treeface Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 I don't buy that, would really like to see some evidence of that. My understanding was that many of the new religions of the time were seeking for restoration of the gifts and LDS were neither the first or the last in that category.I lost all of my years of amateur research on the subject to a hard drive crash last summer. Will try to find some evidence for you, but it may take a while.
Calm Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 Please take your time, I've put off some research for a claim I made until after Christmas, fill free to do the same. It is a matter of curiosity also, not debate.
treeface Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 Please take your time, I've put off some research for a claim I made until after Christmas, fill free to do the same. It is a matter of curiosity also, not debate.Yeah, I could tell you weren't debating. And I tried to put enough disclaimers in my statement so that it would be clear I was voicing it as opinion, not fact.I'm sure this list is incomplete, but here are four other Christian religions that practice faith healing, and when they were founded:Seventh Day Adventists, 1863Christian Science, 1979Jehovah's Witnesses, 1884Pentacostal Church, early 1900'sObviously the Mormons predate these guys, but I don't know what others might have been around back in the days of Joseph Smith.
Calm Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 My mind kicked in for a moment and I remembered one of the denominations I was thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShakersAnn Lee's followers testified that she had many "spiritual gifts," including visions, prophecy, healing hands, and "the power of God" in her touch.[36] In addition, the first American Shakers appreciated the revival tradition, and brought those practices into Shaker worship.
treeface Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 My mind kicked in for a moment and I remembered one of the denominations I was thinking of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShakersYou are correct, the Shakers were practicing faith healing well before Joseph Smith came along. But they were a small group that never really flourished, so I don't think the LDS church would have seen them as competition. Their requirement of strict celibacy worked against long-term growth.
Cobalt-70 Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 neither are gospel.I was asked who said it, and I replied. I didn't say that LDS Church doctrine is necessarily gospel.
Cobalt-70 Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 This assumes that God has nothing to do with priesthood ordination as it now stands, which is contrary to fact if one believes in the foundational claims of the modern Priesthood.If JS and OC were ordained to the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchisedek Priesthood was also restored through ordination, then God has some involvement in the current organization of the Priesthood. And if he has some involvment, then I think it is wisdom to seek his Will first before assuming that something solely done a certain way just because it is traditional or to assume changing the current procedures into something else does not need revelation to accomplish in accordance to God's Will on how he wants things to operate within his Church and Kingdom.Yes, God had something to do with Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery being ordained. And yes, Smith and Cowdery had male genitalia. But in ordaining them, God never said that their genitalia had anything to do with their priesthood. That was the Greeks.
Cobalt-70 Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 Ahh, so once the feminists get the feminine centered and the masculine otherized there will be a shift back to a neutral position. Yeah right. They may state such a goal, but what were those proverbs about power? There shouldn't be feminists. There should only be a position of humanist, a group working towards an equal perspective on the whole.Not a neutral position. A multi-centered position. I don't think you quite understand the distinction. There will be masculine centers and feminine centers. What there won't be, is a culture-wide hierarchy of feminine subordinated to masculine.Quite honestly, I believe that men hold the priesthood because it is the power of God the Father, and He is male. In the eternities I am sure that the power of our Heavenly Mother will be available to the women, but for whatever reason we have little to no knowledge of her. I simply believe that the priesthood held now is the masculine side of the priesthood given by our Father in Heaven.And what does God's genitalia have to do with his priesthood power?Women's main role is childbearing/rearing. I believe that the majority of a women's priesthood function deals with procreation. In the eternities: the creation of spirits and the raising of those spirits up to the gaining of a physical body. Temporally: the creation of physical bodies and the raising of them until they reach adulthood. I believe that procreation is severely devalued and disparaged by the feminist view particularly by their overvaluing of the masculine priesthood responsibilities.Motherhood is not the female equivalent of priesthood. Rather, Motherhood is the female equivalent of fatherhood. Suppose I had used the argument that "a man's role is to provide sperm" as an argument against male priesthood.You can make the same points and do it in good taste. Stop the shock jock stuff.
Cobalt-70 Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Your answer REALLY confused me, so I went back to my post and I realized you were responding to Dr. Barlow, which link I did not read. I was only answering Cal's words.I still didn't read the link, so I'm sure your summary is an accurate representation of Bro. Barlow's position, then absolutely, it IS patriarchy. I am sure patriarchy creeped into the patriarchal order, however, as soon as patriarchy gets into the patriarchal order it stops being the patriarchal order and is just plain old patriarchy.Yes, sorry for the ambiguity. My response was directed at Dr. Barlow's view of the "patriarchal order" as equivalent to male presidency over women in the home. Edited December 22, 2012 by Cobalt-70
changed Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 ** Just peeking in **Didn't want to start another thread, so I'll just post on this old one. Today I was at my in-law's ward, and a mother was allowed to participate in her baby's blessing - I had not seen that before, and was curious if this happens in other wards? The bishop announced the blessing, and all the guys got up as usual, and the mother got up too, and carried the little baby into the center of the circle - she took the microphone, and told everyone there how grateful she was for the family and friends who were in town for the blessing etc. etc., then she sat in the center of the circle holding her child, while the men placed their hands on the babies head and gave the blessing. She later bore her testimony as it was testimony meeting. Anyways, I thought it was nice that they allowed her to participate in the blessing circle, even though she was not giving the blessing personally, at least she was in the circle. 1
Calm Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 Hopefully it's a pilot program for a future change of policy. 1
BlueDreams Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 I had not seen that before, and was curious if this happens in other wards? I haven't seen it before, but I hope it continues!With luv,BD
EllenMaksoud Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 I think we should counterrebel by having a "Just come to Church" day. I don't know about the past, but I think the temple is clear that it will be in the future. Am leaning toward it already being functional in temple settings. In Temple class #7 today, the book plainly says that it is recommended that women do not wear pants there. However, it was hastily added that women will not be turned away because of it.As a general practice, I do not wear pants, ever. However if a woman wants to wear pants, fine, though I have had women tell me they felt they should not have worn pants because I wore a skirt. HmmmmmIn my short experience with the LDS church, I have seen enough to make me believe that men in the church have something going on that I do not. Well, that's fine, because I have too much going on now, so they can have it. Just saying.
Tacenda Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 ** Just peeking in **Didn't want to start another thread, so I'll just post on this old one. Today I was at my in-law's ward, and a mother was allowed to participate in her baby's blessing - I had not seen that before, and was curious if this happens in other wards? The bishop announced the blessing, and all the guys got up as usual, and the mother got up too, and carried the little baby into the center of the circle - she took the microphone, and told everyone there how grateful she was for the family and friends who were in town for the blessing etc. etc., then she sat in the center of the circle holding her child, while the men placed their hands on the babies head and gave the blessing. She later bore her testimony as it was testimony meeting. Anyways, I thought it was nice that they allowed her to participate in the blessing circle, even though she was not giving the blessing personally, at least she was in the circle. That's an excellent idea. That took alot of guts on the part of that woman, since it's sooo not the standard way.
Calm Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 I believe it is even against church policy, only Melchizedek Priestholders are supposed to be in the circle touching the baby currently IIRC. There have been several variations in the past though.
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 7, 2013 Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) From the handbook: General Guidelines“Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name” (D&C 20:70). In conformity with this revelation, only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may participate in naming and blessing children. Priesthood leaders should inform members of this instruction before their children are named and blessed. While preserving the sacred nature of the blessing, leaders should make every reasonable effort to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families.... Instructions for Naming and Blessing a ChildWhen blessing a baby, Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle and place their hands under the baby. Edited January 7, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan
Lachoneus Posted January 8, 2013 Posted January 8, 2013 From Hanbook 2, section 20.2.1: In conformity with this revelation, only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may participate in naming and blessing children. Priesthood leaders should inform members of this instruction before their children are named and blessed. While preserving the sacred nature of the blessing, leaders should make every reasonable effort to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families.Sounds to me like a Bishop was not doing his duty by allowing this sister to be inside the circle.
rongo Posted January 8, 2013 Posted January 8, 2013 Is she "in the circle" if she's holding the baby? What about if it's a four year-old child, and the child sits on her lap (which happened with me ---- alluded to earlier in this thread)? Would she be "in the circle" then?I consider the men in the circle to be those who are laying hands on (or under). The boy holding the microphone is certainly not "in the circle," although he is close by and is "participating" in some way with the ordinance.
bluebell Posted January 8, 2013 Posted January 8, 2013 Is she "in the circle" if she's holding the baby? What about if it's a four year-old child, and the child sits on her lap (which happened with me ---- alluded to earlier in this thread)? Would she be "in the circle" then?I consider the men in the circle to be those who are laying hands on (or under). The boy holding the microphone is certainly not "in the circle," although he is close by and is "participating" in some way with the ordinance.This was my thought as well.What's the difference between a woman holding a baby during a baby blessing and a woman holding a baby or child during a blessing when they are sick, for example? That happens all the time and no one freaks out about it, so i really don't see what the big deal is.
Storm Rider Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 It is common for a child to be held by those giving the blessing. However, if there is something unusual, unique, that a woman would hold an infant or child while the blessing is given there is not a problem and they are not part of the circle. The issue is "why" or "what" would require a woman to hold the infant? If it is simply because a woman demands to do so, then I would feel comfortable saying no. However, if there is a compelling reason, even such that an infant is in a difficult situation or health reasons or it is just plain easier to have the mother hold the child, it would not be a problem. For me, It must be an issue of expediency and not a response to satisfy the pride or ego of a woman that demands to be involved.
Calm Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 However, if there is a compelling reason, even such that an infant is in a difficult situation or health reasons or it is just plain easier to have the mother hold the child, it would not be a problem. For me, It must be an issue of expediency and not a response to satisfy the pride or ego of a woman that demands to be involved. Unfortunately, expedient or not, it is against the rules.
Storm Rider Posted January 9, 2013 Posted January 9, 2013 Unfortunately, expedient or not, it is against the rules.You will find that rules are often broken when needed. The issue is for leadership to be lead by the Spirit in all things - nothing trumps the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Again, if there is an issue that would compel an exception to be made, it is possible for it to occur. However, I cannot really think of such a situation that would compel such a decision. I remain open to the guidance of the Spirit and it would be a rare situation indeed.
Recommended Posts