ksfisher Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 Just as Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath, he wouldn't have a problem with a woman holding her baby, and to clarify, not hold the priesthood.How do you know that?
Tacenda Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 How do you know that?Maybe I'm just not getting the gist of this. So a women touching her infant negates the blessing?
Calm Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 I wouldn't say it negates the blessing anymore than having a part of the clothing not completely covered in water negates a baptism if it is not seen or a young man saying the word and it not being caught in a sacrament blessing negates that ordinance. I think the rigidness of ordinances mirrors the same teaching that dressing all in white in the temple does. A guy wearing brown socks is not less righteous than a guy wearing white socks, but taking the time to be aware and to be exact in an ordinance is symbolic of our greater obedience to that ordinance in our lives and to God's Will over all.One could ask are we willing to sacrifice all for God or is it more important to us to feel good and feel a part of "_______________" (fill in whatever you want)?Having said that, I don't think there is anything wrong with desiring to be part of something good, in fact I think it would be a sign of not caring enough to strive for all that God offers us to be satisfied with anything less than full involvement and I really, really, really think it is very important for us to constantly question ourselves that we are doing something out of obedience to God's Will and not out of tradition or because it is easier not to question the status quo.It is a fine line, imo, that we need to balance on between seeking all the good things that God has promised and desires to give us while restraining ourselves from imagining that the way we think things should be must be the right way to do it.Perhaps this is yet another weakness that God has included in His church so that we won't become so reliant on it that we forget to constantly seek the Lord, his Will and his Knowledge.
ksfisher Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Maybe I'm just not getting the gist of this. So a women touching her infant negates the blessing?What I'm wondering is how you know what the Savior would think. If you know that He is ok with a mother holding a child during the child's blessing then He must have revealed that to you. And, if that was revealed to you, why to you and not to the president of the church or an apostle?
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 Fathers whom are members but not holding the Priesthood, along with Mothers whom are members of the Church may give blessings as so directed by the Spirit. What neither one can do is invoke the Priesthood while doing it.
daz2 Posted February 3, 2013 Posted February 3, 2013 I remember in the early 1970s when the policy was changed to allow nonmember fathers to hold babies while they were being blessed, and I also remember when when the policy was changed back so that non-MP fathers no longer could hold babies in the circle. I, of course, did not participate in the decisionmaking, but the faith promoting rumor at the time that nonmember nonMP fathers were allowed to hold the babies was to emphasize the sacred role of fathers, whether or not they held the priesthood--i.e., it was part of correlation's emphasis on the father's presiding in the home (even if father did not hold MP). Of course, section 20:70 existed at that time, and the Brethren were aware of it. The Church was not in apostasy, nor were the Brethren, when they interpreted verse 70 to permit the father to hold the child--under God's inspiration they interpreted the verse to distinguish between "holding the baby" and "laying hands" to give a blessing. Subsequently, the Brethren determined, under inspiration, to change the interpretation. I have not heard a faith promoting rumor as to why the Brethren decided to change the interpretation--perhaps to return to a concept of MPH being significantly more important than mere fatherhood when it comes to priesthood rites, or to avoid potential confusion between the concepts of fatherhood and priesthood when it comes to those rites? Or perhaps to avoid disputes about whether mothers routinely should be permitted to hold babies during blessings? I sustain the Brethren. But I do not think section 70, on its face, compels when interpretation versus another--that is, I do not think the Brethren were uninspired or wrong in allowing nonmember nonMP fathers to hold babies during blessings, nor are they uninspired or wrong to adopt a different interpretation and practice today.
JAHS Posted February 4, 2013 Posted February 4, 2013 (edited) I have never given one of my sick babies a priesthood blessing without the mother holding that baby and participating in the blessing by virtue of her faith.According to President Joseph Fielding Smith:"The Lord has given us directions in matters of this kind; we are to call in the elders, and they are to anoint with oil on the head and bless by the laying on of hands. The Church teaches that a woman may lay on hands upon the head of a sick child and ask the Lord to bless it, in the case when those holding the priesthood cannot be present.A man might under such conditions invite his wife to lay on hands with him in blessing their sick child. This would be merely to exercise her faith and not be, cause of any inherent right to lay on hands. A woman would have no authority to anoint or seal a blessing, and where elders can be called in, that would be the proper way to have an administration performed. (Doctrines of Salvation)And President Joseph Fielding Smith, quoting from his father, said:"Does a wife hold the priesthood with her husband, and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority? A wife does not hold the priesthood with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, she may do so with perfect propriety."When this is done the wife is adding her faith to the administration of her husband. The wife would lay on hands just as would a member of the Aaronic Priesthood, or a faithful brother without the Priesthood, she in this manner giving support by faith to the ordinance performed by her husband. (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56], 3:177.) Edited February 4, 2013 by JAHS 2
Yep Posted February 5, 2013 Author Posted February 5, 2013 I remember in the early 1970s when the policy was changed to allow nonmember fathers to hold babies while they were being blessed, and I also remember when when the policy was changed back so that non-MP fathers no longer could hold babies in the circle. I, of course, did not participate in the decisionmaking, but the faith promoting rumor at the time that nonmember nonMP fathers were allowed to hold the babies was to emphasize the sacred role of fathers, whether or not they held the priesthood--i.e., it was part of correlation's emphasis on the father's presiding in the home (even if father did not hold MP). Of course, section 20:70 existed at that time, and the Brethren were aware of it. The Church was not in apostasy, nor were the Brethren, when they interpreted verse 70 to permit the father to hold the child--under God's inspiration they interpreted the verse to distinguish between "holding the baby" and "laying hands" to give a blessing. Subsequently, the Brethren determined, under inspiration, to change the interpretation. I have not heard a faith promoting rumor as to why the Brethren decided to change the interpretation--perhaps to return to a concept of MPH being significantly more important than mere fatherhood when it comes to priesthood rites, or to avoid potential confusion between the concepts of fatherhood and priesthood when it comes to those rites? Or perhaps to avoid disputes about whether mothers routinely should be permitted to hold babies during blessings? I sustain the Brethren. But I do not think section 70, on its face, compels when interpretation versus another--that is, I do not think the Brethren were uninspired or wrong in allowing nonmember nonMP fathers to hold babies during blessings, nor are they uninspired or wrong to adopt a different interpretation and practice today.Thank you, I very much appreciate your response.
DBMormon Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) What I'm wondering is how you know what the Savior would think. If you know that He is ok with a mother holding a child during the child's blessing then He must have revealed that to you. And, if that was revealed to you, why to you and not to the president of the church or an apostle?Why did Africans receive revelation that the PH was coming to them prior to 78' and prepare and yet Elder Kimball had not yet received his revelation. I am free to receive revelation without having to wait for the prophet to receive it first, as long as my revelation is not for someone outside my stewardship. Precedent has been set. BYU channel has several interviews with these brethren testifying of such. Scriptures are full of revelations being received before or without a prophet Edited February 5, 2013 by DBMormon
rongo Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Why did Africans receive revelation that the PH was coming to them prior to 78' and prepare and yet Elder Kimball had not yet received his revelation. I am free to receive revelation without having to wait for the prophet to receive it first, as long as my revelation is not for someone outside my stewardship.Yes, but you are not free to teach your personal revelation or to use it to insist that leaders are behind the curve or wrong.
Tacenda Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Yes, but you are not free to teach your personal revelation or to use it to insist that leaders are behind the curve or wrong.Maybe it's time to get the pants women involved! Just semi kidding of course.
ksfisher Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Why did Africans receive revelation that the PH was coming to them prior to 78' and prepare and yet Elder Kimball had not yet received his revelation. I am free to receive revelation without having to wait for the prophet to receive it first, as long as my revelation is not for someone outside my stewardship. Precedent has been set. BYU channel has several interviews with these brethren testifying of such. Scriptures are full of revelations being received before or without a prophetIf I remember the event you are writing about correctly, the person who received the revelation took it to the 1st Presidency before saying anything to other members. After the 1st Presidency approved the revelation it was taught. So, in a round about way, the revelation did come from the prophet.What bothered me about the post that I originally commented on was the implication that the church was doing something wrong, or at least not right, and that the poster knew that the Savior would do it differently.
Recommended Posts