Ordain Women still taking little bites out of the big apple

[JAHS]

‘Ordain Women’ urges LDS Church to change policies regarding women serving as official witnesses

"The organization “Ordain Women” is launching a new campaign aimed at changing policies that prevent women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from serving as official witnesses in religious ceremonies.

The group was organized to push for ordination of women to the LDS Church’s priesthood, but the “Ready to Witness” campaign launched Wednesday focuses on roles women are excluded from that, in their view, are not gender specific due to doctrine but rather because of policy.

The changes include allowing women to hold their babies during blessings performed by men and serving as witnesses in ceremonies like baptisms or sealing ceremonies in LDS temples. They also want women to be able to sit with young women during worthiness interviews conducted by male leaders to, “witness and protect them.”

It seems to me that priesthood ordinances would have to include priesthood holders as witnesses which are part of the ordinance. Right?

[mapman]

This might go over better if they were to change the name of their organization. I doubt the church will want to pay attention to a group named "Ordain Women." That being said, these requests seem pretty reasonable (whether they are God's will is another matter). As far as I know there is no scriptural or doctrinal reasons why women couldn't be witnesses for ordinances, it's just a policy.

I noticed that they are sticking to the women crying theme. "Explain what it feels like to have your infant taken from your arms and blessed while you weep because you are not allowed to witness the moment, because policy says a woman cannot hold her baby." (http://ordainwomen.org/we-are-ready-to-witness/)

[Calm]

Yeah, they should have kept with the All Enlisted version and kept with small changes that grew in significance over time.  They shot themselves in the foot with their approach and I believe it is a fatal wound in regards to how most of the membership will feel about them (if they have ever heard or will hear about them).

Oh, oh, oh how I hate the emotional manipulation.   "I am going to cry if you don't give me what I want!"  Any group going there is going to have me going elsewhere.

[Storm Rider]

This type of claptrap, emotional manipulation disgusts me regardless of who is playing the whining fiddle.  However, as much as I dislike the messenger I don't really have a problem with some of things.  I certainly have different reasons for accepting these were they to become new policy.  

[Teancum]

My most recent granddaughter was recently blessed.   I thought it would have been wonderful if my daughter and my wife could have joined in the circle with me and other men that held my granddaughter while my son in law blessed her.  

There is no reason for them not to.

 

[Calm]

I think it would be very nice to be able to have some way so that the father and the mother both present the child to the ward family.

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it would be very nice to be able to have some way so that the father and the mother both present the child to the ward family.

Maybe the mother could take the baby up to the circle of brethren before the blessing and then right after the blessing the mother could take the baby and hold it up with the father at her side to show it off rather than have the father do that by himself?

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

We had a two-year-old child given a name and blessing in our testimony meeting a couple of weeks ago. She sat in her non-member mother's lap for the ordinance. I've just looked in the Handbook, and I can see nothing disallowing this. I've also frequently seen men give blessings to sick children whilst they were held by their mothers. Maybe the difference is in the intent. In our case, I'm certain the mother was there to help the small child feel safe and calm ... not because she wanted to protest her lack of priesthood office.

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

My most recent granddaughter was recently blessed.   I thought it would have been wonderful if my daughter and my wife could have joined in the circle with me and other men that held my granddaughter while my son in law blessed her.  

There is no reason for them not to.

 

Having witnesses is part of the priesthood ordinance; just as much a part as the one who says the words of the ordinance or performs the other actions of the ordinances; therefore I don't see this as just a policy but as a function of the priesthood.

[halconero]

I see nothing wrong with holding a baby, and having another witness in an interview may eventually become a necessity in the future (though I would limit it to either the RS or YM president).

Standing as a witness in an ordinance? Nope. There are very specific reasons related to the priesthood for that. You're not just witnessesing, you're acting as a member of the Presiding Godhead.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Maybe the mother could take the baby up to the circle of brethren before the blessing and then right after the blessing the mother could take the baby and hold it up with the father at her side to show it off rather than have the father do that by himself?

 

I like the imagined view of calling up those to participate first and then the mom holding the baby and the dad's arm around them both walking side by side to the front, dad getting into the circle with the others and then the mother places the child into the circle herself, steps back and sits down if she wants and waits to do the same at the end or returns to her seat if she prefers.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Calm

[mapman]

Just now, halconero said:

I see nothing wrong with holding a baby, and having another witness in an interview may eventually become a necessity in the future (though I would limit it to either the RS or YM president).

Standing as a witness in an ordinance? Nope. There are very specific reasons related to the priesthood for that. You're not just witnessesing, you're acting as a member of the Presiding Godhead.

I've never heard the idea that witnesses represent the Godhead. Where's that come from? The only scripture that I can think of that describes the purpose of having witnesses at ordinances is D&C 127:6-7:

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning your dead: When any of you are baptized for your dead, let there be a recorder, and let him be eye-witness of your baptisms; let him hear with his ears, that he may testify of a truth, saith the Lord; That in all your recordings it may be recorded in heaven; whatsoever you bind on earth, may be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth, may be loosed in heaven."

According to this scripture, witnesses are for making sure that the ordinance was performed correctly, which has always been my understanding of why they are there. I don't see any reason why you would have to have a priesthood office to watch to make sure that an ordinance was done right.

[mapman]

There's also D&C 128:3:

"There can be a recorder appointed in each ward of the city, who is well qualified for taking accurate minutes; and let him be very particular and precise in taking the whole proceedings, certifying in his record that he saw with his eyes, and heard with his ears, giving the date, and names, and so forth, and the history of the whole transaction; naming also some three individuals that are present, if there be any present, who can at any time when called upon certify to the same, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

The only requirement here seems to be that three people be present to watch and listen to make sure that it was done right. Nothing about the witnesses needing to have priesthood office.

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I like the imagined view of calling up those to participate first and then the mom holding the baby and the dad's arm around them both walking side by side to the front, dad getting into the circle with the others and then the mother places the child into the circle herself, steps back and sits down if she wants and waits to do the same at the end or returns to her seat if she prefers.

The last time I blessed an infant, I went to the stand and then waited for the mum to bring the baby to me. She then sat on the stand and waited for us to finish so she could take the child back again. (Showing off a newly blessed baby doesn't happen here; I think it may be an American thing.) Since the baby started crying within seconds of being handed off to me, I would have preferred the option of having the mum hold the baby for us, but then where would we have placed our hands? There simply isn't room enough on an infant's head for one man's hand, let alone the hands of two or three men.

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, mapman said:

I've never heard the idea that witnesses represent the Godhead. Where's that come from? The only scripture that I can think of that describes the purpose of having witnesses at ordinances is D&C 127:6-7:

"Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning your dead: When any of you are baptized for your dead, let there be a recorder, and let him be eye-witness of your baptisms; let him hear with his ears, that he may testify of a truth, saith the Lord; That in all your recordings it may be recorded in heaven; whatsoever you bind on earth, may be bound in heaven; whatsoever you loose on earth, may be loosed in heaven."

According to this scripture, witnesses are for making sure that the ordinance was performed correctly, which has always been my understanding of why they are there. I don't see any reason why you would have to have a priesthood office to watch to make sure that an ordinance was done right.

Part of being a a priesthood holder is knowing how the ordinance should be performed; therefore the priesthood holder has the authority to witness and determine if it is done right. Not saying a woman couldn't do it just as well, but since it is a priesthood ordinance it should be witnessed by someone authorized to witness.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

... the mom holding the baby and the dad's arm around them both walking side by side to the front ...

By the way, I don't have a pony in this race, at all, but one of the things I really enjoy inside the Church is men who are as comfortable and competent with infants as their wives are. When I was studying in America, I took a non-member friend to church one Sunday, and he said that elders quorum was the weirdest thing he'd ever seen. When I asked him for specifics, he said it was the half-dozen or so fathers in the back of the class all caring for their babies.

[webbles]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it would be very nice to be able to have some way so that the father and the mother both present the child to the ward family.

Our ward has a tradition that after the blessing, the mother is asked to stand and show of the child.  A father was even reprimanded because he started to show of the child in the front.  This tradition has been around through multiple bishops.

[Calm]

I wouldn't have a problem with the dad carrying the baby up if the mom was the one blessing it.

Mom carrying baby (assuming she can) is so they both have a chance to participate.  The mother taking the baby and placing it within the circle is very symbolic in my view...or could be if we taught it that way.  It would in fact be wonderful if having a female family member (if the mother wasn't available) do this was an official part of the blessing ritual.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I wouldn't have a problem with the dad carrying the baby up if the mom was the one blessing it.

It is so they both have a chance to participate.  The mother taking the baby and place it within the circle is very symbolic in my view...or could be if we taught it that way.

As long as it was up to the mother, that sounds like a good compromise. I personally wouldn't do it though. 

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I wouldn't have a problem with the dad carrying the baby up if the mom was the one blessing it.

It is so they both have a chance to participate.  The mother taking the baby and place it within the circle is very symbolic in my view...or could be if we taught it that way.

Yea, I don't see anything wrong with this (the last thing you said). I also tend to agree that just for practical reasons a young woman should not have to sit alone in a Bishop's office during an interview involving chastity or other personal subjects without having another woman like the RS president being there with her if she wants it. But with the Bishop being the "judge in Israel" he does have to at least be involved in it.

Edited February 18, 2016 by JAHS

[VideoGameJunkie]

I thought Ordain Women ceased to exist after Kate Kelly got excommunicated. 

[JAHS]

13 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I thought Ordain Women ceased to exist after Kate Kelly got excommunicated. 

Nope they're still going, but people were starting to forget about them so they had to kick up the dust again with this latest action.

[Avatar4321]

witnessing an ordinance is a priesthood function. I don't foresee that changing

[Duncan]

When I was a missionary there was a baby blessing and the family, I swear to cow, invited every male even remotely connected to the family and they spent like 10 minutes figuring out how they all were going to assist in blessing this baby. It was embarrasing and so anything is better than that disaster

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Having witnesses is part of the priesthood ordinance; just as much a part as the one who says the words of the ordinance or performs the other actions of the ordinances; therefore I don't see this as just a policy but as a function of the priesthood.

CFR for your premise.