Authorization to Baptize?

[superman007]

Hello,

I was hoping someone could help me out here with a hypothetical situation and question.

Example Scenario:

You are a worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder. You are assigned to a remote location for the Army. You don't have contact with the outside world for a year. It's just you and your squad. Someone in your squad get's interested in the church and you proceed to teach them the gospel. After 3 months they have felt the spirit and want to be baptized. You have no way of talking to a bishop to get permission to baptize this person. They don't want to wait 9 more months and want to make the covenant of baptism. Could you baptize this person and have it be valid? Would the church recognize this baptism or make you do it again when you returned?

My position is yes. Baptizing does not require keys or paperwork, just one worthy who posses the priesthood. Priesthood authority of a man should not cease if you are out of ward boundaries or unable to speak with your bishop. Having a bishop say 'yes' you can baptize, does not make your authority or baptizm valid. Or am i wrong?

This same scenario could be applied to getting stuck on a deserted Island with your family or something similar. Can we exercise our priesthood authority to baptize and confirm if there is no way to get permission? I know that we would not have the keys to organize a ward or branch. I also believe in in having a n organized church and when possible, going through the appropriate channels, especially today. But, does not having this contact invalidate priesthood power?

thanks

[jennvan]

You also need to have 2 worthy priesthood holders to witness the baptism and make sure it was done correctly. All baptisms are also recorded with whatever priesthood authority is over the region and the mission president over the area. So its not really about having the authority or not, is a recording issue as well as a witness issue.

[Just_A_Guy]

The Church does make an organizational structure available to its members in uniform. As a policy matter, MP holders in the military cannot baptize without the approval of local leadership.

From a doctrinal standpoint, I would suggest that the keys to managing the affairs of the Church--including the admission of new members and providing the ordinances necessary to salvation--do not lie with ordinary holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood. If I'm on a desert island with Gilligan, I have no more right to baptize him than I have to administer the temple liturgy to him--or, if he sins, to excommunicate him. In fact, Church policy even forbids me from administering the Sacrament to him (or to myself).

If the idea of "keys" and "organization" can be disregarded anytime they become extremely inconvenient or even impractical, then it becomes very difficult to explain why a Restoration was necessary. After all, the Catholic Church was set up by a bunch of guys who were associates of the early Apostles and--in all likelihood--had bona fide offices in Melchizedek Priesthood.

[bytebear]

It's what happened with the apostasy. Apostles were spread far and killed, and Bishops took over the authority of the church. But that wasn't God's plan, and the gospel keys needed to be restored.