escott3564 Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I keep hearing this. I have actually laid my hands on my infant son and blessed him with peace and rest when he was crying and crying and I was alone and couldn't get hold of anyone. He was very colicky. He immediately calmed down and slept through the night. I think what the church doesn't want is that this is done in place of the Priesthood and anointing with oil. I think even in the pioneer days when it was done it was done in exigency.Maybe during the pioneer days it was done in exigency, but during the days of Joseph Smith, women could equally participate in blessing the sick with annointed oil just as men can. There was no difference in the power. The same with blessing of babies.
escott3564 Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 Speaking of acting with exigency, when I was home from college, my parents were out of town and I was alone in the house with my baby brother. I became very ill and called my grandfather to give me a blessing. He and my grandmother came over. It was very late. My grandfather annointed my head with oil and both he and my grandmother laid their hands on my head to seal the healing blessing.
Senator Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 I think Elder Uchtdorf was referring to leaders and members individually and not collectively. So it does not apply to priesthood policy and revelation for the entire Church. So you are ascribing infallibility at some point or level in the governance of the church?
CV75 Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 So you are ascribing infallibility at some point or level in the governance of the church?On this subject, if I were to ascribe infallibility at some level, it would be at the Lord's level of governance since He governs the priesthood and revelation about it for the entire Church. For example, D&C 84 shows how He doesn't hesitate to correct His servants even while giving and teaching them the revelations about Priesthood for the entire Church. He had already put the Church on notice that this is how He would conduct her affairs to His satisfaction, collectively (D&C 1:30-39). In this particular case, His displeasure had to do with how some servants had treated the earlier revelations. it was not about their having implemented incorrect revelation (revelation from the wrong source). I think when it comes to Priesthood blessings upon the Church collectively, the Lord has always approved of His servants' stewardship, otherwise He would have intervened as He did with the incorrect implementation of the Book of Mormon in and among their stewardship, which was an example of a detriment to the Church collectively. But my post was simply about what Elder Uchtdorf said, which was about mistakes made by individuals.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 You missed the word "not".I caught your use of the word "not," but I still got the same impression as ERayR, especially when it would appear the vast majority of women in the Church would not agree with Kate Kelly that they are in any way being abused by not having the opportunity to hold the priesthood. 1
Calm Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 (edited) If she wasn't making the comparison why mention it at all? Perhaps it wasn't but mentioning it does draw that comparison in the mind of the reader despite protestations to the contrary.She was explaining when and where the idea came to her...it was in the context of when she was out doing work for these women. She was thinking that someone should be doing something for her community and then realized that someone could be her just as she was able to help these women. If you haven't read her entire profile, I would encourage you to do so to create your own understanding of the context rather than mine. I am giving her the benefit of the doubt she is just relaying a story of how it came to her and not intentionally trying to tie the two together in people's minds, but if she is, that would be just one more example of her too far, too little approach as a spokesperson. I see constant missteps she has taken, she may be a lawyer (IIRC) and trained for presenting a certain form of argument and perhaps that is getting in the way of her presenting this in a more positive and connecting fashion. Edited October 7, 2013 by calmoriah
Senator Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 On this subject, if I were to ascribe infallibility at some level, it would be at the Lord's level of governance since He governs the priesthood and revelation about it for the entire Church. For example, D&C 84 shows how He doesn't hesitate to correct His servants even while giving and teaching them the revelations about Priesthood for the entire Church. He had already put the Church on notice that this is how He would conduct her affairs to His satisfaction, collectively (D&C 1:30-39). In this particular case, His displeasure had to do with how some servants had treated the earlier revelations. it was not about their having implemented incorrect revelation (revelation from the wrong source). I think when it comes to Priesthood blessings upon the Church collectively, the Lord has always approved of His servants' stewardship, otherwise He would have intervened as He did with the incorrect implementation of the Book of Mormon in and among their stewardship, which was an example of a detriment to the Church collectively. But my post was simply about what Elder Uchtdorf said, which was about mistakes made by individuals. So that is a yes to my question? ... sorry I'm a simpleton needing few words....
CV75 Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 So that is a yes to my question? ... sorry I'm a simpleton needing few words....Yes, if you consider the Lord as being at some point or level of governance in the Church. And if you consider the Church collectively and not individually, and that He will not allow her to be led astray. And if you consider that He doesn't hesitate to correct His servants and membership when they err (such as in treating things lightly), and even in so doing, gives them revelation about the Priesthood to publish for all to see. And when you consider that not all new revelation and progress is to correct or reverse prior mistakes.
Brenda Posted October 7, 2013 Posted October 7, 2013 And they are. As one woman wrote today "I find it interesting that so many women, including myself, who have left the LDS church are standing in support of those sisters who remain and desire the right to use the priesthood they have already been ordained to. "Yes, I encountered several ex-LDS in their group. These people were all too happy to get in any dig they could at the Church and to assume the worst about those of us who defended the Brethren. Their reasoning sure didn't make sense to me, yet they felt they had every right to be part of the conversation. There were also people of other religions standing w/ OW. The OW group seemed more willing to listen to non-members than to the vast majority of us in the Church who did not agree with them. But I guess that's just human nature. Path of least resistance and all ..... In their defense, I had no reason to believe they were anything but good, honorable, sincere women who are simply misled, and/or lack some understanding. I hope they can work through this w/o losing their testimony. 1
Deborah Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 In their defense, I had no reason to believe they were anything but good, honorable, sincere women who are simply misled, and/or lack some understanding. I hope they can work through this w/o losing their testimony. No doubt some are, but I am finding more and more that there are many whose agenda is to bring a black mark against the church.
Deborah Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 Sadly, too these vehemently anti-LDS women are not helping this group. Their remarks are becoming more strident. 1
webbles Posted October 8, 2013 Posted October 8, 2013 Maybe during the pioneer days it was done in exigency, but during the days of Joseph Smith, women could equally participate in blessing the sick with annointed oil just as men can. There was no difference in the power. The same with blessing of babies.I believe they could only give blessings to other women or children and it wasn't by the power of the priesthood but by the power of faith. Didn't they also have to be set apart in the temple for these healings?
Recommended Posts