I was baptized for the dead last week, and for the first time I noticed during the confirmation process that the words “Melchizedek Priesthood” are completely absent from the ordinance. Then I noticed those words are absent from the initiatory ordinance, and all other temple ordinances. A counselor in the temple presidency said when he ordains new temple workers, he does not use those words either. Why are those words missing? When men perform nearly all ordinances (minus baptism, which states “having been commissioned by Jesus Christ), such as blessings, practically the first words a man says are “By the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood which I/We hold….” Why do we make such a big deal about Melchizedek Priesthood for the living, but not for the dead? By what authority are temple ordinances performed?
LDS, leadership, Mormon, Priesthood, Temple
By What Authority?
Wheat & Tares 
The power behind ordinances is from Jesus Christ. The temple ordinances state that the work is done in his name, just as in the baptismal ordinance for the living. In any ordinance the statement of Melchizedek priesthood Authority could be omitted since that power is implicit in the ordinance, and again, comes from Jesus Christ. In fact, He is the power is the power by which all things function, and that power emanates from Him as light to fill the universe, as we learn from the Doctrine and Covenants. In the temple women perform ordinances, so it would be improper to state Melchizedek priesthood authority. Joseph taught that women have authority through Jesus Christ to do much more then we talk about anymore in the church.
No, it says “Having been commissioned OF Jesus Christ”
I’ve been a (female) temple ordinance worker at multiple temples, and when I was set apart to that calling by the temple presidents, it felt a lot like receiving a regular Church calling. They did say that they were giving me the authority to perform the ordinances in the temple, but I don’t remember any unusual or specific language. And when I stopped being a temple worker, they didn’t take away the authority either.
Kim, women don’t perform the confirmation in the temple so, to follow your logic, it wouldn’t be inappropriate to invoke the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood in that case. Look, I doubt there is a particular theological rhyme or reason for this. When the guys wrote up the ordinance “prayers” for the temple they just left out the words about Melchizedek priesthood authority. Mormons are especially good at trying to find profound meaning hidden behind every word and syllable spoken in a religious context.
Here’s another question – why isn’t the authority of the Aaronic Priesthood invoked when performing a baptism? In fact, no “priesthood authority” at all is invoked when performing a baptism. Why is that?? Who knows? Is there an answer? Does it MEEEEEEEAAAN something? Probably not. It’s just the way these things are done. There is no deep meaning behind it. Not everything that is done in the church comes direct from God. I suspect little of it does, actually.
One possible explanation is that ordinations, blessings, confirmations, and a setting apart can have visitors/investigators present, unlike Temple ordinances (members only).So there may be a need to state the authority.
Originally, the Baptism prayer in Section 20 v. 73 was identical to the prayer recited by Jesus (3rd Nephi 11:25) The 1st edition D&C changed it to “having been commissioned”. Anybody know why?
Here’s a brain teaser I presented in Elder’s Quorum. A YM is being ordained a Deacon. The Father, an Elder, is assisting as well as the Bishop, but an older Brother, a Priest, is performing the ordination. What authority should be stated?
In the bible, in order to hold the Aaronic Priesthood, you hade to be a Levite who was 30-50 years of age. No one else could hold this sacred gift. Jesus Christ was not a Levite, therefore not entitled to this priesthood. The Melchizedek Priesthood in the Book of Hebrews ay that Jesus Christ is a “priest forever” He assumes the role of High Priest once and for all. There is NO record of Joseph Smith receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood. He one day said that he had received it. As Mormons, we believe everything we are told to believe, hook, line and sinker! If someone were restoring something , it would need to be precisely as it was originally. The LDS priesthood and temple ceremonies are nothing like what they were in Biblical times. The temple is a copy of the Masonic ceremonies with a few nuances added. The Masons and the priesthood holders in the bible wore special garments during their ceremonies. Joseph Smith needed to one up that one.. we get to wear our garments All the time! The early saints wore them constantly….never took them off. Funny thing, Joseph Smith wasn’t wearing his when he was shot at Carthage Jail . He did have his talisman good luck , witchcraft charm with him.
In Corinthians 15:29, Paul asks WHY are you doing baptisms for the dead, he didn’t say that is was necessary.
Joseph Smith must have known about another religious group in Pennsylvania who performed baptisms for the dead. He never could think of anything on his own, he gleaned from others.
It might be a good idea to read Jonathan A. Stapley’s *The Power of Godliness, Mormon Liturgy and Cosmology*, which explores this.
markablog, the authority stated in your example should be the Aaronic Priesthood. “Being commissioned of Jesus Christ”, to me, at least implies the Priesthood. How else would one be commissioned?
I read Jonathan Stapley’s book. He talks about a “cosmological priesthood” which isn’t really priesthood, it is just a “heuristic” device (meaning a concept.) I don’t think he really answers this question directly, though the book is good in talking about other things.
As for the priest ordaining a deacon, I’m pretty sure he should say “By the power of the Aaronic Priesthood….”
The baptismal prayer definitely states ““Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ,” and I am pretty sure that wording is quite similar to protestant baptisms. Mormons aren’t unique in claiming this “commission.”
Angel Momma, you are my new hero. Actually, though Paul didn’t ask why are YOU doing baptism for the dead. He asked why are THEY doing baptism for the dead. Paul, speaking to a group of Christian disciples, asks why are THEY (meaning those people over there who are not part of this group to whom I am speaking) doing baptism for the dead? So it is likely that people who were Christians after the order of Paul weren’t doing baptisms for the dead. Thus, baptism for the dead was probably never an actual Christian ordinance at all!! If Paul were here, he would probably ask the same of us. Why the hell are you guys doing this?
As I said, the book *explores* priesthood (the power of godliness), as in showing somewhat its historical ambiguities, evolution, and imprecisions throughout those processes.
Take it or leave it, but I am leaving my testimony here that I know Joseph Smith is a true Prophet of God. Oh what joy I feel in saying so.
A careful reading of D&C 128 seems to suggest that one should first obtain the sealing power before performing these baptisms. However, that is not what we practice .
Angel Momma: You’re correct that there is some uncertainty surrounding the ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood, and that the temple ceremonies don’t resemble biblical temple ceremonies. However, we have reason to believe that Smith never intended for garments to be worn outside the temple.
Rick B: Yes, the current baptismal prayer emphasizes the Great Commission, but in the Book of Mormon and Book of Commandments, the wording is “Having authority given me of Jesus Christ” (3 Nephi 11:25). It makes a huge difference.
I multiply many words here but not in prayer or ordinations.
Angel Momma writes “As Mormons, we believe everything we are told to believe, hook, line and sinker!”
Except of course for you and everyone else here 😉
In all my years I have never found two Mormons with the same set of beliefs and that’s astonishing considering four holy books and a hierarchical structure.
As I get older I place less emphasis on authority as I did when younger, but I do not abandon the concept that a church requires order, and order requires authority. But I doubt it is useful to recite one’s Source of Authority at each blessing.
Joseph Smith received the Melchizedek Pristhood at the Morley Farm conference in June of 1831. This is well documented but rarely talked about in the Church because it conflicts with the teaching that Peter James and John restored it when all they did was convey Apostolic Keys. At the conference 22 other men were also ordained to this priesthood which is required for the establishment of Zion. The Melchizedek Priesthood represents the fullness of the Priesthood which the Lord said the Saints had lost because of their failure to live His Law (consecration). See D&C 124:28. The reason the wording of the baptismal prayer was changed was because the Saints were downgraded in their Priesthood due to disobedience. Instead of Apostles who are witnesses of Christ we only have Apostles who are witnesses to the NAME of Christ. (See D&C 107:23)
Without the Melchizedek Pristhood we lack authority to GIVE the Gift of the Holy Ghost which Christ’s Apostles held anciently including in the Book Of Mormon. Tell someone to receive the HG is very different than giving them the gift. When you realize that we have been downgraded due to disobedience and led off into the desert it all starts to make sense.