Close Topic Options

When Does An Ordinance Need To Be Redone?

A point was made in an other thread regarding a person holding the priesthood, for example, a Priest in the Aaronic priesthood, could be unworthy and perform a baptism or bless the sacrament and the ordinance would not need to be redone.

How can this be? For a real life example, a relative of mine was a bishop for a number of years. During that time he began having an affair with a co-worker. He remained as a bishop for quite a while until he was discovered and excommunicated divorced and remarried to the co-worker.

During this time he presided over and performed various ordinances including bestowing the Holy Ghost and ordinations. Let's say there was an Aaronic Priest who was in a similar situation and did not have the spirit while performing a baptism. Would that baptism need to be redone at the time it was discovered that the priest was unworthy?

Here is the reason for this question:

If an ordinances is performed by someone who does NOT have the spirit, then the scripture says they have no Priesthood or Authority. Without such priesthood or authority in God's eyes, Does God accept the ordinance? What about a bishop who has no priesthood because of unworthiness and gives others the Mel. Priesthood and ordains people to Elder? Do they need to be reordained?

This seems like it would happen quite a lot in Trinidad where the peoples standards are so low. In such a case as Sacrament, does it actually count when the blesser is sleeping around or doing drugs or other things that drive the spirit away?

Please provide your thoughts and especially real life situations. Oh, and for my relative, the cheating Bishop, they did NOT redo any of the ordinances he had performed at the time.

What other instances should an ordinance be redone?

Redone To Ordinance Does When

It would need to be done (not redone) if the person claimed authority but didn't have it or if the ordinance was not done properly.

When Does An Ordinance Need To Be Redone? Studies Doctrine Mormon

The reason that ordinances performed by unworthy priesthood holders do NOT need to be redone is at least twofold:

1. In the verse you cited (D&C 121:37), the loss of power and authority of the priesthood occurs on a personal level in direct relation to the holder's claim on the gift of eternal life. Remember, a man MUST hold the Melchizedek Priesthood to inherit eternal life. By breaking his end of the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, God cannot not honor His end, which is the promise of eternal life.

A second loss occurs in that the unworthy priesthood holder is no longer entitled to the Spirit of the Lord while performing in his priesthood call (assuming that he does not have the integirty to honor the fact that he truly has lost the power and authority to exercise his priesthood in the first place). For example, such a man may still give a priesthood blessing to one who sincerely petitions (although, again, he shouldn't), but cannot poosibly "speak by the power of the Holy Ghost" when doing so. The result is that the blessing may or may not have any binding effect on the Lord, depending on how accurately he speaks the will of the Lord without the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Or in other words, since the words of the blessing were not given by the Spirit, they may not represent the Lord's will, and therefore may not be honored by Him.

2. When an ordained and authorized priesthood holder performs an ordinance, he is doing so under the direction of the holder of the keys that pertain to that ordinance. As you know, those keys are linked directly to the Savior by virtue of the presiding authorities of the Church. Of course, a key-bearing priesthood holder would not authorize the performance of an ordinance by an unworthy man, but if such authority is given with the understanding that the one performing the ordinance IS worthy, the exercise of the priesthood keys ensures that the ordinance is valid.

Thus, when a bishop is unworthy to authorize ordinances, they still are not redone, since his keys and authority are superseded by those of the Apostleship, which is where he received those he holds, and which were originally confirred and authorized with the understanding that the bishop was, and would remain, worthy.

Thus, priesthood holders, duly ordained and authorized to act in their various offices, bear the burden of personal accountability for how they use their priesthood. And the validity of ordinances rests on those who ultimately are charged with the holding of those keys, all the way to the prophet.

It may be worth noting that an unworthy priesthood holder does hold keys to presidency for his family. And so, blessings performed on their behalf (which require authorization from the one holding the keys-the father himself) would be in jeopardy of having no validity. But I believe that was covered in the second paragraph under point #1 above. And, of course, there are no ordinances that a father alone has keys to perform.

Redone To Ordinance Does When

This reminds me of the scripture,

In contrast with:

It seems there is a direct connection between the Spirit and the Priesthood which cannot be ignored.

So as far as the Church in action is handling such cases, even though the person doesn't have the priesthood or authority because of personal unworthiness, he can still remain in position until discovered and still perform ordinances and ordinations which are acceptable to God without having the spirit?

Danite said it would need to be redone if the ordinance performer didn't have authority or if the ordinance was done improperly?
Why do the ordinances have to be performed properly before God will accept them?

What about a person who is baptized unworthily? Or receives any other ordinance unworthily? How does God handle that?

Redone To Ordinance Does When

True. I don't think my comment was inconsistent with that. If an ill person seeks a blessing of an unworthy priesthood holder, and that person performs blessing, he cannot possibly expect any guidance from the Lord.

But if, in that blessing, he indeed speaks the will of the Lord by mere chance, certainly the Lord will fulfill His will. The Lord would not hold back a blessing on the technicality that by granting that blessing he will be indirectly honoring those words spoken by an unworthy servant. That was my point. The unworthy man is still accountable to the Lord.

To my knowledge, that is correct. Once again, because the man in only directly accountable for his own actions, and his own use of the priesthood, so long as he has been AUTHORIZED to perform the ordinance. And let's be clear, we're talking about ORDINANCES, not just blessings. There is a clear distinction.

I know of no case in the Church where an ordinance was redone because an AUTHORIZED priesthood holder was unworthy. But I am positive that just that very thing happens all the time. Of course, it shouldn't, but it does.

Absolutely, those are the two conditions that MUST be met. The first because the ordinances cannot be performed without the keys of the priesthood. And if the holder of the keys does not authorize their use, the ordinance has no binding effect.
The second because the Lord's house is a house of order, and ordinances are to be done as prescribed. Once again, the holder of the keys is accountable for this. That is why the priesthood holders administering the sacrament are not allowed to take it to the members until the bishop has approved the ordinance, for example.

Other than to maintain order in his kingdom I know of no other reason (however there may be others). Can you imagine the result of not taking care to ensure that the ordinances are done exactly correct each time? Men are so apt to do what they want. One little deviation leads to another. One justification for an omitted word leads to the omission of a phrase, until the ordinance no longer even resembles what it originally was. That was the whole result of losing the keys of the priesthood after the Savior ascended into heaven. Just look how far different the Catholic church is from the Restored Gospel.

Those cases would (as well as any other we should submit) be decided by the holder of the keys. Those cases differ slightly from the first, where an unworthy priesthood holder performed an ordinance for a worthy candidate. In this case, there would be greater cause to revoke the ordinances, of course.

For example, a person in an adulterous relationship may not be baptized. So, if such a person were to lie about his relationship while seeking baptism, and the ordinance were carried out, it would be upon the shoulders of the holder of the presiding, key-bearing authority to handle the matter. Who else can say what action is appropriate? So much depends on discernment of the person, the situation, the circumstances. That is the very reason for keys in the first place-so one man has the "right" to seek knowledge from the Lord that is not priviledged to any other man, and to make a just judgement accordingly. It is a perfect, wonderful system.

When Does An Ordinance Need To Be Redone?

This is a very interesting thread, and something that I have thought about a lot lately. When would an ordinance need to be redone? Where exactly do you draw the line? There has to be a line somewhere as to the worthiness of either the person performing the ordinance for those that authorized it do be done. I have heard the argument in my own ward that if the one who baptizes does it unworthily, he brings condemnation upon himself, but that the baptism would still be valid. I just don't see how that can be.

If it were me, and I were baptized or given the priesthood by an adulterer or someone comparatively unrepentant, I would request to have it redone by someone who was worthy. If the priesthood could be passed from one person to another freely regardless of the worthiness of the man who gave it, than the Catholic church would have every right to the priesthood as we do. So at what point does a man sin enough so that he is not eligible to perform ordinances or pass it to another?

So the powers of the priesthood can ONLY be controlled or handled upon the principles of righteousness. That's the only way priesthood can work. Than the next verse clearly explains at what point that man is not authorized to use his priesthood.

On my mission we were told to teach the people that you needed 3 things to perform a valid baptism. #1 The authority, #2 The correct method, by immersion & #3 faith. When I have done baptisms and the witnesses would notice 1 little piece of clothing or body part that wasn't completely immersed, they would have me do it again. But why would we not be so strict on the #1 rule of having the proper authority? If the man had cheated on his wife the night before and then showed up to baptize you the next day, shouldn't that be 100 times more of a concern than having your elbow stuck out of the water? Didn't the Jews make the same mistake of focusing more on the outward ordinances than on the spiritual significance of them? I'm sorry, but as the Lord himself said once a man tries to cover his sins or continue to use his priesthood in any degree of unrighteousness, the Spirit is grieved and his priesthood and authority are gone immediately, until further notice (I.e. Repentance). The Spirit isn't going to wait until his next 2 year temple recommend interview to withdraw when the bishop takes his recommend, it's gone once he commits the sin and doesn't repent of it, thus becoming a sheep in wolves clothing, or a hypocrite, and disgraces God & His Church by continuing to perform His ordinances pretending to have authority that he simply does not have.

So anyway, am I wrong in thinking this? Or am I misinterpreting this scripture? Is there another scripture that might help me see this the other way? It seems clear to me, yet there is still a lot of disagreement about this in the church. But if I am wrong on this I would like to be corrected with scripture, and not opinions or the philosophies of men. I haven't been able to find clear mention this in any general conference talk just yet, but I'm sure there's got to be one somewhere. It's not an easy topic to search.

When Does Ordinance To Redone

Don Quijote, your points are valid and makes a lot of sense. I quickly tried to make a search on lds.org and I found lots of statements about being worthy to hold the priesthood, otherwise you lose it, etc:

Source 7

But I couldn't find anything with reference as to what happens if the person is unworthy and performs the ordinance regardless.

When Does Ordinance To Redone Mormon Doctrine Studies

Thanks so much LDS_forever. I like what you have found. We had the same discussion in church a few weeks ago & my wife & I were the only ones that believed that you would instantly loose your authority regardless of when you are caught, so we did some extra studying to make sure we weren't going off the deep end. I'll keep looking & see if I can find any other direct statements about it.