elder. This goes along with the whole big picture that the scriptures are painting and that is— elders have more autonomy in baptizing and blessing sacrament than is currently understood.

I wouldn't read too much into the revelation saying Elder instead of Bishop or Stake President. The church organization wasn't complete when Joseph received the revelation. That is clear from verses 2 and 3, which says that Joseph and Oliver the first and second elder of the church (i.e., no church presidency yet). The office of bishop wasn't even introduced at the time of the revelation. Joseph did edit Section 20 later, and in the current version bishops are mentioned in verses 66 and 67, but the revelation as whole should still be read in the light of the church organization at the time.

As for sacrament being reserved for big congregations only— we’ve seen this past year that that is not a requirement. I do agree however that it seems to be a communal ordinance requiring at least a few people.

I think my main point is that salvation is not just an individual achievement. We don't know much about the life in celestial kingdom, but the closest we can come here on earth is to build Zion. Communality was a key aspect in the life in the City of Enoch or among the Nephites after the visit of the resurrected Jesus. The priesthood ordinances are not solely check marks on the row of one's name in the book of life, but they also tie us into the community of Saints. During some periods, this community has been organized patriarchally in family units and at other times a church has been organized. Whatever the organization is, it makes sense that ordinances are given with oversight from leaders in the organization.

Thank you! That is another good point.

At the time of that revelation— stakes didn’t even exist. But baptisms and sacraments were being performed. So obviously stake President express consent is not needed— these things were being done just fine before that office even existed in the modern church.


I appreciate your comments on Zion.
I agree with you.
One thing about Zion is it will come when there is a place on earth where the people “keep all the commandments”. When that happens then the city of Enoch will take notice and eventually come back down to the earth and embrace the people that are keeping all the lords commandments.

So we obviously aren’t 100 percent correct in our cultural practices and traditions or the city of Enoch would have come. I think we are doing fine but we are not 100% correct.

Remember— there is a big emphasis in our religion on not preaching “philosophies of men mingled with scripture” and not “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men”. The lord leads our church not men. So we will be able to find the right thing to do by looking at what the lord has revealed and not adding or subtracting.

Remember also— a big theme in the priesthood is that when you exercise unrighteous dominion in any degree— your priesthood goes away.

So it is possible that requiring stake President sign off on baptisms when the lord has never required that— would be a case of exercising dominion unrighteously and would also be teaching commandments of men as doctrine.

These are things that could possibly hold us back from establishing Zion.

[creator]

I do not know of any instructions from the Lord that require authorization from a bishop or stake President.

Because it doesn’t exist. The only person you need permission from is Christ.

fact.jpg (6.72 KiB) Viewed 691 times

[creator]

Thank you for the response.

As for baptism— I would obviously have no problem providing my name, along with the name of the person baptized, along with the names of two witnesses to the church. The witnesses could vouch for the fact the the baptism did indeed occur in an appropriate way.

Submitting the names is not an issue.


This is obviously how they did it in the early church both in Joseph’s time and in John the Baptists time.


Names will not be an issue at all.


And as far as sacrament goes— names are not required as far as I know.

I think you're on the right track, inline with the scriptures.

[ajax]

I see each family, priesthood unit (father and mother), as sovereign kingdoms. IF ANYTHING, local and general authorities should be seeking permission from them, not the other way around.

[TheDuke]

So, if I baptized my child (grandchild at this stage of life), having been given the priesthood. Would that baptism be valid? If I gave data to the church would they add the record? If I put the information in the geneology database would they show up as baptized. Would the church require rebaptism? Would god be ok with it? If rebaptizied to make the church happy would they still be blessed from the first baptism?

What if I go camping in Utah this month (deep in north slope of Uintas) with my likewise priesthood holding brothers and bless the sacrament? Would it be valid? Would I be condemned? Would it be a no-op? Would I need to get permission from my bishop, my brother's in Eagle Mountain, or some random bishop somewhere up in the Uintas, like in adjacent Wyoming? Or do I need to go to the 15? or Area, no different areas, I guess regional authority?

[hyloglyph]

Wow Thank you for commenting guys. Ajax and the creator of the forum. You two are celebrities on here