Wynton, for clarification, I believe I meant to use the phrase “Under the direction of the bishop he would [be able] to perform a full ordination.” In other words, the blessing isn’t required, although the blessing is part of the ordination. If you prefer using the term “valid” ordination — I understand.

As pertaining to a priest ordination these are elements which I personally ponder:
1) “The following ordinances must be authorized by the presiding authority who holds the proper keys (normally the bishop or stake president):” (Lesson 5: Performing Priesthood Ordinances) All Aaronic priesthood ordination’s are under the direction of the bishop or branch president.

2) Individuals who hold the office of at least a priest, or higher may perform the ordination.

3) An authorized priesthood holder, with all who have been invited, perform the ordinance. Specifically stated (20.7.1), “Then the priesthood holder who performs the ordination:” (No caveat provided pertaining to a priest uttering words of a blessing).

4) An ordination, as you specified, is an opportunity to give a blessing. Additional information is provided, not for detailed counsel. We are to bless, not give detailed counsel which is left for other training/instruction opportunities. Nothing specifying a priest is unable to perform all aspects of the ordination.

5) “All ordinances must be performed with their necessary procedures such as using specified words or laying on hands” (Lesson 5: Performing Priesthood Ordinances). Would a blessing be considered “a necessary” function of the ordination?

In light of this instruction, my mind reflects earnestly upon the given statement “under the direction of an authorized priesthood holder who holds proper keys.” With proper keys, whose privilege is it to interpret, if not specifically stated otherwise, the ordination procedure?

The opening statement before the 6 elements of an ordination, as it appears, gives permission for a priest to give a blessing, as stated, “Then the priesthood holder who performs the ordination.” Personal emphasis on “priesthood holder” which then performs the ordination including the “blessing.”

In relation to this, I personally couldn’t judge a bishop misguided if he allows, as he holds the proper keys of this ordination, a priest to bless, and would still consider the ordination “valid.”

These are my thoughts with regard to the instruction we have received.

Anddenex, great thoughts. I do see where you could infer from the Handbook that a “blessing” is required to perform a “full” ordination, as you call it. Let’s call it a “valid” ordination for sake of clarity. However, I would submit that a “blessing” after the ordination to an office of the priesthood (or conferral of the Aaronic Priesthood) is not “necessary” to carry out a valid ordination.

20.7.1 states: “An ordination is an opportunity to give a blessing.” This is right after the detailed steps of performing an ordination, one of the steps being “give words of blessing as the spirit directs.” I think that’s the portion you’re getting your rational from for the blessing being a requirement. But I think this is not the intention of the instruction here, especially when considering the statement that an ordination is and “opportunity to give a blessing.” The explicit instruction is that the person performing the ordinance “gives words of blessing as the Sprit directs.” It’s perfectly conceivable that the Spirit wouldn’t direct any words at all, in which case, the person performing the ordinance probably shouldn’t say anything else.

If a priesthood holder were to simply ordain the person to the new office or confer the Aaronic priesthood, properly stating the priesthood authority and correctly saying the words to ordain the person or confer the priesthood, the ordination would be valid, with or without a blessing. The “blessing” part is nice and can even be powerful and important, but it’s not essential. It’s a good “opportunity” to give a blessing, as the handbook states, but not a necessary step in the ordinance.

So again, if we consider this statement from the Handbook: “Melchizedek Priesthood holders may also give blessings of comfort and counsel to other family members and to others who ask for them,” it’s seems clear that only Melchizedek Priestood holders have authority to give blessings of comfort and counsel, and if you also assume a “blessing” is not an essential part of priesthood ordination, then it follows that a Priest who is performing a priesthood ordination should simply do the ordination and not follow it with words of counsel or comfort.

It’s certainly not going to hurt anyone of a Priest were to do this, but I’m being technical here. Also, the Church tends to be pretty picky about most of these kinds of specifics because crazy traditions tend to develop and get out of hand when people start taking liberties with things like ordinances and church programs.

It would appear from the Church Handbook, that if a priest is worthy, under the direction of the bishop he would perform a full ordination which would include the “blessing.” I understand your thoughts that it may appear to violate specific responsibilities, but a priest ordination offered by a priest, under the direction of the bishop, doesn’t violate this ordination. Otherwise, I would think in the Church Handbook a caveat would have been provided in parenthesis, “Unless being ordained by a priest,” next to “Gives words of blessing as the spirit directs.”

I read elsewhere in the Handbook that only those who hold the Melchizedek priesthood can give blessings, as I’ve always understood. So it was strange to me when recently I saw a bishop allow his son to ordain his brother and also instructed him it was permissible to follow the ordination with a blessing.

My personal feeling was that it violates the spirit of the specific responsibilities of the specific priesthoods. But I couldn’t find anything in the handbook that expressly said a priest could NOT do that after the ordination.

What are your thoughts?