Ordain Women still taking little bites out of the big apple

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Witnesses to a saving ordinance have the power to tell the priesthood holder performing the ordinance that is was not done properly.  This would seem to make them an official part of the ordinance.  This is a very sacred duty and should be taken seriously by anyone serving as a witness. 

I can't speak to how things have been in the past or how they will be in the future.  I only know what the Lord, through his prophets, has asked us to do now. 

I think these are good questions.  There are many things we do in the church because of tradition.  I do believe that, on the whole, tradition is a good thing,  It helps bind us together as a people.  We do however, need to be sure that our traditions never take the place of the will of the Lord.  I have confidence that as true followers of Christ we will be able to do this.

Edited February 19, 2016 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

Just now, ksfisher said:

Witnesses to a saving ordinance have the power to tell the priesthood holder performing the ordinance that is was not done properly.  This would seem to make them an official part of the ordinance.  This is a very sacred duty and should be taken seriously by anyone serving as a witness. 

 

I think it's the common use of terms like 'seem' that some women have issues with.  It is hard for some to be kept from something sacred because of a probably.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

Nope.  I'll have to consider the differences between a healing blessing and a naming ordinance.
Never compared and contrasted the two before.

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Having witnesses is not part of the priesthood ordinance.

Where did you find this information? My handbook says differently.

Edited February 19, 2016 by JAHS

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's the common use of terms like 'seem' that some women have issues with.  It is hard for some to be kept from something sacred because of a probably.

I guess I just need to be more certain when I write then.  I do believe that witnesses are as much a part of an ordinance as the person performing that ordinance. 

[busybee]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Witnesses to a saving ordinance have the power to tell the priesthood holder performing the ordinance that is was not done properly.  This would seem to make them an official part of the ordinance.  This is a very sacred duty and should be taken seriously by anyone serving as a witness. 

I can't speak to how things have been in the past or how they will be in the future.  I only know what the Lord, through his prophets, has asked us to do now. 

I think these are good questions.  There are many things we do in the church because of tradition.  I do believe that, on the whole, tradition is a good thing,  It helps bind us together as a people.  We do however, need to be sure that our traditions never take the place of the will of the Lord.  I have confidence that as true followers of Christ we will be able to do this.

This is a great answer. We tend to forget that the witnesses have a responsibility to make corrections if the ordinance is not performed correctly. As the ordinance is being done by one holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, it stands to reason that the person responsible for ensuring that the ordinance is being performed correctly, and making corrections if this is not the case, should have the same authority as the one actually performing the ordinance in question.  

Ah.. Things that make you go mmmmmm.

[Jeanne]

1 hour 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.

Yeah..because in the hearts of the parents..they probably knew they were really alright with the Lord.

[bluebell]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Yeah..because in the hearts of the parents..they probably knew they were really alright with the Lord.

Honestly, i don't think that's a very good indicator of whether or not we are right with God.  Not that we can't discern when we have done something displeasing to Him, but just that it's very easy to do what feels good to us (because it's what we want) without ever actually checking with Him to see what He thinks.

 

[ksfisher]

49 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

Can baseball teams play a game without umpires present?

Now you've switched to a subject that I really want to talk about!!!  I've played plenty of baseball with no umpire present when I was young.  All kinds of arguments and kids taking their ball and going home because one person says they were out but they didn't thing they were.  That's fine when it's just you and a bunch of friends.

But to play an official major league game, you cannot play without the umpires.  You have to follow the rules.

Same goes with performing gospel ordinances, you have to follow the Lord's rules.

Edited February 19, 2016 by ksfisher
spelling

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I guess I just need to be more certain when I write then.  I do believe that witnesses are as much a part of an ordinance as the person performing that ordinance. 

I don't doubt that.  Just as the church used to believe that prayers during sacrament meeting were as much a part of an ordinance as the sacrament prayers were.  What we believe, and what actually is true, changes.  Often.

Since we know that, i don't see why someone asking to be a witness can be so quickly discounted.  And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't even want to be a witness (or hold her babies during blessings).

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, busybee said:

This is a great answer. We tend to forget that the witnesses have a responsibility to make corrections if the ordinance is not performed correctly. As the ordinance is being done by one holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, it stands to reason that the person responsible for ensuring that the ordinance is being performed correctly, and making corrections if this is not the case, should have the same authority as the one actually performing the ordinance in question.  

Ah.. Things that make you go mmmmmm.

It does make sense.  If it's true.

[mtomm]

Regarding women performing blessings of healing, if Church leaders wanted to share that information with the sisterhood they had a wonderful opportunity to do that in the book Daughters of My Kingdom.  They chose not to apparently.

https://www.lds.org/relief-society/daughters-in-my-kingdom?lang=eng

Regarding witnesses: How many men witnessing a sealing in the temple know if it is done incorrectly and would stop the sealer to correct them? Are them given  instruction beforehand?

[rongo]

44 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

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

There is a conflation of what happens in the temple with ordinances outside of the temple on the part of those advocating for women ordination or encroachment towards women ordination. I don't think analogies can be drawn --- the temple is a completely different category, and I don't think "A, therefore B" analogies are appropriate. 

[rongo]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

Honestly, I don't think it would be an issue if we didn't have the current agitation for women ordination or encroachment towards women ordination. That is, I think a mother holding a child for a blessing while the men perform the ordinance wouldn't raise nearly the eyebrows that it does in a climate where some are trying to seize on anything and everything as a precedent for agitating for women ordination. When I had the five year-old sit on her grandmother's lap, I didn't regard the grandmother as participating in the ordinance. I wouldn't do it today, though, because of what some people would read into it or try to use it for. 

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Honestly, I don't think it would be an issue if we didn't have the current agitation for women ordination or encroachment towards women ordination. That is, I think a mother holding a child for a blessing while the men perform the ordinance wouldn't raise nearly the eyebrows that it does in a climate where some are trying to seize on anything and everything as a precedent for agitating for women ordination. When I had the five year-old sit on her grandmother's lap, I didn't regard the grandmother as participating in the ordinance. I wouldn't do it today, though, because of what some people would read into it or try to use it for. 

I personally don't see anything wrong with a mother holding her child.  However, as with Rongo, I don't think a baby blessing is the place to make a statement.  I believe that that would be offensive to God. 

[Rain]

36 minutes ago, rongo said:

Honestly, I don't think it would be an issue if we didn't have the current agitation for women ordination or encroachment towards women ordination. That is, I think a mother holding a child for a blessing while the men perform the ordinance wouldn't raise nearly the eyebrows that it does in a climate where some are trying to seize on anything and everything as a precedent for agitating for women ordination. When I had the five year-old sit on her grandmother's lap, I didn't regard the grandmother as participating in the ordinance. I wouldn't do it today, though, because of what some people would read into it or try to use it for. 

I hadn't thought of that.

This all interests because of my experience too. 14 years ago when my son was born the bishop asked me to come to the front with the men and sit near them. He told me he wanted to acknowledge my part in it. He said he would let everyone know as I did so. I didn't want to, but understood and chose to do it.

Unfortuantely, he never said a word about it and as long as I was in the ward no other woman walked up there so I suspect he didn't ask any of them. I mentioned this later to someone and they told me they wondered just what I was doing. Now days I can just imagine that the thinking would be more than wondering.

[busybee]

1 hour ago, mtomm said:

Regarding women performing blessings of healing, if Church leaders wanted to share that information with the sisterhood they had a wonderful opportunity to do that in the book Daughters of My Kingdom.  They chose not to apparently.

https://www.lds.org/relief-society/daughters-in-my-kingdom?lang=eng

Regarding witnesses: How many men witnessing a sealing in the temple know if it is done incorrectly and would stop the sealer to correct them? Are them given  instruction beforehand?

They are given instructions beforehand and would have the ordinance cards to refer to to check that the words of the ordinance are correct as the ordinance is performed (in our temple the ordinance cards are on the table at which the sealer and witnesses are seated).

Edited February 19, 2016 by busybee

[mtomm]

16 minutes ago, busybee said:

They are given instructions beforehand and would have the ordinance cards to refer to to check that the words of the ordinance are correct as the ordinance is performed (in our temple the ordinance cards are on the table at which the sealer and witnesses are seated).

I've never seen a witness holding or looking at a card. 

[Ginger Snaps]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Honestly, I don't think it would be an issue if we didn't have the current agitation for women ordination or encroachment towards women ordination. That is, I think a mother holding a child for a blessing while the men perform the ordinance wouldn't raise nearly the eyebrows that it does in a climate where some are trying to seize on anything and everything as a precedent for agitating for women ordination. When I had the five year-old sit on her grandmother's lap, I didn't regard the grandmother as participating in the ordinance. I wouldn't do it today, though, because of what some people would read into it or try to use it for. 

I agree. There is a family in my ward who has adopted 4 children, all well over newborn age by the time the legal proceedings went through and the kids were sealed to them. The mom held at least two of them on her lap for their blessings (One, maybe two, were entirely old enough to sit on their own and understand what was going on). Nobody batted an eye. I'm not sure why the age of the child makes a difference, but I do agree there is some retrenchment happening in places.  I honestly think people should  quit asking permission and just do it. I think we ask permission far too often and that gives people the opportunity to add unecessary rules and accompanying folklore. 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Ginger Snaps

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I personally don't see anything wrong with a mother holding her child.  However, as with Rongo, I don't think a baby blessing is the place to make a statement.  I believe that that would be offensive to God. 

Yeah, God really hates people making statements.

Except when he was in mortality 2,000 years ago.

Then God was all about making statements.

And most of his statements were to the orthodox religious leaders of his church.

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

There is a conflation of what happens in the temple with ordinances outside of the temple on the part of those advocating for women ordination or encroachment towards women ordination. I don't think analogies can be drawn --- the temple is a completely different category, and I don't think "A, therefore B" analogies are appropriate. 

The temple is not a completely different category.

I understand you want it to be, and in fact need it to be, to support your position.

Priesthood ordinances are performed inside the temple.

Priesthood ordinances are performed outside the temple.

There is no reasonable explanation as to why women can perform the one but not the other.

Especially when the ordinances women perform in the temple are presumably of a more advanced degree than the ordinances women cannot perform outside the temple.

Including baby blessings, for crying out loud.

[JAHS]

29 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

The temple is not a completely different category.

I understand you want it to be, and in fact need it to be, to support your position.

Priesthood ordinances are performed inside the temple.

Priesthood ordinances are performed outside the temple.

There is no reasonable explanation as to why women can perform the one but not the other.

Especially when the ordinances women perform in the temple are presumably of a more advanced degree than the ordinances women cannot perform outside the temple.

Including baby blessings, for crying out loud.

Not sure why you think there has to be a "reasonable" explanation for everything. The simple fact that God has inspired his prophets to have us perform these things in a certain way is good enough for me. The word is "obedience".  

[ksfisher]

47 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Yeah, God really hates people making statements.

Except when he was in mortality 2,000 years ago.

Then God was all about making statements.

And most of his statements were to the orthodox religious leaders of his church.

God is welcome to make any statement that he wants to during the performance of ordinances that he instituted.  However, I don't think that priesthood bearers, acting in his name, should take that upon themselves.

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

The temple is not a completely different category.

I understand you want it to be, and in fact need it to be, to support your position.

Priesthood ordinances are performed inside the temple.

Priesthood ordinances are performed outside the temple.

There is no reasonable explanation as to why women can perform the one but not the other.

Especially when the ordinances women perform in the temple are presumably of a more advanced degree than the ordinances women cannot perform outside the temple.

Including baby blessings, for crying out loud.

And more to the point, baby blessings are not even saving ordinances.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Not sure why you think there has to be a "reasonable" explanation for everything. The simple fact that God has inspired his prophets to have us perform these things in a certain way is good enough for me. The word is "obedience".  

 

What is a man,
If the chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.
Sure, he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and godlike reason
To fust in us unused.