The Evolution of Anointing the Sick
While anointing the sick with consecrated oil is standard ordinance work for the Melchizedek priesthood, the manner in which the ordinance is executed has evolved. This post will outline current standard practice compared to some historical practices within the Church.
Contemporarily, Elders carry small cylindrical vials, filled with less than a milliliter of oil on their key chains. When called upon to anoint, one or to drops are meted out on the crown of the head. The person who anoints will then lay their hands on the head of the afflicted and pronounce the anointing. The anointing is then sealed and a blessing left by the dictates of the spirit in a separate ordinance.
B. H. Roberts in a tract entitled Suggestions to Elders noted that many are stingy with the oil:
…some potter around with a spoon as if they were afraid that a drop too much might be used. Never mind the spoon. Pour on oil from the vessel in which it was consecrated, and don’t be too careful in using it. Aaron was anointed with oil, according to David, until it ran down upon his beard on the skirts of his garments, and we have no account of his complaining about it. We do not make this reference in order to have the Elders too lavish in the use of oil, but we do think more than a drop or two should be used, and it should not be used as if they were afraid of it. (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2 pg. 491, originally published in the Millennial Star).
While subsequent Apostles have counseled against anointing the body, early practice, incorporating some folk medicine, involved administering to the body or to the afflicted areas.
Joseph F. Smith is quoted in the journal of Ruth May Fox (June 3, 1900) as thinking it “absurd for men to pour a little drop of oil on the top of the head and pray that it might permeate the whole being. We should anoint the sick all over.” Joseph F. Smith remarked in 1911:
And a word to elders on anointing. To anoint is to rub over with oil. A drop applied to a head covered with artifices in the hair, so that the oil cannot reach the body, is not anointing, does not comply with the commandment, and, in my opinion, is null and void. (Improvement Era 1911, vol. 14 no. 11)
In 1849, George Halliday wrote the Millennial Star, which included his account of a miraculous healing, wherein a girl that was born blind received her sight after having her eyes anointed with oil and then receiving the laying on of hands.
Eliza Jane Merrick wrote to the Millennial Star in 1849, which published her account of administering to a sick sister:
She continued very ill all the evening; her breath very short , and the fever very high. I again anointed her chest in the name of the Lord, and asked his blessing; he was graciously pleased to hear me, and in the course of twenty-four hours she was as well as if nothing had been the matter. (Millennial Star vol. 11, page 205)
J. M. Grant noted, that some early saints didn’t like to anoint because they thought it was too messy:
When an Elder comes to administer to the sick, and is afraid of greasing his fingers, or of dropping a little oil on his vest or pants, and says, “O never mind the oil, there is no virtue in the olive oil; you might as well drink it as anoint with it; besides, I might grease my gloves; I will dispense with it,” I want such a man to walk off. If I was sick, and he came to me in that manner, I should say, “You are a poor, miserable hypocrite.” That is the way I should feel and talk. Let a man, when he has the right kind of faith, practise the works thereof; and when God says, “Anoint with oil,” anoint; I don’t care if it runs down your beard as it ran down Aaron’s, it will not hurt you. When a man complies with every requisition of heaven, his works and his faith are right. He offers up prayer for the sick, he anoints with oil, and lays on his hands. (JD 2: 277)
Latter council limited the anointing of the sick to the crown of the head; however, there does seem to be an emphasis on not being too stingy with the oil. Joseph Feilding Smith recounts:
One elder should pour the oil from the bottle containing pure olive oil, which has been consecrated, upon the crown of the head of the sick person. (One drop taken from a medicine dropper is improper, nor should the oil be poured from a spoon.) (Answers to Gospel Questions 1: 146.)
John A. Widtsoe counseled in Priesthood and Church Government (1939; pg. 356) that one should add a prayer during the anointing:
One of the Elders called in should pour oil on the crown of the head and anoint the sick person and while anointing pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ for the restoration of the health of the sick brother or sister, but he should not seal the anointing. Oil for this anointing should be pure olive oil which has been consecrated for the purpose. Giving consecrated oil internally is not a part of the administration and should not be done.
Interesting. I am guilty of being stingy with the oil, and yet my stoppered squeeze bottle, from which I fill my little vial, has always gone rancid before I could use it all. Seems like a waste, perhaps. I’m wondering what people would think if I came in with the squeeze bottle, pulled out the stopper and really poured it on. I hope I’m not being too flippant with a sacred topic–just trying to imagine myself doing this.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/8/2005 @ 8:02 pm
Actually, the image is rather hillarious. I think think that, unlike Elder Grant’s experience, it is those being anointed that now prefer less oil. Who wants to have oil in their beard?
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/8/2005 @ 8:23 pm
Like S. Hancock, my little vials always go bad before I use them all, so I’ve taken to consecrating a spoonful before giving a blessing, then discarding the unused portion. I guess I’m doing it wrong, although I’ve never felt bad or inappropriately while doing it.
I’ve also, on occasion, anointed and sealed by myself when my wife was having a hard night with her arthritis. Last time I did this I searched for an indication that it was verboten, but only found the suggestion that it should preferably (though not prohibitively) be two elders. I didn’t feel wrong about it; hopefully this is an indication that I’m not misadministering the ordinance.
Comment by Justin H — 6/8/2005 @ 11:11 pm
It seems that sterilizing our vessels first should reduce spoilage. I have a longer vial that still smells fine after a few years. I like the idea of really performing an act if we think there is a point in doing it at all.
Comment by John Mansfield — 6/9/2005 @ 9:03 am
Justin H., there have been several leaders state that, in moments of exigence, one Elder can both anoint and seal. The qualifications about using spoons in the early statements was to discourage a practice of using a spoon to measure oil from the bottle and also using the spoon as a receptacle, much as in other ordinances that use oil.
About spoilage – There are two types of rancidity that occur in oil generally. Microbial spoilage only occurs in the presence of water, so as long as there is no water in your vial, there should be no microbial spoilage. 99.999% of all consecrated oil that spoils suffers from “oxidative rancidity”. This is a free radical process (if you care). It is hasten by metals such as copper and iron (so those little brass vials are bad). Being a chain reaction, if there is any residual rancid oil when you add new oil it will spoil the new oil rather quickly. I’m not even certain that you could conceivable clean those little vials (plastic or metal) sufficiently to prevent contamination.
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/9/2005 @ 11:33 am
It is ok if we annoint and bless by ourselves, as it is not prohibitive. But I wonder if we do not do all we can to get an additional preisthood holder to help us if the blessing will be less miraculous because of our lack of faith. There were times that I have done it by myself even though I had a neighbor that could help me just across the street. But those times I got him or somebody else to help me, it seemed to be a stronger, more miraculously spiritual event.
As many blessings end, it is predicated upon faith.
Comment by N Miller — 6/9/2005 @ 12:41 pm
N Miller, that is quite cogent. The early leaders often spoke of “adding faith”. In this manner, the effects of having multiple ministers has a cumulitive effect. I think that today, we tend to view it as more a function of the indavidual who has the greatest faith.
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/9/2005 @ 12:46 pm
I would like to add my two bits to the part about seeking a second priesthood holder if possible. I just had the opportunity to give my wife and shild a blessing. I think we may have had a bad batch of hotdogs yesterday. Luckiily I’m catching the worst of it, since my wife is pregnant. Anyway, I felt strongly to have another priesthood holder present even though I almost gave the blessing myself. I know that the blessing I was able to give was enhanced in this instance by having another priesthood holder there to excercise faith with me.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/9/2005 @ 2:04 pm
Not only does the extra priesthood holder provide additional faith, I believe the act of getting a priesthood holder shows faith and adds to the blessing. Especially if it is two in the morning and you get somebody to help you, that shows both courage and faith.
Comment by N Miller — 6/9/2005 @ 2:23 pm
Thanks for the input. I guess I felt that getting my neighbor up to bring him over to our messy house would make my wife uncomfortable and thus less inclined to feel the full influence of the Spirit. I’ve always felt/thought/hoped (perhaps wrongly) that it’s the one being blessed and not the blesser whose faith matters most.
In any case, I agree that it certainly can’t hurt to follow protocol when possible (and even when inconvenient).
Comment by Justin H — 6/9/2005 @ 9:21 pm
What a great post J. It is very relevant to several discussions going on around the ‘Nacle about the question of when is a rule a rule and when do rules expire. It is obvious from these quotes that former prophets felt it was completely innapropriate to anoint with just a drop or two on the head. They felt it was a rule to lay the stuff on thick and to anoint whichever body part was ailing. But does God really care? Apparently not because healings happen just fine with a few drops on the head. In fact, as we’ve discussed here before, healing is a gift of the Spirit anyway so no priesthood is required for healings to begin with. So the obvious question is: If God isn’t really behind that “rule”, what other current rules does he not really care about?
Anyway, this whole subject seems relevant to my recent post on strict obedience and spiritual crutches where I reference Dumbo’s feather. It may be that we need to follow whatever the rules are in our day not because they have any real staying power, but rather so we can internally generate sufficient faith to heal or work other miracles.
Comment by Geoff Johnston — 6/9/2005 @ 11:32 pm
If God isn’t really behind that “rule”, what other current rules does he not really care about?
Threadjack, but who cares. I won’t say any more, even if you write back. Certainly not the ones he is currently having his servants pass along. Sorry if I’m cantankerous, I’ve been sick all day. It does that.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/10/2005 @ 1:03 am
I won’t say any more, even if you write back.
No worries, I’ll respond to you comment over at the Thang [/threadjack]
Comment by Geoff Johnston — 6/10/2005 @ 2:11 am
When Christ annointed the blind mans eyes with mud (dirt mixed with his spit), what did this do? It helped give the man faith. Was the spattle needed to heel the man? I doubt it, Christ could have done it any way he wanted to. But he wanted to increase the faith in the man being blessed. It is important to help those who are being healed have faith. Getting another priesthood bearer can help them have faith. If my wife saw that it was important for me to get another priesthood bearer, her faith would likely increase as she sees that I am trying.
However, it is not the sick alone that need faith. If you recall in the new testament, the twelve were trying to bless and heal without any effect. Christ admonished them because they lacked the faith necessary to heal. Christ then healed the person. If we don’t have faith when giving blessings, we may be the cause of the failure of the blessing.
Comment by N Miller — 6/10/2005 @ 10:47 am
N. Miller, I think are absolutely correct. There are the stories of the Elders giving blessings to the same person until one of them had the faith to do it right. That is something that seems lost on us. I mentioned this in another post, but it seems like the modern tendancy is to recognize the “form of godliness” and just leave it at that.
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/10/2005 @ 11:27 am
Great. For my wife, in the particular situation I mentioned, it would have had the opposite effect.
I like what you both had to say about the blesser having faith, too. I don’t think that the blessing would fail just on the blesser’s account, though. Ordinances are valid, for example, even if the one performing the ordinance is not worthy (or so I’ve been told). I would think that if the person being blessed had the faith, s/he would be entitled to all the blessing God saw fit to grant.
Comment by Justin H — 6/10/2005 @ 12:16 pm
I agree, at least with blessing the sacrament. But even that, I am somewhat unsure how it all works, and even if it works. If I am unworthy to give my wife a blessing but she asks me and I do it anyway, how can the priesthood work its miracles if it is supposedly predicated on righteousness? Part of me thinks that it doesn’t work or even can’t work, even for the sacrament. Now with that being said, I don’t think that the ward will be held accountable for taking part of bread that was blessed unworthily, but I wonder if it is really considered blessed by the priesthood.
I don’t have a lot of basis for this thought aside from Sections 121 vs 36 and 130, but I could be totally wrong. I just don’t like the fact that if someone is unworthy, they can still seem to produce miracles in the name of God.
Comment by N Miller — 6/10/2005 @ 1:52 pm
I think the sacrement is different because it is a prayer, “we ask thee”. Blessings are different and I think Section 121 is rather explicit about what happens there. I would suggest that we are conflating the priesthood with the gifts of the spirit. If the person being blessed has “the faith to be healed” I believe it will happen.
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/10/2005 @ 1:58 pm
Good point, however, we do “bless it”, but not under any authority. But the only reason it is a priesthood ordinance, correct me if I am wrong, is that it falls under the responsibility of the priest. Nothing else is said about authority in respect to the sacrament, is there?
Comment by N Miller — 6/10/2005 @ 2:59 pm
The prayer states: “we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread” In a priesthood blessing, one typically says “I/we bless you”. But I do think you may be on to something. It seems like it falls under the purview of the Aaronic priesthood (i.e., the Bishop), because they are the ones with the keys to mediate the covenant. I don’t think the prayer is a blessing in the priesthood sense.
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/10/2005 @ 3:10 pm
Agreed.
May I state that I enjoy this Blog more than most in the Bloggernacle. Although I learn in the others, it seems like it is more about arguing than using each other in discussion format to come to a consensus about a particular subject. (I am happy to participate in the other blogs, I think it strengthens my critical thinking abilities and from time to time adds to my knowledge.) You have thought provoking questions that you pose and as comments come in, they seem to add to the discussion and add to the understanding of the concept, at least to my understanding. I don’t know if that is what was intended in your Blog, but I enjoy it. Keep up the great postings and comments!!
Comment by N Miller — 6/10/2005 @ 4:18 pm
I would suggest that we are conflating the priesthood with the gifts of the spirit. If the person being blessed has “the faith to be healed” I believe it will happen.
Yes, there is the gift of the faith to heal and the gift of the faith to be healed. I believe that these can happen without priesthood if need be. In our time, I can’t think but that we have been asked to seek healing through the ordinance of annointing the sick if this is at all possible.
The other thing I think we totally have lost is the sense that annointing is a good thing in itself. That is, Aaron would have felt it a great blessing to have his head annointed, as anointing the head with oil was a grooming thing as well, no? Oil would have also been much more precious than it is now–I can buy extra virgin oil without breaking the bank.
Comment by S. Hancock — 6/11/2005 @ 1:42 am
BTW, if you use the plastic bottles missionaries used to carry, squeeze the air out of them, and store them in a dark, cool place, they last a long time.
I have one in my refrigerator that is still good that dates back to my mission in the 70s.
If you leave air in them and expose them to light, you are lucky to have them last a year or two.
Just a practical note.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — 6/11/2005 @ 4:42 am
N Miller:
Amen.
Comment by Justin H — 6/11/2005 @ 9:25 am
Considering the multiple perspectives from this discussion about annointing the sick, could someone possibly elaborate on an observed situation?
Upon exiting a hospital facility with an unused bottle (intended for an unfound recipient’s annointing), an Elder knelt in front of a trashcan and signed to The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost. Then, the Elder dispensed of the bottle in the trashcan.
My question pertains to the transferring of the annointing to the individual (without physicial presence, via Holy Spirit, etc) or having to be in the presence and physicially laying hands on the individual. What teachings apply to supporting this practice?
-Terry
Comment by Theresa P — 6/13/2005 @ 3:21 am
Theresa P. – It sounds like you are talking about the Catholic sacrament of anointing the sick. I admit to not knowing much beyond the rudimentary in this area. The Catholic encyclopedia I linked to has a lengthy and erudite entry, however.
Comment by J. Stapley — 6/13/2005 @ 9:27 am
The thing is that anointing with consecrated oil is an ordinance that is separate and apart from the healing.
The anointing is sealed under the hand of the priesthood bearer and is made relevant to the purpose of the ministration during that priesthood ordinance.
The anointing is of significance in that it denotes symbolically the designation of the person as one who is selected or approved of by The Lord to receive a blessing pertinent to their needs.
That a priesthood bearer makes that selection or designation on behalf of The Lord is fitting in that his carriage of priesthood authority provides for him to act in the name of The Lord in such matters.
As priesthood bearers we should choose wisely whom we anoint so as to not offend our right to use the priesthood by acting against the impressions of the Holy Ghost.
The Holy Ghost gives power in the use of the authority being utilised by telling the priesthood bearer what to do and to say. That is what is meant when it is said in scripture that priesthood bearers act by the power of the Holy Ghost. The power lies in the direction given from the Godhead through the ministering of the Holy Ghost to the authorised priesthood bearer.
What results from the administration ordinance is another matter. It will be as The Lord would have it be in each individual situation.
Priesthood bearers are blessed to be able to prophesy what will come about as they successfully listen to the Holy Ghost and speak what they hear during the sealing part of the ordinance. It is not them that heals (if healing there is) but The Lord. They are the hands and the voice only.
All other matters pertaining to the faith and worthiness of the priesthood bearer and the faith of the recipient or their friends are a separate matter.
That they influence the outcome is only so in that The Lord rewards faith in His name and faithfulness in serving Him and He is capable of being influenced by prayer, supplication, righteous living, the weighing of justice and equity, and other situations that argue this way or that.
The fact of the ordinance of anointing and sealing invokes His involvement more urgently that perhaps would otherwise have been the case.
But let us not be under any illusion that we are ought but obedient and faithful servants and supplicants in the matter. Resolution is His alone, though all can be assured that He will act one way or another once the anointing has been appropriately made.
This is simple to understand but not simple to express. I have benefited from reading this discussion thread. Thank you.
Comment by Mike Booth — 1/7/2007 @ 2:36 am
Thanks for stopping by, Mike. I’m curious how women anointing fits into your perspective here (women repeatedly were instructed by the first presidency to anoint the sick and bless them until the early 1900’s).
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/7/2007 @ 12:07 pm
…I should also note that in the 19th century and early 20th century, it was quite common to anoint and speak a blessing while actually anointing the head or other afflicted area.
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/7/2007 @ 1:15 pm