Church Announces Major Changes for Youth Participating in Baptisms for the Dead

[LdsMarco]

The Church announced major changes for all priests holding the Aaronic priesthood and young women with limited-use temple recommends on Thursday, according to lds.org.

"We are grateful for the increase in temple history work being completed by the faithful youth of the Church," the First Presidency wrote in a letter to be read in sacrament meetings Sunday. "In unprecedented numbers, young women and young men throughout the world are researching, finding, and bringing family names to the temple to perform baptisms and confirmations. . . . We are confident that these changes will bless the lives of youth and children throughout the Chruch."

According to a letter from the First Presidency, all worthy priests with the Aaronic priesthood and a limited-use temple recommend may now officiate baptisms for the dead as a baptizer and a witness. Previously, priests with the Aaronic priesthood were only permitted to be baptized for the dead. The letter clarifies, "Bestowing the gift of the Holy Ghost continues to be solely a Melchizedek Priesthood function."

Young women 12–18 may also assist with baptistry assignments previously reserved for sister temple ordinance workers, according to the letter.

In addition, the First Presidency announced that the Primary's Priesthood Preview meeting will be modified to include 11-year-old boys and girls and will now be called the Temple and Priesthood Preparation meeting.

"This will be an opportunity for the priesthood, Primary, and youth leaders to help girls and boys, and their parents, understand the significant blessings of temple service, priesthood service, and making and keep sacred covenants," the letter says.

To read the full letter, visit lds.org/letters. For more information about the recent changes, visit primary.lds.org.

http://www.ldsliving.com/Church-Announc ... ad/s/87287

[kittycat51]

Having all boys and myself being a family history buff, I can have my one son who is priest age baptize my youngest son for our deceased ancestors!
Awesome.

[Sunain]

This screams: We can never get enough Melchizedek Priesthood holders for a team for the youth temple trips so we're going to make this change.

Official link to the announcement: https://www.lds.org/letters?clang=eng&i ... nline=true

[kittycat51]

It's all good. Priest have always been able to baptize the living...why not for the dead as well? This would make things interesting for our ward who has 20+ priests. They often go do baptisms for the dead, now they can participate in more ways than one.

[Robin Hood]

This is a very major change.
Previously, not only did you have to be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder to perform baptisms in the baptistry, but you also had to be endowed.

Something that has always bothered me in this regard is the confirmation. Unlike when performing a normal confirmation, or indeed a proxy baptism in the temple, when performing a proxy confirmation in the temple no authority is stated. I don't understand why and no one I have questioned in the temple knows why either.

[Silver]

Something that has always bothered me in this regard is the confirmation. Unlike when performing a normal confirmation, or indeed a proxy baptism in the temple, when performing a proxy confirmation in the temple no authority is stated. I don't understand why and no one I have questioned in the temple knows why either.

Brevity? I'm sure a question like yours has traveled through Church HQ on multiple occasions, and yet they leave the current practice in place. I do admire your inquisitiveness though.

[inho]

This is an interesting change. It shows how much of what we do in the church is based on policy and tradition. I have heard many to express opinions that it is doctrinal that the Melchizedek priesthood is required to perform ordinances for the dead. Apparently not.

[RAB]

This is an interesting change. It shows how much of what we do in the church is based on policy and tradition. I have heard many to express opinions that it is doctrinal that the Melchizedek priesthood is required to perform ordinances for the dead. Apparently not.

I think a lot of that comes from trying to explain things that are different without understanding why they are different. It is easy to claim there is a doctrinal reason, when many times it is a policy, practice or procedure of convenience. I wonder when Christ comes and reigns on earth how many things will be different that we thought were doctrinal.

[LdsMarco]

Temple ordinances were done under the Melchezidek Priesthood... although washings anciently were done by the Levites who had the Aaronic priesthood.

[kittycat51]

Something that has always bothered me in this regard is the confirmation. Unlike when performing a normal confirmation, or indeed a proxy baptism in the temple, when performing a proxy confirmation in the temple no authority is stated. I don't understand why and no one I have questioned in the temple knows why either.

That's a good question? I will try and remember to ask my dad. Maybe he might know or have some thoughts? (Former Temple President)

[PressingForward]

I really don’t like the change that we don’t dress in whites any more in the baptistery, seems the times are a changin’

[h_p]

I really don’t like the change that we don’t dress in whites any more in the baptistery, seems the times are a changin’

I'm guessing those kinds of things are just to streamline things and reduce cost. I'm fine with it, personally. But then, I'm the kind of person who thinks they should have special temple endowment sessions that only takes like 15 minutes for people who have been through so many times they've got the whole thing memorized. Or maybe let you take 5 names at a time through a single session...

[Sunain]

I'm guessing those kinds of things are just to streamline things and reduce cost. I'm fine with it, personally. But then, I'm the kind of person who thinks they should have special temple endowment sessions that only takes like 15 minutes for people who have been through so many times they've got the whole thing memorized. Or maybe let you take 5 names at a time through a single session...

I've been saying this for years. If they want to get more temple work done, make a shorter version. If you've done it 100's of times and have the entire thing memorized word for word, give us a shorter version for more experienced members.

[drtanner]

I'm guessing those kinds of things are just to streamline things and reduce cost. I'm fine with it, personally. But then, I'm the kind of person who thinks they should have special temple endowment sessions that only takes like 15 minutes for people who have been through so many times they've got the whole thing memorized. Or maybe let you take 5 names at a time through a single session...

I've been saying this for years. If they want to get more temple work done, make a shorter version. If you've done it 100's of times and have the entire thing memorized word for word, give us a shorter version for more experienced members.

Perhaps the experience is more for the person who is who is getting their work done.

[h_p]

Perhaps the experience is more for the person who is who is getting their work done.

Then we should go with the mass proxy option. Man, just think how awesome everything would be if I were in charge of things.

[inho]

Then we should go with the mass proxy option. Man, just think how awesome everything would be if I were in charge of things.

My suggestion would be that one person would be proxy for all dead. Just like in the Bible times when the high priest entered the holy of holies, he represented the people. Maybe that could be an annual thing, at the end of the year the prophet would do the ordinance for everyone who had died that year.

[h_p]

My suggestion would be that one person would be proxy for all dead. Just like in the Bible times when the high priest entered the holy of holies, he represented the people. Maybe that could be an annual thing, at the end of the year the prophet would do the ordinance for everyone who had died that year.

Lol, now we're talking! Do you want to write the 1st Presidency, or should I? We'll get this all straightened out.

(In case anybody's thinking I'm serious about any of this, I'm not. Just look out, though, if they're ever dumb enough to call me to a position where I can do actual damage...)

[inho]

... young women (ages 12-18) with a limited-use temple recommend may assist...

So, a 19-year-old unendowed woman with a limited-use recommend may not hand towels in the baptistry?

... all priests in the Aaronic Priesthood with a limited-use temple recommend may officiate in baptisms for the dead...

Does that mean that an unendowed elder may not baptize or is an elder able to do all the same things as a priest?

[kittycat51]

Something that has always bothered me in this regard is the confirmation. Unlike when performing a normal confirmation, or indeed a proxy baptism in the temple, when performing a proxy confirmation in the temple no authority is stated. I don't understand why and no one I have questioned in the temple knows why either.

When you originally asked this question I immediately thought of Alma the elder and this scripture found in Mosiah 18:13 "And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God..."

I took my youngest last week to do baptisms for some ancestors. (Man I thought it wouldn't be busy just before Christmas, it was packed with youth!!!) Anyway, I did not pay attention during the baptism but I did during the confirmations. Indeed during the confirmations they do not state by WHAT authority, (i.e. priesthood) but rather they DID state "Having authority" as Alma did. I asked my father last night as to why. His response was that suffice it to say is that they do state they HAVE the authority, and it is a process to stream line the ordination by trimming a few words but still being proper and right. It helps move people through faster and getting more done. It's much quicker to say "having authority" rather than "by the power of the holy Melchizedek priesthood which I bear".

I hope that makes sense?

[inho]

Something that has always bothered me in this regard is the confirmation. Unlike when performing a normal confirmation, or indeed a proxy baptism in the temple, when performing a proxy confirmation in the temple no authority is stated. I don't understand why and no one I have questioned in the temple knows why either.

When you originally asked this question I immediately thought of Alma the elder and this scripture found in Mosiah 18:13 "And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God..."

I took my youngest last week to do baptisms for some ancestors. (Man I thought it wouldn't be busy just before Christmas, it was packed with youth!!!) Anyway, I did not pay attention during the baptism but I did during the confirmations. Indeed during the confirmations they do not state by WHAT authority, (i.e. priesthood) but rather they DID state "Having authority" as Alma did. I asked my father last night as to why. His response was that suffice it to say is that they do state they HAVE the authority, and it is a process to stream line the ordination by trimming a few words but still being proper and right. It helps move people through faster and getting more done. It's much quicker to say "having authority" rather than "by the power of the holy Melchizedek priesthood which I bear".

I hope that makes sense?

I think the way confirmations are done in the temple is just fine. Anyway, according to D&C 107 the phrase Melchizedek priesthood is just a substitute for the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. So, why not shorten it even more to just authority.

In addition, we have in scriptures one account where no authority is stated. According to D&C 13, John the Baptist didn't state his priesthood authority when he conferred the priesthood to Joseph and Oliver.

[Robin Hood]

Something that has always bothered me in this regard is the confirmation. Unlike when performing a normal confirmation, or indeed a proxy baptism in the temple, when performing a proxy confirmation in the temple no authority is stated. I don't understand why and no one I have questioned in the temple knows why either.

When you originally asked this question I immediately thought of Alma the elder and this scripture found in Mosiah 18:13 "And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God..."

I took my youngest last week to do baptisms for some ancestors. (Man I thought it wouldn't be busy just before Christmas, it was packed with youth!!!) Anyway, I did not pay attention during the baptism but I did during the confirmations. Indeed during the confirmations they do not state by WHAT authority, (i.e. priesthood) but rather they DID state "Having authority" as Alma did. I asked my father last night as to why. His response was that suffice it to say is that they do state they HAVE the authority, and it is a process to stream line the ordination by trimming a few words but still being proper and right. It helps move people through faster and getting more done. It's much quicker to say "having authority" rather than "by the power of the holy Melchizedek priesthood which I bear".

I hope that makes sense?

They don't state "having authority" for proxing confirmations, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The wording is as follows:

"Brother Hood, I confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for and in behalf of Little John who is dead, and say unto you recieve the Holy Ghost. Amen."

[inho]

Something that has always bothered me in this regard is the confirmation. Unlike when performing a normal confirmation, or indeed a proxy baptism in the temple, when performing a proxy confirmation in the temple no authority is stated. I don't understand why and no one I have questioned in the temple knows why either.

When you originally asked this question I immediately thought of Alma the elder and this scripture found in Mosiah 18:13 "And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God..."

I took my youngest last week to do baptisms for some ancestors. (Man I thought it wouldn't be busy just before Christmas, it was packed with youth!!!) Anyway, I did not pay attention during the baptism but I did during the confirmations. Indeed during the confirmations they do not state by WHAT authority, (i.e. priesthood) but rather they DID state "Having authority" as Alma did. I asked my father last night as to why. His response was that suffice it to say is that they do state they HAVE the authority, and it is a process to stream line the ordination by trimming a few words but still being proper and right. It helps move people through faster and getting more done. It's much quicker to say "having authority" rather than "by the power of the holy Melchizedek priesthood which I bear".

I hope that makes sense?

They don't state "having authority" for proxing baptisms, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The wording is as follows:

"Brother Hood, I confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for and in behalf of Little John who is dead, and say unto you recieve the Holy Ghost. Amen."

I think Robin is actually right. The proxy confirmations say nothing about authority, but the ordinations in the temple use the phrase "having authority".

[kittycat51]

Something that has always bothered me in this regard is the confirmation. Unlike when performing a normal confirmation, or indeed a proxy baptism in the temple, when performing a proxy confirmation in the temple no authority is stated. I don't understand why and no one I have questioned in the temple knows why either.

When you originally asked this question I immediately thought of Alma the elder and this scripture found in Mosiah 18:13 "And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God..."

I took my youngest last week to do baptisms for some ancestors. (Man I thought it wouldn't be busy just before Christmas, it was packed with youth!!!) Anyway, I did not pay attention during the baptism but I did during the confirmations. Indeed during the confirmations they do not state by WHAT authority, (i.e. priesthood) but rather they DID state "Having authority" as Alma did. I asked my father last night as to why. His response was that suffice it to say is that they do state they HAVE the authority, and it is a process to stream line the ordination by trimming a few words but still being proper and right. It helps move people through faster and getting more done. It's much quicker to say "having authority" rather than "by the power of the holy Melchizedek priesthood which I bear".

I hope that makes sense?

They don't state "having authority" for proxing baptisms, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The wording is as follows:

"Brother Hood, I confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for and in behalf of Little John who is dead, and say unto you recieve the Holy Ghost. Amen."

OR IS IT..."Brother Hood, in the name of Jesus Christ, we lay our hands upon your head for and in behalf of Little John, who is dead, and confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and say unto you: Receive the Holy Ghost. Amen."

[Robin Hood]

Something that has always bothered me in this regard is the confirmation. Unlike when performing a normal confirmation, or indeed a proxy baptism in the temple, when performing a proxy confirmation in the temple no authority is stated. I don't understand why and no one I have questioned in the temple knows why either.

When you originally asked this question I immediately thought of Alma the elder and this scripture found in Mosiah 18:13 "And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God..."

I took my youngest last week to do baptisms for some ancestors. (Man I thought it wouldn't be busy just before Christmas, it was packed with youth!!!) Anyway, I did not pay attention during the baptism but I did during the confirmations. Indeed during the confirmations they do not state by WHAT authority, (i.e. priesthood) but rather they DID state "Having authority" as Alma did. I asked my father last night as to why. His response was that suffice it to say is that they do state they HAVE the authority, and it is a process to stream line the ordination by trimming a few words but still being proper and right. It helps move people through faster and getting more done. It's much quicker to say "having authority" rather than "by the power of the holy Melchizedek priesthood which I bear".

I hope that makes sense?

They don't state "having authority" for proxing baptisms, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The wording is as follows:

"Brother Hood, I confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for and in behalf of Little John who is dead, and say unto you recieve the Holy Ghost. Amen."

OR IS IT..."Brother Hood, in the name of Jesus Christ, we lay our hands upon your head for and in behalf of Little John, who is dead, and confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and say unto you: Receive the Holy Ghost. Amen."

I think you might be right, thanks. I've done it hundreds of times but always just read it from the card.
Either way, no authority is stated.

[BeNotDeceived]

OR IS IT..."Brother Hood, in the name of Jesus Christ, we lay our hands upon your head for and in behalf of Little John, who is dead, and confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and say unto you: Receive the Holy Ghost. Amen."

What words did John the Baptist say when he baptized Jesus