Keys to Administer Ordinances

[hyloglyph]

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?

Right. That is what I’m asking. What do you think?


Scriptures mention that elders have the authority to do these things (priests actually but I’ll just say elder to be safe) and they explain how to do them and they never mention any restrictions or needing extra permission from key holders or anything like that. So I am starting to wonder if we haven’t been teaching each other the commandments of men as doctrine. I think it’s okay to have it as a policy but that policy needs to be able to be ignored when requested by an elder or else we run the risk of exercising unrighteous dominion. And then none of us will be able to perform the ordinances to eternal affect.


Boyd K Packer mentioned something related years back.

He said something to the effect of— we have done a really good job distributing the authority of the priesthood all over the continent and world. But we have done a very poor job distributing the priesthood POWER.

See— if you really hold priesthood— and you exercise faith— the angels notice. If someone were to deny a worthy priesthood holder the ability to baptize a worthy person or bless the sacrament for worthy people.... it would be a huge sin.

The priesthood has RIGHTS associated with it that cannot be taken away. Being able to baptize and bless is part of these rights. Being able to preside over ones family in righteousness is another. Beings able to entertain angels is another that is mentioned in the scriptures. The only way these rights can be lost is through sin and unbelief... they cannot be denied you by policy

[Luke]

He said something to the effect of— we have done a really good job distributing the authority of the priesthood all over the continent and world. But we have done a very poor job distributing the priesthood POWER.

Plenty of outward Priesthood ordinations have taken place, but very little spiritual ordinations have happened. Probably because people are confused with regards to how this blessing is sought, and what power actually is.

[TheDuke]

So, I go along with the Church's methods but if it comes to I am there to baptize a grandchild and church isn't around. I'm doing it and I think God will account it as good. Same with sacrament, etc... My take.

[heliocentr1c]

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!

Interesting question. Has become almost impossible to understand from a conceptual standpoint imo bc the PH and its context have been so jumbled, de-contextualized and misrepresented by so many people for so long, it's like trying to untie a giant spider knot that has been twisting over and around itself for centuries.

One recent obstacle is the wording of the account in the Hx of the Church, Part 14 (May 1829) (only included very partially as section 13 in the D&C which only serves to further de-contextualize it):

"While we were thus employed praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from Heaven descended in a cloud of light,
and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying unto us, Upon you, my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah
I confer the priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and
of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. And this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi
do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."

The words "ordained" and "confer" are both used to describe what happened. JS says "he ordained us" -- the "he" being John the Baptist and the "us" being JS and Oliver Cowdery.

We can see he says that they were both ordained to this PH by John's hand. The next part then is the confusing one:

"...he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us
directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and afterward that
he should baptize me. Accordingly, we went and were baptized. I
baptized him first and afterward he baptized me, after which I laid
my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic priesthood.
And afterward he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same
priesthood, for so we were commanded.."

Despite the fact that, according to JS, they've already been ordained to Aaronic PH by John, they turn around and ordain each other to Aaronic PH -- the same that John has just ordained them to, ostensibly only moments before. The obvious question is..... why two ordinations?

So already we run into an issue - an apparent contradiction dealing w/ ordination - was there really a need for 2 ordinations back-to-back? Did JS just make a mistake, misremember, or get caught in a contradiction? Is the account simply recorded incorrectly by someone else? What's going on?

It's clear that if the account is accurate, JS and Cowdery both received two ordinations each-- one from a man and one from an angel. If any of these men then ordained someone else other than each other, this someone else would only have received one ordination-- from a man....unless of course they ended up receiving two, like JS and Oliver.


On top of this, we have further confusion still- very few people seem to really understand what was going on w/ John in the NT in terms of his calling and any associated PH keys he may have held. Bc of this, we're unable to elicit the necessary doctrinal and scriptural context to make sense of and separate out what was going on w/ him back then and that hinders our ability to fully understand the context of what he was doing w/ JS and Oliver.

We understand that John had authorization to baptize and that, according to JS, he alone had it for a season (WoJS pg. 308), having wrested any keys to do so from the Jews at that time -- all of Israel had to come to him for their baptism and thus Christ comes to Him to be baptized. Yet, once he baptizes Jesus', he winds up stuck in prison soon after only to then gets his head cut-off by way of King Herod/Herodius, the same guy he was no too long before this administering laws to (Mark 6:17-20).

It seems that John's PH was limited bc he could only baptize w/ water (something a teenager can do in the LDS church) but Christ could w/ fire and the HG. Not only this, but Jesus' apostles end up being able to give the gift of the HG in Acts -- something which John says he cannot do. Yet, JS and Christ both proclaim John as more than a prophet-- how could this be? If JS and Jesus both knew what they were talking about, then what is it that we're missing? We are left w/ another apparent contradiction/bizarrity.


A third issue then arises due to the undue amount of hype around hazily defined and all to alluring term "keys". The wording is quite tricky here - the account says they had the Aaronic PH conferred and/or ordained to them yet it also mentions keys:

"the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins."

The word "keys" is used another time in that same account, this time in connection w/ the Melchizedek PH:

"The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this
priesthood upon us said that his name was John, the same that is called
John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the
direction of Peter, James, and John, who held the keys of the
priesthood of Melchizedek, which priesthood, he said, should in due
time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first elder of the
church and he the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, eighteen
hundred and twenty-nine that we were baptized and ordained under
the hand of the messenger."

Both mention keys but do both use the word in the same sense as it relates to PH? One mentions the keys of the "ministering of angels", baptism, etc. while the other mentions the "keys of the Melchizedek PH".

Why is it that only John could seemingly baptize in his dispensation but in JS's many people baptized one another? Could the BoM help us in this case? What does the BoM have to say about people baptizing? Who can do it? Who baptized who in the BoM? Is the practice consistent throughout or does it vary to a certain degree? If so, why does it vary?

[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!

Interesting question. Has become almost impossible to understand from a conceptual standpoint imo bc the PH and its context have been so jumbled, de-contextualized and misrepresented by so many people for so long, it's like trying to untie a giant spider knot that has been twisting over and around itself for centuries.

One recent obstacle is the wording of the account in the Hx of the Church, Part 14 (May 1829) (only included very partially as section 13 in the D&C which only serves to further de-contextualize it):

"While we were thus employed praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from Heaven descended in a cloud of light,
and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying unto us, Upon you, my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah
I confer the priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and
of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. And this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi
do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."

The words "ordained" and "confer" are both used to describe what happened. JS says "he ordained us" -- the "he" being John the Baptist and the "us" being JS and Oliver Cowdery.

We can see he says that they were both ordained to this PH by John's hand. The next part then is the confusing one:

"...he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us
directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and afterward that
he should baptize me. Accordingly, we went and were baptized. I
baptized him first and afterward he baptized me, after which I laid
my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic priesthood.
And afterward he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same
priesthood, for so we were commanded.."

Despite the fact that, according to JS, they've already been ordained to Aaronic PH by John, they turn around and ordain each other to Aaronic PH -- the same that John has just ordained them to, ostensibly only moments before. The obvious question is..... why two ordinations?

So already we run into an issue - an apparent contradiction dealing w/ ordination - was there really a need for 2 ordinations back-to-back? Did JS just make a mistake, misremember, or get caught in a contradiction? Is the account simply recorded incorrectly by someone else? What's going on?

It's clear that if the account is accurate, JS and Cowdery both received two ordinations each-- one from a man and one from an angel. If any of these men then ordained someone else other than each other, this someone else would only have received one ordination-- from a man....unless of course they ended up receiving two, like JS and Oliver.


On top of this, we have further confusion still- very few people seem to really understand what was going on w/ John in the NT in terms of his calling and any associated PH keys he may have held. Bc of this, we're unable to elicit the necessary doctrinal and scriptural context to make sense of and separate out what was going on w/ him back then and that hinders our ability to fully understand the context of what he was doing w/ JS and Oliver.

We understand that John had authorization to baptize and that, according to JS, he alone had it for a season (WoJS pg. 308), having wrested any keys to do so from the Jews at that time -- all of Israel had to come to him for their baptism and thus Christ comes to Him to be baptized. Yet, once he baptizes Jesus', he winds up stuck in prison soon after only to then gets his head cut-off by way of King Herod/Herodius, the same guy he was no too long before this administering laws to (Mark 6:17-20).

It seems that John's PH was limited bc he could only baptize w/ water (something a teenager can do in the LDS church) but Christ could w/ fire and the HG. Not only this, but Jesus' apostles end up being able to give the gift of the HG in Acts -- something which John says he cannot do. Yet, JS and Christ both proclaim John as more than a prophet-- how could this be? If JS and Jesus both knew what they were talking about, then what is it that we're missing? We are left w/ another apparent contradiction/bizarrity.


A third issue then arises due to the undue amount of hype around hazily defined and all to alluring term "keys". The wording is quite tricky here - the account says they had the Aaronic PH conferred and/or ordained to them yet it also mentions keys:

"the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins."

The word "keys" is used another time in that same account, this time in connection w/ the Melchizedek PH:

"The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this
priesthood upon us said that his name was John, the same that is called
John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the
direction of Peter, James [Jacob], and John, who held the keys of the
priesthood of Melchizedek, which priesthood, he said, should in due
time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first elder of the
church and he the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, eighteen
hundred and twenty-nine that we were baptized and ordained under
the hand of the messenger."

Both mention keys but do both use the word in the same sense as it relates to PH? One mentions the keys of the "ministering of angels", baptism, etc. while the other mentions the "keys of the Melchizedek PH".

Why is it that only John could seemingly baptize in his dispensation but in JS's many people baptized one another? Could the BoM help us in this case? What does the BoM have to say about people baptizing? Who can do it? Who baptized who in the BoM? Is the practice consistent throughout or does it vary to a certain degree? If so, why does it vary?

Nice post.

I’d like you to share more.

I limited the original post to just a narrow question and left it in a way that the average modern LDS member would be able to understand through a normal 21st century LDS lense but I am familiar with what you are bringing up and although I am comfortable leaving things blurry and speaking in modern Mormon terms on here and in my ward— for me personally— like in my personal thoughts and study and prayers...I find the modern understanding of priesthood and keys and etc to be too vague and sloppy to be of any real use. It’s almost like when the church started teaching kids gospel lessons in primary they over simplified everything and then the kids grew up and started teaching elders quorum lessons verbatim just like how they learned in primary.

I’m interested if you have more to add

[Silver Pie]

So, I go along with the Church's methods but if it comes to I am there to baptize a grandchild and church isn't around. I'm doing it and I think God will account it as good. Same with sacrament, etc... My take.

I think this is a really big thing that a lot of members may not even think about. There may be times coming (and it may be sooner than we think) where the Church isn't going to be there to ask permission from. Maybe a real pandemic will hit. Maybe Churches will be crushed. Maybe something else. And the only way to ordain a young man to the priesthood, or baptize someone, or bless the sacrament is to just do it, because there will be no local bishop or stake pres to ask permission from.

As far as the op, I know of no scriptures. The one that mentioned a certificate said "may", I noticed. That means, it's okay if you do - but it doesn't say it's required. And I think it's just to let other people know you're not a fake or an imposter - but a certificate like that could be made by several people who know you to be honorable and to be what you say you are. (I'm talking, again, about no local leadership to verify.)

My own opinion on the matter is that if you are ordained to the priesthood, and you are right before God, you have his authority to baptize or bless the sacrament or to ordain another man/teenager to the priesthood. I know of no scripture refuting that.

[heliocentr1c]

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!

Interesting question. Has become almost impossible to understand from a conceptual standpoint imo bc the PH and its context have been so jumbled, de-contextualized and misrepresented by so many people for so long, it's like trying to untie a giant spider knot that has been twisting over and around itself for centuries.

One recent obstacle is the wording of the account in the Hx of the Church, Part 14 (May 1829) (only included very partially as section 13 in the D&C which only serves to further de-contextualize it):

"While we were thus employed praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from Heaven descended in a cloud of light,
and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying unto us, Upon you, my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah
I confer the priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and
of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. And this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi
do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."

The words "ordained" and "confer" are both used to describe what happened. JS says "he ordained us" -- the "he" being John the Baptist and the "us" being JS and Oliver Cowdery.

We can see he says that they were both ordained to this PH by John's hand. The next part then is the confusing one:

"...he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us
directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and afterward that
he should baptize me. Accordingly, we went and were baptized. I
baptized him first and afterward he baptized me, after which I laid
my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic priesthood.
And afterward he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same
priesthood, for so we were commanded.."

Despite the fact that, according to JS, they've already been ordained to Aaronic PH by John, they turn around and ordain each other to Aaronic PH -- the same that John has just ordained them to, ostensibly only moments before. The obvious question is..... why two ordinations?

So already we run into an issue - an apparent contradiction dealing w/ ordination - was there really a need for 2 ordinations back-to-back? Did JS just make a mistake, misremember, or get caught in a contradiction? Is the account simply recorded incorrectly by someone else? What's going on?

It's clear that if the account is accurate, JS and Cowdery both received two ordinations each-- one from a man and one from an angel. If any of these men then ordained someone else other than each other, this someone else would only have received one ordination-- from a man....unless of course they ended up receiving two, like JS and Oliver.


On top of this, we have further confusion still- very few people seem to really understand what was going on w/ John in the NT in terms of his calling and any associated PH keys he may have held. Bc of this, we're unable to elicit the necessary doctrinal and scriptural context to make sense of and separate out what was going on w/ him back then and that hinders our ability to fully understand the context of what he was doing w/ JS and Oliver.

We understand that John had authorization to baptize and that, according to JS, he alone had it for a season (WoJS pg. 308), having wrested any keys to do so from the Jews at that time -- all of Israel had to come to him for their baptism and thus Christ comes to Him to be baptized. Yet, once he baptizes Jesus', he winds up stuck in prison soon after only to then gets his head cut-off by way of King Herod/Herodius, the same guy he was no too long before this administering laws to (Mark 6:17-20).

It seems that John's PH was limited bc he could only baptize w/ water (something a teenager can do in the LDS church) but Christ could w/ fire and the HG. Not only this, but Jesus' apostles end up being able to give the gift of the HG in Acts -- something which John says he cannot do. Yet, JS and Christ both proclaim John as more than a prophet-- how could this be? If JS and Jesus both knew what they were talking about, then what is it that we're missing? We are left w/ another apparent contradiction/bizarrity.


A third issue then arises due to the undue amount of hype around hazily defined and all to alluring term "keys". The wording is quite tricky here - the account says they had the Aaronic PH conferred and/or ordained to them yet it also mentions keys:

"the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins."

The word "keys" is used another time in that same account, this time in connection w/ the Melchizedek PH:

"The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this
priesthood upon us said that his name was John, the same that is called
John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the
direction of Peter, James [Jacob], and John, who held the keys of the
priesthood of Melchizedek, which priesthood, he said, should in due
time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first elder of the
church and he the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, eighteen
hundred and twenty-nine that we were baptized and ordained under
the hand of the messenger."

Both mention keys but do both use the word in the same sense as it relates to PH? One mentions the keys of the "ministering of angels", baptism, etc. while the other mentions the "keys of the Melchizedek PH".

Why is it that only John could seemingly baptize in his dispensation but in JS's many people baptized one another? Could the BoM help us in this case? What does the BoM have to say about people baptizing? Who can do it? Who baptized who in the BoM? Is the practice consistent throughout or does it vary to a certain degree? If so, why does it vary?

Nice post.

I’d like you to share more.

I limited the original post to just a narrow question and left it in a way that the average modern LDS member would be able to understand through a normal 21st century LDS lense but I am familiar with what you are bringing up and although I am comfortable leaving things blurry and speaking in modern Mormon terms on here and in my ward— for me personally— like in my personal thoughts and study and prayers...I find the modern understanding of priesthood and keys and etc to be too vague and sloppy to be of any real use. It’s almost like when the church started teaching kids gospel lessons in primary they over simplified everything and then the kids grew up and started teaching elders quorum lessons verbatim just like how they learned in primary.

I’m interested if you have more to add

Thanks. Yeah, the questions that you're asking about Aaronic PH keys for baptism and the sacrament are really, really good questions imo. The problem, and it's not really a problem per se, but the obstacle, is that a complete answer is considerably involved. I'm not sure it can be answered in a single post (people have literally written books and series of books on the subject of PH). It took Jesus several hours to rehearse to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus using the scriptures and starting from the beginning to their current day what he was able to accomplish w/ His keys. And that was Jesus the Master teacher. And they didn't even realize what was happening until after He left. A lot has happened, prophetically and "key"-wise speaking, since then.

Part of the problem is that the term "keys" is not used in the same sense consistently in the early days of the church, making it confusing (they sort of started having a hey-day w/ it at some point, throwing it around as a way to add "oomph" to their "PH" whenever it was challenged).

Part of the way to fix this confusion imv, comes from being able to interact w/ the scriptures in such a way that you cannot become confused when you read them, so that you can trace the keys and understand when they are being referred to, in what sense, and be able to infer what they do.

Understanding like this (and the pattern it's based on) will, eventually, basically break the scriptures wide open (and is a sign you're on the right track), so that they can be accessed directly without any veil or covering obstructing their interpretation. This is good obviously bc now you can get really detailed, specific answers but it comes w/ inherent risk (2 Ne 31:14).

This level of understanding comes bc you've obtained the eyes and ears necessary to see and hear, or in other words to perceive by means of the spirit (or discern by means of the light of truth), the deepest meaning(s) of the scriptures (Hx of Church (May 1829)).

Part of the answer to your questions (bc they're related imv since both are ordinances transacted by the PH) is understanding how dispensation/apostasy cycles work and how PH and PH keys function within these cycles.

There are certain keys of power (WoJS pg. 130) which reckon from Heaven only. This is part of what's meant by the keys must be brought from Heaven whenever the Gospel is sent (Abr. 1:1-4, WoJS pg. 20). This is only necessary, though, if they have left the earth. If they are still on the earth, they can simply be passed from one individual to another (for example from John to Jesus; this is why John says "He [Christ] must increase, but I must decrease".). If those who hold these keys have effectively forfeited them through negligence and/or unrighteousness but are unwilling to hand them over peacefully/willingly, then they must be taken by force (Matt. 11:11-14). This is what John did with respect to the Jews —he wrested the keys from them so that, for a time, the government of heaven on earth (or the pattern in heaven replicated here on earth) rested on his shoulders alone and the kingdom safe until Jesus was ready to take over. Although these keys sometimes must be taken by "force", those who vie for them are engaged in a spiritual "battle" not primarily a worldly one (Eph. 6:12, Matt. 10:34).

Part of understanding how dispensation/apostasy cycles work means also understanding how dispensations are established and grown (which naturally involves the PH and PH ordinances/keys), and the undoing of this growth is what would reasonably result in an instance of apostasy. A very useful book for understanding this cycle is the BoM bc it provides multiple case studies of apostasies taking place to various degrees according to various circumstances among a single branch of the House of Israel and how PH and PH keys are employed to fix this. This emphasis among the Nephites was put on the spiritual side of the PH and not the outward. If anything, they were overly reticent about their PH, whereas, some of the early saints would not shut up about theirs.

The gospel is built up according to a pattern consisting of 3 phases or "spirits": the spirit of Elias (Luke 1:17), the spirit of Elijah, and the spirit of Messiah (when John ordains JS and Oliver he says he is acting under the direction of Messiah). Each spirit or phase builds on the proceeding one and so they must occur in the correct order. These spirits correlate to different PHs (in a certain sense), PH keys, and the point to which the kingdom has been built up at a group level.

Personally, I think you're definitely on to something w/ this idea of watered down doctrine becoming more and more watered-down w/ each successive generation. If you have a key and you take it to Home Depot and have it copied it will generally work fine to open the lock. The problem is when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original key and try to use it open the original lock. It rarely ever works bc each copy of the key introduces slight imperfections which become compounded over time. It's only if you have the original key to copy each time that it will keep its integrity. This is connected to why there are two ordinations.

What is your conception of baptism? If you had to say, who do you think can baptize?

[Cruiserdude]

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!

Interesting question. Has become almost impossible to understand from a conceptual standpoint imo bc the PH and its context have been so jumbled, de-contextualized and misrepresented by so many people for so long, it's like trying to untie a giant spider knot that has been twisting over and around itself for centuries.

One recent obstacle is the wording of the account in the Hx of the Church, Part 14 (May 1829) (only included very partially as section 13 in the D&C which only serves to further de-contextualize it):

"While we were thus employed praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from Heaven descended in a cloud of light,
and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying unto us, Upon you, my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah
I confer the priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and
of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. And this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi
do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."

The words "ordained" and "confer" are both used to describe what happened. JS says "he ordained us" -- the "he" being John the Baptist and the "us" being JS and Oliver Cowdery.

We can see he says that they were both ordained to this PH by John's hand. The next part then is the confusing one:

"...he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us
directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and afterward that
he should baptize me. Accordingly, we went and were baptized. I
baptized him first and afterward he baptized me, after which I laid
my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic priesthood.
And afterward he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same
priesthood, for so we were commanded.."

Despite the fact that, according to JS, they've already been ordained to Aaronic PH by John, they turn around and ordain each other to Aaronic PH -- the same that John has just ordained them to, ostensibly only moments before. The obvious question is..... why two ordinations?

So already we run into an issue - an apparent contradiction dealing w/ ordination - was there really a need for 2 ordinations back-to-back? Did JS just make a mistake, misremember, or get caught in a contradiction? Is the account simply recorded incorrectly by someone else? What's going on?

It's clear that if the account is accurate, JS and Cowdery both received two ordinations each-- one from a man and one from an angel. If any of these men then ordained someone else other than each other, this someone else would only have received one ordination-- from a man....unless of course they ended up receiving two, like JS and Oliver.


On top of this, we have further confusion still- very few people seem to really understand what was going on w/ John in the NT in terms of his calling and any associated PH keys he may have held. Bc of this, we're unable to elicit the necessary doctrinal and scriptural context to make sense of and separate out what was going on w/ him back then and that hinders our ability to fully understand the context of what he was doing w/ JS and Oliver.

We understand that John had authorization to baptize and that, according to JS, he alone had it for a season (WoJS pg. 308), having wrested any keys to do so from the Jews at that time -- all of Israel had to come to him for their baptism and thus Christ comes to Him to be baptized. Yet, once he baptizes Jesus', he winds up stuck in prison soon after only to then gets his head cut-off by way of King Herod/Herodius, the same guy he was no too long before this administering laws to (Mark 6:17-20).

It seems that John's PH was limited bc he could only baptize w/ water (something a teenager can do in the LDS church) but Christ could w/ fire and the HG. Not only this, but Jesus' apostles end up being able to give the gift of the HG in Acts -- something which John says he cannot do. Yet, JS and Christ both proclaim John as more than a prophet-- how could this be? If JS and Jesus both knew what they were talking about, then what is it that we're missing? We are left w/ another apparent contradiction/bizarrity.


A third issue then arises due to the undue amount of hype around hazily defined and all to alluring term "keys". The wording is quite tricky here - the account says they had the Aaronic PH conferred and/or ordained to them yet it also mentions keys:

"the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins."

The word "keys" is used another time in that same account, this time in connection w/ the Melchizedek PH:

"The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this
priesthood upon us said that his name was John, the same that is called
John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the
direction of Peter, James [Jacob], and John, who held the keys of the
priesthood of Melchizedek, which priesthood, he said, should in due
time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first elder of the
church and he the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, eighteen
hundred and twenty-nine that we were baptized and ordained under
the hand of the messenger."

Both mention keys but do both use the word in the same sense as it relates to PH? One mentions the keys of the "ministering of angels", baptism, etc. while the other mentions the "keys of the Melchizedek PH".

Why is it that only John could seemingly baptize in his dispensation but in JS's many people baptized one another? Could the BoM help us in this case? What does the BoM have to say about people baptizing? Who can do it? Who baptized who in the BoM? Is the practice consistent throughout or does it vary to a certain degree? If so, why does it vary?

Nice post.

I’d like you to share more.

I limited the original post to just a narrow question and left it in a way that the average modern LDS member would be able to understand through a normal 21st century LDS lense but I am familiar with what you are bringing up and although I am comfortable leaving things blurry and speaking in modern Mormon terms on here and in my ward— for me personally— like in my personal thoughts and study and prayers...I find the modern understanding of priesthood and keys and etc to be too vague and sloppy to be of any real use. It’s almost like when the church started teaching kids gospel lessons in primary they over simplified everything and then the kids grew up and started teaching elders quorum lessons verbatim just like how they learned in primary.

I’m interested if you have more to add

Thanks. Yeah, the questions that you're asking about Aaronic PH keys for baptism and the sacrament are really, really good questions imo. The problem, and it's not really a problem per se, but the obstacle, is that a complete answer is considerably involved. I'm not sure it can be answered in a single post (people have literally written books and series of books on the subject of PH). It took Jesus several hours to rehearse to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus using the scriptures and starting from the beginning to their current day what he was able to accomplish w/ His keys. And that was Jesus the Master teacher. And they didn't even realize what was happening until after He left. A lot has happened, prophetically and "key"-wise speaking, since then.

Part of the problem is that the term "keys" is not used in the same sense consistently in the early days of the church, making it confusing (they sort of started having a hey-day w/ it at some point, throwing it around as a way to add "oomph" to their "PH" whenever it was challenged).

Part of the way to fix this confusion imv, comes from being able to interact w/ the scriptures in such a way that you cannot become confused when you read them, so that you can trace the keys and understand when they are being referred to, in what sense, and be able to infer what they do.

Understanding like this (and the pattern it's based on) will, eventually, basically break the scriptures wide open (and is a sign you're on the right track), so that they can be accessed directly without any veil or covering obstructing their interpretation. This is good obviously bc now you can get really detailed, specific answers but it comes w/ inherent risk (2 Ne 31:14).

This level of understanding comes bc you've obtained the eyes and ears necessary to see and hear, or in other words to perceive by means of the spirit (or discern by means of the light of truth), the deepest meaning(s) of the scriptures (Hx of Church (May 1829)).

Part of the answer to your questions (bc they're related imv since both are ordinances transacted by the PH) is understanding how dispensation/apostasy cycles work and how PH and PH keys function within these cycles.

There are certain keys of power (WoJS pg. 130) which reckon from Heaven only. This is part of what's meant by the keys must be brought from Heaven whenever the Gospel is sent (Abr. 1:1-4, WoJS pg. 20). This is only necessary, though, if they have left the earth. If they are still on the earth, they can simply be passed from one individual to another (for example from John to Jesus; this is why John says "He [Christ] must increase, but I must decrease".). If those who hold these keys have effectively forfeited them through negligence and/or unrighteousness but are unwilling to hand them over peacefully/willingly, then they must be taken by force (Matt. 11:11-14). This is what John did with respect to the Jews —he wrested the keys from them so that, for a time, the government of heaven on earth (or the pattern in heaven replicated here on earth) rested on his shoulders alone and the kingdom safe until Jesus was ready to take over. Although these keys sometimes must be taken by "force", those who vie for them are engaged in a spiritual "battle" not primarily a worldly one (Eph. 6:12, Matt. 10:34).

Part of understanding how dispensation/apostasy cycles work means also understanding how dispensations are established and grown (which naturally involves the PH and PH ordinances/keys), and the undoing of this growth is what would reasonably result in an instance of apostasy. A very useful book for understanding this cycle is the BoM bc it provides multiple case studies of apostasies taking place to various degrees according to various circumstances among a single branch of the House of Israel and how PH and PH keys are employed to fix this. This emphasis among the Nephites was put on the spiritual side of the PH and not the outward. If anything, they were overly reticent about their PH, whereas, some of the early saints would not shut up about theirs.

The gospel is built up according to a pattern consisting of 3 phases or "spirits": the spirit of Elias (Luke 1:17), the spirit of Elijah, and the spirit of Messiah (when John ordains JS and Oliver he says he is acting under the direction of Messiah). Each spirit or phase builds on the proceeding one and so they must occur in the correct order. These spirits correlate to different PHs (in a certain sense), PH keys, and the point to which the kingdom has been built up at a group level.

Personally, I think you're definitely on to something w/ this idea of watered down doctrine becoming more and more watered-down w/ each successive generation. If you have a key and you take it to Home Depot and have it copied it will generally work fine to open the lock. The problem is when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original key and try to use it open the original lock. It rarely ever works bc each copy of the key introduces slight imperfections which become compounded over time. It's only if you have the original key to copy each time that it will keep its integrity. This is connected to why there are two ordinations.

What is your conception of baptism? If you had to say, who do you think can baptize?

I know it requires sacrificing lots of time to write these posts up, but please know how grateful we are{or at least I am) for how clearly you're able to articulate these points. Your posts read and flow very smoothly and pointedly. Almost as if the spirit is behind them and doing the teaching
So anyways, thanks, this was a great post on the topic of priesthood. You can really help many of us sort this stuff out in our minds and our spiritual senses and understanding, hermano

[heliocentr1c]

Interesting question. Has become almost impossible to understand from a conceptual standpoint imo bc the PH and its context have been so jumbled, de-contextualized and misrepresented by so many people for so long, it's like trying to untie a giant spider knot that has been twisting over and around itself for centuries.

One recent obstacle is the wording of the account in the Hx of the Church, Part 14 (May 1829) (only included very partially as section 13 in the D&C which only serves to further de-contextualize it):

"While we were thus employed praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from Heaven descended in a cloud of light,
and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying unto us, Upon you, my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah
I confer the priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and
of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. And this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of Levi
do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness."

The words "ordained" and "confer" are both used to describe what happened. JS says "he ordained us" -- the "he" being John the Baptist and the "us" being JS and Oliver Cowdery.

We can see he says that they were both ordained to this PH by John's hand. The next part then is the confusing one:

"...he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us
directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and afterward that
he should baptize me. Accordingly, we went and were baptized. I
baptized him first and afterward he baptized me, after which I laid
my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic priesthood.
And afterward he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same
priesthood, for so we were commanded.."

Despite the fact that, according to JS, they've already been ordained to Aaronic PH by John, they turn around and ordain each other to Aaronic PH -- the same that John has just ordained them to, ostensibly only moments before. The obvious question is..... why two ordinations?

So already we run into an issue - an apparent contradiction dealing w/ ordination - was there really a need for 2 ordinations back-to-back? Did JS just make a mistake, misremember, or get caught in a contradiction? Is the account simply recorded incorrectly by someone else? What's going on?

It's clear that if the account is accurate, JS and Cowdery both received two ordinations each-- one from a man and one from an angel. If any of these men then ordained someone else other than each other, this someone else would only have received one ordination-- from a man....unless of course they ended up receiving two, like JS and Oliver.


On top of this, we have further confusion still- very few people seem to really understand what was going on w/ John in the NT in terms of his calling and any associated PH keys he may have held. Bc of this, we're unable to elicit the necessary doctrinal and scriptural context to make sense of and separate out what was going on w/ him back then and that hinders our ability to fully understand the context of what he was doing w/ JS and Oliver.

We understand that John had authorization to baptize and that, according to JS, he alone had it for a season (WoJS pg. 308), having wrested any keys to do so from the Jews at that time -- all of Israel had to come to him for their baptism and thus Christ comes to Him to be baptized. Yet, once he baptizes Jesus', he winds up stuck in prison soon after only to then gets his head cut-off by way of King Herod/Herodius, the same guy he was no too long before this administering laws to (Mark 6:17-20).

It seems that John's PH was limited bc he could only baptize w/ water (something a teenager can do in the LDS church) but Christ could w/ fire and the HG. Not only this, but Jesus' apostles end up being able to give the gift of the HG in Acts -- something which John says he cannot do. Yet, JS and Christ both proclaim John as more than a prophet-- how could this be? If JS and Jesus both knew what they were talking about, then what is it that we're missing? We are left w/ another apparent contradiction/bizarrity.


A third issue then arises due to the undue amount of hype around hazily defined and all to alluring term "keys". The wording is quite tricky here - the account says they had the Aaronic PH conferred and/or ordained to them yet it also mentions keys:

"the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins."

The word "keys" is used another time in that same account, this time in connection w/ the Melchizedek PH:

"The messenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this
priesthood upon us said that his name was John, the same that is called
John the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the
direction of Peter, James [Jacob], and John, who held the keys of the
priesthood of Melchizedek, which priesthood, he said, should in due
time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first elder of the
church and he the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, eighteen
hundred and twenty-nine that we were baptized and ordained under
the hand of the messenger."

Both mention keys but do both use the word in the same sense as it relates to PH? One mentions the keys of the "ministering of angels", baptism, etc. while the other mentions the "keys of the Melchizedek PH".

Why is it that only John could seemingly baptize in his dispensation but in JS's many people baptized one another? Could the BoM help us in this case? What does the BoM have to say about people baptizing? Who can do it? Who baptized who in the BoM? Is the practice consistent throughout or does it vary to a certain degree? If so, why does it vary?

Nice post.

I’d like you to share more.

I limited the original post to just a narrow question and left it in a way that the average modern LDS member would be able to understand through a normal 21st century LDS lense but I am familiar with what you are bringing up and although I am comfortable leaving things blurry and speaking in modern Mormon terms on here and in my ward— for me personally— like in my personal thoughts and study and prayers...I find the modern understanding of priesthood and keys and etc to be too vague and sloppy to be of any real use. It’s almost like when the church started teaching kids gospel lessons in primary they over simplified everything and then the kids grew up and started teaching elders quorum lessons verbatim just like how they learned in primary.

I’m interested if you have more to add

Thanks. Yeah, the questions that you're asking about Aaronic PH keys for baptism and the sacrament are really, really good questions imo. The problem, and it's not really a problem per se, but the obstacle, is that a complete answer is considerably involved. I'm not sure it can be answered in a single post (people have literally written books and series of books on the subject of PH). It took Jesus several hours to rehearse to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus using the scriptures and starting from the beginning to their current day what he was able to accomplish w/ His keys. And that was Jesus the Master teacher. And they didn't even realize what was happening until after He left. A lot has happened, prophetically and "key"-wise speaking, since then.

Part of the problem is that the term "keys" is not used in the same sense consistently in the early days of the church, making it confusing (they sort of started having a hey-day w/ it at some point, throwing it around as a way to add "oomph" to their "PH" whenever it was challenged).

Part of the way to fix this confusion imv, comes from being able to interact w/ the scriptures in such a way that you cannot become confused when you read them, so that you can trace the keys and understand when they are being referred to, in what sense, and be able to infer what they do.

Understanding like this (and the pattern it's based on) will, eventually, basically break the scriptures wide open (and is a sign you're on the right track), so that they can be accessed directly without any veil or covering obstructing their interpretation. This is good obviously bc now you can get really detailed, specific answers but it comes w/ inherent risk (2 Ne 31:14).

This level of understanding comes bc you've obtained the eyes and ears necessary to see and hear, or in other words to perceive by means of the spirit (or discern by means of the light of truth), the deepest meaning(s) of the scriptures (Hx of Church (May 1829)).

Part of the answer to your questions (bc they're related imv since both are ordinances transacted by the PH) is understanding how dispensation/apostasy cycles work and how PH and PH keys function within these cycles.

There are certain keys of power (WoJS pg. 130) which reckon from Heaven only. This is part of what's meant by the keys must be brought from Heaven whenever the Gospel is sent (Abr. 1:1-4, WoJS pg. 20). This is only necessary, though, if they have left the earth. If they are still on the earth, they can simply be passed from one individual to another (for example from John to Jesus; this is why John says "He [Christ] must increase, but I must decrease".). If those who hold these keys have effectively forfeited them through negligence and/or unrighteousness but are unwilling to hand them over peacefully/willingly, then they must be taken by force (Matt. 11:11-14). This is what John did with respect to the Jews —he wrested the keys from them so that, for a time, the government of heaven on earth (or the pattern in heaven replicated here on earth) rested on his shoulders alone and the kingdom safe until Jesus was ready to take over. Although these keys sometimes must be taken by "force", those who vie for them are engaged in a spiritual "battle" not primarily a worldly one (Eph. 6:12, Matt. 10:34).

Part of understanding how dispensation/apostasy cycles work means also understanding how dispensations are established and grown (which naturally involves the PH and PH ordinances/keys), and the undoing of this growth is what would reasonably result in an instance of apostasy. A very useful book for understanding this cycle is the BoM bc it provides multiple case studies of apostasies taking place to various degrees according to various circumstances among a single branch of the House of Israel and how PH and PH keys are employed to fix this. This emphasis among the Nephites was put on the spiritual side of the PH and not the outward. If anything, they were overly reticent about their PH, whereas, some of the early saints would not shut up about theirs.

The gospel is built up according to a pattern consisting of 3 phases or "spirits": the spirit of Elias (Luke 1:17), the spirit of Elijah, and the spirit of Messiah (when John ordains JS and Oliver he says he is acting under the direction of Messiah). Each spirit or phase builds on the proceeding one and so they must occur in the correct order. These spirits correlate to different PHs (in a certain sense), PH keys, and the point to which the kingdom has been built up at a group level.

Personally, I think you're definitely on to something w/ this idea of watered down doctrine becoming more and more watered-down w/ each successive generation. If you have a key and you take it to Home Depot and have it copied it will generally work fine to open the lock. The problem is when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original key and try to use it open the original lock. It rarely ever works bc each copy of the key introduces slight imperfections which become compounded over time. It's only if you have the original key to copy each time that it will keep its integrity. This is connected to why there are two ordinations.

What is your conception of baptism? If you had to say, who do you think can baptize?

I know it requires sacrificing lots of time to write these posts up, but please know how grateful we are{or at least I am) for how clearly you're able to articulate these points. Your posts read and flow very smoothly and pointedly. Almost as if the spirit is behind them and doing the teaching
So anyways, thanks, this was a great post on the topic of priesthood. You can really help many of us sort this stuff out in our minds and our spiritual senses and understanding, hermano

Thanks. If it’s helped you understand the scriptures better and learn by the Spirit, then that means we’ve followed the direction in D&C 50:

21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?
22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.
23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

And so something spiritually significant has happened even if it appears unassuming.

But if you think my posts are clear, there are people who have lived and who are living who know 100 times what I do, if not considerably more. If my understanding is clear, it’s bc theirs is clearer.

The trick is being able to successfully discern who these people are.

If you can, you’ll be able to get an understanding that’s much clearer than anything I can offer bc by accepting what they’re offering, you’ll be able to get things directly from the Source so that there’ll be no middle man to jumble it up.

[Dusty Wanderer]

Nice post.

I’d like you to share more.

I limited the original post to just a narrow question and left it in a way that the average modern LDS member would be able to understand through a normal 21st century LDS lense but I am familiar with what you are bringing up and although I am comfortable leaving things blurry and speaking in modern Mormon terms on here and in my ward— for me personally— like in my personal thoughts and study and prayers...I find the modern understanding of priesthood and keys and etc to be too vague and sloppy to be of any real use. It’s almost like when the church started teaching kids gospel lessons in primary they over simplified everything and then the kids grew up and started teaching elders quorum lessons verbatim just like how they learned in primary.

I’m interested if you have more to add

Thanks. Yeah, the questions that you're asking about Aaronic PH keys for baptism and the sacrament are really, really good questions imo. The problem, and it's not really a problem per se, but the obstacle, is that a complete answer is considerably involved. I'm not sure it can be answered in a single post (people have literally written books and series of books on the subject of PH). It took Jesus several hours to rehearse to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus using the scriptures and starting from the beginning to their current day what he was able to accomplish w/ His keys. And that was Jesus the Master teacher. And they didn't even realize what was happening until after He left. A lot has happened, prophetically and "key"-wise speaking, since then.

Part of the problem is that the term "keys" is not used in the same sense consistently in the early days of the church, making it confusing (they sort of started having a hey-day w/ it at some point, throwing it around as a way to add "oomph" to their "PH" whenever it was challenged).

Part of the way to fix this confusion imv, comes from being able to interact w/ the scriptures in such a way that you cannot become confused when you read them, so that you can trace the keys and understand when they are being referred to, in what sense, and be able to infer what they do.

Understanding like this (and the pattern it's based on) will, eventually, basically break the scriptures wide open (and is a sign you're on the right track), so that they can be accessed directly without any veil or covering obstructing their interpretation. This is good obviously bc now you can get really detailed, specific answers but it comes w/ inherent risk (2 Ne 31:14).

This level of understanding comes bc you've obtained the eyes and ears necessary to see and hear, or in other words to perceive by means of the spirit (or discern by means of the light of truth), the deepest meaning(s) of the scriptures (Hx of Church (May 1829)).

Part of the answer to your questions (bc they're related imv since both are ordinances transacted by the PH) is understanding how dispensation/apostasy cycles work and how PH and PH keys function within these cycles.

There are certain keys of power (WoJS pg. 130) which reckon from Heaven only. This is part of what's meant by the keys must be brought from Heaven whenever the Gospel is sent (Abr. 1:1-4, WoJS pg. 20). This is only necessary, though, if they have left the earth. If they are still on the earth, they can simply be passed from one individual to another (for example from John to Jesus; this is why John says "He [Christ] must increase, but I must decrease".). If those who hold these keys have effectively forfeited them through negligence and/or unrighteousness but are unwilling to hand them over peacefully/willingly, then they must be taken by force (Matt. 11:11-14). This is what John did with respect to the Jews —he wrested the keys from them so that, for a time, the government of heaven on earth (or the pattern in heaven replicated here on earth) rested on his shoulders alone and the kingdom safe until Jesus was ready to take over. Although these keys sometimes must be taken by "force", those who vie for them are engaged in a spiritual "battle" not primarily a worldly one (Eph. 6:12, Matt. 10:34).

Part of understanding how dispensation/apostasy cycles work means also understanding how dispensations are established and grown (which naturally involves the PH and PH ordinances/keys), and the undoing of this growth is what would reasonably result in an instance of apostasy. A very useful book for understanding this cycle is the BoM bc it provides multiple case studies of apostasies taking place to various degrees according to various circumstances among a single branch of the House of Israel and how PH and PH keys are employed to fix this. This emphasis among the Nephites was put on the spiritual side of the PH and not the outward. If anything, they were overly reticent about their PH, whereas, some of the early saints would not shut up about theirs.

The gospel is built up according to a pattern consisting of 3 phases or "spirits": the spirit of Elias (Luke 1:17), the spirit of Elijah, and the spirit of Messiah (when John ordains JS and Oliver he says he is acting under the direction of Messiah). Each spirit or phase builds on the proceeding one and so they must occur in the correct order. These spirits correlate to different PHs (in a certain sense), PH keys, and the point to which the kingdom has been built up at a group level.

Personally, I think you're definitely on to something w/ this idea of watered down doctrine becoming more and more watered-down w/ each successive generation. If you have a key and you take it to Home Depot and have it copied it will generally work fine to open the lock. The problem is when you make a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original key and try to use it open the original lock. It rarely ever works bc each copy of the key introduces slight imperfections which become compounded over time. It's only if you have the original key to copy each time that it will keep its integrity. This is connected to why there are two ordinations.

What is your conception of baptism? If you had to say, who do you think can baptize?

I know it requires sacrificing lots of time to write these posts up, but please know how grateful we are{or at least I am) for how clearly you're able to articulate these points. Your posts read and flow very smoothly and pointedly. Almost as if the spirit is behind them and doing the teaching
So anyways, thanks, this was a great post on the topic of priesthood. You can really help many of us sort this stuff out in our minds and our spiritual senses and understanding, hermano

...
But if you think my posts are clear, there are people who have lived and who are living who know 100 times what I do, if not considerably more. If my understanding is clear, it’s bc theirs is clearer.

The trick is being able to successfully discern who these people are.

If you can, you’ll be able to get an understanding that’s much clearer than anything I can offer bc by accepting what they’re offering, you’ll be able to get things directly from the Source so that there’ll be no middle man to jumble it up.

Who are some of these people that you are referring to? I am very curious to also be able to hear what they have to say, or have said.

[illuminating.Grace]

I've actually been praying about this subject, I've welcomed in two men into my home, God led them to me partly so that they won't be rejected from baptism because they don't have a home ward. Right now, the church rejects the homeless from baptism.

The first moved in, he was rejected from the mission president at the time beforehand, so I met the guy through Gods workings, all seemed well and then he was rejected a second time because he has a pending trial with the courts... which is ridiculous because the standards of baptism in the handbook are seriously off center from the actual standards in scripture.

So now, with his second rejection, I've been praying about baptising him and giving him the holy spirit myself, I have the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods.

I believe that this is a righteous option, and it is in his will, to perform this myself.

D&C 20:37
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.

[Silver Pie]

If God tells you to do it, I would say do it. Like you pointed out, God doesn't have a bunch of red tape attached.

And the confirmation is mainly to confirm someone a member of the LDS Church. From what I've seen in scriptures, the Holy Ghost is given by God. The confirmation prayer simply admonishes the person to receive it. My point is that you don't have authority to confirm someone a member of the LDS Church (their home, their rules), but you definitely have authority to perform a baptism if God says you do.

I've actually been praying about this subject, I've welcomed in two men into my home, God led them to me partly so that they won't be rejected from baptism because they don't have a home ward. Right now, the church rejects the homeless from baptism.

The first moved in, he was rejected from the mission president at the time beforehand, so I met the guy through Gods workings, all seemed well and then he was rejected a second time because he has a pending trial with the courts... which is ridiculous because the standards of baptism in the handbook are seriously off center from the actual standards in scripture.

So now, with his second rejection, I've been praying about baptising him and giving him the holy spirit myself, I have the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods.

I believe that this is a righteous option, and it is in his will, to perform this myself.

D&C 20:37
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.