Confirmation Prayer

[bdub]

I will be baptizing and confirming my daughter in a few weeks and have a few questions regarding the confirmation prayer.

I am sure these are very basic questions but this is my first time doing it.

My main question is when confirming I am suppose to say:

4. bestows the holy ghost with such words as "receive the holy ghost" (not "receive the gift of the holy ghost")

Saying "receive the holy ghost" doesn't really flow very well, how is this normally said in the flow of the prayer?

Also when confirming would I place both hands on my daughters head or just one? There will be probably 7 or 8 others in the circle?

Thanks for the help guys.

[estradling75]

"Receive the Holy Ghost" Is the wording and it does stand out (aka does not flow very well). If it helps note that it is worded as a command to the person you are confirming. We talk about it being a gift like it is something we are awarded or given which makes us think it is would be nice but during the confirmation the person is commanded to receive it...

The hands change when the numbers are to large for everyone to place both hands... I find more then 4 is about the max for two handed.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think the Church actually tries to discourage set verbiages for ordinances like this; but what I hear very often is something along the lines of ". . . we confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and we say unto you: Receive the Holy Ghost. . . ."

[The Folk Prophet]

The handbook does not say "such words as". It says:

4. Uses the words “Receive the Holy Ghost” (not “receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”).

This is clearly defined, unlike a lot of the prayer. The specifics of how you lead into this isn't defined. Typically, you hear "I say unto you..." or something along those lines. But reasonably one could simply say, "Receive the Holy Ghost." as a complete statement with no filler before or after.

[MarginOfError]

If you think the phrasing JAG has offered is awkward (which I do), we can try to come up with alternative phrasings.

Fill in the rest--

"Confirm you a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints......"

--that you may receive the Holy Ghost

--in preparation for you to receive the Holy Ghost

--and instruct you to receive the Holy Ghost

--with a charge to receive the Holy Ghost

--and authorize you to receive the Holy Ghost

So, as awkward as I find JAG's phrasing, I don't find it any less awkward than any of the alternatives I've imagined up. Maybe someone else can do better than me.

[mnn727]

From the Church Handbook of Instructions:

Instructions for Performing a Confirmation

Under the direction of the bishopric, one or more Melchizedek Priesthood holders may participate in a confirmation. They place their hands lightly on the person’s head. Then the person who performs the ordinance:

1. States the person’s full name.

2. States that the ordinance is 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. Uses the words “Receive the Holy Ghost” (not “receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”).

5. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs.

6. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

[Vort]

This points up an important distinction.

With something like the Priesthood, we CONFER the Priesthood on a man. Before the conferral, the man has no Priesthood authority. After the conferral, the man has Priesthood authority, and must then begin learning how to use it with power.

In the case of the Holy Ghost, we do not "confer" that "power" or "authority" on anyone. It is not, strictly speaking, a "power" or an "authority". Rather, it is a gift bestowed by a loving Father. The command "receive the Holy Ghost" might be thought of rather like God's commandment to Adam and Eve to "multiply and replenish the earth", perhaps more of a blessing and wise, urgent counsel. (Which is just what a commandment is, after all.)

A man who lacks the Priesthood CANNOT give a Priesthood blessing or ordinance, no matter how righteous he might be. But a righteous person who is not baptized can yet feel and be guided by the Holy Ghost.

The command/counsel/blessing "receive the Holy Ghost" is absolutely essential for a member of the kingdom of God (aka the LDS Church). A person can serve effectively in the Church only to the degree that person has the Holy Ghost guiding him/her.

[The Folk Prophet]

--in preparation for you to receive the Holy Ghost

While conforming to the letter of it, I'm not sure this one fills the spirit of the instruction, which is to tell them, in no uncertain terms, to Receive the Holy Ghost. Phrasing it this way makes it ambiguous. Leads to potential questions. Did I really receive it? Was that valid? Etc... Better to be explicit.

[MarginOfError]

While conforming to the letter of it, I'm not sure this one fills the spirit of the instruction, which is to tell them, in no uncertain terms, to Receive the Holy Ghost. Phrasing it this way makes it ambiguous. Leads to potential questions. Did I really receive it? Was that valid? Etc... Better to be explicit.

You may be correct if we assume that the instruction to use the words "receive the Holy Ghost" is intended to indicate that it is to be issued as a command. But the instructions in the Handbook lead me to believe that the intended message was that we are to confer the Holy Ghost and not the gift of the Holy Ghost. I'm not entirely convinced that the instructions in the Handbook necessitate the force of command we often associate with the text.

I think a more valid quibble with the phrasing you highlighted would be the idea of reception of the Holy Ghost being contingent on membership in the Church of Jesus Christ. while it is implied in baptism, I don't know that there's a doctrinal basis to claim that confirmation into the Church must preceed reception of the Holy Ghost (though as a practical policy, it makes complete sense to me)

[Just_A_Guy]

I like MOE's wording about a "charge to receive the Holy Ghost"--conveys an impression of "it's there, if you want it--but it's up to you to go and get it".

FWIW, I think the conventional reading of "receive the Holy Ghost" as a command comes 1) from the way confirmations for the dead are done in temples, and 2) from the fact that the word "receive", when used in this ritual in foreign languages, is used in the imperative tense (at least, in Portuguese).

. . . the idea of reception of the Holy Ghost being contingent on membership in the Church of Jesus Christ. while it is implied in baptism, I don't know that there's a doctrinal basis to claim that confirmation into the Church must preceed reception of the Holy Ghost (though as a practical policy, it makes complete sense to me)

MOE, could you flesh this out this a bit more? It seems to me that LDS teaching has been pretty clear that there's a distinction between "power" and "gift" of the Holy Ghost; and that the former can come before baptism but the latter only afterwards.

[The Folk Prophet]

You may be correct if we assume that the instruction to use the words "receive the Holy Ghost" is intended to indicate that it is to be issued as a command. But the instructions in the Handbook lead me to believe that the intended message was that we are to confer the Holy Ghost and not the gift of the Holy Ghost. I'm not entirely convinced that the instructions in the Handbook necessitate the force of command we often associate with the text.

I think a more valid quibble with the phrasing you highlighted would be the idea of reception of the Holy Ghost being contingent on membership in the Church of Jesus Christ. while it is implied in baptism, I don't know that there's a doctrinal basis to claim that confirmation into the Church must preceed reception of the Holy Ghost (though as a practical policy, it makes complete sense to me)

Modern day scripture pretty clearly set the doctrinal basis for this in D&C 33:15. “Whoso having faith you shall confirm in my church, by the laying on of the hands, and I will bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost upon them.” I think it's fairly conclusive and we can safely accept that it is, indeed, contingent upon confirmation into the church.

However, after thinking about it a bit, I acquiesce to your first response in that it doesn't seem to really matter if it's a "command" or not. The gift of the Holy Ghost is a response to the confirmation. The wording in the prayer seems to be a statement to the confirmed to accept it. My personal take remains, in that I think it should be stated as an explicit directive, but I'm not as adamant as before on this point.

[bdub]

Really good information guys, I appreciate all the good answers. The one I have heard the most is the "and say until you receive the holy ghost." Not to derail the conversation but what if someone was to word the prayer wrong. Would the be required to say the whole thing over again or would the presiding authority let it go as long as it was close?

[Vort]

Really good information guys, I appreciate all the good answers. The one I have heard the most is the "and say until you receive the holy ghost." Not to derail the conversation but what if someone was to word the prayer wrong. Would the be required to say the whole thing over again or would the presiding authority let it go as long as it was close?

If you catch yourself at the moment, simply say it over again. Otherwise, talk to the presiding authority about it.

[MarginOfError]

I like MOE's wording about a "charge to receive the Holy Ghost"--conveys an impression of "it's there, if you want it--but it's up to you to go and get it".

FWIW, I think the conventional reading of "receive the Holy Ghost" as a command comes 1) from the way confirmations for the dead are done in temples, and 2) from the fact that the word "receive", when used in this ritual in foreign languages, is used in the imperative tense (at least, in Portuguese).

MOE, could you flesh this out this a bit more? It seems to me that LDS teaching has been pretty clear that there's a distinction between "power" and "gift" of the Holy Ghost; and that the former can come before baptism but the latter only afterwards.

Modern day scripture pretty clearly set the doctrinal basis for this in D&C 33:15. “Whoso having faith you shall confirm in my church, by the laying on of the hands, and I will bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost upon them.” I think it's fairly conclusive and we can safely accept that it is, indeed, contingent upon confirmation into the church.

However, after thinking about it a bit, I acquiesce to your first response in that it doesn't seem to really matter if it's a "command" or not. The gift of the Holy Ghost is a response to the confirmation. The wording in the prayer seems to be a statement to the confirmed to accept it. My personal take remains, in that I think it should be stated as an explicit directive, but I'm not as adamant as before on this point.

My thought process had been that the gift of the Holy Ghost is something that follows baptism, and that the intervening requirement of confirmation into the Church was a procedural step that was not strictly necessary. church just blew that thinking out of the water with his use of the Doctrine and Covenants. So my "better quibble" turned out not to be a better quibble at all.

[The Folk Prophet]

Really good information guys, I appreciate all the good answers. The one I have heard the most is the "and say until you receive the holy ghost." Not to derail the conversation but what if someone was to word the prayer wrong. Would the be required to say the whole thing over again or would the presiding authority let it go as long as it was close?

That question kind of puts the whole thing into a proper light in a way. The answer is that unless it was really, really, really wrong, nothing would be said and the confirmation would still be valid. It is not like the baptismal prayer or sacramental prayer which must be repeated if not said exactly. If you said something really mistaken, like reference to a spaghetti monster or something, I'm sure they'd ask you to do it again.

[Vort]

A gift must be received to be of any use. I would venture that as my guess as to why we word it as we do.

[MarginOfError]

Really good information guys, I appreciate all the good answers. The one I have heard the most is the "and say until you receive the holy ghost." Not to derail the conversation but what if someone was to word the prayer wrong. Would the be required to say the whole thing over again or would the presiding authority let it go as long as it was close?

I guess that depends on the nature of the 'mistake.'

some hypotheticals

If you were to say "receive the gift of the holy ghost," and I were in the circle with you, I might whisper to you to correct it to "receive the holy ghost." (as long as I felt I could do it without distraction)

If you were to say "receive the gift of the holy ghost," and I were not in the circle with you, I would pursue one of three options. 1) have you repeat just the portion of the ordinance until you say "receive the holy ghost" and then end it, 2) wait until the meeting is over and have you and pull you and the recipient into a private area to do what I described in 1), or 3) ignore it and go on with life. My decision would probably be informed my how I felt about the level of embarrassment the given actions would impose on you and the recipient. I'm not willing to ruin a special moment for technical accuracy when there is strong precedent that the presiding authority may authorize the completion of ordinances where such minor infractions have occurred. (And I'd only care at all because the Handbooks are so specific on the matter)

If you were to say, "accept the Holy Ghost," I'd ignore the discrepancy.

If you were to say, "accept the Holly Ghost," I'd stifle my giggle and tease you about it later.

Ultimately, I would hope that the presiding authority would focus first on making sure that the Spirit is felt and the participants are uplifted before worrying about the exact words spoken.

[The Folk Prophet]

My thought process had been that the gift of the Holy Ghost is something that follows baptism, and that the intervening requirement of confirmation into the Church was a procedural step that was not strictly necessary. church just blew that thinking out of the water with his use of the Doctrine and Covenants. So my "better quibble" turned out not to be a better quibble at all.

I've always seen them as inseparable (confirmation and the ordinances). Baptism is prerequisite for confirmation, The gift of the Holy Ghost follows. But the idea of being baptized and then not becoming a member isn't really a valid idea. One cannot do it. Not in the cards. So whether the gift of the Holy Ghost follows baptism or Confirmation isn't really relevant. They are, all three, tied together.

That being said, I had always, sort of, thought technically the same as you, that it was baptism that led to it. The D&C vs I quoted was a learning point for me as well.

[MarginOfError]

I've always seen them as inseparable (confirmation and the ordinances). Baptism is prerequisite for confirmation, The gift of the Holy Ghost follows. But the idea of being baptized and then not becoming a member isn't really a valid idea. One cannot do it. Not in the cards. So whether the gift of the Holy Ghost follows baptism or Confirmation isn't really relevant. They are, all three, tied together.

That being said, I had always, sort of, thought technically the same as you, that it was baptism that led to it. The D&C vs I quoted was a learning point for me as well.

I'd have to do more research, but before the Doctrine and Covenants, I'm not sure all three of them were tied together. They may have been and it just isn't recorded in the scriptural texts, or it may have been a matter of policy that just wasn't required of them. But those are extremely academic questions that are entirely irrelevant to how we practice today (as opposed to my poorly founded quibble which would have only been almost entirely irrelevant).

[Just_A_Guy]

If you were to say, "accept the Holly Ghost," I'd stifle my giggle and tease you about it later.

Tee hee. Like the family member of mine who meant to say "Our hearts are full" in a sacrament meeting prayer, but mixed up his "h" and his "f".

[MarginOfError]

That question kind of puts the whole thing into a proper light in a way. The answer is that unless it was really, really, really wrong, nothing would be said and the confirmation would still be valid. It is not like the baptismal prayer or sacramental prayer which must be repeated if not said exactly. If you said something really mistaken, like reference to a spaghetti monster or something, I'm sure they'd ask you to do it again.

I keep on quoting you...I'm not trying to pick on you, I promise :)

Even in the baptism and sacramental prayers, I've seen situations where bishops have permitted mistakes to pass. I've seen instances where the baptismal prayer was said incorrectly, and on the third incorrect attempt, the bishop signaled the witnesses to let it go, so as not to let the quest for a perfect prayer interrupt the spirit of the meeting.

I've seen instances where young men with reading and learning disabilities have been given the approving nod after not getting the sacramental prayer exactly right.

My favorite memory of such an instance was when I was passing the sacrament as a member of the young men presidency. One of our young men was a refugee from Africa who struggled to speak English. He was a convert of several months and we had finally built him up to where he was ready to bless the sacrament. We sent him home and encouraged him to study the prayer over the week so he would be comfortable when his time came. Then I listened as he said in his thick accent, "bless and sanctify this wine..." I thought that was odd, and the bishop asked him to do it again. He repeated "bless and sanctify this wine..." and it was at this point I realized he was speaking faster than he could read. He had gone home, studied, and memorized the prayer as recorded in the scriptures. In my opinion, that deserved some credit, so I tried to signal the bishop to let it go. Fortunately he did (he did later ask me why I was so bold as to tell the bishop how to exercise his authority. Fortunately, when I told him, he agreed that I'd made the right call). We corrected the young man later and in private. He was a little embarrassed, but laughed it off and continued to bless in following weeks.

Fun memories.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'd have to do more research, but before the Doctrine and Covenants, I'm not sure all three of them were tied together. They may have been and it just isn't recorded in the scriptural texts, or it may have been a matter of policy that just wasn't required of them. But those are extremely academic questions that are entirely irrelevant to how we practice today (as opposed to my poorly founded quibble which would have only been almost entirely irrelevant).

Interesting. I would guess that in the ancient church, they were tied together in some way. And I would contend that in BOM times they were certainly. But I could be wrong on both counts. In the example Christ set there was no confirmation described prior to the descent of the Holy Ghost...though Christ being confirmed to his own church wouldn't necessarily make sense...but there are no real other examples of confirmation of his disciples either, and yet that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Either way, I agree. It's irrelevant to how we practice today.

[The Folk Prophet]

I keep on quoting you...I'm not trying to pick on you, I promise :)

Even in the baptism and sacramental prayers, I've seen situations where bishops have permitted mistakes to pass. I've seen instances where the baptismal prayer was said incorrectly, and on the third incorrect attempt, the bishop signaled the witnesses to let it go, so as not to let the quest for a perfect prayer interrupt the spirit of the meeting.

I've seen instances where young men with reading and learning disabilities have been given the approving nod after not getting the sacramental prayer exactly right.

My favorite memory of such an instance was when I was passing the sacrament as a member of the young men presidency. One of our young men was a refugee from Africa who struggled to speak English. He was a convert of several months and we had finally built him up to where he was ready to bless the sacrament. We sent him home and encouraged him to study the prayer over the week so he would be comfortable when his time came. Then I listened as he said in his thick accent, "bless and sanctify this wine..." I thought that was odd, and the bishop asked him to do it again. He repeated "bless and sanctify this wine..." and it was at this point I realized he was speaking faster than he could read. He had gone home, studied, and memorized the prayer as recorded in the scriptures. In my opinion, that deserved some credit, so I tried to signal the bishop to let it go. Fortunately he did (he did later ask me why I was so bold as to tell the bishop how to exercise his authority. Fortunately, when I told him, he agreed that I'd made the right call). We corrected the young man later and in private. He was a little embarrassed, but laughed it off and continued to bless in following weeks.

Fun memories.

Meh. I keep quoting you too. 'sall good. :)

I think there are plenty of instances of mistakes in ordinances that does not invalidate them. My point was simply that, in principle, certain ordinances are explicitly defined as "to be repeated exactly" and others are not. The Handbook 2 instruction on the wording of receiving the Holy Ghost falls into a bit of an ambiguous category. Concerning baptism, for example, the handbook says: "the baptism must be repeated if the words are not spoken exactly as given in Doctrine and Covenants 20:73 or if part of the person’s body or clothing is not immersed completely." No such instruction is given for the confirmation.

[bdub]

Good stuff guys. Hopefully I wont be prompted by the spirit to talk about the spaghetti monster or muddle any words, though that is always possible with me. I figure I managed to bless her in front of the whole ward. If I screw up this time it will only be in front of half the people.

[MarginOfError]

Good stuff guys. Hopefully I wont be prompted by the spirit to talk about the spaghetti monster or muddle any words, though that is always possible with me. I figure I managed to bless her in front of the whole ward. If I screw up this time it will only be in front of half the people.

Just promise me that if you do have a prompting to speak of the Flying Spaghetti Monster that you immediately write down what you said and share it with us. Such a prompting could revolutionize Mormonism.