Why Aren't Women Included

[Freedom]

http://rationalfaiths.com/why-arent-the-women-included/

 

In this article, quoting Chieko N Okazaki,  former 1st counselor of the General Relief Society, the question is asked why are women not included more. One could argue that revelation such as the proclamation of the family comes from God, not from consultation but this, of course, contradicts the doctrine that information precedes revelation.  

 

The Ordain women movement may be filled with a bunch of non-mormon ringers, but it seems to me that we are still in the dark ages concerning equality in the church. What do you think? Perhaps this theme has been beaten to death. 

[Garden Girl]

http://rationalfaiths.com/why-arent-the-women-included/

 

In this article, quoting Chieko N Okazaki,  former 1st counselor of the General Relief Society, the question is asked why are women not included more. One could argue that revelation such as the proclamation of the family comes from God, not from consultation but this, of course, contradicts the doctrine that information precedes revelation.  

 

The Ordain women movement may be filled with a bunch of non-mormon ringers, but it seems to me that we are still in the dark ages concerning equality in the church. What do you think? Perhaps this theme has been beaten to death. 

 

I was just going to say... where have you been?  there have been numerous threads and posts on this topic... to be perfectly frank, I'm getting a little tired of hearing some... repeat, some... of the women whining.  The OW movement IMO is way off track, and speaks for a small minority of LDS women. 

Numerous threads/posts have addressed changes and improvements that can be made without going the route of OW...  and, I hardly think, as you suggest, that we are still in the "dark ages" in regard to equality and women in the Church.  As much as you post on this Board, I can't imagine you haven't noticed the discussions that have taken place...

 

GG

[Freedom]

If seen the discussions about the ordain women movement, but I think this article is different in that the challenge is coming from a former general authority of the church. 

[Calm]

In an interview that was given almost 10 years ago. Some significant things have happened during that time and possibly one of them is an increased seeking for women's voices on all levels in church leadership and administration.

Edited March 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

The question no one will answer is why the Sunday School Presidency was not consulted either.

[JLHPROF]

The Ordain women movement may be filled with a bunch of non-mormon ringers, but it seems to me that we are still in the dark ages concerning equality in the church. What do you think? Perhaps this theme has been beaten to death. 

 

Oh yeah -

 

But your statement about the dark ages is still the issue that bugs me most about the topic.  All that matters on Women and the Priesthood is what GOD wants.  Whether society has advanced beyond the dark ages is not an argument for doctrinal change.

[wenglund]

....it seems to me that we are still in the dark ages concerning equality in the church. What do you think? Perhaps this theme has been beaten to death. 

 

I think the whole notion of "equality" as it is now generally understood and practivced, is, itself in the dark ages--in large part because for many people it has mistakenly become the prime directive, though selectively so. (See HERE)

 

If true equality were the preferred objective, the question of the thread wouldn't just concern itself with the equitable inclusion of a single demographic (such as women), but it would equally address the equitable inclusion of all other demographics--i.e primary aged children, young adults, blue collar as well as white collar workers, non-members and members alike, liberals and libertarians as well as conservatives, rich and poor, foreigners as well as U.S. citizens, Walmart lovers and haters, sports enthusiasts as well as shopoholics, gourmet as well as fast food eaters, and on and on.

 

In short, why not include the entire human population, living and dead, in counseling the Lord's anointed? After all, God must not be well equipped enough to lead his own Church and direct his chosen leaders. (Of course I am being facetious.)

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Paloma]

For the life of me, I cannot understand how it can be that LDS mothers have no role in baby blessings within the LDS church.

My sense is that the role of motherhood is both central and highly regarded.

How then can it be that mothers don't participate in the one acknowledgement and celebration of the baby's birth and entry into the LDS church family?

Could mothers not hold the baby? Or stand in the circle? Or bestow a mother's blessing along with the father's blessing? Or could there be a parental blessing?

I would really like to hear from LDS mothers, and fathers as well, (or any LDS folk, as this is surely a matter that belongs to the whole community).

Please help me understand the role of women in baby blessings if I am wrong in thinking they have no role.

Thanks.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Paloma

[Storm Rider]

http://rationalfaiths.com/why-arent-the-women-included/

 

In this article, quoting Chieko N Okazaki,  former 1st counselor of the General Relief Society, the question is asked why are women not included more. One could argue that revelation such as the proclamation of the family comes from God, not from consultation but this, of course, contradicts the doctrine that information precedes revelation.  

 

The Ordain women movement may be filled with a bunch of non-mormon ringers, but it seems to me that we are still in the dark ages concerning equality in the church. What do you think? Perhaps this theme has been beaten to death. 

 

Ya think?  

 

This horse has been mauled incessantly. We follow in the same steps as the media; let's all play shocked over and over and over again about the same thing.  Never shut up, just keep the harp going, and going, and going, and going.  Let's keep driving this bus over the edge and then we can be shocked all over again about a new topic.  

[bluebell]

For the life of me, I cannot understand how it can be that LDS mothers have no role in baby blessings within the LDS church.

My sense is that the role of motherhood is both central and highly regarded.

How then can it be that mothers don't participate in the one acknowledgement and celebration of the baby's birth and entry into the LDS church family?

Could mothers not hold the baby? Or stand in the circle? Or bestow a mother's blessing along with the father's blessing? Or could there be a parental blessing?

I would really like to hear from LDS mothers, and fathers as well, (or any LDS folk, as this is surely a matter that belongs to the whole community).

Please help me understand the role of women in baby blessings if I am wrong in thinking they have no role.

Thanks.

 

I can only speak for myself.  I don't have any issues with women who feel differently, though i admit i don't really understand the depth of their discord with it sometimes.

 

But for me, it does not bother me at all that there is one thing, out of thousands, that has to do with my newborn baby and hubby that i am not a part of.  I've had nine months of the baby all to myself, and still get a huge majority of the time with them after they are born.  Almost all the attention is given to me after the birth, and my role as the one who brought the baby into the world is second to no one.  The praise and blessings i get from those months and those last moments are beyond anything my husband receives when he becomes a father.  

 

So i'm thankful that my hubby get's to have his own, uniquely male, moment with the baby as well, just like i get to have so many uniquely female moments.  

 

I, with God, provided that child physical life.  Hubby certainly played a role, but it is minuscule in comparison with mine.  I do not feel it diminishes my motherhood, that he, with God, get's to be the first one of us to begin to provide spiritual life.  I know that I will play a role with that as well, and a much larger one than he get's to play in regards to creation.

 

I'm fine believing that God let's me lead in the physical life department and so I'm also fine with believing that God let's my husband lead in the spiritual life department.  Because i know that neither 'department' functions without both of us, even if one of us is more prominent than the other at different times.

 

Hope that makes some kind of sense.

 

[justdreamin]

For the life of me, I cannot understand how it can be that LDS mothers have no role in baby blessings within the LDS church.

My sense is that the role of motherhood is both central and highly regarded.

How then can it be that mothers don't participate in the one acknowledgement and celebration of the baby's birth and entry into the LDS church family?

Could mothers not hold the baby? Or stand in the circle? Or bestow a mother's blessing along with the father's blessing? Or could there be a parental blessing?

I would really like to hear from LDS mothers, and fathers as well, (or any LDS folk, as this is surely a matter that belongs to the whole community).

Please help me understand the role of women in baby blessings if I am wrong in thinking they have no role.

Thanks.

 

Paloma, I don't normally post and I'm not particularly interested in the "why's" of this topic, but, if you are interested in exploring a little, there is a very nice article from the 1981 Sept/Oct Sunstone magazine by Linda K. Newell. You can find it in the archives of their website. I don't remember anything in the article that might be considered anti-Mormon or antagonistic to the teachings of the Church, although it might be considered by some as a little self serving from a woman's perspective. It gives well researched insight into the topic of women with regard to blessing, healing and anointing the sick in the early days of the Church up until the 1940's. If you decide to read it, you might come away with the same perspective I did, which is that the pracitce of giving a baby a name to be known on the records of the Church is considered to be a Priesthood ordinance, much the same as a Priest blessing the Sacrament. While you might want to hold the hand of your Priest to give him some comfort while he pronounces the blessing for his first time, you would refrain (even if he wanted you to hold his hand) because as a woman, you aren't a part of this administrative action of the Priesthood.  According to scripture and to statements given by a few early Prophets, you can give your baby a mother's blessing with our without your husband as you desire, but not in Sacrament meeting.

[jchristopher]

For the life of me, I cannot understand how it can be that LDS mothers have no role in baby blessings within the LDS church.

My sense is that the role of motherhood is both central and highly regarded.

How then can it be that mothers don't participate in the one acknowledgement and celebration of the baby's birth and entry into the LDS church family?

Could mothers not hold the baby? Or stand in the circle? Or bestow a mother's blessing along with the father's blessing? Or could there be a parental blessing?

I would really like to hear from LDS mothers, and fathers as well, (or any LDS folk, as this is surely a matter that belongs to the whole community).

Please help me understand the role of women in baby blessings if I am wrong in thinking they have no role.

Thanks.

Wow. Okay, first of all, the baby blessing is not the baby's "entry into the church." Secondly, read Bluebell's post. And thirdly, if you're going to go on to this line of thinking, why not complain about the ordinances of baptism, confirmation, patriarchal blessings, setting apart of blessings, etc.? you don't get to participate in those either, do you? Heck, it's your child, right? Oh wait, that would be incorrect. It's God's child.

[Paloma]

I can only speak for myself.  I don't have any issues with women who feel differently, though i admit i don't really understand the depth of their discord with it sometimes.

 

But for me, it does not bother me at all that there is one thing, out of thousands, that has to do with my newborn baby and hubby that i am not a part of.  I've had nine months of the baby all to myself, and still get a huge majority of the time with them after they are born.  Almost all the attention is given to me after the birth, and my role as the one who brought the baby into the world is second to no one.  The praise and blessings i get from those months and those last moments are beyond anything my husband receives when he becomes a father.  

 

So i'm thankful that my hubby get's to have his own, uniquely male, moment with the baby as well, just like i get to have so many uniquely female moments.  

 

I, with God, provided that child physical life.  Hubby certainly played a role, but it is minuscule in comparison with mine.  I do not feel it diminishes my motherhood, that he, with God, get's to be the first one of us to begin to provide spiritual life.  I know that I will play a role with that as well, and a much larger one than he get's to play in regards to creation.

 

I'm fine believing that God let's me lead in the physical life department and so I'm also fine with believing that God let's my husband lead in the spiritual life department.  Because i know that neither 'department' functions without both of us, even if one of us is more prominent than the other at different times.

 

Hope that makes some kind of sense.

 

Bluebell, thanks so much for this thoughtful reply that really DOES help me a lot in understanding how you (and therefore, probably others too, I expect) view the baby blessing.

I've always wondered, and have never asked any of my LDS friends whom I know in real life. I've never been invited to a baby blessing, having never lived close enough at that particular time. And while I've talked with friends on the phone about their baby blessing event, I haven't asked how they feel about it as mothers (probably because I wouldn't want my own projected sense of "being left out" to taint the conversation).

So I really value hearing the real story from you, and can appreciate where you're coming from. So thanks again!

[Paloma]

Paloma, I don't normally post and I'm not particularly interested in the "why's" of this topic, but, if you are interested in exploring a little, there is a very nice article from the 1981 Sept/Oct Sunstone magazine by Linda K. Newell. You can find it in the archives of their website. I don't remember anything in the article that might be considered anti-Mormon or antagonistic to the teachings of the Church, although it might be considered by some as a little self serving from a woman's perspective. It gives well researched insight into the topic of women with regard to blessing, healing and anointing the sick in the early days of the Church up until the 1940's. If you decide to read it, you might come away with the same perspective I did, which is that the pracitce of giving a baby a name to be known on the records of the Church is considered to be a Priesthood ordinance, much the same as a Priest blessing the Sacrament. While you might want to hold the hand of your Priest to give him some comfort while he pronounces the blessing for his first time, you would refrain (even if he wanted you to hold his hand) because as a woman, you aren't a part of this administrative action of the Priesthood.  According to scripture and to statements given by a few early Prophets, you can give your baby a mother's blessing with our without your husband as you desire, but not in Sacrament meeting.

Thanks so much, justdreamin. I'm glad you came out of the dream world and actually posted a reply here. (Just playin' on words, of course!)

This is a subject that interests me a lot, so I'll be really glad to follow up with this article you mentioned.

And thanks for the additional information you're giving here.

This also helps me to understand the LDS ideas surrounding the baby blessing.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Paloma

[Paloma]

Wow. Okay, first of all, the baby blessing is not the baby's "entry into the church." Secondly, read Bluebell's post. And thirdly, if you're going to go on to this line of thinking, why not complain about the ordinances of baptism, confirmation, patriarchal blessings, setting apart of blessings, etc.? you don't get to participate in those either, do you? Heck, it's your child, right? Oh wait, that would be incorrect. It's God's child.

I found Bluebell's post wonderfully helpful.

And I appreciated justdreamin's response too.

And yes, children are a gift from God. How wonderful that they belong to Him.

ps ... While I don't post here very often, I've been around a long time, and I think many folk know I'm a non-LDS Christian.

I've always really enjoyed bluebell's responses, (as well as some other folk I've known over the years), so it was wonderful to hear from her. And I think (hope!) she and others know me as someone who enjoys friendly and respectful conversations.

Good to make your acquaintance, jchristopher!

Edited March 28, 2014 by Paloma

[Calm]

Wow. Okay, first of all, the baby blessing is not the baby's "entry into the church." Secondly, read Bluebell's post. And thirdly, if you're going to go on to this line of thinking, why not complain about the ordinances of baptism, confirmation, patriarchal blessings, setting apart of blessings, etc.? you don't get to participate in those either, do you? Heck, it's your child, right? Oh wait, that would be incorrect. It's God's child.

Paloma is always very respectful of others' beliefs.  If she asks a question about something, you can safely assume that it is a sincere question and not complaining.  She puts a lot of effort into trying to understand others.

[bluebell]

I found Bluebell's post wonderfully helpful.

And I appreciated justdreamin's response too.

And yes, children are a gift from God. How wonderful that they belong to Him.

ps ... While I don't post here very often, I've been around a long time, and I think many folk know I'm a non-LDS Christian.

I've always really enjoyed bluebell's responses, (as well as some other folk I've known over the years), so it was wonderful to hear from her. And I think (hope!) she and others know me as someone who enjoys friendly and respectful conversations.

Good to make your acquaintance, jchristopher!

 

You're one of my favorites Paloma, member or not!  

[Calm]

Bluebell, thanks so much for this thoughtful reply that really DOES help me a lot in understanding how you (and therefore, probably others too, I expect) view the baby blessing.

I've always wondered, and have never asked any of my LDS friends whom I know in real life. I've never been invited to a baby blessing, having never lived close enough at that particular time. And while I've talked with friends on the phone about their baby blessing event, I haven't asked how they feel about it as mothers (probably because I wouldn't want my own projected sense of "being left out" to taint the conversation).

So I really value hearing the real story from you, and can appreciate where you're coming from. So thanks again!

When talking about it to nonmembers, I like to point to the similar ceremony of presenting the child to the community/universe like was done for Simba in the Lion King minus the whole bowing thing…yeah, it wasn't by his father but then not all baby blessings are done by fathers either.  It is kind of silly to use a fantasy to relate it to, but everyone knows that scene and it is close enough that it gives some of the same feeling that I believe goes along with a baby blessing.

Edited March 28, 2014 by calmoriah

[Paloma]

When talking about it to nonmembers, I like to point to the similar ceremony of presenting the child to the community/universe like was done for Simba in the Lion King minus the whole bowing thing…yeah, it wasn't by his father but then not all baby blessings are done by fathers either.  It is kind of silly to use a fantasy to relate it to, but everyone knows that scene and it is close enough that it gives some of the same feeling that I believe goes along with a baby blessing.

Fantastic, Cal!

I love The Lion King ... and have watched it more often than needed, but I've had successive grandchildren with whom it's new all over again!

I'm a big fan of stories and of fantasies, so that comparison works for me!

And thanks to you and bluebell for the affirming words above. I consider both of you friends!!

Edited March 28, 2014 by Paloma

[justdreamin]

Thanks so much, justdreamin. I'm glad you came out of the dream world and actually posted a reply here. (Just playin' on words, of course!)

This is a subject that interests me a lot, so I'll be really glad to follow up with this article you mentioned.

And thanks for the additional information you're giving here.

This also helps me to understand the LDS ideas surrounding the baby blessing.

I didn't know you aren't LDS. I hope your curiosity doesn't ever get squashed by replies that come across as unkind or terse. Even as a life time member I find many topics to be convoluted and beyond my understanding, which is why I'm Just Dreamin'. All the best to you!

[The Nehor]

When talking about it to nonmembers, I like to point to the similar ceremony of presenting the child to the community/universe like was done for Simba in the Lion King minus the whole bowing thing…yeah, it wasn't by his father but then not all baby blessings are done by fathers either.  It is kind of silly to use a fantasy to relate it to, but everyone knows that scene and it is close enough that it gives some of the same feeling that I believe goes along with a baby blessing.

 

I love that scene. Plus it led to this:

 

[Calm]

If only he had photoshopped himself into it....

[Paloma]

I didn't know you aren't LDS. I hope your curiosity doesn't ever get squashed by replies that come across as unkind or terse. Even as a life time member I find many topics to be convoluted and beyond my understanding, which is why I'm Just Dreamin'. All the best to you!

Thanks, justdreamin ... and the best to you too!

My interest and curiosity haven't been dulled in the slightest, even when people's tone is not the kindest. Generally, people have been civil and friendly with me. And I've thought there seems to be a more respectful and congenial ethos about this bulletin board in recent years compared to many years back.

[Bernard Gui]

I suggested to our ward council that before the father brings the baby to the front for the name/blessing, he ask the parents to stand

and present them to the ward with the newest member of the family. In this way, the father and mother are honored, recognized,

and celebrated, and then the father (who up to this point has had a very minor role in creating the child), gets to do something special

that is reserved for him. Besides, he didn't get to go to all the parties and baby showers, so he should have his moment, too.

 

Surprisingly, the sisters were not in favor, but I think we should do it anyway.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Tiki]

I suggested to our ward council that before the father brings the baby to the front for the name/blessing, he ask the parents to stand

and present them to the ward with the newest member of the family. In this way, the father and mother are honored, recognized,

and celebrated, and then the father (who up to this point has had a very minor role in creating the child), gets to do something special

that is reserved for him. Besides, he didn't get to go to all the parties and baby showers, so he should have his moment, too.

 

Surprisingly, the sisters were not in favor, but I think we should do it anyway.

You're serious? Well... When they stand, maybe they should also turn toward the direction of the nearest Temple if the newest member of the ward was born in the covenant. I understand Pres. Monson really was involved in traditions like that.