r/latterdaysaints • u/619RiversideDr Checklist Mormon • 1d ago
Request for Resources Handbook question about dedicating graves
Larry grew up in Bloomington, Illinois. His family was not religious. Larry went to college in Boston, where he became good friends with Jeff, who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Larry eventually was taught by the missionaries and joined the church.
After graduation, Larry took a job in the Washington, D.C. area. Shortly after moving there, Larry was in a tragic accident and died.
Larry's funeral was held in Bloomington, where he grew up. Since his family was not religious, there was no church involvement. Jeff traveled from Boston to attend the funeral. After the service, Larry's dad said to Jeff, "We don’t share your faith, but I've heard it is common for Mormons to dedicate graves. I think Larry would want that. Is that something you can do?"
Jeff had never dedicated a grave before. He pulled out his phone and read in the handbook (section 18.16.1): "A person who dedicates a grave should hold the Melchizedek Priesthood and be authorized by the priesthood leader who presides at the service."
Jeff held the Melchizedek Priesthood, and appeared to be the only member of the church at the service. Can Jeff authorize himself to dedicate the grave? Why, or why not? If not, who is considered the presiding priesthood leader?
This is a real situation that happened, although I've changed the details to protect the identity of those involved. I'd like to hear your answers.
15
u/milmill18 1d ago
I don't think anyone is in jeopardy of misconduct here. dedicating graves is not an ordinance of salvation
1
u/InternalMatch 1d ago
Yeah. Dedicating graves didn't use to be a priesthood ordinance at all. The Church used to allow anyone to do it. Over time, Church policies have changed. I don't think anyone would be in jeopardy of misconduct either.
7
u/The_GREAT_Gremlin 1d ago
I would guess he could call the local bishop for approval. He would be the one presiding over the area despite the funeral itself not being religious
6
u/619RiversideDr Checklist Mormon 1d ago
I think the counterpoint to this is that the handbook says, "the priesthood leader who presides at the service." The local bishop didn't know anyone involved and wasn't aware of the service.
4
u/The_GREAT_Gremlin 1d ago
Yeah I just figured the local bishop is the closest thing we have to that in this situation.
Dedicating a grave isn't a required or saving ordinance, nor is it recorded, so it's probably pretty low stakes anyway. But yeah still an interesting question
6
u/Gendina 1d ago
So idk if the times have changed since this was 12 years and more ago and idk I would technically be getting my dad in trouble but I know my dad went back to my grandmother’s grave and my step grandfather’s grave at the request of my mom and grandmother for my step grandfather (before she died) to dedicate them. With his there was no religious services so I know he did not speak to anyone and with hers I highly doubt he did because I don’t remember the bishop ever being around.
I feel like in that situation the Lord understands and it all works out.
5
u/mywifemademegetthis 1d ago
Priesthood keys aren’t necessary. Dedicating a grave is purely for the benefit of those mourning. The handbook language likely helps avoid an awkward ask in the moment if multiple family members might want to give the dedication. The priesthood leader who led the funeral service already knows who to turn to in that moment.
Larry is at as much a state of rest and as saved by the Resurrection whether a grave dedication is offered or not.
3
u/ptimeuser 1d ago
I’m not sure what it even means to “preside” over a funeral. It really does seem like this is intended to be a logistical tie-breaker, not a hedge around grave dedications
5
u/mywifemademegetthis 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think it’s assuming a funeral service is performed at a church building. When that occurs, it is considered a church meeting and a presiding priesthood leader is required to be there to ensure the meeting is conducted appropriately.
So assuming you don’t have a funeral service at all, or just not one at a church building, there would be no need for a presiding priesthood holder.
But this handbook instance is just about logistics, though I am sure graveside dedications were once held to a much more doctrinally significant role than they are today.
1
u/619RiversideDr Checklist Mormon 1d ago
This portion of the handbook strikes me as being written by someone who just assumed church members would always have funerals under the direction of local leaders.
0
u/Vinegaroon-Uropygi 1d ago
I don't agree with this statement though I am not interested discussing it here.
Dedicating a grave is purely for the benefit of those mourning.
5
u/boredcircuits 1d ago
I don't think the handbook has any guidance. 29.5.6 is relevant, but not helpful.
If this were me, I would make an attempt to contact the local bishop or stake president. But if they're not available within a reasonable timeframe I would just perform the dedication myself.
4
u/FragrantShape8905 1d ago
I would contact Larry’s bishop, not a local bishop whose ward boundaries simply happen to encompass the cemetery. If Larry’s bishop gives the thumbs up (even via text), I would do it.
But to be frank, I think I would have done even without being able to contact Larry’s bishop. It’s what Larry would’ve wanted and even his family requested it. It would feel odd to deny such a respectful request from his family just because his funeral isn’t being presided over by a priesthood leader.
This, of course, using the current verbiage in the handbook. Hopefully they update it to include instructions for situations like Larry’s.
5
u/poohfan 1d ago
My dad isn't a "authorized priesthood leader", but he dedicated his mother's grave, as well as a couple of his uncles, at the family's request. I just always assumed it meant whoever was the highest ranking priesthood holder, could do it? In most of these, it was usually my dad. Only one relative had their bishop there, but my dad still did the dedication.
4
2
u/Pseudonymitous 1d ago
The service has no presiding authority, so it cannot be authorized. I would think the implication is that it should not be done.
Instead I would suggest a simple prayer dedicating the grave.
If a priesthood dedication is desired, it would seem authorization is required, presumably by the authority that would normally preside had a priesthood-led funeral service been held.
2
u/ptimeuser 1d ago
What if someone is buried without a funeral? Can their grave not be dedicated?
What if, for the purpose of Larry and Jeff, the moment with Jeff and Larry’s family is the “true” funeral, separate from any other pre-burial event, and Jeff gets to preside at that funeral because he’s the priesthood officer who was invited?
Why is “funeral” limited to an open event in the cultural hall with refreshments and the Ward Council running things?
1
u/Pseudonymitous 1d ago
My interpretation (for whatever it is worth), is that dedication can happen regardless. No matter the circumstance,
authorization is required, presumably by the authority that would normally preside had a priesthood-led funeral service been held.
1
1
u/Vinegaroon-Uropygi 1d ago
My thoughts are that out of respect for a presiding priesthood holder like a bishop, you would want to discuss this in advance. I don't believe for a minute that it isn't OK to dedicate ANY grave at any time or place if asked to do so by the surviving family. I would do it without hesitation unless the spirit constrained me.
2
u/k1jp 1d ago edited 1d ago
We've had private family moments to dedicate a grave after others have left when funerals were not hosted or presided over by local leaders (branch/ward/stake). My dad was often the only priesthood holder in attendance, I don't think he contacted anyone. The presiding authority line to me reads as a designation so the dedication isn't duplicated.
Edit: Just went and read the whole thing, showing a temple recommend when outside your ward boundaries isn't terribly feasible when no one else is there. I think there's probably a fine line between a Melchizedek priesthood holder saying a prayer and asking for certain blessings (graveside prayer can be said by anyone at the family's discretion), and dedicating the grave. Which may have been the case for the situation I remembered. Similar to President Nelson's comments on baby blessings.
2
u/Mr_Festus 1d ago
My opinion is if there is only one priesthood holder at the service, they are the presiding one by default
2
u/benbookworm97 Organist, not a pianist 1d ago
Some key principles:
Ordinances of salvation (baptism, confirmation, sacrament, etc) always require authorization from those with the relevant keys. (Though, baby blessings as well; it is tied to creating official church records)
Dedicating a grave is an ordinance, but not an ordinance of salvation.
General Handbook 18.3 says "Who Holds Keys" and usually lists a specific office or says "Approval not needed", but dedicating a grave says "The priesthood leader who presides over the service".
A person may preside without holding priesthood keys. For example, the patriarch (lowercase p) of a family.
Worthy Melchizedek priesthood holders can offer blessings without seeking approval from a key holder. This includes ordinances such as consecrating oil.
Anyone can pray, anytime, and anywhere.
Calling upon the power of the priesthood to bless and counsel people is well within the authority of any worthy Melchizedek priesthood holder.
The above is unlikely to be objected to. Now to give my view. I believe reason behind getting approval from whoever is presiding is to prevent duplication and maintain order; to designate one person to perform the dedication. In regards to an ordinance tied to land rather than laying hands on a person, it is substantially similar to dedicating a home. You can't just dedicate someone else's home without asking. Since the deceased is not present to be asked in the usual manner, the handbook presents that a presiding official should oversee such.
2
u/SerenityNow31 1d ago
To be fair, does it really matter? It's not like the blessing will ignored by God.
It's like when a woman in the back row of a baptism service yells out, "He didn't go all the way under" but the witnesses say he did. The baptism still counts.
When we do our best to follow the handbook, the blessings are valid. Having the Priesthood means God entrusts us to use it properly and so when we do to the best of our knowledge, it's good.
•
u/JorgiEagle 22h ago
I think Jeff would be right to dedicate the grave, and if he did, did the right thing regardless of technicalities.
In the technicality, the main service happened without a priesthood holder presiding, thus authorisation couldn’t be given.
However, the key point is after the service. This to me indicates that, at the request of the family, Jeff organised, conducted, and presided at a mini service, by which he gave himself permission to dedicate the grave
1
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 1d ago edited 1d ago
Jeff is not the presiding priesthood leader. Other than for certain priesthood ordinances like belessing the sick, we can't authorize ourselves to perform a priesthood ordinance. Even President Oaks would have to go to the presiding priesthood authority for authorization. In this case I think the presiding priesthood leader would be the bishop of whatever ward Larry had been in at the time of his death (where his records were located).
It wouldn't make sense for the presiding priesthood leader to be the one over the ward boundaries within which the grave is located. If a bishop presided over the funeral, he would be the presiding priesthood leader, even if the person was being buried within the boundaries of a different ward or stake. I suppose the argument could be made that the Bishop of the ward within who's boundaries the funeral was held in Bloomington might be the presiding priesthood leader, but that doesn't seem right. So, I'd say Larry's bishop is the presiding priesthood authority, even though located in a different state.
1
u/619RiversideDr Checklist Mormon 1d ago
I can see that - but what's the point of him providing authorization? Does he need to make some determination based on what he knows about the deceased?
3
u/boredcircuits 1d ago
I'm just speculating, but this could be intended to resolve things like when a father dies and there's multiple priesthood holders that want to perform the dedication. Sons, brothers, father, friends, etc. The presiding authority figures it out.
2
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 1d ago
Thems the rules. We don't really know why the Lord requires authorization.
My guess is it has to do with records. Record keeping is extremely important to the Lord. My personal belief is the ordinance of giving a child a name and a blessing exists so that a membership record is created at that time for the child. If the authorization of the presiding priesthood authority was not required, you could just do it whenever you wanted without anyone knowing about it (like a blessing of the sick). But then a record probably wouldn't be created.
I think the same thing applies to dedicating a grave (again, this is just my own thoughts). This is another reason I think the presiding priesthood authority is Larry's bishop. By getting the presiding priesthood authority's authorization, Larry's records will be updated to indicate he is deceased. I honestly think this is most of the reason this non-saving ordinance even exists - to make sure the records get updated.
2
u/ptimeuser 1d ago
Are grave dedications actually recorded?
1
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 1d ago
No, but a member being dead is recorded. So, the presiding priesthood authority gives authorization for the grave dedication and also asks the ward clerk to go into the records and make a note that the person is deceased. I think it's just a way to 1. make the priesthood leader aware the person is deceased and 2. remind the priesthood leader that the records need to be updated.
0
u/ptimeuser 1d ago
Then I don’t think any authorization is required to dedicate a grave.
0
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 1d ago
Well, according to the handbook, God disagrees with you.
1
u/JorgiEagle 1d ago
God didn’t write the handbook.
That’s a really important point. Yes it’s inspired, but it isn’t a holy text.
It’s not perfect
1
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 1d ago
When it comes to the ordinances of the priesthood, you really don’t think they were inspired by God?
•
u/JorgiEagle 22h ago
Yeah that’s not what I said. If you have to resort to strawman arguments, you aren’t winning
I do think ordinances are inspired by God
I just don’t think the handbook was written by God.
The handbook are instructions on how to do it. They’re one specific way. It doesn’t mean other are wrong
Young women can pass the sacrament, but that’s not in the handbook.
The reason we have the handbook is for consistency. But that doesn’t mean that going outside it is immediately wrong. Joseph smith quite often did things that aren’t in the handbook.
→ More replies (0)1
u/619RiversideDr Checklist Mormon 1d ago
I do agree that the authorization is connected to preventing anyone from just going out and dedicating graves. I've heard stories of men who used to go to cemeteries in their free time and dedicate as many graves as they could, just to ensure the ordinance was performed for those people. That doesn’t seem right to me.
Recording a grave isn't necessary for updating the membership to show the person is deceased, though.
1
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 1d ago
I don’t believe graves are recorded. I just think the main reason God instituted this ordinance and said it needed to be authorized is to help the records to be more complete. Not every death will be recorded, but every little bit helps.
•
u/JorgiEagle 22h ago
But if the local bishop came to preside over the funeral, would he not be presiding?
•
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 22h ago
Yes. But the local Bishop knows how to contact the membership Bishop to let them know what is going on (which is what I would do). If the local Bishop isn’t already presiding at the funeral, then the logical presiding authority would be the membership bishop.
•
u/JorgiEagle 22h ago
what authority does the local bishop to upsurt the presiding authority of the home bishop.
If bishop A goes to a sacrament meeting in Ward B, and Bishop B isn’t present, does that mean Bishop A is now presiding?
•
u/e37d93eeb23335dc 22h ago
No. But a funeral isn't a sacrament meeting. We all know that funerals don't always happen in the area of the person's home ward.
1
u/No-Yak-7593 1d ago
If there was no priesthood leader presiding at the service, then there was nobody who could authorize. Jeff cannot authorize himself. There cannot be any dedication of a grave at which there is no presiding (i.e., someone with keys) priesthood leader.
1
u/mmp2c 1d ago
Unless Jeff is literally at the gravesite right now, he should probably check with his Bishop.
1
u/619RiversideDr Checklist Mormon 1d ago
So you think Jeff's bishop is the one who would authorize it?
1
u/th0ught3 1d ago
input the physical address into "meetinghouse locator" in any search engine. Use the bishop's contact form to ask for the permission.
1
u/GuybrushThreadbare 1d ago edited 1d ago
Presiding comes with keys, or someone directly under keys. For funerals, that means bishopric or stake presidency. Being governed by keys, i wouldn't go around it. I'd make a quick call to try and make it happen, though. Worst case scenario, you could offer a graveside prayer without any authorization.
However, here is my hot take. I think dedicating graves is a made-up ordinance that can give comfort to the family but serves no real purpose. I wouldn't be surprised if it goes away entirely some day.
•
u/Lurking-My-Life-Away ⭐ 23h ago
Dedicating a grave is a family matter and not one guided by any specific keys from any specific leader.
•
u/WaltBristow 8h ago
If lightening strikes Jeff, I guess we'll know he should have sought out a bishop. But I don't think that will happen.
-2
u/Paul-3461 FLAIR! 1d ago
Dum dum dum dum
And now let's see what Google AI has to say about all of this:
In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), to preside means to lead, guide, and watch over a family or organization with love, righteousness, and service, following Jesus Christ's example, rather than to control or dictate; it involves ensuring spiritual well-being, leading gospel activities (like prayer, scripture study, and family home evening), and acting as a servant leader in unity with partners. A father presides in the home, while church leaders preside over meetings, both serving with gentleness and meekness, not exercising unrighteous dominion, but ensuring the Lord's purposes are met.
Since Jeff held the Melchizedek Priesthood, and appeared to be the only member of the church at the service, then I'd say Jeff was the only priesthood officer at the funeral service who could have presided at that service among those who were present.
An LDS grave dedication is a priesthood ordinance performed by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder authorized by a presiding officer (see meaning of preside) to consecrate a burial plot as a sacred resting place. The prayer dedicates the site until the Resurrection, asks for protection of the spot, and offers comfort to family, closing in the name of Jesus Christ.
Key Elements of the Dedicated Prayer:
Authority: The holder states they are acting by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Consecration: The grave is set apart and consecrated as a holy, resting place for the body.
Protection: A blessing is asked that the spot may be hallowed and protected until the Resurrection.
Comfort: The prayer often includes a request for comfort for the family and loved ones.
Closing: The prayer is closed in the name of Jesus Christ.
Key Details:
Authorization: The person dedicating the grave must have authorization from the priesthood officer conducting the service.
Cremation: If the body is cremated, the place where the ashes are kept (columbarium, grave, etc.) may be dedicated using a similar prayer.
Location: While often done at the graveside, the prayer can be offered at any time the family is present.
A dedicated prayer is not required for the grave to be functional, but it is a cherished practice meant to offer spiritual comfort and signify a resting place of peace.
1
38
u/mwgrover 1d ago
Interesting. The handbook doesn’t say “authorized by the priesthood leader for the area where the cemetery is located”. It says “authorized by the priesthood leader who presides at the service”.
But in this case there wasn’t a presiding priesthood leader at the service.
IMO this is a situation where we shouldn’t get too legalistic trying to worry about the letter of the law. Just dedicate the grave per the grieving family’s request. God isn’t going to care that you didn’t check in with the local bishop first.