Cal Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 The question came up, "Does God still bless the sick who are blessed by the unworthy priesthood holder?" Is there any reasoning that can be used to answer this question? If so, where does that reasoning lead us? Quote
Jenda Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 I posted my 2-cents worth in the other thread, but I will paste it here, too. If someone is called to the priesthood who is not worthy, or who loses their worthiness through some sin committed sometime later than the ordination, I believe that God still blesses the person receiving the ordinance as long as the person who is receiving has prepared themselves properly. Like the woman who was healed by touching the hem of Jesus' garment . He told her, Thy faith hath made thee whole. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 I wonder in those cases if there is some repercussion upon the unworthy priesthood holder for posturing as a worthy priesthood holder... Quote
Cal Posted March 10, 2004 Author Report Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by Peace@Mar 9 2004, 06:30 PM I wonder in those cases if there is some repercussion upon the unworthy priesthood holder for posturing as a worthy priesthood holder... What would be worse, blessing a person (unworthily) who had asked you to do so because there was no one else around to do it, or refusing such a request because you are not worthy? Quote
Guest Taoist_Saint Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by Peace@Mar 9 2004, 06:30 PM I wonder in those cases if there is some repercussion upon the unworthy priesthood holder for posturing as a worthy priesthood holder... Do you mean spiritual repercussions, or repercussions from the Church leadership?If you are talking about repercussions from The Church, I am interested to know what they are? A slap on the wrist? Or is it something more serious? Quote
Guest Taoist_Saint Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by Cal@Mar 9 2004, 06:55 PM What would be worse, blessing a person (unworthily) who had asked you to do so because there was no one else around to do it, or refusing such a request because you are not worthy? As a "faithful unbeliever", I would go ahead and give the blessing even if I was unworthy. If only to give the person peace of mind.If I was disciplined by the Church, I would say that I was acting only as a man praying to God for his brother...and that I did not believe the blessing to be of the power of the priesthood.Mabye I would get in trouble, but if it eased someones mental pain, I would do it.By the way, why would anyone who knew anything about the rules of the LDS system ever ask to be blessed by me? I guess you said that no one else was around...but still, if they are a true believer, wouldn't they know that I have no powers? Quote
DisRuptive1 Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 Would this also apply to baptisms if the priesthood holder had fornicated or something else? Would the person still be a normal member? Quote
Jason Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 Cal, You said; 'The question came up, "Does God still bless the sick who are blessed by the unworthy priesthood holder? Is there any reasoning that can be used to answer this question? If so, where does that reasoning lead us?" Into the Catholic Church?... Great question. I hope you find an answer that settles your mind without losing your faith. (Or at least not all of it...) I'll but out now and lurk for a while..... Jason Quote
porterrockwell Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 9 2004, 08:20 PM Would this also apply to baptisms if the priesthood holder had fornicated or something else?Would the person still be a normal member? Unworthiness is a serious issue. We in the church don't give a slap on the wrist. Every member is responsible to deal with worthiness issues in accordance with their bishop. It doesn't help anyone to act as a worthy member if one is not. Now as far baptisms. If one has fornicated, and then attempts to perform a baptism. That person does NOT possess the authority to perform that ordinance and for the most part you either get disfellowship or ex'd. The whole point is to stay worthy but this was a good question. Quote
AFDaw Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 I believe that some of these blessing are based more on the person's faith who asked for the blessing as opposed to the worthiness of the priesthood holder. I want to note that I am NOT saying that unworthy priesthood holders should not worry about repenting and continue to perform their priesthood duties. So don't come back and say I did. I just think that if there's a situation where maybe the only one who can give the blessing isn't worthy, but is asked by someone, I think the greater sin would be denying the person who asked for the blessing. That's just me. Flame away! Quote
Guest curvette Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 9 2004, 08:43 PM If one has fornicated, and then attempts to perform a baptism. That person does NOT possess the authority to perform that ordinance If that were the case, then the baptism performed by the unworthy priest would be invalid. The church would have to track down all ordinances performed by that unworthy priest and redo them. Every couple sealed by an unworthy temple officiator would not be sealed, every person ordained to a priesthood office by an unworthy Bishop, Stake President or General Authority would not be authorized to function there. The church would be chaos. A counselor in our Stake Presidency was recently ex-d for an adulterous relationship which was ongoing the whole time he was in his calling. He must have performed many tens of ordinances during that time. Were they all invalid? Quote
porterrockwell Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 All I can say curvette is that for me to totally clarify that would be foolish. I would think that one would have to ask that question of a person in authority. This is a topic I have just never worried about. Not because I do not think it is important to know such things. But because I have never come across a situation where a person of such authority has ever been ex'd. Quote
Snow Posted March 10, 2004 Report Posted March 10, 2004 Originally posted by porterrockwell@Mar 9 2004, 08:43 PM That person does NOT possess the authority to perform that ordinance and... BZZZZZ!Wrong answer. Why act like you know an answer when you actually don't? Do you think that you won't get caught? Quote
Cal Posted March 11, 2004 Author Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by AFDaw@Mar 9 2004, 08:48 PM I believe that some of these blessing are based more on the person's faith who asked for the blessing as opposed to the worthiness of the priesthood holder. I want to note that I am NOT saying that unworthy priesthood holders should not worry about repenting and continue to perform their priesthood duties. So don't come back and say I did. I just think that if there's a situation where maybe the only one who can give the blessing isn't worthy, but is asked by someone, I think the greater sin would be denying the person who asked for the blessing. That's just me. Flame away! I agree. Quote
Cal Posted March 11, 2004 Author Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Mar 9 2004, 10:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 9 2004, 10:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 9 2004, 08:43 PM If one has fornicated, and then attempts to perform a baptism. That person does NOT possess the authority to perform that ordinance If that were the case, then the baptism performed by the unworthy priest would be invalid. The church would have to track down all ordinances performed by that unworthy priest and redo them. Every couple sealed by an unworthy temple officiator would not be sealed, every person ordained to a priesthood office by an unworthy Bishop, Stake President or General Authority would not be authorized to function there. The church would be chaos. A counselor in our Stake Presidency was recently ex-d for an adulterous relationship which was ongoing the whole time he was in his calling. He must have performed many tens of ordinances during that time. Were they all invalid? I guess so, let's start the "man hunt" Quote
Cal Posted March 11, 2004 Author Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by Snow+Mar 9 2004, 10:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 9 2004, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 9 2004, 08:43 PM That person does NOT possess the authority to perform that ordinance and... BZZZZZ!Wrong answer. Why act like you know an answer when you actually don't? Do you think that you won't get caught? Yeah, watch out Port, Snow will catch you every time Quote
Guest Starsky Posted March 11, 2004 Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by Cal+Mar 9 2004, 06:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Mar 9 2004, 06:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 9 2004, 06:30 PM I wonder in those cases if there is some repercussion upon the unworthy priesthood holder for posturing as a worthy priesthood holder... What would be worse, blessing a person (unworthily) who had asked you to do so because there was no one else around to do it, or refusing such a request because you are not worthy? hmmm. I have heard that a priesthood holder should never refuse to serve, share or magnify his priesthood...but if he isn't technically a priesthood holder...what should he do....?I think it would be best if he were worthy...that would be the best thing...but if one always has to choose the lesser of two evils...i guess he should comply and repent for the next time... Quote
Guest Starsky Posted March 11, 2004 Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Mar 9 2004, 06:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Mar 9 2004, 06:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Peace@Mar 9 2004, 06:30 PM I wonder in those cases if there is some repercussion upon the unworthy priesthood holder for posturing as a worthy priesthood holder... Do you mean spiritual repercussions, or repercussions from the Church leadership?If you are talking about repercussions from The Church, I am interested to know what they are? A slap on the wrist? Or is it something more serious? I doubt the church would do anything...at least they haven't during my lifetime...in my area.i am speaking of the lord.....what He might think should be done....I don't know if He would do anything....because this life is for our experience and maybe just missing the peace and joy one gains when serving worthily...was enough of a punishment. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted March 11, 2004 Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Mar 9 2004, 07:20 PM Would this also apply to baptisms if the priesthood holder had fornicated or something else?Would the person still be a normal member? Fornication is on the books as a 'disfellowship' kind of sin...at the very least...some are absolutely excommunicated.it depends upon the bishops. If they are disfellowshipped...i don't think they lose their priesthood in the ordinational sense...but i am sure the Lord takes it away..The Spirit of Christ is to attend the priesthood holder...else he doesn't have it...according to D&C 121. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted March 11, 2004 Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Mar 9 2004, 10:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 9 2004, 10:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 9 2004, 08:43 PM If one has fornicated, and then attempts to perform a baptism. That person does NOT possess the authority to perform that ordinance If that were the case, then the baptism performed by the unworthy priest would be invalid. The church would have to track down all ordinances performed by that unworthy priest and redo them. Every couple sealed by an unworthy temple officiator would not be sealed, every person ordained to a priesthood office by an unworthy Bishop, Stake President or General Authority would not be authorized to function there. The church would be chaos. A counselor in our Stake Presidency was recently ex-d for an adulterous relationship which was ongoing the whole time he was in his calling. He must have performed many tens of ordinances during that time. Were they all invalid? There is only God who can validate or invalidate a baptism....if the person receiving it is worthy, the Lord will more than likely validate it because of their faith.Remember that Christ often used sinners to do important things....not that they would get any credit....like King David being in His own linage....I think the Lord uses anyone available...and if when it is given them to perform an ordinance...and they find themselves unworthy...it is like the scripture which teaches....He will come as a theif in the night...pray always that you will be ready... Quote
Guest Starsky Posted March 11, 2004 Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by Snow+Mar 9 2004, 10:35 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 9 2004, 10:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--porterrockwell@Mar 9 2004, 08:43 PM That person does NOT possess the authority to perform that ordinance and... BZZZZZ!Wrong answer. Why act like you know an answer when you actually don't? Do you think that you won't get caught? It really would be nice to get the right answer when you push that buzzer... Quote
Guest bizabra Posted March 11, 2004 Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by porterrockwell+Mar 9 2004, 08:43 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (porterrockwell @ Mar 9 2004, 08:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Mar 9 2004, 08:20 PM Would this also apply to baptisms if the priesthood holder had fornicated or something else?Would the person still be a normal member? Unworthiness is a serious issue. We in the church don't give a slap on the wrist. Every member is responsible to deal with worthiness issues in accordance with their bishop. It doesn't help anyone to act as a worthy member if one is not. Now as far baptisms. If one has fornicated, and then attempts to perform a baptism. That person does NOT possess the authority to perform that ordinance and for the most part you either get disfellowship or ex'd. The whole point is to stay worthy but this was a good question. So, anyone who was ever baptized by an unrepentant priesthood holder ( who, as a result of such "unworthyness", would NOT be in "possession" of the authority or THE POWER to perform said ordinance) would not REALLY be a true member? Oh! The repercussions! Guess THAT's why we need the "milennium" for "sorting it all out", eh?heh heh heh Quote
Guest bizabra Posted March 11, 2004 Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by Peace+Mar 10 2004, 10:53 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Mar 10 2004, 10:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Mar 9 2004, 07:20 PM Would this also apply to baptisms if the priesthood holder had fornicated or something else?Would the person still be a normal member? Fornication is on the books as a 'disfellowship' kind of sin...at the very least...some are absolutely excommunicated.it depends upon the bishops. If they are disfellowshipped...i don't think they lose their priesthood in the ordinational sense...but i am sure the Lord takes it away..The Spirit of Christ is to attend the priesthood holder...else he doesn't have it...according to D&C 121. Is adultery a worse sin than fornication?Just asking. . . . . . . . Oh! One more thing! If "the lord takes it away" then how could he not have "lost it"? In other words, if god took it away, he would not have it, and the ordination would not have been performed by THE POWER of god via his priesthood. As I understand it, THE POWER of the priesthood derives from it being transferred by the laying on of hands along with the proper and exact ritual invocation directly from one man to another. It has apparently been handed down in a direct line, one man to another, from Jesus on. (kinda like a sacred virus or something, heh) It skipped a few human generations when it was revoked for about 1,600 years or so by god took when people were being too wicked (?), and then going right into Joseph Smith from John the Baptists' very own resurrected hands. Correct me if I am wrong.So, my guess is that all the sacred rituals performed by any priest of any kind during that interim period have no eternal validity, as those claiming such priesthood were decievers and unworthy! Their ordinances are null and void because gods POWER was withdrawn from the earth until John the Baptist HIMSELF gave it back to humans when he transferred it to Smith. Oh, Oliver Cowdery was also ordained right alongside Joe.I think it logical (and practical) to conclude that THE CHURCH'S position on this (were it to proffer such) would have to be that any ordinances performed by any man holding THE POWER (ie; NOT x'ed or disfellowed) would be legit, regardless of his "worthyness" quotient. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted March 11, 2004 Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by bizabra+Mar 10 2004, 11:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bizabra @ Mar 10 2004, 11:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -Peace@Mar 10 2004, 10:53 PM <!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Mar 9 2004, 07:20 PM Would this also apply to baptisms if the priesthood holder had fornicated or something else?Would the person still be a normal member? Fornication is on the books as a 'disfellowship' kind of sin...at the very least...some are absolutely excommunicated.it depends upon the bishops. If they are disfellowshipped...i don't think they lose their priesthood in the ordinational sense...but i am sure the Lord takes it away..The Spirit of Christ is to attend the priesthood holder...else he doesn't have it...according to D&C 121. Is adultery a worse sin than fornication?Just asking. . . . . . . . I think so....because it is betraying a trust of your companion with whom you have taken covenants.fornication would be breaking your own covenants with the Lord...only.but adultry would be breaking covenants with both the Lord and your spouse. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted March 11, 2004 Report Posted March 11, 2004 Originally posted by bizabra+Mar 10 2004, 11:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bizabra @ Mar 10 2004, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -porterrockwell@Mar 9 2004, 08:43 PM <!--QuoteBegin--DisRuptive1@Mar 9 2004, 08:20 PM Would this also apply to baptisms if the priesthood holder had fornicated or something else?Would the person still be a normal member? Unworthiness is a serious issue. We in the church don't give a slap on the wrist. Every member is responsible to deal with worthiness issues in accordance with their bishop. It doesn't help anyone to act as a worthy member if one is not. Now as far baptisms. If one has fornicated, and then attempts to perform a baptism. That person does NOT possess the authority to perform that ordinance and for the most part you either get disfellowship or ex'd. The whole point is to stay worthy but this was a good question. So, anyone who was ever baptized by an unrepentant priesthood holder ( who, as a result of such "unworthyness", would NOT be in "possession" of the authority or THE POWER to perform said ordinance) would not REALLY be a true member? Oh! The repercussions! Guess THAT's why we need the "milennium" for "sorting it all out", eh?heh heh heh If the millenium is already started...the sorting better begin....LOL Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.