I point out that the witnesses must have the authority that they would need if they were to perform the baptism themselves (i.e. be priests in the Aaronic Priesthood or hold the Melchizedek Priesthood). I think Libs is correct in the assumption that, because it is a priesthood ordinance, officiators (including the witnesses) must bear the proper authority.
This hierarchy of who can and can’t participate really appeals to some people. And Mormonism really shines in this arena. I recall attending the setting apart (or whatever it’s called) of a family member to be a bishop. All the Melchizdek priesthood holders went up to stand in the circle. It was then decided that only high priests should be in the circle. The lowly elders had to then walk back and sit with the women and children.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Oh the blessings we receive through our modern day prophet! The restoration is not done. It continues. It is a progression. First, women are allowed to say the closing prayer in Sacrament meeting, then speak in General Conference. Then (gasp) they are allowed the privilege of holding the towels in the temple. And now this! Isn't it wonderful, isn't it glorious!
I point out that the witnesses must have the authority that they would need if they were to perform the baptism themselves (i.e. be priests in the Aaronic Priesthood or hold the Melchizedek Priesthood). I think Libs is correct in the assumption that, because it is a priesthood ordinance, officiators (including the witnesses) must bear the proper authority.
Lemmie wrote:I suspect we will eventually find out that one of the witnesses must be a MPriesthood holder, in order to satisfy this requirement.
I don't see the scriptural basis for even having nominated witnesses, let alone that they have to hold a priesthood equivalent to the ordinance enactor.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Lemmie wrote:I suspect we will eventually find out that one of the witnesses must be a MPriesthood holder, in order to satisfy this requirement.
I don't see the scriptural basis for even having nominated witnesses, let alone that they have to hold a priesthood equivalent to the ordinance enactor.[/quote]
Uhhhhh! give me the names of the two official witnesses of joseph smith's baptism and oliver cowdery's baptism!
I have a question wrote:Why do the people that simply pass around the sacrament trays need to hold the Priesthood? After all, when those trays are passed along the pew anybody and everybody, member and non member, male and female, adult and child, can pass them. There is, as far as I can see, no scriptural basis for insisting the people who pass the sacrament need to hold the priesthood.
This is a great thought and something I’ve never put together. Thank you IHAQ
