Ordain Women still taking little bites out of the big apple

[Jeanne]

2 hours 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?

 

Oh..that is nice..but she has already pretty much done that before entering the chapel.  It is not going to mess anything up by having Mom in the circle..kind of nice..really.

[JAHS]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

CFR for your premise.

From the Handbook:

Witnesses of a Baptism
"Two priests or Melchizedek Priesthood holders witness each baptism to make sure it is performed properly." (CHI book #2)

Instructions for Naming and Blessing a Child
When blessing a baby, Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle and place their hands under the baby. When blessing an older child, brethren place their hands lightly on the child’s head. (CHI book #2)

I know, not the kind of CFRs you want to see right?

Doctrine and Covenants 127:6
6 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;

When all this started I think it was simply understood by all that it was a priesthood function. They had no clue that it would have to be specified for us in the 21st century. 

What kind of CFR do you want to see? It's not spelled out specifically in the scriptures, but it is supported by latter-day prophets.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

41 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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

Which is why we need to follow Church policy in these matters:

Quote

Those who participate are usually limited to a few, including priesthood leaders, close family members, and close associates such as home teachers. Inviting large numbers of family, friends, and leaders to assist in an ordinance or blessing is discouraged. When too many participate, it can become cumbersome and detract from the spirit of the ordinance.

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

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

CFR please.

[mapman]

17 minutes ago, JAHS said:

When all this started I think it was simply understood by all that it was a priesthood function. They had no clue that it would have to be specified for us in the 21st century.

I think this is an interesting assertion. One of the most common arguments I've heard on the bloggernacle when topics like this come up is that many things in the church have become associated with the priesthood over the time that weren't originally associated with it. I've heard the phrase "priesthood creep" to describe this phenomenon. The classic example is blessing the sick by the laying on of hands that was originally practiced by women and men, but that over time became a priesthood function. There's also the example of how correlation reduced the Relief Society's autonomy over time. Or the fact that some callings that don't have anything to do with priesthood offices or ordinances are traditionally only filled by men, like Sunday School President or Ward clerk. I honestly don't know what Joseph Smith or the early saints would have thought about witnesses and the priesthood, but I'm not so confident to assume that they would think the same way as what we would assume.

Elder Oaks recently quoted President Linda Burton where she said, "We hope to instill within each of us a greater desire to better understand the priesthood." Elder Oak's talk is essentially about how we don't understand the priesthood well enough, especially when it comes to matters of the priesthood and gender. I don't pretend to know what God's mind is on this particular subject, but it seems worthwhile to me to question assumptions and traditions that we have when they have no apparent basis in revelation (which for me is different from policy).

[SmileyMcGee]

2 hours ago, 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.

Hmmm...where did you get this witness = Godhead representative idea from? And is the "presiding Godhead" the same as the adjective-less Godhead?

Edited February 18, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

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

Against the rule book for that very reason, bishops need to tell people they need to limit numbers prior to meeting time.  I don't see as many huge family reunions/half the men in the ward going up like I remember when I was younger.

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, mapman said:

I think this is an interesting assertion. One of the most common arguments I've heard on the bloggernacle when topics like this come up is that many things in the church have become associated with the priesthood over the time that weren't originally associated with it. I've heard the phrase "priesthood creep" to describe this phenomenon. The classic example is blessing the sick by the laying on of hands that was originally practiced by women and men, but that over time became a priesthood function. There's also the example of how correlation reduced the Relief Society's autonomy over time. Or the fact that some callings that don't have anything to do with priesthood offices or ordinances are traditionally only filled by men, like Sunday School President or Ward clerk. I honestly don't know what Joseph Smith or the early saints would have thought about witnesses and the priesthood, but I'm not so confident to assume that they would think the same way as what we would assume.

Elder Oaks recently quoted President Linda Burton where she said, "We hope to instill within each of us a greater desire to better understand the priesthood." Elder Oak's talk is essentially about how we don't understand the priesthood well enough, especially when it comes to matters of the priesthood and gender. I don't pretend to know what God's mind is on this particular subject, but it seems worthwhile to me to question assumptions and traditions that we have when they have no apparent basis in revelation (which for me is different from policy).

But the fact that our latter-day prophets have set these specific things up to require priesthood tells me that it is what God wants us to do today not the way it was back in 1840 or even what we think Joseph Smith would have wanted. They made a decision somewhere in the history of the church to do it this way. Who am I to say they weren't inspired by God when they did this? 

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, mapman said:

I think this is an interesting assertion. One of the most common arguments I've heard on the bloggernacle when topics like this come up is that many things in the church have become associated with the priesthood over the time that weren't originally associated with it. I've heard the phrase "priesthood creep" to describe this phenomenon. The classic example is blessing the sick by the laying on of hands that was originally practiced by women and men, but that over time became a priesthood function. There's also the example of how correlation reduced the Relief Society's autonomy over time. Or the fact that some callings that don't have anything to do with priesthood offices or ordinances are traditionally only filled by men, like Sunday School President or Ward clerk. I honestly don't know what Joseph Smith or the early saints would have thought about witnesses and the priesthood, but I'm not so confident to assume that they would think the same way as what we would assume.

Elder Oaks recently quoted President Linda Burton where she said, "We hope to instill within each of us a greater desire to better understand the priesthood." Elder Oak's talk is essentially about how we don't understand the priesthood well enough, especially when it comes to matters of the priesthood and gender. I don't pretend to know what God's mind is on this particular subject, but it seems worthwhile to me to question assumptions and traditions that we have when they have no apparent basis in revelation (which for me is different from policy).

Women can still lay their hands on a persons head and give them a blessing based upon their faith. I do not recall ever hearing of a women using consecrated oil. That is a priesthood function. It is not part of "priesthood creep".

Of course, if you can provide me documented example. I confess that I really do not know everything.

Glenn

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

But the fact that our latter-day prophets have set these specific things up to require priesthood tells me that it is what God wants us to do today not the way it was back in 1840 or even what we think Joseph Smith would have wanted. They made a decision somewhere in the history of the church to do it this way. Who am I to say they weren't inspired by God when they did this? 

That reasoning is faulty. All you have to see is the priesthood ban to see that we may not get exactly what God want for us today just right. Don't get me wrong, there's gendered beliefs or practices back then that I don't want now....like patriarchal blessings where only the man's lineage was declared (found these old PB's from Hyrum Smith online and almost all the women did not have a specific lineage). But to assume that all we have must be what we need because that's eventually what came of it over time, seems inherently faulty. We are still growing and changing and at times removing things that weren't originally there but that grew and was accepted overtime. 

 

Also pointing out a male pronoun isn't enough since women are told that when it says "he" or "him" in generalized terms it can include "she" and "her." 

 

I've seen reasons given, but none of these seem to have been substantiated. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not recall ever hearing of a women using consecrated oil.....

Of course, if you can provide me documented example. I confess that I really do not know everything.

Washing and anointing for blessings of health are talked about in this article:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/029-16-25.pdf

My great grandmother was called and set apart to do this among other midwife duties she was trained for.  I think her setting apart blessing for this calling/job was posted on familysearch.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Calm

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Washing and anointing for blessings of health are talked about in this article:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/029-16-25.pdf

My great grandmother was called and set apart to do this among other midwife duties she was trained for.  I think her setting apart blessing for this calling/job was posted on familysearch.

Calm,

   Thank you for that information. That is an interesting bit of history that most LDS are not familiar with. I had heard some about it, this is the first actual researched information I have read. Other demonstrations of Gifts of the Spirit seem to have been fairly prevalent in the earlier years of the Church, such as speaking in tongues. I recall reading excerpts from one sister's diary where she spoke of another sister speaking in tongues while she translated.

   I would assume that the oil that was used was consecrated. Other than that, the wings of faith would seem to have bee the greatest requirement.

 

Glenn

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Oh..that is nice..but she has already pretty much done that before entering the chapel.  It is not going to mess anything up by having Mom in the circle..kind of nice..really.

I don't see anything wrong with it being the father's deal, since she's the one who actually gave birth to the child.  Maybe the men need to have these moments like the women, to contribute.  As long as they don't drop the baby. 😉 And when the men hold it high in the air afterwards it reminds me of the part in "The Lion King".  And hopefully the audience oh-ing and awe-ing will never change!

[Storm Rider]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't see anything wrong with it being the father's deal, since she's the one who actually gave birth to the child.  Maybe the men need to have these moments like the women, to contribute.  As long as they don't drop the baby. 😉 And when the men hold it high in the air afterwards it reminds me of the part in "The Lion King".  And hopefully the audience oh-ing and awe-ing will never change!

These topics always make me uncomfortable because they are all about the ego - it is "I", never we, but me, myself, and I.  Exactly what is the problem with the Father doing the blessing or holding the child?  Is it necessary for a woman to be the center of attention in all things?  When is a woman sure enough in herself - validated enough - to be secure?  What causes an individual to always seek to be involved in all things in all places?  

This paints a very unhealthy picture of those activists who press for the ego so often. 

[Derl Sanderson]

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).

This seems clear enough. And for me, scripture is a little more weighty than "policy" or "practice," but parse it how you will.

[Rain]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

These topics always make me uncomfortable because they are all about the ego - it is "I", never we, but me, myself, and I.  Exactly what is the problem with the Father doing the blessing or holding the child?  Is it necessary for a woman to be the center of attention in all things?  When is a woman sure enough in herself - validated enough - to be secure?  What causes an individual to always seek to be involved in all things in all places?  

This paints a very unhealthy picture of those activists who press for the ego so often. 

So would you be ok with someone else blessing your child while you watched? I'm not talking about if you couldn't for some reason. What if there was no reason not to do it, would you be ok with someone else doing it?

Don't assume anything about how I felt. I was perfectly ok with not being a part of it. I just don't think we can assume that because other people want to be a part of it that it is all about "me" just as we shouldn't assume that men doing it is all about "patriarchy".

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

 

   I would assume that the oil that was used was consecrated. Other than that, the wings of faith would seem to have bee the greatest requirement.

I wish I knew more about the calling of my great grandmother as a midwife and what that entailed as a church calling, whether they considered her blessings to be as if just a random faithful female member gave it or if by her calling, it meant something else.  Why would she be set apart for such things if it was seen as a blessing that could come from anyone?

[Storm Rider]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

So would you be ok with someone else blessing your child while you watched? I'm not talking about if you couldn't for some reason. What if there was no reason not to do it, would you be ok with someone else doing it?

Don't assume anything about how I felt. I was perfectly ok with not being a part of it. I just don't think we can assume that because other people want to be a part of it that it is all about "me" just as we shouldn't assume that men doing it is all about "patriarchy".

I am not sure what you meant by the first paragraph.  I have known fathers who have stood by while their child was given blessings and ordinances and not participated though they were members.  

If it is not about what "I" want and what "I" desire - then what is it about?

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

These topics always make me uncomfortable because they are all about the ego - it is "I", never we, but me, myself, and I.

For whom are they all about the ego?  The Ordain Women, all women who desire the opportunity? all women who wonder what it would be like and think it would be nice, the men who currently hold the calling? The men who protest that others shouldn't desire what they themselves have for any reason?

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't see anything wrong with it being the father's deal, since she's the one who actually gave birth to the child.  Maybe the men need to have these moments like the women, to contribute.  As long as they don't drop the baby. 😉 And when the men hold it high in the air afterwards it reminds me of the part in "The Lion King".  And hopefully the audience oh-ing and awe-ing will never change!

I very much like that my husband has that special moment where he gets to declare his own commitment to our child in the presence of the ward family, in the presence of God.  I see 9 months and the delivery finishing up with taking the little one in my arms...I like that as my declaration (as an introvert, I prefer to keep things as private as possible).

For my last child, we delayed moving because there were so many members of the ward who had invested in our pregnancy and we felt like it would be cheating them if they missed out on the final part.  Blessing in the ward at 1 1/2 weeks of age, gone by the next week. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Calm

[Rain]

Thinking about it a little more I think this is a good question and really should be answered. It was discussed in the women/priesthood thread last week, but it got lost. 

"What causes an individual to always seek to be involved in all things in all places?"

But I think it is important to take assumptions out of it. The ideas that it is about about "me" and that it is "always". 

And if we are going to answer the question then both sides HAVE to LISTEN. 

I have very few worries about women and the priesthood. I really don't like the Ordain Women practices. I am not a mormon feminist. But it was interesting to me when last spring my dad asked me a similar question and I answered him about how some of these women, not me, felt and he abruptly left the room and went to bed, while I was telling him. I can't tell you how much that hurt.

I see similar things online with people either leaving the "room" or assuming things said or shouting down how women feel about this.

So if we really want to know the answer then we really need to be listening. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Rain

[BlueDreams]

39 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

These topics always make me uncomfortable because they are all about the ego - it is "I", never we, but me, myself, and I.  Exactly what is the problem with the Father doing the blessing or holding the child?  Is it necessary for a woman to be the center of attention in all things?  When is a woman sure enough in herself - validated enough - to be secure?  What causes an individual to always seek to be involved in all things in all places?  

This paints a very unhealthy picture of those activists who press for the ego so often. 

To be fair, I was more interested in the witnessing more than anything else. I could care less if I was apart of the circle in anyway....maybe I'll change my mind when I've had a baby, but I doubt it. That stated, I see these discussions as very different. (minus the move others have noted as annoying, like talking about sobbing about this or that. There's nothing wrong with crying or feeling deeply about something but the way they use it feels emotionally manipulative). Most the time it's very much about we or them. I've carved my own spiritual space where I can bless regularly (both temporally through my job and spiritually through my temple service), I've found ways to explore my sense of womanhood and the spiritual heritage I receive as a woman, I've (piecemeal) learned about the priesthood and its role in my life. So truly my concern isn't about me when I say I actually like these ideas for the most part. The reason is for my future children and other women and even my brothers. I want my daughter(s) to not have to kinda scrounge around to learn about the priesthood and their roles in it because it's what the guys do and the lessons about it are kinda skimpy on the girls' end. I want her to be involved in them and I would like there to be easier access to the blessings by women in a daily life (in similar fashion as temple blessing). I want her to have a greater sense that she can act with power and authority in the same sense men can. And I want women to have a more involved and incorporated sense into the priesthood and less of a passive/receptive role. And I want my brothers to see that women too use priesthood authority and that they have active necessary spiritual partners at younger ages.

That's not about I, me, or myself. Its about a picture I see for our community and future posterity. I found much of this...but it took work and wasn't as easily accessible as it could have been and in some points it still feels like there are limits that may be unnecessary or are caused by our limits in revelation.

 

Just as a reminder, I do not actually want priesthood ordination in the same sense men have it.

   

With luv,

BD

Edited February 18, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Rain]

23 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I am not sure what you meant by the first paragraph.  I have known fathers who have stood by while their child was given blessings and ordinances and not participated though they were members.  

If it is not about what "I" want and what "I" desire - then what is it about?

I'm asking if you, personally, wanted to be a part of blessing your children and if you would have been ok with it if someone else did it when you wanted to and were perfectly capable of doing it. 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Also pointing out a male pronoun isn't enough since women are told that when it says "he" or "him" in generalized terms it can include "she" and "her." 

I think this is an excellent point that a lot of men probably don't think about. If women did not read female pronouns and such into scriptures, we would never be able to relate any verses to ourselves, or to believe that God was ever speaking to His daughters.

A perfect example are scriptures dealing with serving a mission.  They are all directed at males but no one uses that argument today to exclude women from serving.

[Storm Rider]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

For whom are they all about the ego?  The Ordain Women, all women who desire the opportunity? all women who wonder what it would be like and think it would be nice, the men who currently hold the calling? The men who protest that others shouldn't desire what they themselves have for any reason?

Every individual that wants the priesthood, wants to change the Church to reflect their personal values and to benefit themselves - their desires, their wants. 

I believe there are righteous desires and then those desires that are focused on pleasing the self, which are not righteous. 

I have never protested and you will never see me in a protest.  It is not something that I would ever do or have ever done. 

If man was running the church and if I was in charge I would make every individual that wanted to be a leader a leader.  Those that are enthralled with titles and position have no clue about the office, the responsibility, or the demands. 

This life is about learning to deal with what is and learning that the green grass "over there" is a fantasy, a mirage - it is fake. 

Whatever happened to faith that God is in control and leads the Church?  What does it mean to know that God loves you and cares for you and that he is the captain of the ship?  What I know it does not mean is to stand around gnashing and wailing about not being the capitan of the ship.