Conformation Order of Operations

[Stormin' Mormon]

The confirmation ordinance has two parts. The convert is first confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and then the Holy Ghost is bestowed. 

I was at a baptism this afternoon where that order was reversed. It was a 10 year old child of an active ward member (who for reasons, had delayed her baptism). So the ordinance was conducted under the keys held by the mission president (and delegated to the local missionaries). They seemed unconcerned about it, so I'm leaving it be.

But I'm curious about the question. My thoughts:

1. If the order mattered, if someone needs to be a member of the Church for those five seconds before the Gift of the Holy Ghost can be received, they'd be separate ordinances.

2. The salvific part of the ordinance is the Gift. The confirmation (which I don't think has scriptural precedent) is just administrative. As such, the order wouldn't matter.

Thoughts?

[blackstrap]

BEDMAS

I don't think one should be changing the  traditional order willy nilly, but I also think it is not like the baptismal prayer  where it is set by ancient scripture. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The confirmation ordinance has two parts. The convert is first confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and then the Holy Ghost is bestowed. 

I was at a baptism this afternoon where that order was reversed. It was a 10 year old child of an active ward member (who for reasons, had delayed her baptism). So the ordinance was conducted under the keys held by the mission president (and delegated to the local missionaries). They seemed unconcerned about it, so I'm leaving it be.

But I'm curious about the question. My thoughts:

1. If the order mattered, if someone needs to be a member of the Church for those five seconds before the Gift of the Holy Ghost can be received, they'd be separate ordinances.

2. The salvific part of the ordinance is the Gift. The confirmation (which I don't think has scriptural precedent) is just administrative. As such, the order wouldn't matter.

Thoughts?

So, the person was told to receive the Holy Ghost and then confirmed a member of the Church? I don't think the laying on of hands as a single ordinance would need to be redone.

Moroni 2: 2 - 3, "And he called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles. Now Christ spake these words unto them at the time of his first appearing; and the multitude heard it not, but the disciples heard it; and on as many as they laid their hands, fell the Holy Ghost."

D&C 20: 41, "And to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the scriptures..."

"After a person is baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one or more Melchizedek Priesthood holders lay their hands on the person’s head and, in a sacred priesthood ordinance, confirm him or her a member of the Church. As part of this ordinance, called confirmation, the person is given the gift of the Holy Ghost." Holy Ghost (churchofjesuschrist.org)

From the above, those who are baptized are then confirmed by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost (D&C 20), and this ordinance is called "confirmation" wherein they are confirmed members by being given the gift of the Holy Ghost (Topics and Questions).

D&C 20: 43 also states, "And to confirm the church by the laying on of the hands, and the giving of the Holy Ghost..." Thus, it seems the Church is confirmed collectively by the addition of members receiving this ordinance (i.e., being confirmed and given the gift of the Holy Ghost) individually.

 

Edited December 18, 2023 by CV75

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The confirmation ordinance has two parts. The convert is first confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and then the Holy Ghost is bestowed. 

I was at a baptism this afternoon where that order was reversed. It was a 10 year old child of an active ward member (who for reasons, had delayed her baptism). So the ordinance was conducted under the keys held by the mission president (and delegated to the local missionaries). They seemed unconcerned about it, so I'm leaving it be.

But I'm curious about the question. My thoughts:

1. If the order mattered, if someone needs to be a member of the Church for those five seconds before the Gift of the Holy Ghost can be received, they'd be separate ordinances.

2. The salvific part of the ordinance is the Gift. The confirmation (which I don't think has scriptural precedent) is just administrative. As such, the order wouldn't matter.

Thoughts?

Cornelius, centurion at Caesarea, was baptized by Peter, the first Gentile to come into the Church, did not have a baptism before the Holy Ghost came upon him. An unprecedented miracle for Peter's sake, otherwise Peter may have insisted he get circumcised first. But Cornelius was already purified by the way he lived. A righteous man that feared God, gave alms generously, and prayed continually.

A child should be acceptable, too. But even Cornelius still needed to be baptized though he already had the Holy Ghost.

[mfbukowski]

Baptism must be first, then confirmation AND gift of HG.

Just lookup the ordinance language.

"I Confirm you a member of the COJLDS, and say unto you, RECEIVE the Holy Ghost.

Baptism 

Confirmation

Gift of HG.

 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Cornelius, centurion at Caesarea, was baptized by Peter, the first Gentile to come into the Church, did not have a baptism before the Holy Ghost came upon him. An unprecedented miracle for Peter's sake, otherwise Peter may have insisted he get circumcised first. But Cornelius was already purified by the way he lived. A righteous man that feared God, gave alms generously, and prayed continually.

A child should be acceptable, too. But even Cornelius still needed to be baptized though he already had the Holy Ghost.

This seems to be a similar experience as the imprisoned Lamanites in Helaman 5, of whom the Lord said, “And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not. (3 Nephi 9: 20).”

So, it seems there are two types of baptism with fire: one with baptism and the laying on of hands, and one without. The laying on of hands confers the gift of the Holy Ghost by ordinance after water baptism, while an independent baptism with fire and with the Holy Ghost may be gifted prior to baptism, but which must also be followed by the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost:

Getting back to Helaman 5, in verse 35, Aminadab, a dissenter from the church, correctly instructed the Lamanites in the teachings of the gospel of repentance and baptism as taught by Nephi and Lehi in verses 17 – 19, and as they repented they were baptized with fire. This would prepare them for baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost as Jesus taught in 3 Nephi 11 (see Moroni 2).

I myself approached God with a broken heart and a contrite spirit one night, received a witness of which Church to join by the power of the Holy Ghost, and was baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost at this moment of my conversion. I wasn’t baptized, confirmed and given the gift of the Holy Ghose until 5 years later, but the baptism by fire certainly encouraged me to seek and obtain the straight and narrow path during those 5 years.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Baptism must be first, then confirmation AND gift of HG.

Just lookup the ordinance language.

"I Confirm you a member of the COJLDS, and say unto you, RECEIVE the Holy Ghost.

Baptism 

Confirmation

Gift of HG.

 

This is the correct procedure -- do you think the 10-year old in the OP should have the confirmation ordinance redone? I'm guessing you would say that the Lord will accept it as good at this point.

[rpn]

Maybe it isn't the words order that matters, but the ordinance order itself.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is the correct procedure -- do you think the 10-year old in the OP should have the confirmation ordinance redone? I'm guessing you would say that the Lord will accept it as good at this point.

I would agree, unless the kid will grow up thinking it was wrong.  That's the only factor- if someone made a fuss about it that the kid knows about.  Kids tend to be literalistic--  to me what is important is the kid's attitude toward the whole thing.

To me, It's more about what this teaches the kid about ordinances than anything else.  We don't want to have him growing up thinking they are unimportant, or on the other hand too literalistic.

The important thing to me is the kid's attitude and what he has learned about ordinances.

They matter!

They are not magic words,  but it's important to get them right, I think more to teach that they are serious than anything else.

It's the psychological effect of what the kid learned, more than anything else, to me.

You don't want to make the kid too literalistic, but yet very serious about getting them right.  They are important rites of passage.

Edited December 18, 2023 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I would agree, unless the kid will grow up thinking it was wrong.  That's the only factor- if someone made a fuss about it that the kid knows about.  Kids tend to be literalistic--  to me what is important is the kid's attitude toward the whole thing.

To me, It's more about what this teaches the kid about ordinances than anything else.  We don't want to have him growing up thinking they are unimportant, or on the other hand too literalistic.

The important thing to me is the kid's attitude and what he has learned about ordinances.

They matter!

They are not magic words,  but it's important to get them right, I think more to teach that they are serious than anything else.

It's the psychological effect of what the kid learned, more than anything else, to me.

You don't want to make the kid too literalistic, but yet very serious about getting them right.  They are important rites of passage.

Definitely if the kid is exposed to controversy, I agree it should be redone according to his need for learning and (re)assurance.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, rpn said:

Maybe it isn't the words order that matters, but the ordinance order itself.

Well the intent is what matters to me.

But the the Doctrine is that you can't give the Gift of the HG to a non- member, right?

So 1- baptism. Is the person now defined as "LDS"?

2. Confirmation AND the Gift of HG really are like one ordinance, if you use the church's words, which I recommend since these are ordinances... , so confirmation first and Gift of HG next.

Hard to imagine anyone could get it wrong, as far as I see it.  It seems totally logical. 🤔

 

[rpn]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Hard to imagine anyone could get it wrong, as far as I see it.  It seems totally l

Spoken like one who doesn't have memory issues and doesn't freeze in the moment or make mistakes?   Lots of mortals OTOH, do one or more of those things from time to time. or more frequently.

[mfbukowski]

50 minutes ago, rpn said:

Spoken like one who doesn't have memory issues and doesn't freeze in the moment or make mistakes?   Lots of mortals OTOH, do one or more of those things from time to time. or more frequently.

None of the above! As a former bishop I have been in the circle, at least, a couple of dozen times, (whispering clues) plus instructing and making sure the officiator had it down probably another dozen or more times!  I could do it in my sleep and actually, at least once or twice...... uh.... nevermind.

And Holy Ghost talks? Oy Vey!

"Bishop's Baptisms" + Nervous Dads= expert baptiser bishops! 🤭

Edited December 18, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

On 12/17/2023 at 11:42 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

The confirmation ordinance has two parts. The convert is first confirmed a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and then the Holy Ghost is bestowed. 

I was at a baptism this afternoon where that order was reversed. It was a 10 year old child of an active ward member (who for reasons, had delayed her baptism). So the ordinance was conducted under the keys held by the mission president (and delegated to the local missionaries). They seemed unconcerned about it, so I'm leaving it be.

But I'm curious about the question. My thoughts:

1. If the order mattered, if someone needs to be a member of the Church for those five seconds before the Gift of the Holy Ghost can be received, they'd be separate ordinances.

2. The salvific part of the ordinance is the Gift. The confirmation (which I don't think has scriptural precedent) is just administrative. As such, the order wouldn't matter.

Thoughts?

The second. 

 

[Stargazer]

On 12/18/2023 at 2:54 PM, CV75 said:

This is the correct procedure -- do you think the 10-year old in the OP should have the confirmation ordinance redone? I'm guessing you would say that the Lord will accept it as good at this point.

I would probably say that is true. There are only a couple of non-temple ordinances that must be said by prescription, word-for-word, nothing varying. These are the baptismal and the sacrament ordinances. All the rest have points that must be included to be valid, but are permissive as to exact language. But only one of these is salvific, and that is confirmation. 

The Handbook states that the one acting as voice does the following:

1. Calls the person by his or her full name.
2. States that the ordinance is being performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
3. Confirms the person a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
4. States “receive the Holy Ghost” (not “receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”).
5. Gives words of blessing as guided by the Spirit.
6. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

#5 is optional, I believe. In the case of a proxy confirmation, at least, it is omitted.

If the ordinance were said in exactly the opposite order from that given above, would it still be valid? I believe it would be. Though if I were the one holding the keys for the ordinance, I would ask the man acting as voice to follow the handbook order.

 

[Stargazer]

On 12/17/2023 at 11:42 PM, Stormin' Mormon said:

So the ordinance was conducted under the keys held by the mission president (and delegated to the local missionaries). They seemed unconcerned about it, so I'm leaving it be.

The handbook states that children of record aged 9 and above are baptized under the keys of the mission president, unless the child or person has intellectual disabilities (and that was the reason for the delay) but is accountable, in which case the bishop holds the keys. 

These are "Members of record ages 9 and older whose baptism was delayed due to intellectual disabilities." This is found under section 31.2.3.1 Children Who Are Members of Record

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I would probably say that is true. There are only a couple of non-temple ordinances that must be said by prescription, word-for-word, nothing varying. These are the baptismal and the sacrament ordinances. All the rest have points that must be included to be valid, but are permissive as to exact language. But only one of these is salvific, and that is confirmation. 

The Handbook states that the one acting as voice does the following:

1. Calls the person by his or her full name.
2. States that the ordinance is being performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
3. Confirms the person a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
4. States “receive the Holy Ghost” (not “receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”).
5. Gives words of blessing as guided by the Spirit.
6. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

#5 is optional, I believe. In the case of a proxy confirmation, at least, it is omitted.

If the ordinance were said in exactly the opposite order from that given above, would it still be valid? I believe it would be. Though if I were the one holding the keys for the ordinance, I would ask the man acting as voice to follow the handbook order.

 

Timing is important. I thought the OP was about something that happened earlier in the day, the meeting was over, nothing was noted/said in the moment, and no error was caught / no correction was determined to be made by the presiding authorities. 

Had there been a kerfuffle or the presiding authorities noted a problem at the time, or even soon afterward, then of course the ordinance should be redone for the sake of the 10-year old's edification and for overall form and respect for the scriptural order of things. But that is the presiding authority's call.

Most presiding authorities wouldn't mind being alerted to a mistake, either in the moment or after the fact so they can make a determination. If an attendee is concerned that the right thing wasn't done and the presiding authority is deciding and acting inappropriately and ignoring them, they have the option of going to the next level of authority. 

But generally speaking, unidentified errors in the performance of ordinances by fallible and even unworthy  servants of God are covered by grace for the person making the covenant with God. God will set things straight in His own way for everyone as He sees fit.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Timing is important. I thought the OP was about something that happened earlier in the day, the meeting was over, nothing was noted/said in the moment, and no error was caught / no correction was determined to be made by the presiding authorities. 

Had there been a kerfuffle or the presiding authorities noted a problem at the time, or even soon afterward, then of course the ordinance should be redone for the sake of the 10-year old's edification and for overall form and respect for the scriptural order of things. But that is the presiding authority's call.

Most presiding authorities wouldn't mind being alerted to a mistake, either in the moment or after the fact so they can make a determination. If an attendee is concerned that the right thing wasn't done and the presiding authority is deciding and acting inappropriately and ignoring them, they have the option of going to the next level of authority. 

But generally speaking, unidentified errors in the performance of ordinances by fallible and even unworthy  servants of God are covered by grace for the person making the covenant with God. God will set things straight in His own way for everyone as He sees fit.

Yep. On the one occasion when a confirmation went awry in my hearing, the person speaking the ordinance confirmed the new member as a member of "the Church of Jesus Christ" but left off "of Latter-day Saints." Rather than raising the issue then and there and possibly causing embarrassment, the branch president simply called for the usual "sustaining" of the new member as a member of the branch, and then after the meeting gathered the new convert and the others in the circle into a classroom and they repeated the ordinance, correctly this time. It worked.

[Stormin' Mormon]

Some clarifications on the specific event that gave rise to this question:

The child had not delayed her baptism because of developmental disabilities.  Rather, there were some family-specific issues (related to being from a part-member family).  

There were three of us in the circle of the confirmation.  After the Voice immediately went to "receive the Holy Ghost," the other brother in the circle (a member of the Stake High Council, though not the presiding authority), whispered instructions to confirm the child a member of the Church.  The Voice whispered back, somewhat testily, "I'm getting to that."  Other than that, no issue was made of the out-of-order ordinance at the time.

At the conclusion of the baptismal service, I drew the missionaries aside to have a private chat.  I asked them to ask their Mission President about the out-of-order-ness, and they replied, similarly to CV, about imperfect ordinances by fallible servants of God being covered by the Grace of Christ.  I don't believe they planned to follow up with their Mission President, and I figured I did my part in calling attention to the issue with the ones who needed to be aware (and doing so privately, so as not to ruin the experience for the sweet 10 year old whose day it was).   

But, wanting a second opinion, I then wrote out this post in the parking lot of the Church, before even driving home (which accounts for the misspelling in the thread title).  

Thanks all!

Edited December 19, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Some clarifications on the specific event that gave rise to this question:

The child had not delayed her baptism because of developmental disabilities.  Rather, there were some family-specific issues (related to being from a part-member family).  

There were three of us in the circle of the confirmation.  After the Voice immediately went to "receive the Holy Ghost," the other brother in the circle (a member of the Stake High Council, though not the presiding authority), whispered instructions to confirm the child a member of the Church.  The Voice whispered back, somewhat testily, "I'm getting to that."  Other than that, no issue was made of the out-of-order ordinance at the time.

At the conclusion of the baptismal service, I drew the missionaries aside to have a private chat.  I asked them to ask their Mission President about the out-of-order-ness, and they replied, similarly to CV, about imperfect ordinances by fallible servants of God being covered by the Grace of Christ.  I don't believe they planned to follow up with their Mission President, and I figured I did my part in calling attention to the issue with the ones who needed to be aware (and doing so privately, so as not to ruin the experience for the sweet 10 year old whose day it was).   

But, wanting a second opinion, I then wrote out this post in the parking lot of the Church, before even driving home (which accounts for the misspelling in the thread title).  

Thanks all!

The bishop is actually the one who would have the yea or nay on whether or not what happened was good enough:

 

The bishop holds the priesthood keys for confirming 8-year-old members of record in his ward. The mission president holds the keys for confirming converts (for a definition of a convert baptism, see 31.2.3.2).

The bishop oversees the performance of confirmations. Eight-year-old children are typically confirmed on the day they are baptized. Converts are typically confirmed in any sacrament meeting in the ward where they live, preferably on the Sunday after their baptism. However, the bishop can allow the confirmation to take place at the baptismal service as an exception.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/18-priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#p1

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The bishop is actually the one who would have the yea or nay on whether or not what happened was good enough:

 

The bishop holds the priesthood keys for confirming 8-year-old members of record in his ward. The mission president holds the keys for confirming converts (for a definition of a convert baptism, see 31.2.3.2).

The bishop oversees the performance of confirmations. Eight-year-old children are typically confirmed on the day they are baptized. Converts are typically confirmed in any sacrament meeting in the ward where they live, preferably on the Sunday after their baptism. However, the bishop can allow the confirmation to take place at the baptismal service as an exception.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/18-priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng#p1

 

The child in question was 10 years old without development disabilities, which qualified her as a convert, I think.

There were no members of the bishopric present, which at first made me a little uncomfortable, until I realized that the ordinance met the requirements for being a convert baptism. 

[JLHPROF]

I would say it probably doesn't matter since you don't need to be a member in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I think there are ordinances where it makes a difference, like ordaining to an office before conferring priesthood.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Yep. On the one occasion when a confirmation went awry in my hearing, the person speaking the ordinance confirmed the new member as a member of "the Church of Jesus Christ" but left off "of Latter-day Saints." Rather than raising the issue then and there and possibly causing embarrassment, the branch president simply called for the usual "sustaining" of the new member as a member of the branch, and then after the meeting gathered the new convert and the others in the circle into a classroom and they repeated the ordinance, correctly this time. It worked.

Someone in our ward was confirming a new member but forgot to mention his priesthood authority. Later they met in the bishops office and did it again. There's nothing wrong with someone in the circle quietly prodding the person to remember the priesthood before closing the prayer. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Some clarifications on the specific event that gave rise to this question:

The child had not delayed her baptism because of developmental disabilities.  Rather, there were some family-specific issues (related to being from a part-member family).  

There were three of us in the circle of the confirmation.  After the Voice immediately went to "receive the Holy Ghost," the other brother in the circle (a member of the Stake High Council, though not the presiding authority), whispered instructions to confirm the child a member of the Church.  The Voice whispered back, somewhat testily, "I'm getting to that."  Other than that, no issue was made of the out-of-order ordinance at the time.

At the conclusion of the baptismal service, I drew the missionaries aside to have a private chat.  I asked them to ask their Mission President about the out-of-order-ness, and they replied, similarly to CV, about imperfect ordinances by fallible servants of God being covered by the Grace of Christ.  I don't believe they planned to follow up with their Mission President, and I figured I did my part in calling attention to the issue with the ones who needed to be aware (and doing so privately, so as not to ruin the experience for the sweet 10 year old whose day it was).   

But, wanting a second opinion, I then wrote out this post in the parking lot of the Church, before even driving home (which accounts for the misspelling in the thread title).  

Thanks all!

The missionaries' reply might have had something to do with the person acting as voice not understanding the prompt and being testy.

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The child in question was 10 years old without development disabilities, which qualified her as a convert, I think.

There were no members of the bishopric present, which at first made me a little uncomfortable, until I realized that the ordinance met the requirements for being a convert baptism. 

The bishop oversees all confirmations, child of record and convert.  The mission president hold the keys, but the bishop now the person on the spot (so to speak) who sees that things are done right.