If one is acting as voice, a temple recommend or special letter is required.

Otherwise, no.

The blessing and naming of babies is not an ordinance that is required for salvation, but it’s a nice traditional ritual that many churches do in one form or another, and as rituals go, it’s no more vain than most.

I guess I don’t fully understand the real world difference of having a TR and “being worthy to have one.” I’ve personally never met a Mormon who was “worthy” to have a TR who didn’t have one. So, when we speak of folks who don’t have a TR, it would seem to me that implicit in that discussion is that there is something that makes them “unworthy.” Maybe it’s because they don’t pay a full tithe. Maybe it’s because they’re not up to date on child support. Maybe they drink coffee. Maybe it’s because they refuse a TR because they have issues with the temple.

What makes one “worthy” to officiate in the priesthood? Don asks a similar question in his original post. Who gets to decide that question? If one drinks coffee does that preclude him from performing a baptism? How about doubts about the divinity of Christ or the veracity of the official version of the first vision? What about believing that polygamy wasn’t instituted of God?

What sins are so great as to preclude one from exercising priesthood?

My opinion, which many may find heretical, is that once one has been given the priesthood, the question of worthiness should be left up to that person. If he feels worthy, he should be allowed. Ultimately the efficacy of a priesthood ordinance doesn’t depend upon the “worthiness” of the person performing the ordinance. If that was so, the sacrament wouldn’t have efficacy 90% of the time. (Hyperbole, I know, but you get my point.)

Joseph Smith taught that despite being drunk when he uttered the curse on Ham and his lineage, God upheld that curse because he honored Noah’s priesthood. Is that teaching applicable today?

A real world example: The stake patriarch in the stake of my youth was convicted of child molestation (of his granddaughters). In the investigation it came out that he had molested his own daughters when they were children. When asked about the efficacy of the patriachal blessings he bestowed during the time he was sexually molesting children, members of the stake were told it was unnecessary to receive another patriachal blessing.

So if God will honor the curse of a drunken man or the patriachal blessing of a child molester, I can’t imagine a sin that would keep Him from honoring any priesthood ordinance, no matter the “worthiness” of the officiator. And requiring a bishop to ask any question other than “Are you worthy?”, “Are you comfortable with God to perform this ordinance?”, or even simply “Do you hold the priesthood required for this ordinance?” seems pointless.

And again, baptisms can be performed by Aaronic priesthood members who do not have TRs, so it is not possible to make holding a recommend a prerequisite for performing a baptism.

But there is no interview required to baptize your own children, even if you don’t have a temple recommend. So you cannot be prohibited from baptizing your children based simply on the fact that you do not have a temple recommend. – MCQ #42

MCQ, I don’t think this statement is wholly correct. While no interview is formally required by church policy, permission still has to be granted by the bishop. (When our son was baptised out of the ward boundaries, we had to get permission from our home bishop and the the bishop in the area where the baptism took place.)

I know many bishops who would call a brother in and question why he doesn’t have a TR and if he’s worthy to baptize before granting permission. And as I stated, my current bishop feels that if you’re not worthy of a TR, then your not worthy to perform an ordinance that requires his permission.

In my experience, bishops are anxious to give less active men an opportunity to exercise their priesthood.

Not all bishops are created equal. That has also been my experience, but every now and then I have also witnessed some do the opposite to “send a message” of “look at what you are missing for being inactive.”

It all depends on the Bishop.

Interesting perspectives.