Baptisms for the Dead - now by Aaronic Priesthood

[JLHPROF]

http://thisweekinmormons.com/2017/12/mormon-church-changes-rules-temple-baptisms-allowing-youth-officiate-ordinances/

• Now, under the direction of a temple presidency, priests in the Aaronic Priesthood (young men, 16-18), may officiate in baptisms for the dead, including serving as the baptizer and as a witness—roles previously limited to Melchizedek Priesthood holders.

Any reason doctrinally why a baptism for the dead would require Melchizedek priesthood?  Clearly the Church couldn't think of any.

• Young women (ages 12-18) will now have the opportunity to assist with the baptistry assignments normally reserved for older temple workers. This can include helping individuals to assignments, scheduling (presumably), passing out towels at the baptistry, and others. Young Women’s leaders the world over will rejoice.

This of course is getting the usual inequality/ordain women type comments.

Any other thoughts?

 

[rongo]

Wow. 

I was also struck by Priesthood Preview now including 11 year-old girls and called Temple Preview. 

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

http://thisweekinmormons.com/2017/12/mormon-church-changes-rules-temple-baptisms-allowing-youth-officiate-ordinances/

• Now, under the direction of a temple presidency, priests in the Aaronic Priesthood (young men, 16-18), may officiate in baptisms for the dead, including serving as the baptizer and as a witness—roles previously limited to Melchizedek Priesthood holders.

Any reason doctrinally why a baptism for the dead would require Melchizedek priesthood?  Clearly the Church couldn't think of any.

• Young women (ages 12-18) will now have the opportunity to assist with the baptistry assignments normally reserved for older temple workers. This can include helping individuals to assignments, scheduling (presumably), passing out towels at the baptistry, and others. Young Women’s leaders the world over will rejoice.

This of course is getting the usual inequality/ordain women type comments.

Any other thoughts?

 

Women can stand in the office of priestess and perform washing with water and anointing with oil  -  but they can't baptize with water.  I like the LDS movie, "How rare a possession" where the film prominently displays Elder Samuel Bringhurst's wife Lenora as she stands as a witness to the baptism of Vincenzo di Francesca in Sicily.  

Edited December 14, 2017 by blueglass

[rongo]

I'm fine with the change allowing priests to baptize in temples. That fits squarely under the keys of the President of the Church to make such a change. It does do away with the idea that all ordinances in the temple are Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances (which is why priests haven't been able to do it until now).

I am less thrilled about including the 11 year-old girls in the Priesthood Preview (now renamed Temple and Priesthood Preview). My wife's reaction when I called and told her was: "They are two different things for two different groups. Why not leave Priesthood Preview, and have a separate Temple Preview?" 

[Duncan]

I wonder why we can wear shirts with no sleeves in the baptistry but not in the endowment room? Some of these rules must be holdovers from days of yore

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

Wow. 

I was also struck by Priesthood Preview now including 11 year-old girls and called Temple Preview. 

Yes, i thought it was great that they are including girls in this now.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm fine with the change allowing priests to baptize in temples. That fits squarely under the keys of the President of the Church to make such a change. It does do away with the idea that all ordinances in the temple are Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances (which is why priests haven't been able to do it until now).

I am less thrilled about including the 11 year-old girls in the Priesthood Preview (now renamed Temple and Priesthood Preview). My wife's reaction when I called and told her was: "They are two different things for two different groups. Why not leave Priesthood Preview, and have a separate Temple Preview?" 

Maybe because the temple preview stuff is applicable to both groups?

[Duncan]

Are Priests allowed to be a witness in baptisms for the dead? they can be a witness outside the Temple

[blueglass]

Here are the duties of sisters serving in the office of Deaconess from the 1868 relief society minutes book by Sarah M. Kimball and Eliza R. Snow, 

https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-3/3-9?lang=eng&highlight=deaconess|Deaconesses

Deaconesses:

It is their duty to open the Hall—adjust seats and to see that the room is in proper order to receive the members—to provide fresh water if necessary—to attend to lights and fire—in short to make everything as pleasant and agreeable as possible for the meetings,

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Are Priests allowed to be a witness in baptisms for the dead? they can be a witness outside the Temple

Yep. That's in the letter as well. 

[CV75]

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

http://thisweekinmormons.com/2017/12/mormon-church-changes-rules-temple-baptisms-allowing-youth-officiate-ordinances/

• Now, under the direction of a temple presidency, priests in the Aaronic Priesthood (young men, 16-18), may officiate in baptisms for the dead, including serving as the baptizer and as a witness—roles previously limited to Melchizedek Priesthood holders.

Any reason doctrinally why a baptism for the dead would require Melchizedek priesthood?  Clearly the Church couldn't think of any.

• Young women (ages 12-18) will now have the opportunity to assist with the baptistry assignments normally reserved for older temple workers. This can include helping individuals to assignments, scheduling (presumably), passing out towels at the baptistry, and others. Young Women’s leaders the world over will rejoice.

This of course is getting the usual inequality/ordain women type comments.

Any other thoughts?

 

It seems like the sons of Levi are offering an offering unto the Lord in righteousness... what could be next?

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

It seems like the sons of Levi are offering an offering unto the Lord in righteousness... what could be next?

free BBQ!

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Maybe because the temple preview stuff is applicable to both groups?

I think so, especially since priesthood ordination for males is what qualifies them to serve in the temple, which is the highest aim for any member.

[CV75]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

free BBQ!

Bigger Baptism Quotient?

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm fine with the change allowing priests to baptize in temples. That fits squarely under the keys of the President of the Church to make such a change. It does do away with the idea that all ordinances in the temple are Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances (which is why priests haven't been able to do it until now).

 

Baptism has always been an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance. That is to say, the office of priest has always entailed the authority to baptize.

Confirmation after baptism, on the other hand, is a Melchizedek Priesthood ordinance. I doubt this change allows Aaronic Priesthood holders to do confirmations.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Bigger Baptism Quotient?

let's go with that!

[rongo]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Baptism has always been an Aaronic Priesthood ordinance. That is to say, the office of priest has always entailed the authority to baptize.

Confirmation after baptism, on the other hand, is a Melchizedek Priesthood ordinance. I doubt this change allows Aaronic Priesthood holders to do confirmations.

No, it doesn't. The ordinances are now identical authority, regardless of inside/outside the temple. 

My point was that *all* temple ordinances (even baptism) were, prior to today, done by Melchizedek priesthood holders. They had to be --- even baptisms. So, it appears that in the past, while baptism is an AP ordinance, temple baptisms required the MP. 

[blueglass]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

No, it doesn't. The ordinances are now identical authority, regardless of inside/outside the temple. 

My point was that *all* temple ordinances (even baptism) were, prior to today, done by Melchizedek priesthood holders. They had to be --- even baptisms. So, it appears that in the past, while baptism is an AP ordinance, temple baptisms required the MP. 

"All Priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it" (TPJS, p. 180)

[JLHPROF]

38 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I wonder why we can wear shirts with no sleeves in the baptistry but not in the endowment room? Some of these rules must be holdovers from days of yore

It's a throwback - remember, even though short sleeved garments came about in the 1920s the long sleeved temple garment lasted into the late 1970s.

[The Nehor]

Neat.

Me like.

[JLHPROF]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm fine with the change allowing priests to baptize in temples. That fits squarely under the keys of the President of the Church to make such a change. It does do away with the idea that all ordinances in the temple are Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances (which is why priests haven't been able to do it until now).

That was my question.
I was trying to determine if there was anything requiring Melchizedek authority specifically in the Baptism for the Dead.
The endowment sign used in baptism is the same for the living and dead and priests can use it so being endowed doesn't seem necessary.  Also Baptisms for the Dead were performed before the temple endowment was restored.

The only thing I can think doctrinally is that Aaronic ordinances are usually considered temporal in nature and any ordinance that is specifically labelled as transcending mortality usually requires Melchizedek.  Now, live baptisms have an effect that reaches into eternity, but they apply in this life.  In fact one of the reasons we perform baptisms for the dead is that these ordinances must be performed in mortality.
So the ONLY doctrinal reason I can come up with why Melchizedek priesthood would be required for Baptisms for the Dead is that the ordinances transcends the veil into eternity and thus differs from live Baptisms.  Clearly President Monson doesn't think that is an issue.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

http://thisweekinmormons.com/2017/12/mormon-church-changes-rules-temple-baptisms-allowing-youth-officiate-ordinances/

• Now, under the direction of a temple presidency, priests in the Aaronic Priesthood (young men, 16-18), may officiate in baptisms for the dead, including serving as the baptizer and as a witness—roles previously limited to Melchizedek Priesthood holders.

Any reason doctrinally why a baptism for the dead would require Melchizedek priesthood?  Clearly the Church couldn't think of any.

• Young women (ages 12-18) will now have the opportunity to assist with the baptistry assignments normally reserved for older temple workers. This can include helping individuals to assignments, scheduling (presumably), passing out towels at the baptistry, and others. Young Women’s leaders the world over will rejoice.

This of course is getting the usual inequality/ordain women type comments.

Any other thoughts?

 

My only thought is okay.  But young women being over joyed to pass out towels..is just beyond me...

[Duncan]

I wonder if women can be a recorder? you don't need the priesthood to tick off names. My bro said sometimes when you call clerk support you get a woman anyways, unless in Utah they name men "Gayle"

[Duncan]

AND if women were the earliest witnesses to the Resurrection then why can't they be a witness of a baptism, for the living or the dead? or have the YM hand out towels, do laundry?

[bsjkki]

Deseret News article on the topic. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865694033/Mormon-teens-to-have-greater-opportunities-for-temple-service-in-2018.html  We had just completed Priesthood Preview too. Darn.