Priesthood being active and dormant?

[nuclearfuels]

My spouse shared that in the ward she grew up attending, a person was baptized by his older brother who had for years lived a lifestyle contrary to the principles of the gospel. 

When the bishop of her ward was asked about this, he said that the brother had the priesthood and the ordinance was valid - and that the priesthood was dormant during his time away from the church.

This seems odd to me. 

Is this a standard approach?

If I chose to live a lifestyle such as this man would the priesthood remain with me, just in a dormant manner?

If so this seems to equate sinning (significantly) to be less grievous than unrighteous dominion (Amen to the priesthood of that man), no?

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

My spouse shared that in the ward she grew up attending, a person was baptized by his older brother who had for years lived a lifestyle contrary to the principles of the gospel. 

When the bishop of her ward was asked about this, he said that the brother had the priesthood and the ordinance was valid - and that the priesthood was dormant during his time away from the church.

This seems odd to me. 

Is this a standard approach?

If I chose to live a lifestyle such as this man would the priesthood remain with me, just in a dormant manner?

If so this seems to equate sinning (significantly) to be less grievous than unrighteous dominion (Amen to the priesthood of that man), no?

 

It is standard that the bishop has the keys to authorize the ordinances a priesthood holder can administer in the ward. His choice of wording to explain that the ordinance is still valid, which it is, accords with his understanding. 

Faith can be dormant, too, but it is not dead (Alma 32: 34) given the expectation and hope that it will again be used. 

What if someone exercises unrighteous dominion through murder, or vice-versa?

[Fether]

1 hour ago, nuclearfuels said:

My spouse shared that in the ward she grew up attending, a person was baptized by his older brother who had for years lived a lifestyle contrary to the principles of the gospel. 

When the bishop of her ward was asked about this, he said that the brother had the priesthood and the ordinance was valid - and that the priesthood was dormant during his time away from the church.

This seems odd to me. 

Is this a standard approach?

If I chose to live a lifestyle such as this man would the priesthood remain with me, just in a dormant manner?

If so this seems to equate sinning (significantly) to be less grievous than unrighteous dominion (Amen to the priesthood of that man), no?

 

When someone with the priesthood leaves the church for a period of time (without having their name removed) and then chooses to come back, they are not “re-ordained” to the priesthood. They maintain that ordination, but the power behind that ordination may be lacking. 

This is important because should someone secretly live a life if sin and, whilst doing so, baptize their children and ordain others to the priesthood, those baptisms and ordination would all be in vain. And then any further ordinations and baptisms after the fact would be without power and authority. Eventually it would domino into a church full of people with a false priesthood.

This may also explain how Alma the Elder could teach and baptize. The only person to have ordain him was the wicked King Noah. He held the authority, but lacked all power due to his wickedness. When Alma repented, he regained that power to act. (This is how I justify it, there are other possibilities to it all but this is what I have naturally been drawn to)

Edited March 31, 2022 by Fether

[Nofear]

https://www.ldsliving.com/the-difference-between-priesthood-power-and-priesthood-authority-and-how-women-and-men-can-access-both/s/90603

Actions that are done unworthily by a priesthood holder do not invalidate the authority of of the priesthood action. The unworthy person is under condemnation, but the recipient is not punished. For example, if a priest fornicated Saturday night and then blessed the sacrament, the sacrament is still valid for all those who partook worthily. On the other hand, one can expect no power in a priesthood blessing of healing if one is unworthy, even if the "authority" to give a blessing is present.

 

[rongo]

Just now, Nofear said:

https://www.ldsliving.com/the-difference-between-priesthood-power-and-priesthood-authority-and-how-women-and-men-can-access-both/s/90603

Actions that are done unworthily by a priesthood holder do not invalidate the authority of of the priesthood action. The unworthy person is under condemnation, but the recipient is not punished. For example, if a priest fornicated Saturday night and then blessed the sacrament, the sacrament is still valid for all those who partook worthily. On the other hand, one can expect no power in a priesthood blessing of healing if one is unworthy, even if the "authority" to give a blessing is present.

Sometimes, the healing is efficacious, even if the one performing it is unworthy. You're right that "you have no promise," but God is often merciful and recognizes the authority, even if people are unworthy. 

Good, better best: it's best of all, and confidence "waxes strong" when there is unquestionably power in the priesthood. 

[CV75]

So was he treating his priesthood like a dormant?

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Fether said:

When someone with the priesthood leaves the church for a period of time (without having their name removed) and then chooses to come back, they are not “re-ordained” to the priesthood. They maintain that ordination, but the power behind that ordination may be lacking. 

This is important because should someone secretly live a life if sin and, whilst doing so, baptize their children and ordain others to the priesthood, those baptisms and ordination would all be in vain. And then any further ordinations and baptisms after the fact would be without power and authority. Eventually it would domino into a church full of people with a false priesthood.

This may also explain how Alma the Elder could teach and baptize. The only person to have ordain him was the wicked King Noah. He held the authority, but lacked all power due to his wickedness. When Alma repented, he regained that power to act. (This is how I justify it, there are other possibilities to it all but this is what I have naturally been drawn to)

Rebaptism used to be much more common.  In my opinion, that would be preferable in situations like these.
If an inactive members return to activity and committed serious sin during their inactive period I think a rebaptism of renewal would be beneficial as it was in the 19th century.

The Church decided it wasn't, for example as McConkie notes in Mormon Doctrine “There is no need for an ordinance of rebaptism in the Church."
Interestingly, it was rebaptism that led to President Jedediah M. Grant's early death.  During the reformation he would preach fiery sermons of repentance and afterward members would choose to be rebaptized.
He caught pneumonia after rebaptising dozens of people in icy City Creek.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Rebaptism used to be much more common.  In my opinion, that would be preferable in situations like these.
If an inactive members return to activity and committed serious sin during their inactive period I think a rebaptism of renewal would be beneficial as it was in the 19th century.

I agree. Even if it was just symbolic, a rebaptism may help someone recommit to a new way of life

[Calm]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

God is often merciful and recognizes the authority, even if people are unworthy. 

Perhaps recognizes the faith in this case rather than authority would be more accurate, imo (both of the one asking to be healed and the one blessing).

[JustAnAustralian]

Handbook section 18.3 specifically allows for it in the case of fathers.

Quote

However, as guided by the Spirit and the instructions in this chapter, bishops and stake presidents may allow fathers and husbands who hold the necessary priesthood office to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings even if they are not fully temple worthy. A priesthood holder who has unresolved serious sins should not participate.

And 18.7.3 specifically for baptism

Quote

A bishop may allow a father who is a priest or a Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his child even if the father is not fully temple worthy (see 18.3). Bishops encourage fathers to prepare themselves to baptize their own children.

 

It doesn't say anything about older brothers, but I would assume that some bishops would extrapolate the father rule to older brothers in some circumstances.

[rongo]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps recognizes the faith in this case rather than authority would be more accurate, imo (both of the one asking to be healed and the one blessing).

How could it be "rather than authority?" It would have to be both, but without the actual authority (priesthood ordination), it would just be requests contingent upon faith. 

I think where the power comes in is "confidence waxing strong." President Packer told us at a stake conference about being stung by the Spirit after giving a "safe, garden variety" healing blessing of an infant that didn't really take any risks. He returned, and the surprised mother noted that he had just been there. "I gave your child a blessing, and I've come back to give her the blessing that God has for her." He told us that men need to prophesy much more than we do --- not play it safe --- and leave it up to God to fulfill it. That is inherent in the authority. 

Where men lack the power because of unworthiness, I think that the confidence and daring to do that are strongly curtailed. 

Then Elder Oaks mentioned that regardless of what is said in a blessing, the recipient will receive the blessing that God has for him. I think the same applies to relative unworthiness of the man giving the blessing. The recipient will not be punished for the unworthiness of the man giving the blessing, but the man must have authority. Otherwise, we're no different from Protestant faith healers, subject only to God's willingness to grant requests through faith. 

 

[pogi]

On 3/31/2022 at 8:05 AM, Fether said:

This is important because should someone secretly live a life if sin and, whilst doing so, baptize their children and ordain others to the priesthood, those baptisms and ordination would all be in vain. And then any further ordinations and baptisms after the fact would be without power and authority. Eventually it would domino into a church full of people with a false priesthood.

I don't think this is true. 

There are numerous cases in the church where Bishops have been found living a secret life of sin, the church does not re-ordain or rebaptize all of those whom the bishop ordained or baptized while living in sin.  Everything the bishop did in terms of exercising his priesthood in making callings, setting apart, etc. are not invalid and do not need to be redone.

If a "life of sin" invalidates priesthood ordinances, then I would suggest that all ordinances are invalid in our church - no one is free from sin. What about porn use, does that invalidate it?  Again, if it does, than I would suggest that most of the ordinances performed in the church today are invalid.  

Edited April 1, 2022 by pogi

[pogi]

20 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Rebaptism used to be much more common.  In my opinion, that would be preferable in situations like these.
If an inactive members return to activity and committed serious sin during their inactive period I think a rebaptism of renewal would be beneficial as it was in the 19th century.

The Church decided it wasn't, for example as McConkie notes in Mormon Doctrine “There is no need for an ordinance of rebaptism in the Church."
Interestingly, it was rebaptism that led to President Jedediah M. Grant's early death.  During the reformation he would preach fiery sermons of repentance and afterward members would choose to be rebaptized.
He caught pneumonia after rebaptising dozens of people in icy City Creek.

Rebaptism had nothing to do with the person performing the ordinance being unworthy at the time.  They were never performed because the original was considered invalid, that I am aware of.  It was almost always performed for a remission of sins after repentance.  Second baptisms were also performed for healing and physical well-being, rather than remission of sins.   I am not aware of any instance of a rebaptism due to unworthiness of the ordinance worker.  

Edited April 1, 2022 by pogi

[rongo]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don't think this is true. 

There are numerous cases in the church where Bishops have been found living a secret life of sin, the church does not re-ordain or rebaptize all of those whom the bishop ordained or baptized while living in sin.  Everything the bishop did in terms of exercising his priesthood in making callings, setting apart, etc. are not invalid and do not need to be redone.

If a "life of sin" invalidates priesthood ordinances, then I would suggest that all ordinances are invalid in our church - no one is free from sin. What about porn use, does that invalidate it?  Again, if it does, than I would suggest that most of the ordinances performed in the church today are invalid.  

This is exactly what Daniel Peterson points out on page 19 here:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1661&context=msr

It's the same conclusion the Catholic Church reached (and, I think, the only conclusion that can be reached) in the Donatist schism. As Peterson puts it, "we could never know whose marriage was legal, or who was really a member of the Church. Did the man who ordained you have secret, unrepented sin? Then your ordination is invalid. Your mission was illegitimate, any converts you baptized are actually nonmembers, and you are living in adultery . . . How could we ever be sure of anything?"

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Rebaptism had nothing to do with the person performing the ordinance being unworthy at the time.  They were never performed because the original was considered invalid, that I am aware of.  It was almost always performed for a remission of sins after repentance.  Second baptisms were also performed for healing and physical well-being, rather than remission of sins.   I am not aware of any instance of a rebaptism due to unworthiness of the ordinance worker.  

  I didn't say rebaptism was due to an unworthy administrator.

Rebaptism for sins would be appropriate for a baptized member who went inactive and during that inactivity participated in activities that would render someone unworthy of being baptized.
At least, that used to be the idea.  The Church felt repentance and partaking the sacrament was sufficient for a formerly inactive priesthood holder to full worthiness again.

And you are correct that historically rebaptisms were performed for healing, prior to entering united orders or plural marriages, going on missions, and other reasons.

[rongo]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

  I didn't say rebaptism was due to an unworthy administrator.

Rebaptism for sins would be appropriate for a baptized member who went inactive and during that inactivity participated in activities that would render someone unworthy of being baptized.
At least, that used to be the idea.  The Church felt repentance and partaking the sacrament was sufficient for a formerly inactive priesthood holder to full worthiness again.

And you are correct that historically rebaptisms were performed for healing, prior to entering united orders or plural marriages, going on missions, and other reasons.

Rebaptism wasn't for remission of sins; it was more of a recommitment at certain times, like you listed. 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/31/2022 at 8:05 AM, Fether said:

When someone with the priesthood leaves the church for a period of time (without having their name removed) and then chooses to come back, they are not “re-ordained” to the priesthood. They maintain that ordination, but the power behind that ordination may be lacking. 

This is important because should someone secretly live a life if sin and, whilst doing so, baptize their children and ordain others to the priesthood, those baptisms and ordination would all be in vain. And then any further ordinations and baptisms after the fact would be without power and authority. Eventually it would domino into a church full of people with a false priesthood.

This may also explain how Alma the Elder could teach and baptize. The only person to have ordain him was the wicked King Noah. He held the authority, but lacked all power due to his wickedness. When Alma repented, he regained that power to act. (This is how I justify it, there are other possibilities to it all but this is what I have naturally been drawn to)

The personal status of the priesthood holder is not at issue.  All ordinances are fully effective, as long as that priesthood has not been taken from the holder.  The same applies to male members of the tribe of Levi among the Jews.  Their priesthood remains fully in force by lineal right, even if they lead dissolute lives.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

  I didn't say rebaptism was due to an unworthy administrator

Sorry, I didn't read close enough.  Fether was making the case about invalid baptisms due to unworthy priesthood holder and I thought your response was in agreement to his/her entire post.  It sounds like you were only agreeing with part of it.  

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The personal status of the priesthood holder is not at issue.  All ordinances are fully effective, as long as that priesthood has not been taken from the holder.  The same applies to male members of the tribe of Levi among the Jews.  Their priesthood remains fully in force by lineal right, even if they lead dissolute lives.

When one thinks about it, this becomes clear as a bell.

If you ask someone you believe is righteous and a priesthood holder for a needed blessing, will the Lord NOT bless YOU because the alleged priesthood holder sinned even grievously the night before??

I can't even imagine that as a viable possibility.

In cases like that, I believe that your faith in the priesthood itself is what blesses you.

Blessings are not magic spells.  Do we think priesthood is like a  Hairy  Potter movie?

Of course it is not.

We have a loving Father who doesn't punish the innocent for the sins of others.

 

Edited April 1, 2022 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Rebaptism wasn't for remission of sins; it was more of a recommitment at certain times, like you listed. 

Excommunicated members have to be rebaptized to return.
I'm pretty sure there are those with their memberships intact that had to be rebaptized for remission of sins.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/08/03/excommunication-as-a-function-of-rebaptism/

• in Southern Utah when one particularly belligerent individual had made threats and assaulted some community members, the Bishop asked, “Shall we cut [him] off & throw him away?” After some discussion, a man acting as his councilor wrote the response: ” Bishop Lunt’s decision was the [the subject] should Make a Public acknowledgement & be rebaptized for the remission of sins & begin a New again; this was the feeling of all Presant.”

• when one missionary in 1889 was struck with guilt over previously un-confessed sin, he wrote Church President Wilford Woodruff and expected to be relieved of his ministry. However, as the missionary described in his diary, Woodruff erred on the side of mercy:
  He empathizes greatly and says he is very sorry that one having received so many blessings [I] should have given way to sin so great. Tells me he sees by my letter I have suffered much remorse and that I have truly repented. Exhorts me to strive the remainder of my life to serve God, and not allow Satan to cause me to feel there is no use. Says to get rebaptized and have all my priesthood and former blessings resealed upon me, but not to be in a hurry in doing so; meantime to apply myself diligently in magnifying my calling as a missionary.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=byusq

• William Claytons journal indicated that rebaptism for remission of sins was practiced at Nauvoo after joseph smith had remarked on the subject at April 1841 conference.
• Surviving certificates of baptism from Nauvoo indicate that from 1843 to 1844 many members of the church in good standing were rebaptized for remission of sins.
• The general nature of this Nauvoo reformation is indicated in the enthusiastic letter of Jacob Scott from Nauvoo on 28 February 1843:
  "nearly all the church have been baptized again for the remission of their sins since they joined the church.  I have also by the hands of br Joseph as he himself has been & I would advise Jan and you Mary to attend to it as soon as you can have the opportunity of an elder or priest of the church to administer it."

But yes, mostly for recommitment.  I think Brigham mentioned one time he had personally been baptized 15 times and (in typical Brigham hyperbole) that he never passed a body of water without wanting to be rebaptized.

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, rongo said:

Rebaptism wasn't for remission of sins; it was more of a recommitment at certain times, like you listed. 

It actually was performed for remission of sins, according to baptismal certificates.  My own ancestor recorded in his journal that he was rebaptised for remission of sin.

Quote

 

...during the nauvoo years rebaptism for reformation and remission of sins was general among the latter day saints

...surviving certificates of baptism from nauvoo indicate that from 1843 to 1844 many members of the church in good standing were rebaptized for remission of sins 

...the general nature of this nauvoo reformation is indicated in the enthusiastic letter of jacob scott from nauvoo on 28 february 1843 nearly all the church have been baptized again for the remission of their sins since they joined the church.  I have also by the hands of br joseph as he himself has been & I would advise jan and you mary to attend to it as soon as you can have the opportunity of an elder or priest of the church to administer it.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=byusq

 

 

[2BizE]

When it says “Amen to the priesthood of that man”, what does that really mean?

Amen is an expression that means you are in agreement with or “so be it”. 
I’m a bit surprised Joseph Smith didn’t use the word “Adieu” instead.

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

When it says “Amen to the priesthood of that man”, what does that really mean?

Amen is an expression that means you are in agreement with or “so be it”. 
I’m a bit surprised Joseph Smith didn’t use the word “Adieu” instead.

Joseph Smith does this from time to time --- repurposing "accepted English" in different ways. While you are technically correct, I think the reader gets his drift --- goodbye, or shut the door, instead of "so be it." 

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

When it says “Amen to the priesthood of that man”, what does that really mean?

Amen is an expression that means you are in agreement with or “so be it”. 
I’m a bit surprised Joseph Smith didn’t use the word “Adieu” instead.

Amen here I think means "the end".

That scripture is used to justify so much apostasy these days.  Look at the Remnant nuts.  Modern day Godbeites.

Edited April 1, 2022 by JLHPROF

[Fether]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

I don't think this is true. 

There are numerous cases in the church where Bishops have been found living a secret life of sin, the church does not re-ordain or rebaptize all of those whom the bishop ordained or baptized while living in sin.  Everything the bishop did in terms of exercising his priesthood in making callings, setting apart, etc. are not invalid and do not need to be redone.

If a "life of sin" invalidates priesthood ordinances, then I would suggest that all ordinances are invalid in our church - no one is free from sin. What about porn use, does that invalidate it?  Again, if it does, than I would suggest that most of the ordinances performed in the church today are invalid.  

Sorry, I was giving those examples as to why it WASNT the case. We are in agreement