Can you use the Priesthood to bless animals?

[Hemidakota]

I am truly shocked actually at the number of priesthood holders recently on here and in real life that thinks its their place to say no to a blessing, only reason to say no is your own unworthiness.

You are merely the conduit for the blessing asked for in faith and Heavenly Father in my experience is more than capable of deciding who or what should be blessed when hands are placed on head, when I ask for too many I know I get the same one as last time which is also OK as we get things repeated in scripture until we get it.

-Charley

At times, we need to be mindful of the Spirit and listen to the promptings. Yet, as priesthood holders, we have to be attuned to the Spirit if time permits prior in giving a blessing. It takes three people to make the blessing effective: the giver of the blessing, the recipient, and the Holy Ghost.

[Rico]

all I can say is whoa, hold up. I am under the impression that the blessing effectiveness isn't dependent upon the worthiness of the person giving it and is more dependent on the faith of the person receiving it. Is this not true? From the posts I am reading here, it seems like people are saying that blessings don't work if the person giving them is not worthy.

As it was explained by a member of the Quroum of the Twelve, if an unworthy person gives you a blessing, you will still receive the blessing, despite the fact that the priesthood holder was unworthy. (this was at a devotional held in the last 6 months)

I cant remember what exactly was said about those who aren't worthy who give blessings, but I don't think it was good. The general gist of it was that you need to get worthy, if you aren't already.

[Elgama]

As it was explained by a member of the Quroum of the Twelve, if an unworthy person gives you a blessing, you will still receive the blessing, despite the fact that the priesthood holder was unworthy. (this was at a devotional held in the last 6 months)

I cant remember what exactly was said about those who aren't worthy who give blessings, but I don't think it was good. The general gist of it was that you need to get worthy, if you aren't already.

I just know I had a blessing that I had complete faith in that did not heal me - when I asked my husband to go away and pray and give me the blessing I should have received it said my illness was given to me for a greater purpose and whilst I will enjoy periods of remission and find ways to make myself better it will never be lifted. The priesthood holder blessed me with something that had Heavenly Father honoured I now know I would not have experienced such growth in my life, I had been blessed with something that would have been detrimental to me

-Charley

[Islander]

all I can say is whoa, hold up. I am under the impression that the blessing effectiveness isn't dependent upon the worthiness of the person giving it and is more dependent on the faith of the person receiving it. Is this not true? From the posts I am reading here, it seems like people are saying that blessings don't work if the person giving them is not worthy.

As it was explained by a member of the Quroum of the Twelve, if an unworthy person gives you a blessing, you will still receive the blessing, despite the fact that the priesthood holder was unworthy. (this was at a devotional held in the last 6 months)

I cant remember what exactly was said about those who aren't worthy who give blessings, but I don't think it was good. The general gist of it was that you need to get worthy, if you aren't already.

Sorry Rico:

That is a very humanistic view of God. The fact is that God can NOT look upon sin with the smallest degree of allowance. If a priesthood holder is unworthy and partakes of an ordinance he will be drinking damnation to his soul. Unworthy priesthood holders are kept from officiating as part of the process of repentance and discipline. Officiating in conditions of unworthiness is part of the sin of arrogance. If we have sinned, unrepentant and attempt to officiate in the priesthood unworthily God will withhold His power and authority. It would be a futile exercise.

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. D&C 121:37

[Rico]

Sorry Rico:

That is a very humanistic view of God. The fact is that God can NOT look upon sin with the smallest degree of allowance. If a priesthood holder is unworthy and partakes of an ordinance he will be drinking damnation to his soul. Unworthy priesthood holders are kept from officiating as part of the process of repentance and discipline. Officiating in conditions of unworthiness is part of the sin of arrogance. If we have sinned, unrepentant and attempt to officiate in the priesthood unworthily God will withhold His power and authority. It would be a futile exercise.

I agree completely, and what the Apostle seemed to say, agrees with you completely up until the last two sentences. This was a Q&A Devotional with A Member of the Quorum of the Twelve. (I could say who it is, but I don't think it's right to quote them when I don't have the exact quotes and it might have been more limited in scope).

Anyways, a question was raised about having the passing of the sacrament passed by the deacons then later finding out that one of the boys passing the sacrament hadn't been ordained as a deacon yet. What happens to those who partook of the sacrament and what should the ward leadership do?

His answer was straight, ordain the boy. He explained that the people received it in faith, but it just wasn't administered right. The sin isn't on the people who partook of the sacrament, rather it was on those who didn't ensure that it was properly administered. The focus now should be on ensuring it doesn't happen in the future so ordain the boy right now.

"Ordain them" has taken on significance in our stake after that talk because our records are not very good. Even those who have been ordained as high priest do not show any ordination at all in the records. The priesthood holders can't remember who ordained them or when they were ordained. The fix? Reordain them based on the Apostle's advice.

Another question was raised about blessing. What happens in our ward and stake is that those in need of a blessing so seek out the most worthy people they can find to give them a blessing. This means trying to find the Bishop or Stake Presidency instead of their home teacher. The raised the question, what happens if you get a blessing from someone who isn't worthy?

As the Apostle said, you'll get the blessing because you received it in faith, but the person who did the blessing when he wasn't worthy is the one who has a problem. That person who does the blessings needs to be worthy and get worthy. I can't remember his exact words concerning the state of the person giving the blessing, but Islander, it's pretty much goes along with what you wrote above.

The result of that has been a bigger push to have blessings done by home teachers and by priesthood holders who live nearby. We were all equipped with very small plastic droppers with consecrated oil and we were all taught how to give a blessing.

I can only comment on what the Apostle said. Maybe the healing power isn't coming from the blessing, but completely from the faith of the person receiving blessing? I don't know. Whatever the explanation is, it does make sense.

Judging from the talks at the Priesthood session, it seems like the advice is that we need to give more priesthood blessings and call on the Power of the Priesthood more often in our lives. Maybe?

Or maybe the Apostle's talk to us at the Q&A Devotional was specifically targeted for the problems in our wards and stake and have no relevance for other stakes.

[Hemidakota]

all I can say is whoa, hold up. I am under the impression that the blessing effectiveness isn't dependent upon the worthiness of the person giving it and is more dependent on the faith of the person receiving it. Is this not true? From the posts I am reading here, it seems like people are saying that blessings don't work if the person giving them is not worthy.

As it was explained by a member of the Quroum of the Twelve, if an unworthy person gives you a blessing, you will still receive the blessing, despite the fact that the priesthood holder was unworthy. (this was at a devotional held in the last 6 months)

I cant remember what exactly was said about those who aren't worthy who give blessings, but I don't think it was good. The general gist of it was that you need to get worthy, if you aren't already.

Correct...

[Hemidakota]

I just know I had a blessing that I had complete faith in that did not heal me - when I asked my husband to go away and pray and give me the blessing I should have received it said my illness was given to me for a greater purpose and whilst I will enjoy periods of remission and find ways to make myself better it will never be lifted. The priesthood holder blessed me with something that had Heavenly Father honoured I now know I would not have experienced such growth in my life, I had been blessed with something that would have been detrimental to me

-Charley

True! Thee are times, including this week, we may given special priesthood blessings by the laying on the hands of those across the veil.

[lilered]

Returning to the original question. I have yet to read where anyone has posted Church direction, scripture reference etc. where animals cannot or should not be blessed by the Holy Priesthood.

If one of my children ask me to give our sick or injured dog a blessing so it would get better, I wouldn't hestitate a bit to do it. In fact, I might even suggest it, to illustrate and teach a point.

[Vort]

Anyways, a question was raised about having the passing of the sacrament passed by the deacons then later finding out that one of the boys passing the sacrament hadn't been ordained as a deacon yet. What happens to those who partook of the sacrament and what should the ward leadership do?

His answer was straight, ordain the boy. He explained that the people received it in faith, but it just wasn't administered right. The sin isn't on the people who partook of the sacrament, rather it was on those who didn't ensure that it was properly administered. The focus now should be on ensuring it doesn't happen in the future so ordain the boy right now.

That's fine, as far as it goes, but it's not the end of the story. For example, what if someone were baptized and confirmed by a man, and then found out that man hadn't had the Priesthood conferred on him or ordained an elder? Do you think the result would be, "Ordain the man"? I absolutely guarantee you that the baptism itself would be considered invalid and would need to be redone.

The fact is that there is no intrinsic need to hold the Priesthood in order to distribute the sacrament. We assign that as a duty to our Deacons, and rightly so. Those young men need a chance to be of service and to learn how to perform Priesthood assignments in a reverent and dignified manner. But if we wished, there is no reason the Beehives couldn't distribute the sacrament. Heck, they already do -- a Beehive sitting next to me passed me the sacrament last week on its way down the row. In contrast, the Laurels could never bless the sacrament, no matter how urgent the need.

Another question was raised about blessing. What happens in our ward and stake is that those in need of a blessing so seek out the most worthy people they can find to give them a blessing. This means trying to find the Bishop or Stake Presidency instead of their home teacher.

I would parenthetically point out that this is nonsense. There is no reason to suspect that your faithful home teacher is less worthy to give a blessing than your bishop. Too many people equate Church callings with righteousness.

I can only comment on what the Apostle said. Maybe the healing power isn't coming from the blessing, but completely from the faith of the person receiving blessing? I don't know. Whatever the explanation is, it does make sense.

I can't, and won't attempt to, comment on the apostle's words. But it's worth considering that the gift of healing is a gift of the Spirit, just like any other, and that some people have that gift and some are still seeking after it. I suspect that two equally worthy Priesthood holders might not be able to give equally effective blessings of healing, because one might have that gift and the other not as much.

[Vort]

Returning to the original question. I have yet to read where anyone has posted Church direction, scripture reference etc. where animals cannot or should not be blessed by the Holy Priesthood.

Nor have I read Church direction or scripture reference etc. where bicycle pumps cannot or should not be blessed by the Holy Priesthood. But I still think it would be ridiculous to do so.

Arguing from silence isn't a good way to make your point. Better to find Church teachings that you SHOULD give Priesthood blessings to animals through the laying on of hands or anointing with consecrated oil. In the absence of such, it seems obvious to many of us that such things are a violation of established order and do not constitute approved use of Jesus' authority.

[Just_A_Guy]

Coming in late on this:

I'm going to suggest that while a priesthood holder generally has no right to refuse a request for a blessing in accordance with church law, a priesthood holder is under no obligation to take any action that he feels would exceed his authority.

Priesthood holders exceeding their authority gave Israel a golden calf. Priesthood holders exceeding their authority brought Asherah worship into the temple at Jerusalem. Priesthood holders exceeding their authority led holders of purely local callings (i.e. bishop of Rome; patriarch of Constantinople) to assert authority over a global Church. In our own time, priesthood holders exceeding their authority gave us the FLDS.

The simple truth is, there's no authoritative church precedent (of which I am aware) for the blessing of animals, automobiles, appliances, etc. If a priesthood leader is moved by the Spirit to perform such an ordinance and has no doubt that he is legally authorized to do it, more power to him. But if not, I say don't judge him for holding his priesthood in such esteem that he refuses to take an action he fears will desecrate it.

[Superbaldguy]

Wow, my simple inquiry has become a thread with its own life=)

FWIW, the sister did not ask us as Home Teachers to administer to her bird.

[Maxel]

Thought I'd return to this thread, as I got to witness a blessing for an animal in action last night.

My sister's pet turtle, which she's had for 8 years, has been very sick the past couple of days. Long story short, it was malnourished due to a lack of food before it went into hibernation for the winter. It wouldn't awaken fully to eat, nor would it submit to force-feeding. My sister asked her home teachers to come over and bless it. They did, and I was present. It was a humorous situation, as this was the first blessing one home teacher had ever given- and it was to a turtle. The other home teacher had given blessings before, but never to a turtle. What I witnessed and felt last night was a testament to me that blessings for animals work and seem to be sanctioned, in part, by God.

The reason I say those two things is this: now, my sister's turtle is eating again and no longer exhibiting unusual behavior. Second, my sister was extremely upset about the situation; she loves that turtle- it's been with her for a long time and has been a constant in her life. The healing of its ailment, through the power of the Priesthood, brought comfort to her heart and peace to her soul. I cannot honestly see how such an act could be forbidden by God, especially with my other view that all animals are in possession of souls and that one great mandate given by God to Adam and Eve was to 'subdue the earth'. I cannot see how Adam and Eve would be tasked to do so unless the very subjection of the Earth to righteous human power- that is, righteous priesthood power- followed in part the order whereby humans are commanded to subject their own souls to Christ's righteous influence. Such an order includes the blessing of the sick and the afflicted, where enough faith is present for healing to take place. Whether the faith tested is that of the human asking for the blessing or in the animal being blessed, faith is still present and is, in my opinion, honored by God.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Maxel

[Hemidakota]

Exactly my brother...we are here to not only be a blessing to the lower species of life, the earth, and those who are in need of a priesthood blessing.

[Marcos]

I actually got a prompting three days ago to give my kitty a blessing after noticing something was wrong with her for a week. I don't have the means to take her to a vet on an emergency visit and thought. God created all creatures including her by the Authority of The Priesthood. So why couldn't i give her a blessing with it also. So I did and I know it's not just wishful thinking because my wife and children noticed a change in her that same day. And my wife is not a member and not a fan of the church. Didn't tell her that i had given her a blessing but we all noticed how she started coming back to herself that very day! :) 

[Traveler]

I think there may be a misunderstanding concerning PRIESTHOOD BLESSINGS.  A priesthood holder stands as proxy for G-d.  We do not function according to our whims, motives and selfish desires.  We do not speak for ourselves.  Our example is Jesus Christ.  He created all life - including our beloved pets.   Priesthood holders have a obligation and will answer to Christ.  When we take anything relating to the Priesthood upon ourselves (see D&C 121) to gratify our individual pride and ambition - our priesthood will be taken away.  The exception is when we act in ignorance and repent of such fally.   

I would pray for animals but I would not bless them by the power and ordinance of the priesthood - unless I was given instruction to do so through the proper keys of the priesthood that are outlined in D&C 84 (often referenced as the oath and covenant of the priesthood).  The priesthood is not ours to use as we see fit but can only be exercised as authorized through those with the keys.  Without authorization through those with priesthood keys - all ordinances are null and void in G-d's eyes.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

On 6/7/2019 at 8:46 AM, Marcos said:

God created all creatures including her by the Authority of The Priesthood. So why couldn't i give her a blessing with it also.

Because priesthood blessings should not be treated like magic spells.

[Vort]

Back from the dead after ten years! Let's all give a rousing welcome-home to...NECROTHREAD!!!

[Vort]

On 6/7/2019 at 7:46 AM, Marcos said:

I actually got a prompting three days ago to give my kitty a blessing after noticing something was wrong with her for a week. I don't have the means to take her to a vet on an emergency visit and thought. God created all creatures including her by the Authority of The Priesthood. So why couldn't i give her a blessing with it also. So I did and I know it's not just wishful thinking because my wife and children noticed a change in her that same day. And my wife is not a member and not a fan of the church. Didn't tell her that i had given her a blessing but we all noticed how she started coming back to herself that very day!

Marcos, I'm not going to gainsay your anecdote. The Priesthood is God's, and I suppose he can instruct us to use his Priesthood however he sees fit, including to lay hands on a pet. I can't state with any authority that you were wrong to do as you did, or that you were not inspired to do it. But as a general rule, I maintain that we do not lay hand upon and bless animals. I believe that is not what the Priesthood is for.

[Vort]

On 6/8/2019 at 8:47 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

Because priesthood blessings should not be treated like magic spells.

The science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke observed that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (or words to that effect). But it's NOT magic. That is the salient point. We can build an airplane that will "magically" fly through the air, but we can't chant an incantation that allows us to fly. That we don't understand a thing doesn't mean the thing is magic—but by the same token, that we don't understand the operations of the universe does not therefore mean that any "operation" we can dream up, no matter how meaningless or self-contradictory, is possible.

The Priesthood is not magic. It works according to law. People need to understand this. I have often seen Latter-day Saints exhibit an almost superstitious view of the Priesthood and its ordinances. We would do better to abandon this way of thinking and take a somewhat more (dare I say it?) scientific view of such things.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Vort

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

We would do better to abandon this way of thinking and take a somewhat more (dare I say it?) scientific view of such things.

I would say no.

But we would do better to abandon the superstition in favor of faith in God, which are decidedly different approaches to the same thing.

God's work and glory are, as we know, the eternal well being of His children. The priesthood is to that end.

When I say we shouldn't treat it like a magic spell I mean that we shouldn't treat it like we're Harry Potter and if we just use the Alohomora spell it unlocks doors...so we start debating what else the spell might be able to unlock. Considerations along these lines regarding the priesthood show a fundamental misunderstanding of the priesthood. The priesthood is God's, not ours. We use it under His direction, according to His dictates. It is not some spell we perform that magically heals. And in that regard, I suppose, I agree. God heals through God's power, which power is supernatural to us, but not unnatural to the laws of the universe. So it is, in the end, scientific.

Hmm. I think I talked myself into changing my answer.

So......

I would say, yes.

Edited June 8, 2019 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

The Priesthood is God's, and I suppose he can instruct us to use his Priesthood however he sees fit, including to lay hands on a pet.

While this is absolutely true when it comes to God's authorized channels and methods, and theoretically true for the individual, it can be considered generally wrong if applied in such a theoretically situation as, say...a man who has no priesthood authority feeling "inspired" to baptized someone.

The Lord does things certain ways and He's not going to go against that. So whereas it might be theoretically correct that the Lord could go against His own edicts and methods and ways, I think we might get pretty quickly into the whole "would cease to be God" thing if we push the idea.

Now I would say that the laying on of hands with animals is pretty straight forward. We are in perfect agreement that this is not the purpose. Are there exceptions? Maybe. (One we know of anecdotally). But the why of those exceptions is probably consistent: for the eternal welfare of God's children.

That being said, one of the other great misconceptions about the priesthood as it pertains to being treated like "magic" is understanding the fundamental purpose of the priesthood authority we hold. It is not for the performing of miracles. It is for the performing of authorized ordinances. Miracles are performed by faith. It is the power of the priesthood (God's power) that those miracles come by, but it is not the authorized priesthood prayers themselves that are key, except in certain cases by edict. Using authorized priesthood ceremony for prescribed situations is appropriate, but if that ceremony cannot be employed the potential for miracles is in no way lessened.

So when it comes to blessing pets it really comes down to the prescription of authorized ceremonial procedures. Pets are not part of that prescription. To treat it as if said kitty wouldn't have had the same chance for a miracle recovery based upon a simple prayer of faith and that healing being in accordance with God's will is to, once again, treat it as if the ceremonial procedures are magic spells instead of merely ceremonial procedures, whose purpose is centered in honor, respect, and obedience (among other things) -- and not in an "if you pronounce Avada Kedavra incorrectly then nobody actually dies" sort of cause/reactions

[mikbone]

Memory from my youth...

When I was probably about 4-5 years old, my father hit a dog in the road with our white VW van.  The family had just joined the Church 3-4 years previously so the doctrine was fresh and new. 

An ambulance was called to the scene and traffic had started to back up.  The paramedics brought out a stretcher but were reluctant to pick up the dog because it was injured and biting.  

My dad gently touched the animal and gave it a blessing.  After the blessing, the dog peacefully limped over to the stretcher and lied down.  

[askandanswer]

I vaguely remember a story, probably from when I was in Primary, of the wife of Hyrum Smith giving what some have termed a blessing to an ox that was feeling unwell as they travelled to the Salt Lake valley. This was a case of a woman giving a blessing/praying about/praying over, a very important tool that that was not working well and that they absolutely depended on. It's not the same as a Priesthood holder giving a blessing for a pet, but one similarity between both stories is that the both the kitten and the ox recovered. At first glance, it might not be unreasonable to attribute the recovery to the blessing/prayer that was said.    

[The Folk Prophet]

20 hours ago, mikbone said:

Memory from my youth...

When I was probably about 4-5 years old, my father hit a dog in the road with our white VW van.  The family had just joined the Church 3-4 years previously so the doctrine was fresh and new. 

An ambulance was called to the scene and traffic had started to back up.  The paramedics brought out a stretcher but were reluctant to pick up the dog because it was injured and biting.  

My dad gently touched the animal and gave it a blessing.  After the blessing, the dog peacefully limped over to the stretcher and lied down.  

 

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I vaguely remember a story, probably from when I was in Primary, of the wife of Hyrum Smith giving what some have termed a blessing to an ox that was feeling unwell as they travelled to the Salt Lake valley. This was a case of a woman giving a blessing/praying about/praying over, a very important tool that that was not working well and that they absolutely depended on. It's not the same as a Priesthood holder giving a blessing for a pet, but one similarity between both stories is that the both the kitten and the ox recovered. At first glance, it might not be unreasonable to attribute the recovery to the blessing/prayer that was said.    

I think a commonality in these stories is a certain level of not knowing any better, for which God tends to be quite understanding. When someone who doesn't know it is inappropriate to do certain ceremonial things certain ways, the Lord isn't necessarily going to reject their faithful efforts because of the mistake. But that doesn't mean that when one does know better that the successful stories of faith in action prove that appropriate application of any given ceremony can or should now safely be rejected.