I was in the temple recently. Following baptisms for the dead, I was getting ready to help confirm. In my mind I was trying to review the words to confirm someone. When I got in the room, I read the words and was surprised “by the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood” was not there. In 2014, I noted that in the initiatory, the ordinance is simply performed “by authority.” When we perform blessings, ordinations, setting apart, etc. for the living, we always use the words “by the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood,” but these words are absent from temple ceremonies. (I can’t think of a single instance in which we invoke “Melchizedek Priesthood” during a temple ceremony, but rather it is “by authority” or perhaps “having been commissioned of Jesus Christ” in the case of baptism.) Why do you think that is the case? Are temple ordinances done by the Melchizedek Priesthood, or some other authority, priesthood or not? Is it because women can perform some of these ordinances that we leave out the word “Melchizedek”?
LDS, Mormon, Mormon Belief, Priesthood, Temple, theology, Women
Priesthood Authority in Temple
If the designation “Melchizedek Priesthood” is not used for ordinances in the Temple because of the female workers, it poses an interesting discussion. If Aaronic Priests are ordaining someone to be a Deacon, Teacher, or Priest, do they say “By the Power of the Aaronic Priesthood”? What if they have an Elder assisting them; or he is the spokesman? And why can’t Aaronic Priests do Baptisms for the dead? It could greatly enhance the Spirit for a youth Temple session.
BTW, “Having authority given me of Jesus Christ” was the beginning of the original prayer of Baptism in the Book of Commandments (chp. XXIV) , as it was in the BOM. Sometime before the first D&C it was changed to “Having been commissioned”.
If Aaronic Priests are ordaining someone to be a Deacon, Teacher, or Priest, do they say “By the Power of the Aaronic Priesthood”?
That’s my understanding.
What if they have an Elder assisting them; or he is the spokesman?
If the Elder is spokesman, he does it by Melch Priesthood. If Aaronic is voice, he does it under Aaronic Priesthood. I could be wrong, but that’s my understanding.
And why can’t Aaronic Priests do Baptisms for the dead?
Great question, I’ve wondered that myself. I think it is just a weird policy. I know that the baptizer must be endowed; an unendowed Elder cannot perform baptisms for the dead. (Everytime I’ve gone, they specifically ask “Are you endowed?”) I’m aware of no scripture to base this on. Once again, I think it is a temple policy, not based on canonized revelation or anything like that.
Per Handbook 2, blessings are to be given by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. And that is the way I have understood for blessings to be properly administered my whole adult life (20+ years).
https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng
I think it just makes more sense and is more clear to state the that it is done by authority and not power. Someone can have priesthood authority, but have very little to no priesthood power.
I don’t believe any of the ordinances require the words ‘power of the M. Priesthood.’ Instead it’s by the ‘authority’ of the M. Priesthood. Sorry, this don’t answer the good questions raised by the OP. Just a clarification.
Your point is well taken, but people (including GA’s) conflate authority and power constantly.
My understanding is that the “authority” is given by the Priesthood holder who holds the keys for that ordinance to be done, not simply by having the power of the priesthood is one authorized to perform the ordinance.
In CHI Book 2, chapter 20 we read:
“They should perform each ordinance or blessing in a dignified manner, making sure it meets the following requirements:
1. It should be performed in the name of Jesus Christ
2. It should be performed by the authority of the priesthood.
3. It should be performed with any necessary procedures, such as using specified words or using consecrated oil.
4. It should be authorized by the presiding authority who holds the proper keys…”
For temple ordinances, that would make the Temple President the one authorized to give authority for the ordinances in the temple, not a bishop or SP of that area, and not by any Melchizedek priesthood holder, but by one that have been given authority for the ordinance to be done in that temple.
Based on that…it is not by the power of the priesthood it is done, but by the authority given to do so, and in the temples, it would be different than a live baptism or confirmation of the holy ghost done outside the temple by the authority bishops and SP hold.
I would argue that the rules set forth in the CHI apply only to ordinances performed outside of the temple and that the ordinances performed inside the temple follow a different set of rules not included in the CHI. Now, I’m not aware that a Temple Handbook of Instructions even exists but temple ordinances are clearly not included in the instructions provided in the CHI and we know by experience that the procedures set forth in the CHI are not followed when temple ordinances are completed. I’m not saying that priesthood authority and priesthood keys are different inside the temple from outside the temple but rather we can’t use the instructions in the CHI to determine how temple ordinances should be performed.
The handbooks are guides, not authority on the matter. I don’t see a conflict with CHI book 2 and temple ordinances. The specific wording is not used, but points 1,2 , 3, and 4 apply to both…even if the ordinances may differ slightly in and out of the temple, they don’t conflict with those CHI book 2 and those 4 points spelled out. The keys are different for temples and ordinances done in the ward. Both are done by “authority” for such, not by priesthood “power”.
“2. It should be performed by the authority of the priesthood.”
Typically in ordinations, I think we use the words “By the authority of the Melch/Aaronic Priesthood”, but as Guy mentioned in this post, in the Temple the words “Melchizedek priesthood” are absent from the initiatory and the confirmation. It just simply says “By Authority.” It begs the question, especially since I assume women use the exact same wording in the initiatory ordinances, what authority is it? Melchizedek, or some other authority (like Levitical–I doubt it.) Is there some un-named temple priesthood, so sacred that we simply don’t utter the words? Is this why they ask “are you endowed?” for baptisms. Does the endowment “ordain” us to a special temple priesthood that regular elders and women don’t get?
Joseph Smith said, “All priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it.” The priesthood is just the power and authority to act in the name of God. Ordination, offices, authority, Melchizedek, Aaronic, etc are all just nicknames for particular subsets of functions and duties within the power of God.
As a father of two teenage girls I do not want one of their peers baptizing them in the temple. Feelings of spirituality could be confused with feelings of attraction or intimacy. Not healthy for a 16 year old boy baptizing an attractive 16 year old girl who he already has a crush on.
Same thing happens when 21year old guy baptizes 21 female. Heck it could happen with 42 year olds. We are all human and confuse spiritual experiences. But that’s off topic anyway
The Aaronic Priesthood administers in temporal affairs, so Aaronic Priesthood holders only baptize the living. Baptism for the dead is a spiritual matter, so is done by those holding the Melchizedek Priesthood. At least, that’s how I understand it.