Dedicating Graves of Non-members

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is the authority of the bishop necessary? After all, the cemetery is not owned by the Church.

Since when is a Bishop's permission needed to pray for someone?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Since when is a Bishop's permission needed to pray for someone?

I think he is talking about dedicating a grave, which is an ordinance.  This would be similar in my understanding in needing to get permission to prepare the Sacrament outside of Church.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think he is talking about dedicating a grave, which is an ordinance.  This would be similar in my understanding in needing to get permission to prepare the Sacrament outside of Church.

So God would not honor the prayer because of improper form, and the grave would automatically be dug up tomorrow by vandals?

It's a distinction without a difference 

[strappinglad]

Do I as an HP need the Bishops approval to dedicate my home?  I understand it probably should be paid for , I also assume a grave is paid for. There are , I think, specific words used in a grave dedication that may not be proper for a non-member. A simple prayer over the grave without invoking the Priesthood should always be OK. 

[mfbukowski]

That's okay I've expressed my opinion.

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Since when is a Bishop's permission needed to pray for someone?

It's not just a prayer, it's an ordinance. Or at least it used to be.  Just like the home dedication used to be but now the home dedication is a prayer.  Maybe graves went the same way.

Edited August 13, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is the authority of the bishop necessary? After all, the cemetery is not owned by the Church.

According to Handbook 2, 20.9, "[a] person who dedicates a grave should hold the Melchizedek Priesthood and be authorized by the priesthood officer who conducts the service." 

In this particular situation, the person conducting the service will be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who happens to be a member of their family but who doesn't reside in the geographical area where the deceased lived or will be interred. 

So, on the one hand, there is a literal reading which could interpret the instructions to mean, 'Well, so long as the priesthood member conducting the service approves, then it's a-okay'

On the other hand, it seems to me that the unstated premise is that "priesthood officer" is probably meant to be understood to mean the local Bishop or someone he appoints (e.g., a counselor).

In which case, you would probably want to run things by the local presiding authority in order to get approval before performing the ordinance.

 

 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

According to Handbook 2, 20.9, "[a] person who dedicates a grave should hold the Melchizedek Priesthood and be authorized by the priesthood officer who conducts the service." 

I guess that answers my previous question.  Grave dedications are still priesthood ordinances.  Home dedications aren't any more.

What about temple dedications? Or place dedications for mission work?

Edited August 13, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So God would not honor the prayer because of improper form, and the grave would automatically be dug up tomorrow by vandals?

It's a distinction without a difference 

Do you think there is a difference between praying over bread and water and blessing the Sacrament?  If so, why is that different from grave dedications (the bread and water are being dedicated as is the land for a purpose) in your view?

[Kenngo1969]

32 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Do I as an HP need the Bishops approval to dedicate my home?  I understand it probably should be paid for, I also assume a grave is paid for. There are , I think, specific words used in a grave dedication that may not be proper for a non-member. A simple prayer over the grave without invoking the Priesthood should always be OK. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969]

Actually, per the Handbook of Instructions, a home need not be free of debt to be dedicated.  Such a requirement would obviate the very raison d'etre for dedicating homes, making dedications much rarer than they should be.  Our homes, whether they be the most lavish of mansions (how would it be? ) or the most humble of hovels, should be sacred sanctuaries where the Spirit can dwell.  Dedication facilitates that, and on that score, we need all the help we can get.   Besides, whether or not I "own" something in the temporal sense, in a spiritual sense, it can and should be "mine" whether I've finished paying for it or not.  As long as I live there, it's "mine," and as long as it's "mine," I want the Spirit there as much as possible.

Quote

 

20.11 Dedicating Homes

Church members may dedicate their homes as sacred edifices where the Holy Spirit can reside and where family members can worship, find safety from the world, grow spiritually, and prepare for eternal family relationships. Homes need not be free of debt to be dedicated. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969 as responsive to speculation in the preceding post, to which he replies.]  Unlike Church buildings, homes are not consecrated to the Lord.

A Melchizedek Priesthood holder may dedicate a home by the power of the priesthood. If there is not a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the home, a family might invite a close relative, a home teacher, or another Melchizedek Priesthood holder to dedicate the home. Or a family might gather and offer a prayer that includes the elements mentioned in the preceding paragraph and other words as the Spirit directs.

 

 

[Kenngo1969]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I guess that answers my previous question.  Grave dedications are still priesthood ordinances.  Home dedications aren't [priesthood ordinances] any more. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969 to indicate the portion to which he is replying.]

What about temple dedications? Or place dedications for mission work?

Actually, if what I quoted above is current and correct, that's not accurate.  They are Priesthood ordinances, but they do not require approval of the priesthood leader with jurisdiction over the area (i.e., a Bishop) because they are not recorded, saving ordinances.

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I guess that answers my previous question.  Grave dedications are still priesthood ordinances.  Home dedications aren't any more.

What about temple dedications? Or place dedications for mission work?

Dedicating your home is still an ordinance. It is just an ordinance that is currently generally allowed without permission from those with keys like anointing and blessing the sick or giving blessings of counsel and comfort. Priesthood leaders with Priesthood keys can determine as led by the Spirit what ordinances should require permission from those who hold keys and which should not.

31 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not just a prayer, it's an ordinance. Or at least it used to be.  Just like the home dedication used to be but now the home dedication is a prayer.  Maybe graves went the same way.

Nope.

45 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Do I as an HP need the Bishops approval to dedicate my home?  I understand it probably should be paid for , I also assume a grave is paid for. There are , I think, specific words used in a grave dedication that may not be proper for a non-member. A simple prayer over the grave without invoking the Priesthood should always be OK. 

No, you can dedicate your home without asking permission. It is generally allowed unless explicitly prohibited. The house does not need to be paid for and can even be a place you are just renting. Church buildings are currently generally not dedicated until they are paid off.

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So God would not honor the prayer because of improper form, and the grave would automatically be dug up tomorrow by vandals?

It's a distinction without a difference 

(Psst... call me)

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So God would not honor the prayer because of improper form, and the grave would automatically be dug up tomorrow by vandals?

It's a distinction without a difference 

It is a distinction with a difference if you believe/know Priesthood has power.

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, randy said:

My understanding is this...If my uncle who is a nonmember died in PA...and I travelled to PA for the funeral with the anticipation that I would be asked to dedicate the grave, upon arrival I would contact the Bishop under whom my Uncles stewardship fell, and I would explain the situation and get his approval and/or arrange a time to meet to present him my TR in order to satisfy that requirement.

This is ultimately what I ended up doing. I tracked down the Bishop who presides over the geographical area where the deceased family member lived and explained the situation to him.

He was very gracious and offered the use of the church's facilities for any of the family's needs. 

He said that dedicating the grave was totally fine and that he had done done the same previously for both of his non-member parents when they passed away. 

So, as much as my inner-Pharisee is interested in knowing if there is some obscure, official guidance one way or the other, spirit-of-the-law Amulek is content to rely on the counsel of local keyholders and let this family finalize their funeral services in good conscience. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you think there is a difference between praying over bread and water and blessing the Sacrament?  If so, why is that different from grave dedications (the bread and water are being dedicated as is the land for a purpose) in your view?

You tell me the ontological difference.

One is done with authority and one is not, but what does that mean to God?

Does it shine brighter ?

So I'm say there is an actual material difference that we cannot see but the question is a difference in what?

Are ordinances floating around somewhere with a special stamp on them while prayers are not?

I guess I have never understood this so I'm trying to understand the doctrine.

What does the Holy Spirit of Promise do that is not found in a prayer?

If we are going to make a distinction we better know what it is.

The sacrament functions to remind us of what the Savior has done and our Covenants. A grave dedication does not remind us of anything.

Temple ordinances also remind us of our Covenants, as well as directly addressing an individual who has passed on that he may learn these principles.

Grave dedications don't do either.

Even the instructions for grave dedications say to start in a spirit of prayer. It doesn't say to switch in the middle to some other way of saying it.

Edited August 14, 2019 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is a distinction with a difference if you believe/know Priesthood has power.

Ok, good answer.

Maybe that's it.

And so it requires priesthood permission up line.

I could buy that.

But then how is that different than anointing the sick? That does not require permission.

 

Edited August 14, 2019 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Actually, if what I quoted above is current and correct, that's not accurate.  They are Priesthood ordinances, but they do not require approval of the priesthood leader with jurisdiction over the area (i.e., a Bishop) because they are not recorded, saving ordinances.

 

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Dedicating your home is still an ordinance. It is just an ordinance that is currently generally allowed without permission from those with keys like anointing and blessing the sick or giving blessings of counsel and comfort.

The handbook says in the absence of the Melchizedek priesthood a family prayer can dedicate the home.  Implying it is no longer a priesthood ordinance as with grave dedications.

I had a brother in the ward (who held the priesthood) state this firmly and that he had one of his young children "dedicate their home."

[Exiled]

14 hours ago, Amulek said:

This is may be an open-and-shut procedural question, but I've read through both handbooks now and I can't find anything that clearly states whether or not you are allowed to dedicate the grave of someone who was never a member of the church. 

So, rather than continuing to read the same paragraphs over and over again, I figured I would 'ask the audience' since someone here is bound to have had some experience with this.

What say you: Is dedicating a grave a priesthood function which is available to everyone, similar to administering to the sick, or is it restricted to members only, sort of like a patriarchal blessing?

 

Just be respectful.  When one claims powers to dedicate a grave site, non-believers might feel obliged to push back.  Could this be done in private?  Why would you want to dedicate a non-believer's grave anyway?  Isn't that like entering into someone's private space without permission?  Even so, I never saw the big deal with doing something like that or endowments for anyone and everyone.  Either it is true and the people will be grateful or it is nonsense and the people aren't harmed.  When I was on my mission in Brasil, a local witch cast a spell on me, supposedly, saying that we would have relations as a result.  It didn't work.  I told her it wouldn't and it didn't.  I wasn't offended and actually, my district had a nice laugh about it together with the witch.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

 

The handbook says in the absence of the Melchizedek priesthood a family prayer can dedicate the home.  Implying it is no longer a priesthood ordinance as with grave dedications.

I had a brother in the ward (who held the priesthood) state this firmly and that he had one of his young children "dedicate their home."

Let's split the difference and say it's a priesthood ordinance if the priesthood is validly invoked, but it's not when it's not.  Would that work?  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Actually, if what I quoted above is current and correct, that's not accurate.  They are Priesthood ordinances, but they do not require approval of the priesthood leader with jurisdiction over the area (i.e., a Bishop) because they are not recorded, saving ordinances.

In that regard they would be similar to administering to the sick, which is a priesthood ordinance but does not require approval by a priesthood leader. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Is praying someone into the celestial kingdom wrong?

It is done daily at every Temple, in effect.

Are not ordinances prayers too?

In fact I believe Buddhist ideas like that are reminants of an ancient restoration that God gave his children in that area

I think it is a universal belief of most Humanity that these kinds of prayers or ordinances should be given.

The question was not about “praying someone into the celestial kingdom” but praying someone into the spirit world. That would be unnecessary as the spirit goes there anyway. To do such a thing by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood would amount to contriving a new (and unnecessary and unauthorized) ordinance, which strikes me as improper. 

And no, ordinances, which are performed by the authority of the priesthood, are not the same as prayers. Anyone can offer a prayer; only a priesthood holder can perform a priesthood ordinance. 

One from time to time sees echoes of the true gospel of Christ in other religious traditions. That doesn’t mean we should wholly embrace erroneous or false forms of worship just because they might resemble elements of the restored gospel in one respect or another. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not just a prayer, it's an ordinance. Or at least it used to be.  Just like the home dedication used to be but now the home dedication is a prayer.  Maybe graves went the same way.

In the Family Guidebook, which I cited and linked to earlier, dedication of a grave is listed in the chapter on  priesthood ordinances. So yes, it is still an ordinance, unless the Family Guidebook has been superseded without my knowing about it. 

Interestingly, it says in there that if the family prefers, a graveside prayer can be offered in lieu of a dedication of the grave. The person offering such a prayer does not even have to be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder, although it says that is preferred. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

The handbook says in the absence of the Melchizedek priesthood a family prayer can dedicate the home.  Implying it is no longer a priesthood ordinance as with grave dedications.

I had a brother in the ward (who held the priesthood) state this firmly and that he had one of his young children "dedicate their home."

Your premises do not support your conclusion.

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, Exiled said:

Why would you want to dedicate a non-believer's grave anyway?  Isn't that like entering into someone's private space without permission?

You probably didn't read through the thread (not that I blame you), but in this particular situation the deceased wasn't a member but all of the surviving relatives are members of the church, and they would like to have the ordinance performed. 

 

Quote

Even so, I never saw the big deal with doing something like that or endowments for anyone and everyone.  Either it is true and the people will be grateful or it is nonsense and the people aren't harmed. 

That's my general feeling as well.