Ordain Women still taking little bites out of the big apple

[Maidservant]

I maintain that I have never been taught that I am freely allowed to lay my hands upon even my children's heads, even for 'faith' blessings.  Currently, not historically. I would LOVE to be able to do this.  Individual persons may choose to do this from their own personal revelation process (none of my business), but for me that puts me in some tension for what I understand would be obedience. I am a single mother; we rely on uncles and home teachers and now I have a son with the Melchizedek Priesthood.  I love that that happens as well, because it is an opportunity for the men in the family to serve.  But I am the type of person that if I thought I could lay my hands on my children's heads, I would be doing this every week or every month, not just in some dire or occasional situation.

As for the Priesthood, I have Priesthood. Ordination not required. I don't have the Melchizedek Priesthood. I have Priesthood of other order(s).  And I am also in the thinking that women's priesthood cannot be applied for and received from men.  But that's all another subject for me. 

I'm really, personally invested in whether or not I should or can give laying-on-of-hands blessings to my children by virtue of being their mother.  I guess I will counsel with my bishop about that and see what he says and go with his decision.  Or pray a lot and see what God says.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Maidservant

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

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?

I'm glad they decided to drop it.  I can't see why it matters at all if a woman is touching a child as the child is receiving a blessing.  I have held my children more times than i can count for blessings of healing, and i know I'm not unusual in that.  If it doesn't matter then, i can't see why it would matter for a baby blessing.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

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?

My thoughts are that this a ridiculous overreaction.
However, the scriptures are clear that it be the Elders who bless the child.  And when a priesthood circle is formed it should be the Elders and the child.
Nobody would expect the mother to stand in the priesthood circle holding her 12 year olds hand while he is ordained to the priesthood.
 

Edited February 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

My thoughts are that this a ridiculous overreaction.
However, the scriptures are clear that it be the Elders who bless the child.  And when a priesthood circle is formed it should be the Elders and the child.
Nobody would expect the mother to stand in the priesthood circle holding her 12 year olds hand while he is ordained to the priesthood.
 

This type of exclusionary policy gets at the heart of why so many LDS women are beginning to feel something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

This type of exclusionary policy gets at the heart of why so many LDS women are beginning to feel something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Scripture isn't policy.
Ordinances simply are as they are revealed.
The mother doesn't stand in the water when the Father baptizes their 8 year old.
The mother doesn't stand in the priesthood circle when a young man is given the priesthood.
 

It's not designed to be exclusionary.  These are the ordinances established before the foundation of the world and given to men.  We complete them as they were established.

And this is why Mother's blessings should be reinstated.

Edited February 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

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?

That is the oddest thing. It's all around odd, but since a blessing is not a saving ordinance then it makes no sense to do it a second time no matter whether you are for against the idea.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Rain

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

That is the oddest thing. It's all around, but since a blessing is not a saving ordinance then it makes no sense to do it a second time no matter whether you are for against the idea.

It's not just a blessing.

[Rain]

On Friday, February 19, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Maidservant said:

I maintain that I have never been taught that I am freely allowed to lay my hands upon even my children's heads, even for 'faith' blessings.  Currently, not historically. I would LOVE to be able to do this.  Individual persons may choose to do this from their own personal revelation process (none of my business), but for me that puts me in some tension for what I understand would be obedience. I am a single mother; we rely on uncles and home teachers and now I have a son with the Melchizedek Priesthood.  I love that that happens as well, because it is an opportunity for the men in the family to serve.  But I am the type of person that if I thought I could lay my hands on my children's heads, I would be doing this every week or every month, not just in some dire or occasional situation.

As for the Priesthood, I have Priesthood. Ordination not required. I don't have the Melchizedek Priesthood. I have Priesthood of other order(s).  And I am also in the thinking that women's priesthood cannot be applied for and received from men.  But that's all another subject for me. 

I'm really, personally invested in whether or not I should or can give laying-on-of-hands blessings to my children by virtue of being their mother.  I guess I will counsel with my bishop about that and see what he says and go with his decision.  Or pray a lot and see what God says.

No one is doubting that you haven't heard of it. Many have not. 

And yes, it would be wise to pray about it.

I have a friend who was given the gift of healing. She lays her hand on people sometimes, but not formally as in a blessing. That may be something to consider as well.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Rain

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

That is the oddest thing. It's all around, but since a blessing is not a saving ordinance then it makes no sense to do it a second time no matter whether you are for against the idea.

We had to re-do the baby blessing of our second son because hubby forgot the 'by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood' part. No one in authority noticed at the time but someone told the bishop afterwards so we had to re-do just that part in his office the following Sunday.

[Rain]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not just a blessing.

I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't a saving ordinance.

[consiglieri]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's not designed to be exclusionary.  These are the ordinances established before the foundation of the world and given to men.  We complete them as they were established..

I want to keep the focus on baby blessings for now, if that's okay.

I disagree with your first sentence.  It is, in fact, designed to be exclusionary.  It is designed to exclude from the circle anybody who does not hold the Melchizedek priesthood.

Because the Church does not allow women to hold the Melchizedek priesthood, it is designed to exclude women.

This exclusionary policy excludes all women, including the mother of the baby--the one person who has a better claim to be present than anyone else.

There is no scripture dictating this procedure.  It is purely the invention of men who hold the Melchizedek priesthood.  And they manage to come up with a policy that excludes none of them.

Also, saying that the current policy regarding how baby blessings are performed was "established before the foundation of the world" seems a bit hyperbolic.

[busybee]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm glad they decided to drop it.  I can't see why it matters at all if a woman is touching a child as the child is receiving a blessing.  I have held my children more times than i can count for blessings of healing, and i know I'm not unusual in that.  If it doesn't matter then, i can't see why it would matter for a baby blessing.

I agree. It takes an awful lot to make an ordinance invalid. I doubt that a mother holding her baby while the baby is being blessed is one of the things that would invalidate that ordinance.

[consiglieri]

1 minute ago, busybee said:

I agree. It takes an awful lot to make an ordinance invalid. I doubt that a mother holding her baby while the baby is being blessed is one of the things that would invalidate that ordinance.

You make a good point.

Even with two Melchizedek priesthood holders present to "witness" a baptism to make sure it is done correctly, what if it wasn't actually done correctly after all?

Complete submersion is the rule.

But this is frequently flubbed with hair or clothing (or that pesky big toe) breaking the surface, making it so it is not performed correctly.

Or sometimes the person performing the baptism doesn't say the words exactly right and is not corrected.

The Church's position is that such errors do not render the ordinance invalid.

It is against this backdrop that I ask the question, "Why is it so important that a Melchizedek priesthood holder serve as a witness?"

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

It is against this backdrop that I ask the question, "Why is it so important that a Melchizedek priesthood holder serve as a witness?"

When a priesthood ordinance is performed the people participating in the ordinance stand in the place of Christ, they act as his agents.  Witnesses are part of the ordinance.  Bearers of the priesthood have been authorized to act in the place of Christ in these ordinances, others have not.  This is the order by which we act in the church until the Savior's return.  At that point I guess you're welcome to bring the matter up with him personally.

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You make a good point.

Even with two Melchizedek priesthood holders present to "witness" a baptism to make sure it is done correctly, what if it wasn't actually done correctly after all?

Complete submersion is the rule.

But this is frequently flubbed with hair or clothing (or that pesky big toe) breaking the surface, making it so it is not performed correctly.

Or sometimes the person performing the baptism doesn't say the words exactly right and is not corrected.

The Church's position is that such errors do not render the ordinance invalid.

It is against this backdrop that I ask the question, "Why is it so important that a Melchizedek priesthood holder serve as a witness?"

Like I mentioned earlier, because the Handbook says to do it this way.

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

I assume the church leaders prayed and pondered over this policy and received the proper revelation that it is to be done this way. Having witnesses is part of the priesthood ordinance so it makes sense to me that they be priesthood holders.

 

[busybee]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You make a good point.

Even with two Melchizedek priesthood holders present to "witness" a baptism to make sure it is done correctly, what if it wasn't actually done correctly after all?

Complete submersion is the rule.

But this is frequently flubbed with hair or clothing (or that pesky big toe) breaking the surface, making it so it is not performed correctly.

Or sometimes the person performing the baptism doesn't say the words exactly right and is not corrected.

The Church's position is that such errors do not render the ordinance invalid.

It is against this backdrop that I ask the question, "Why is it so important that a Melchizedek priesthood holder serve as a witness?"

Not sure. Could it have something to do with the Melchizedek Priesthood being the presiding priesthood on the earth at this time? Or perhaps it is just a way to maintain that things are done in order. If it is uniformly accepted that a person needs to be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder to act as a witness to an ordinance then that would avoid any confusion about who can and who can't act as a witness. Otherwise I could imagine it becoming a bit of a  free-for-all. This is just my opinion. TBH I feel that all these groups and people who are pressuring for the church to change it's policies and practices need to just stop. Or leave and start their own churches where they can implement all the changes they would like to see in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Sure, they can then keep what they want and change the rest to suit themselves, instead of this constant 'we think things should be done this way'. That's also just my opinion 

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

When a priesthood ordinance is performed the people participating in the ordinance stand in the place of Christ, they act as his agents.  Witnesses are part of the ordinance.  Bearers of the priesthood have been authorized to act in the place of Christ in these ordinances, others have not.  This is the order by which we act in the church until the Savior's return.  At that point I guess you're welcome to bring the matter up with him personally.

Are not Priesthood ordinances performed in the temple with women as witnesses?

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Like I mentioned earlier, because the Handbook says to do it this way.

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

I assume the church leaders prayed and pondered over this policy and received the proper revelation that it is to be done this way. Having witnesses is part of the priesthood ordinance so it makes sense to me that they be priesthood holders.

 

Having witnesses is not part of the priesthood ordinance.

The idea is to have people present to make sure the ordinance is done correctly.

It does not make them part of the ordinance.

Can baseball teams play a game without umpires present?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Like I mentioned earlier, because the Handbook says to do it this way.

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

I assume the church leaders prayed and pondered over this policy and received the proper revelation that it is to be done this way. Having witnesses is part of the priesthood ordinance so it makes sense to me that they be priesthood holders.

 

If it is just policy though, then it can easily be changed without affecting doctrine.  

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Are not Priesthood ordinances performed in the temple with women as witnesses?

They are, and they are authorized by the temple president to do so.   Authorization from the Lord for women to participated in ordinances outside of the temple has not been given.

Edited February 19, 2016 by ksfisher

[JLHPROF]

32 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I want to keep the focus on baby blessings for now, if that's okay.

I disagree with your first sentence.  It is, in fact, designed to be exclusionary.  It is designed to exclude from the circle anybody who does not hold the Melchizedek priesthood.

Because the Church does not allow women to hold the Melchizedek priesthood, it is designed to exclude women.

This exclusionary policy excludes all women, including the mother of the baby--the one person who has a better claim to be present than anyone else.

There is no scripture dictating this procedure.  It is purely the invention of men who hold the Melchizedek priesthood.  And they manage to come up with a policy that excludes none of them.

Also, saying that the current policy regarding how baby blessings are performed was "established before the foundation of the world" seems a bit hyperbolic.

The scripture states that the child be blessed by the Elders.
That features the child and the elders.  I don't see any invention in limiting the participants to the scriptural requirement.
The same is done for all ordinances.

And if it is exclusionary, the ordinances were established before the Earth was created and given by God and he can exclude anyone he wants.  Hyperbole notwithstanding, that is what Joseph taught.
God is often exclusionary.

Edited February 19, 2016 by JLHPROF

[MorningStar]

I personally love the symbolism of the men all supporting the baby and as I've said before, I'm happy for my husband to have his Lion King moment.  It also gave me a chance to take notes about what was said in my kids' blessings. 

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If it is just policy though, then it can easily be changed without affecting doctrine.  

The doctrine is that all ordinances are performed by and administered by the priesthood.  Only those authorized to participate in an ordinance may do so.

(Are you asking the question rhetorically?)

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

The scripture states that the child be blessed by the Elders.
That features the child and the elders.  I don't see any invention in limiting the participants to the scriptural requirement.
The same is done for all ordinances.

And if it is exclusionary, the ordinances were established before the Earth was created and given by God and he can exclude anyone he wants.  Hyperbole notwithstanding, that is what Joseph taught.
God is often exclusionary.

Any thoughts on why women are allowed to hold babies for blessings of health if having a woman in the circle unnecessarily is against the will of God?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

The doctrine is that all ordinances are performed by and administered by the priesthood.  Only those authorized to participate in an ordinance may do so.

(Are you asking the question rhetorically?)

No, i was sincerely asking.

It used to be 'doctrine' that women couldn't pray in sacrament meetings because it was a priesthood meeting (because of the ordinance of the sacrament, obviously) and therefore only a priesthood holder could give the invocation.  That changed (probably because it was never actually doctrine to begin with).  This seems like a similar situation, where people are assuming that something is actually a part of the ordinance when it might not be.