Ordain Women still taking little bites out of the big apple

[Rain]

Yes, there are both righteous and unrighteous desires, but I think it would be unwise to determine which it is for other people. 

Many of the women who are struggling don't feel a need to be captain. They just want to be on board and not lost in the waters.

I know it doesn't seem that way. Sometimes methods really stand in the way. I know when I read the OP I groaned because I think the way they are going about it actually hurts their cause, but I can also see that they may feel they have no other choice, but to go about it this way.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

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

This isn't exactly true, though, is it?

I'm guessing that you want the priesthood for example.  That you desired it before you were ordained.  Did you want the priesthood so you could change the church to reflect your personal values and to benefit yourself, desires, and wants?

Do you believe that Blacks wanted the priesthood (before they had it) because they wanted to change the church to reflect their own personal values and benefit themselves, their desires and wants?

[Storm Rider]

44 minutes ago, Rain said:

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. 

My son's uncle gave a blessing to my son because my son asked him to do so.  I was perfectly able and willing and interested, but he wanted his uncle to bless him.  Afterwards, my ego was hurt, but as I thought about it I was grateful that he was building a stronger relationship with his uncle.  These types of hurt feelings are based on pride, the ego of humanity.  Overcoming them leads us into a better relationship with God. 

Thérèse of Lisieux is a Catholic Saint, often called the Little Flower.  She wrote an autobiography at the insistance of her prioress entitled, The Story of a Soul.  She was infinitely humble and recognized that though she realized it was not her place to do great things, her quest for holiness and righteousness was real.  She said, "Love proves itself by deeds, so how am I to show my love? Great deeds are forbidden me. The only way I can prove my love is by scattering flowers and these flowers are every little sacrifice, every glance and word, and the doing of the least actions for love."  I would encourage each of you to read his autobiography.  She was wise beyond her years. 

In the context of this thread, having the priesthood or not having the priesthood has nothing to do with our own desires for holiness and discipleship.  If our commitment is to serve God then we serve him where we are in any way we can.  We do not need to be seen of others or out in front of the congregation.  In our Father's garden some of us are meant to be a currant bush rather than the fruit tree, the oak, or the towering shade tree.  Hugh B. Brown's wonderful story of the current bush is excellent for demonstrating the context of my comments about the ego and putting aside the "I" and our desires and wants. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Storm Rider

[Jeanne]

1 hour 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 understand and also agree with this too..it is just that my husband joined the circle without the proper priesthood..if he can.me too!  Really ..it is not a big deal.  In quiet moments I had held my kids and made my own silent prayer.

[Rain]

That is one of my husband's favorite talks. 

Last year my 14yo did not want to sign up for seminary. He was really agitated over the idea that we might make him do it. I didn't want to go into it that way so I tried talking to him about it. I wanted it to be his choice. I assumed that he was worried about having to take summer school because he couldn't take released time seminary without making up for credits in summer school. I assumed other things. I really worried he was falling in his brother's footsteps and was beginning to pull away from spiritual matters.

After talking a LOT about it we discovered that he didn't want to go because...he thought he would have to change into church clothes every day when he went to seminary. After that he was just fine with seminary and now loves it.

I don't think it is wise to assume that others want to be a part of blessings because of pride. It could be for some of them, but we can't assign they are prideful based on our own feelings or understanding. You never know - many of their concerns may be gone if we communicated with them well enough to understand they worry about something as simple as wearing church clothes to seminary.

[rongo]

In a previous ward, a five year-old and a baby were blessed, both by an ancient Tongan grandfather. When he blessed the baby, although he was difficult to understand, he began using identical language to the initiatory ordinances in the temple. This was a concern to me in the circle (at what point do I stop him?), but then he stopped "somewhere in the middle" and gave a beautiful blessing from his heart. I was actually touched by how much the temple and its meaning obviously meant to him, and his desire to bless his grandson with those things.

Then, the five year old. I allowed her to sit on her ancient grandmother's lap (a non-member black lady), and we laid our hands on her. During the blessing, I looked, and the grandmother had put her hand on top of the pile of hands. I figured it was harmless, because she didn't hold the priesthood anyway, and I wasn't about to slap her hand away, so I just let it go.

Easily the most interesting baby blessings I have participated in!

[JAHS]

10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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

You are talking about what you want or don't want. What about what what God wants? I am quite certain for example that there is documentation for requiring the witnesses to be priesthood holders and that the decision to do that was inspired by God. Having witnesses is part of the ordinance therefore they must be priesthood holders. Makes sense to me.  Maybe a church leader can dig up a document some time and show it to us. 

Also I know male pronouns are often used to refer to both male and female (eg. mankind).  (I was just being a little facetious with that one).

I don't see things as  inherently faulty just because we make a change later on. At the time Brigham Young may have thought it prudent and for the safety of the church that the blacks do not get the priesthood then (the church was against slavery and this move helped reduce persecution of the church because of its anti-slavery position). That's only one possibility because Brigham Young never gave an official reason for the priesthood ban. It's still possible that he felt inspired by God to do it.
Change does come when God thinks we are ready for higher doctrines or practices and gives us these things according to our faith and His timetable; not ours. God will give us new things when we are ready for it. Campaigning for change in the church, such as the way Ordain Women is doing it, is telling God that we are not humble enough or ready to receive changes, because it is a selfish attitude. It's what I want and not what God wants. 

I trust our church leaders to do the right thing when God wants it. If we can't trust our leaders then what's the point of following them in anything?

 

 

[JLHPROF]

5 hours 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.

Now this is a practice I would support restoring.
Mothers anointing make sense to me.

Edited February 18, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

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.

I agree - the practice of baby blessings comes straight from this scripture and specifies it is to be the Elders of the Church performing the ordinance.

[Rain]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

In a previous ward, a five year-old and a baby were blessed, both by an ancient Tongan grandfather. When he blessed the baby, although he was difficult to understand, he began using identical language to the initiatory ordinances in the temple. This was a concern to me in the circle (at what point do I stop him?), but then he stopped "somewhere in the middle" and gave a beautiful blessing from his heart. I was actually touched by how much the temple and its meaning obviously meant to him, and his desire to bless his grandson with those things.

Then, the five year old. I allowed her to sit on her ancient grandmother's lap (a non-member black lady), and we laid our hands on her. During the blessing, I looked, and the grandmother had put her hand on top of the pile of hands. I figured it was harmless, because she didn't hold the priesthood anyway, and I wasn't about to slap her hand away, so I just let it go.

Easily the most interesting baby blessings I have participated in!

If I didn't know you were in a different temple district there are times I would begin to wonder if you were my bishop because of the way you say things. That's a good thing. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Rain

[mapman]

16 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? 

It could very well be the case that this is what God wants (like I said, I don't actually know). I guess the point I'm trying to make is that just because something is a policy doesn't mean that it has some sort of doctrinal principle or eternal truth behind it. As far as I'm aware no church official has directly stated that being a witness to an ordinance is itself part of the ordinance and thus the people witnessing need to hold priesthood office. All we have are some policies in the handbook stating that witnesses should be ordained, and we are assuming eternal truths from it. Unless someone here has some evidence that it has been positively stated that witnessing an ordinance is a priesthood function, then I think that it is a fair question to ask whether it is just a policy or not. It might be something similar to the preparation of the sacrament. While it is closely associated with an ordinance, there is no doctrinal reason that someone would need to have a priesthood office to help prepare it (in the past women often helped prepare the sacrament), but the current policy is that you have to first be ordained a teacher. Hopefully that makes sense.

Just to clarify, I find this question interesting, but not the most important issue ever. In any case, I definitely don't approve of the methods of Ordain Women.

Edited February 18, 2016 by mapman

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

That is one of my husband's favorite talks. 

Last year my 14yo did not want to sign up for seminary. He was really agitated over the idea that we might make him do it. I didn't want to go into it that way so I tried talking to him about it. I wanted it to be his choice. I assumed that he was worried about having to take summer school because he couldn't take released time seminary without making up for credits in summer school. I assumed other things. I really worried he was falling in his brother's footsteps and was beginning to pull away from spiritual matters.

After talking a LOT about it we discovered that he didn't want to go because...he thought he would have to change into church clothes every day when he went to seminary. After that he was just fine with seminary and now loves it.

I don't think it is wise to assume that others want to be a part of blessings because of pride. It could be for some of them, but we can't assign they are prideful based on our own feelings or understanding. You never know - many of their concerns may be gone if we communicated with them well enough to understand they worry about something as simple as wearing church clothes to seminary.

I wish this was the case, but I listen and read the comments of those pushing this agenda.  They want to be THE person; they want to be up in front of everyone; they don't want to be just a woman, mother, and wife.  I wish it were different, but I have not read a single person say that I am seeking for holiness and righteousness and I feel that the only way that I can achieve this is by holding the priesthood and serving as an elder or high priest.  This is not what they say; not even close.  It is all focused on what "I" don't have and what "I" want.  

I think everyone of these women also forget that the vast majority of priesthood holders is not in a leadership position; is not in front, but quietly, serves while no one is looking just like most of the women.  

In closing, I think it is impossible to perceive anything differently than ego and pride when the position is boiled down to I don't have it and I want it.  

Rain, I wish you were correct in your assumptions, but I have not seen anyone come close to that type of a position.  I don't want to be just an old currant bush, I want to be the mighty oak tree. 

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

You are talking about what you want or don't want. What about what what God wants? I am quite certain for example that there is documentation for requiring the witnesses to be priesthood holders and that the decision to do that was inspired by God. Having witnesses is part of the ordinance therefore they must be priesthood holders. Makes sense to me.  Maybe a church leader can dig up a document some time and show it to us. Also I know male pronouns are often used to refer to both male and female (eg. mankind).  (I was just being a little facetious with that one).

I don't see things as  inherently faulty just because we make a change later on. At the time Brigham Young may have thought it prudent and for the safety of the church that the blacks do not get the priesthood then (the church was against slavery and this move helped reduce persecution of the church because of its anti-slavery position). That's only one possibility because Brigham Young never gave an official reason for the priesthood ban. It's still possible that he felt inspired by God to do it.

I think you misread me. I was giving an example of something that was probably a good change period, not literally what I want. I was trying to say that not all decisions/practices at the beginning of the church were the right ones forever. To me that's also faulty because it doesn't allow for a growing living church and further restoration.  But there is fault in assuming that our system as it right now is, is exactly as it should be. And I am not as certain that there is documentation for requiring the witnesses to be PH holders or about the decision. Many of our decisions and beliefs develop theories/beliefs that function as nigh doctrinal.

  Again, back to the priesthood, it was assumed that blacks had always been barred from JS on as part of the restoration and the curses upon them....to their living memory the ban was always there and their cursed lineage was a given of their time. It wasn't. The curse language also became circumspect. And with it other ridiculous assertions about their premortal righteousness that we had used to give explanation also fell into question. All of that is gone or evaporating. And it began by finding records that point otherwise. So far I've seen circular references to the practice. It's a male thing because of the CHI handbook, which was made, because that's just how it's been done from memory. I'm entirely open to the idea that it is a priesthood holder function, I just haven't seen evidence of such so far beyond assumptions and currently policy. 

 As for your other paragraph, I've studied that out and the more I've studied the more convinced I become that this wasn't a policy of inspiration, it was a loss of light and a hindrance to the full purpose of the restoration and the edict commencing in Acts that all are equal to serve the Lord. I think there's things we've done in the past that were simply wrong and that's ok...we are still in restoration and we are growing....growth is not perfectly done or clean.  

 

Quote

 

Change does come when God thinks we are ready for higher doctrines or practices and gives us these things according to our faith and His timetable; not ours. God will give us new things when we are ready for it. Campaigning for change in the church, such as the way Ordain Women is doing it, is telling God that we are not humble enough or ready to receive changes, because it is a selfish attitude. It's what I want and not what God wants. 

I trust our church leaders to do the right thing when God wants it. If we can't trust our leaders then what's the point of following them in anything?

 

I am not advocating for active campaigning, but I am advocating for seeking out answers and light. And learning together. Part of that is to know, what is actually doctrinal and what is simply traditional. If it's traditional, would it be beneficial for it to change? I had a friend who was concerned about another thing all together where higher-up choices led to decisions that were limiting for the potential of the local level (in the church....I'm trying to stay vague here on purpose because it's outcome is ongoing and fairly public). She prayed about it and had an interesting answer: the leader in charge received the best revelation with the knowledge they had. They couldn't see something they had almost no access to or knowledge of. You talk about being ready and to me, the only way we can be ready is if there is enough space to say....maybe we need more and exactly why DO we do this anyways?   

Trusting my leaders, for me, has never included accepting all their words without a moment of question and seeking more information by the spirit and seeking knowledge. I'm not the blindly obedient sort. I think there is a 3rd way between the OW route and the assertion that all that is right now is exactly as it should be.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 18, 2016 by BlueDreams

[JAHS]

37 minutes ago, mapman said:

All we have are some policies in the handbook stating that witnesses should be ordained, and we are assuming eternal truths from it.

Isn't that enough? Those policies come about  through prayer and revelation from God as our prophets counsel together to make them. This is how God governs His church. Just because it's called a "policy" doesn't mean it didn't come from God or that it is any less important or binding on the church than some glorious revelation.  I don't think there has to be any "eternal truths" involved; just God telling our prophets how He wants His church to be run.

[Jeanne]

11 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Isn't that enough? Those policies come about  through prayer and revelation from God as our prophets counsel together to make them. This is how God governs His church. Just because it's called a "policy" doesn't mean it didn't come from God or that it is any less important or binding on the church than some glorious revelation.  I don't think there has to be any "eternal truths" involved; just God telling our prophets how He wants His church to be run.

Time to throw that darn handbook away..and start over.

[Maidservant]

15 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Women can still lay their hands on a persons head and give them a blessing based upon their faith.

 

They can?  When?  Where?  No one has ever told me I could do this.  They may not post-haste kick me out, but this is NOT talked about or encouraged.

[mtomm]

35 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

They can?  When?  Where?  No one has ever told me I could do this.  They may not post-haste kick me out, but this is NOT talked about or encouraged.

That was my thought. I suppose a person can do it but it's not like you'd really dare tell anyone you did. 

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Maidservant said:

They can?  When?  Where?  No one has ever told me I could do this.  They may not post-haste kick me out, but this is NOT talked about or encouraged.

It's not talked about but sisters of the early days of the church did give blessings to the sick but only by the power of their faith and not priesthood. 

In 1946 President Joseph Fielding Smith sort of put a stop to this with a letter he sent out to the Relief Society.

"While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the Elders of the Church to come and minister to the sick and afflicted."

If no priesthood is present a mother can bless her own child in the form of a prayer of faith to ask God to heal that child. The gift to heal is a gift of the spirit which is not only given to men.

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.)

When I gave my children blessings they were usually being held by their mother, who had much more faith than I did.

 

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

It's not talked about but sisters of the early days of the church did give blessings to the sick but only by the power of their faith and not priesthood. 

In 1946 President Joseph Fielding Smith sort of put a stop to this with a letter he sent out to the Relief Society.

"While the authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the Elders of the Church to come and minister to the sick and afflicted."

If no priesthood is present a mother can bless her own child in the form of a prayer of faith to ask God to heal that child. The gift to heal is a gift of the spirit which is not only given to men.

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.)

When I gave my children blessings they were usually being held by their mother, who had much more faith than I did.

 

Thanks for your reply.

I have knowledge and record in the immediate family ancestry of my husband of a woman who frequently washed, anointed, and blessed other women, generally in relation to childbearing.

And while your quote from President Smith is awesome, it remains that no one from a pulpit in my lifetime has encouraged it.  Again, not that I would be excommunicated if I did, but I just have not been taught openly that it is among my privileges.

As a mother, both before and since the passing of my husband, I have interviewed my children (i.e. weekly, or we forget a lot, lol) and at the conclusion of each interview I "pray over them", and I have felt to hold my hand upon their shoulder (I am sitting upon my bed, as I interview them in my bedroom as it is a private place; and they are kneeling before me, or rather kneeling in prayer, at my knees.)  But I have never laid a hand on their head for fear of breaking the universe.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Maidservant

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Thanks for your reply.

I have knowledge and record in the immediate family ancestry of my husband of a woman who frequently washed, anointed, and blessed other women, generally in relation to childbearing.

And while your quote from President Smith is awesome, it remains that no one from a pulpit in my lifetime has encouraged it.  Again, not that I would be excommunicated if I did, but I just have not been taught openly that it is among my privileges.

As a mother, both before and since the passing of my husband, I have interviewed my children (i.e. weekly, or we forget a lot, lol) and at the conclusion of each interview I "pray over them", and I have felt to hold my hand upon their shoulder (I am sitting upon my bed, as I interview them in my bedroom as it is a private place; and they are kneeling before me, or rather kneeling in prayer, at my knees.)  But I have never laid a hand on their head for fear of breaking the universe.

Seems to me you are OK in blessing your children however you want as moved upon by the Holy Ghost, so long as you do not assume you can use priesthood authority in doing so.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Now this is a practice I would support restoring.
Mothers anointing make sense to me.

There is something that feels very right about it to me.  I think this makes the top of my list of things I would like to see restored.

[Storm Rider]

Blessings of faith can be given by anyone that has faith.  Parents can give blessings.  There is no set form or process to doing these things.

Priesthood blessings are separate and have relatively specific forms.  Only those with the priesthood can give a priesthood blessing.  

Regardless of which blessing is being done we should seek the guidance of the Spirit and his direction in what we do and say.  I suspect that there should be some caution that the one does not attempt to imitate the other, but let the Spirit guide. 

[rongo]

14 hours ago, Maidservant said:

And while your quote from President Smith is awesome, it remains that no one from a pulpit in my lifetime has encouraged it.  

I have documentary evidence of Eliza Snow laying on hands and healing people in the Morgan Utah Stake during a cholera epidemic --- and the healings worked dramatically. She did it while visiting as the Church Relief Society President.

What I have never read, despite quite a search, is that women who laid hands on to heal or bless ever invoked the priesthood in doing so. That is, I haven't been able to find any indication that women who did this in the Church ever invoked the authority of the priesthood. Therefore, it seems to me that even Eliza Snow, et al. knew and believed that they laid hands on with the prayer of faith. I would be very interested in any documented instances where women who are held up as examples of healing, etc. ever invoked the priesthood.

I think this is why even Church leaders who are well-read and aware of the history don't encourage the practice today. We don't understand it very well, other than that it didn't involve invoking the authority of the priesthood. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I have documentary evidence of Eliza Snow laying on hands and healing people in the Morgan Utah Stake during a cholera epidemic --- and the healings worked dramatically. She did it while visiting as the Church Relief Society President.

What I have never read, despite quite a search, is that women who laid hands on to heal or bless ever invoked the priesthood in doing so. That is, I haven't been able to find any indication that women who did this in the Church ever invoked the authority of the priesthood. Therefore, it seems to me that even Eliza Snow, et al. knew and believed that they laid hands on with the prayer of faith. I would be very interested in any documented instances where women who are held up as examples of healing, etc. ever invoked the priesthood.

I think this is why even Church leaders who are well-read and aware of the history don't encourage the practice today. We don't understand it very well, other than that it didn't involve invoking the authority of the priesthood.

This is mostly true.  Women have never given healing blessings by the power of the priesthood.
However, Mother's blessings (anointings) were not merely faith blessings either, generally being performed with authority similar to the initiatory.

[consiglieri]

A woman who bears and gives birth to a child should not be excluded from the blessing.

Let me share something that happened just a year ago.

A young brother and sister whom I know had just had their first baby.

The mother wanted to hold the baby during the blessing.

The bishop saw nothing wrong with it and the blessing went forward with the mother sitting in a chair holding the baby.

Nothing exploded.

After the blessing, the stake president got wind of it and was concerned.  The stake president contacted his next level of leadership and was told to take action.

The stake president contacted the bishop, and the bishop told the mother and father that they could do one of two things: (1) They could rebless the baby at church without the mother present in the circle; or, (2) They could rebless the baby at home without the mother in the circle.

The father asked the bishop what would happen if they chose neither option.

The bishop told them he hoped it would not come to that.

After a lot of thought, the parents told the bishop they were declining to rebless the baby, either at home or at church.

Word went back up the chain of command to the stake president and his superior, who apparently just decided to drop the whole thing.

Thoughts?