It seems to me that there are two levels of problem here. One was suggesting that a failure to home teach 'amened' the priesthood. The other was that any priesthood ordinance performed by an unworthy man is somehow invalid, which is also untrue.

Ugh. I'm glad that got taken care of.

ugh, too.

But this sort of brings up the old point. If my son were ill, would I rather have him blessed by a visiting general authority, or the priesthood leader in the branch who drinks tea with guys on the street corner, and admits to not having much of a testimony (true example). I'd rather have the visiting GA. Why? Is his priesthood power better? I don't know!

I know people who, when someone is unwell or requiring temple roll prayers, won't place the names on temples in their own country, but ring temples in the US instead. Because 'they're better'.

ugh to that one too. I can see the point of contacting different timezones in an emergency, but that would be it.

Unfortunately there are times when the church reeks of guilt trips. This sort of thing happens all the time in the church, usually in more subtle ways. I'm glad somebody stepped in this time.

That's true, m&m, both needed correcting. I think it was easier to "accept" the validity of ordinances side of it because of the emphasis on priesthood holders being worthy to use/hold it. The Bishop spoke of the recipient's faith as what mattered most in a blessing setting.

meems raises an interesting point here, about one's personal knowledge leading one to choose the visiting general authority for needed priesthood blessings. If it would affect the faith of those present, does a man's worthiness factor into the ordinance/blessing?

Wow, Anne, as I've not lived outside of the US, I would have no clue that some members out there feel that way. It sounds like the steps the Church undertakes to remind us that this is not an American religion are much needed.

Eric, I'm sure you've sat through many many many talks/lectures about home teaching. Anything specific stand out, even if it was just implied?

Last month we had a stake leadership meeting that dealt with home teaching. The HC who spoke reviewed typical home teaching as visiting every month, giving a standard lesson from the Ensign, asking how they are doing, and that's about it. His point was how slothful and meaningless doing home teaching was if done this way.

So the message I got was going every month and giving a decent lesson and asking how they are doing is terrible home teaching. Great.

The next speaker talked about how important accountability was in home teaching. Not my favorite topic either. What do we really mean by such accountability? This is along the lines of what this guy did in your ward. Desiring to inflict a high level of accountability on our home teachers. Give me a break.

While failure to do home teaching by a brother may not invalidate any blessings he gives, his failure to do home teaching is a significant thing.

“Wherefore, now let every man learn his duty, and to act in the office in which he is appointed, in all diligence.
“He that is slothful shall not be counted worthy to stand, and he that learns not his duty and shows himself not approved shall not be counted worthy to stand.” (D&C 107:99–100.)

"One breaks [his] priesthood covenant by transgressing commandments--but also by leaving undone his duties. Accordingly, to break this covenant one needs only to do nothing."

(President Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball (1982), 497)

When a Priesthood Holder does not fulfill his duty, he breaks a covenant. I don't think you have to get in to see every family every month, as some won't let you. But you need to do your duty. If we don't, we break a covenant and are spiritually damned.

Anne and Tea, for what it's worth, I live in Utah (but not in the SL temple district) and have repeatedly seen people request that their names be placed on the prayer roll of the Salt Lake temple rather than (or in addition to) the roll of their local temples.
I can sort of see their point. While the ordinances are obviously equally efficacious regardless of the temple in which they are performed, there is a mystique about the pioneer temples with their history and craftsmanship and the faith and sacrifice of their builders, that just isn't there when you look at one of the new "small temples" built largely by non-Mormon contractors.

I'd rather have the visiting GA. Why? Is his priesthood power better? I don't know!

I think this is common, and for me, since I feel that way, too, it's because part of the process of getting a blessing is tied to getting revelation about what to say. I would tend to trust a GA's regular efforts at seeking and receiving revelation and living consistently able to receive that revelation.

I can make that more real and say that I have a few people I trust to give me blessings, and I have been encouraged through blessings of one of those people (my dad) to seek blessings from people I trust. So I don't think that is altogether a bad thing.

But there's that flip side of the reality that *ordinances* are not voided by the priesthood holder's lack of righteousness. And that seeking in faith in and of itself has power, even if the words spoken aren't really the best or given by someone who really has an ability to tap into the Spirit that way. (This is important for me to remember, even as I type it.)

All of that said, I think ola senor brings up an important point. I was thinking more about the man who misses a month or two and the guilt trips that can be used to spur men to do that. But deliberately shunning our duties is problematic when it comes to having the power of the Spirit and power in the covenant, and that applies to any of us, male or female alike. So it could be that the priesthood of a negligent man would be 'amened' but that would likely be for lots more than just not doing his home teaching. Usually men who are striving to be worthy priesthood holders at least care about trying to home teach.

I'm trying to imagine how tender-hearted the wives are of men who are in that place of truly shirking their duties. Hearing someone condemn them as this brother did wouldn't really help much in a lot of situations, so I still think what the bishop did was good. There are better ways to motivate, and love and the Spirit can go a long way.

That last one was me...the computer took off the &m. :)

It would do all who participate in this forum, and those who would stumble accross it (like myself) a grand service if you all would read the words of the Living Prophets. Here is my suggestion for starters -

Sharing the Gospel Using the Internet - By M. Russel Ballard, July Ensign

My favorite Section is the "Things to Avoid" one near the end - particularly he says -

"Discussions focused on questioning, debating, and doubting gospel principles do little to build the kingdom of God. The Apostle Paul has admonished us to not be “ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16). Let us all stand firmly and speak with faith in sharing our message with the world"

Everyone who participates in this blog will want to keep this will want to remember this before you post your "issues". And yes Eric Nielson, this might be another "guilt trip" for those who are guilty - maybe the Church needs to talk about things over and over again and encourage people to feel bad about doing what is wrong because some members (as evidenced here) just don't get it. Maybe they are so far beyond the point of understanding the promptings of the Spirit that they hear it no more. Good luck to all.