Baptisms for the Dead - now by Aaronic Priesthood

[Avatar4321]

6 hours 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?" 

The temple is where we access priesthood power & orders

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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

Not just Melchizedek Priesthood, but until now the men had to be all endowed as well. In addition, the women assisting also had to be endowed.

Interesting changes. I like them!

[Eveline]

14 hours ago, blueglass said:

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,

We have Just a sister called to do Just that. And how about a female Sunday's school president? Never understood why that needed to be a brother.

[rongo]

13 hours ago, Duncan said:

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"

Haven't you seen the Hunger Games?  I seem to remember a male Gale . . . Our star football player in SE Idaho growing up was Stacy. And then there was Leslie Nielson . . .

I believe that the recorder has to be a MP holder. Anyone associated with the performing, witnessing, and recording of an ordinance --- just like outside the temple. 

When you call the recorder's office and Sister so-and-so answers the phone and answers questions, that is not the same as being the recorder to a baptism or confirmation in the baptistry.

Edited December 15, 2017 by rongo

[rongo]

11 hours ago, Duncan said:

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?

They were eye-witnesses, not priesthood witnesses for purposes of ordinances. 

That's like saying every woman in the crowd was as much a witness to a child of record baptism as the two boys/men who actually served as witnesses to the baptism. Eye-witness, yes, in that they saw it happen. But not the official witnesses for the ordinances (who have to be at least a priest). 

Edited December 15, 2017 by rongo

[Duncan]

43 minutes ago, rongo said:

Haven't you seen the Hunger Games?  I seem to remember a male Gale . . . Our star football player in SE Idaho growing up was Stacy. And then there was Leslie Nielson . . .

I believe that the recorder has to be a MP holder. Anyone associated with the performing, witnessing, and recording of an ordinance --- just like outside the temple. 

When you call the recorder's office and Sister so-and-so answers the phone and answers questions, that is not the same as being the recorder to a baptism or confirmation in the baptistry.

no, I have never seen the hunger games!! I hadn't even heard of it prior to coming out and nope, didn't see it! when you call SLC for clerk support, not necessarily the Temple

[rongo]

Just now, Duncan said:

no, I have never seen the hunger games!! I hadn't even heard of it prior to coming out and nope, didn't see it! when you call SLC for clerk support, not necessarily the Temple

Gale is originally a male name. There was also a famous NFL football player named Gayle Sayers.

Clerk support is not the same thing as serving as a clerk. I've also gotten really good clerk help from women at the Church Office Building.  

[Duncan]

45 minutes ago, rongo said:

They were eye-witnesses, not priesthood witnesses for purposes of ordinances. 

That's like saying every woman in the crowd was as much a witness to a child of record baptism as the two boys/men who actually served as witnesses to the baptism. Eye-witness, yes, in that they saw it happen. But not the official witnesses for the ordinances (who have to be at least a priest). 

but is there a difference that makes a difference though? like why do you need to hold the priesthood to see something to make it official? baptizing yes, but why do you need the priesthood to just stand there to make sure the baptism happened properly? if women were good enough to see the resurrection is that less than witnessing a baptism?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

but is there a difference that makes a difference though? like why do you need to hold the priesthood to see something to make it official? baptizing yes, but why do you need the priesthood to just stand there to make sure the baptism happened properly? if women were good enough to see the resurrection is that less than witnessing a baptism?

In my opinion, anything connected with the performance of the ordinance requires the priesthood. Simply watching an ordinance isn't connected with it, but officially witnessing it (notice that there are two official witnesses and a recorder for all baptisms, confirmations, and sealings). I know that some clamor: "But why can't women do that?" 

Obviously, the view of the Church always has been and still is that priesthood office is required to do that, and have it be part of the ordinance.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

Kind of a low bar for what is great.

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours 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. 

Kind of shows that the temple baptism process was merely a policy, rather than tied to a specific doctrine that required a person to be endowed. I don't have a problem with that but I think the mistake is often made in thinking that everything that happens in the temple is divinely mandated from God rather than practical policies utilized to help the temple run efficiently.

The FP letter didn't state anything about a revelation changing the requirements so it makes me wonder why they didn't allow priests to baptize in the temple previously.

The whole bit about YW now being allowed to pass out towels is a joke. It's incredible to think that previously a YW wouldn't have been allowed to hand someone a towel. That's crazy. Previous to 1950 women were routinely able to stand as witnesses for temple ordinances. Now they routinely hand out towels.

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/15/mormon-girls-will-be-able-to-attend-new-priesthood-and-temple-meeting-but-they-wont-be-getting-the-priesthood/

[HappyJackWagon]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Do you really think Pres. Monson is capable of giving this much thought right now. As outlined in Devery Anderson's book, many changes to temple ordinances have been suggested over time by members of the Q12. Those proposals are accepted by the first presidency. However, if some members of the FP are incapacitated the quorum can still move forward. I suspect that's what happened here.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Kind of a low bar for what is great.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Am i only allowed to think something is great if it includes ordaining women or is there some other standard of greatness that the church is failing to meet in regards to 11 year old girls that i'm not aware of?

I think it's awesome that people are realizing that going to the temple for the first time is a big step and one that needs to be addressed and that turning 12 is significant for girls just as it is for boys, even if it's not exactly for the same reasons.

Edited December 15, 2017 by bluebell

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The FP letter didn't state anything about a revelation changing the requirements so it makes me wonder why they didn't allow priests to baptize in the temple previously.

The Church hasn't had an announced revelation for a long, long time. I'm wondering what circumstances would necessitate that. I could see women getting the priesthood without a revelation. 

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  Am i only allowed to think something is great if it includes ordaining women or is there some other standard of greatness that the church is failing to meet in regards to 11 year old girls that i'm not aware of?

I think it's awesome that people are realizing that going to the temple for the first time is a big step and one that needs to be addressed and that turning 12 is significant for girls just as it is for boys, even if it's not exactly for the same reasons.

I'm simply pointing out that it's sad that we think it is "great" or notable simply to have the girls remembered and included by church leaders.

It's like calling the Yugo a great automobile. Hyperbole at its finest  

[HappyJackWagon]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

The Church hasn't had an announced revelation for a long, long time. I'm wondering what circumstances would necessitate that. I could see women getting the priesthood without a revelation. 

Now they only seem to call things revelation to shore up the base after the crap hits the fan. "Oh, you didn't like that policy? It's revelation." Revelation Mic drop.

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm simply pointing out that it's sad that we think it is "great" or notable simply to have the girls remembered and included by church leaders.

It's like calling the Yugo a great automobile. Hyperbole at its finest  

I get your point, but isn't that like saying that we shouldn't think it was great when women got the vote because they should have already had it?   From my perspective, change for the better is always notable.

[rongo]

I was going to post a question, but then I thought I could just look up the letter (the link didn't work yesterday, which was weird).

We're going as a family to do baptisms tomorrow, and I wondered if my son would be able to do them (he's 17). The letter announces the effective date of January 1, 2018. I wondered how they're going to determine that a boy with a limited use recommend is a priest (probably a certain type of recommend, or maybe it would show up when they're scanned in at the desk. But, the people at the font don't have that information currently).

It's odd that this information wasn't included in the letter. "Go time" is in two weeks. It would have been easier to just have that detail hammered out yesterday, rather than giving that within the next two weeks. 

[HappyJackWagon]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get your point, but isn't that like saying that we shouldn't think it was great when women got the vote because they should have already had it?   From my perspective, change for the better is always notable.

Not really. Women getting the right to vote was a massive political shift where they were afforded rights they had previously been denied. What has really changed?

Does someone get to do something they otherwise were not going to get to do? No. Girls were still going to pass out towels and boys were still going to baptize. The only difference is the timing of getting to do it a couple of years earlier. It's nice, but nothing terribly momentous. Changing the name of a meeting and allowing girls to attend is nice but nothing all that amazing. I think that is a good move, but hardly a momentous one.

[ksfisher]

33 minutes ago, rongo said:

I was going to post a question, but then I thought I could just look up the letter (the link didn't work yesterday, which was weird).

We're going as a family to do baptisms tomorrow, and I wondered if my son would be able to do them (he's 17). The letter announces the effective date of January 1, 2018. I wondered how they're going to determine that a boy with a limited use recommend is a priest (probably a certain type of recommend, or maybe it would show up when they're scanned in at the desk. But, the people at the font don't have that information currently).

It's odd that this information wasn't included in the letter. "Go time" is in two weeks. It would have been easier to just have that detail hammered out yesterday, rather than giving that within the next two weeks. 

I imagine they'll determine if the young man is a priest or teacher by asking.  In the past they would ask at the font if a MP holder was endowed.  I imagine it will be the same way.

[rockpond]

On 12/14/2017 at 2:53 PM, 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?

 

I love this and am excited to hear this.  It will add a new dimension to our youth temple trips.

Other thoughts?

- Having a 16 year old young man baptize a young woman could have the effect of increasing a YW's feeling of inequality (although, women can speak up here and tell me if I'm off base).

+ Maybe the realization that a proxy baptism doesn't require the MP could lead to other greater understandings such as including Beehives in the responsibility of passing the sacrament (does passing of a tray really require the priesthood?).  Or, having women and young women serve as witnesses for both live and proxy baptisms.

[Jeanne]

6 hours ago, rongo said:

The Church hasn't had an announced revelation for a long, long time. I'm wondering what circumstances would necessitate that. I could see women getting the priesthood without a revelation. 

If this were the case, the black members should have had the priesthood a long time ago.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not really. Women getting the right to vote was a massive political shift where they were afforded rights they had previously been denied. What has really changed?

Does someone get to do something they otherwise were not going to get to do? No. Girls were still going to pass out towels and boys were still going to baptize. The only difference is the timing of getting to do it a couple of years earlier. It's nice, but nothing terribly momentous. Changing the name of a meeting and allowing girls to attend is nice but nothing all that amazing. I think that is a good move, but hardly a momentous one.

I agree, it’s not momentous. Still great though.  

[Tacenda]

Did anyone catch this in the article linked by the OP?

"The move comes at a time when, at least anecdotally, it appears more difficult to get adults to attend youth baptismal assignments, particularly on weeknights. This will not only remove the barriers to entry for getting the assignments done, it will also serve as a phenomenal opportunity for Mormon youth to be more engaged in the work of the temple."

What do you think? Is it because there is less activity? I like that they get the youth involved, but did it come as a need because of the above quote or because they liked to give the youth more responsibility. Sometimes I think policy changes come about because of need.

[Jeanne]

Just now, Tacenda said:

Did anyone catch this in the article linked by the OP?

"The move comes at a time when, at least anecdotally, it appears more difficult to get adults to attend youth baptismal assignments, particularly on weeknights. This will not only remove the barriers to entry for getting the assignments done, it will also serve as a phenomenal opportunity for Mormon youth to be more engaged in the work of the temple."

What do you think? Is it because there is less activity? I like that they get the youth involved, but did it come as a need because of the above quote or because they liked to give the youth more responsibility. Sometimes I think policy changes come about because of need.

I didn't notice that..so thank you..very interesting ..Will weeknights work for the busy youth??