Ordain Women still taking little bites out of the big apple

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 

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.
 

Shakespeare is not exactly scripture. Adam was told by God to perform sacrifices but didn't know why, but did it anyway as an act of obedience and trust in God.

And he gave unto them commandments, that they should worship the Lord their God, and should offer the firstlings of their flocks, for an offering unto the Lord. And Adam was obedient unto the commandments of the Lord.
And after many days an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me.
And then the angel spake, saying: This thing is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, which is full of grace and truth.
(Moses 5: 5-7)

Adam's patience and obedience was rewarded by finding out later on the reason for performing the sacrifices.

[consiglieri]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Shakespeare is not exactly scripture.

 

Shakespeare beats out the CHI in the scripture category.

Hands down.

[juliann]

7 hours 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.

Good luck with keeping said poster on your chosen topic when he disagrees with it.

Who is in the circle is policy that changes. My nonmember husband was allowed to stand in the circle in 1987. It was wonderful. I think it was shortly after that that instructions came down that only priesthood holders could participate.  In our last F&T mtg, a mother held her adopted daughter, perhaps a year or so old. I make sure to let my bishop know that his efforts are noticed. He whispered to me that mothers should hold their babies, as well.

I am one of those that enjoys the ritual of men blessing a tiny baby, it feels like a Lion King moment to me when they present what they had a part in to the congregation. It is a small thing and the babe goes right back to the mother. On the other hand, from my experience in having blessings, there is a tangible spirit/feeling/whatever in that circle that isn't experienced as a far removed observer only. I think it should be the mother's choice.

[consiglieri]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

Good luck with keeping said poster on your chosen topic when he disagrees with it.

Who is in the circle is policy that changes. My nonmember husband was allowed to stand in the circle in 1987. It was wonderful. I think it was shortly after that that instructions came down that only priesthood holders could participate.  In our last F&T mtg, a mother held her adopted daughter, perhaps a year or so old. I make sure to let my bishop know that his efforts are noticed. He whispered to me that mothers should hold their babies, as well.

I am one of those that enjoys the ritual of men blessing a tiny baby, it feels like a Lion King moment to me when they present what they had a part in to the congregation. It is a small thing and the babe goes right back to the mother. On the other hand, from my experience in having blessings, there is a tangible spirit/feeling/whatever in that circle that isn't experienced as a far removed observer only. I think it should be the mother's choice.

I agree this is simply a policy with no scriptural foundation and there should be no limitation on the mother's participating.

And you know, if uncles and grandfathers and all the other male relatives can participate, why should the female role be limited to only the mother?

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I agree this is simply a policy with no scriptural foundation and there should be no limitation on the mother's participating.

And you know, if uncles and grandfathers and all the other male relatives can participate, why should the female role be limited to only the mother?

D&C 20:74

"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."

No mention is made of mothers or aunts or uncles or cousins or even fathers.  We are commanded to bring our children to the priesthood to be blessed.  This is scriptural foundation.

[juliann]

One thing at a time. There is nothing in that scripture that says who should hold the baby. 

[ksfisher]

Just now, juliann said:

One thing at a time. There is nothing in that scripture that says who should hold the baby. 

Agreed.

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

One thing at a time. There is nothing in that scripture that says who should hold the baby. 

“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). In conformity with this revelation, only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may participate in naming and blessing children. Priesthood leaders should inform members of this instruction before their children are named and blessed. While preserving the sacred nature of the blessing, leaders should make every reasonable effort to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families. (CHI)

Holding the baby in the circle would be considered participating, requiring priesthood. The families should be made aware of this before the blessing so they don't walk up to participate only to be told they can't. If a mother insisted on holding the baby I suppose a Bishop might allow it to not make a scene in church. Sometimes Bishops have to make some quick judgment calls to maintain the spirit of the event. It's not a saving ordinance so it's not like it would have to be done over again. 

[juliann]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

 

Holding the baby in the circle would be considered participating, requiring priesthood. The families should be made aware of this before the blessing so they don't walk up to participate only to be told they can't. If a mother insisted on holding the baby I suppose a Bishop might allow it to not make a scene in church. Sometimes Bishops have to make some quick judgment calls to maintain the spirit of the event. It's not a saving ordinance so it's not like it would have to be done over again. 

Then a deacon without the Melch priesthood is participating by holding the microphone. All you are demonstrating at this point is a desire to exclude women just because they are women.  You might want to stop when you are ahead.

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Then a deacon without the Melch priesthood is participating by holding the microphone. All you are demonstrating at this point is a desire to exclude women just because they are women.  You might want to stop when you are ahead.

Are you telling posters to leave this thread too?

[JAHS]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

Then a deacon without the Melch priesthood is participating by holding the microphone. All you are demonstrating at this point is a desire to exclude women just because they are women.  You might want to stop when you are ahead.

He's not in the circle holding the baby; he's just holding the microphone. The Bishop is the president of the Aaronic priesthood in his ward and can delegate duties to other priesthood holders as needed. I can assure you that a Bishop has no intention to exclude women. He can allow exceptions  to some things as inspired to do so, for example your Bishop allowing your husband to be in the circle. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

 

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.
 

Or a more prophetic take along the same vein:

"There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God and His existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty."

[juliann]

32 minutes ago, JAHS said:

He's not in the circle holding the baby; he's just holding the microphone. The Bishop is the president of the Aaronic priesthood in his ward and can delegate duties to other priesthood holders as needed. I can assure you that a Bishop has no intention to exclude women. He can allow exceptions  to some things as inspired to do so, for example your Bishop allowing your husband to be in the circle. 

 That doesn't make sense. You now seem to be saying that it is where you are standing or sitting relative to an imaginary "circle"  that is the criteria, not the priesthood.  

There is no circle mentioned in the verse you cite. You said  "  In conformity with this revelation, only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may participate in naming and blessing children. "   Now you are saying, well, not really. 

There was no prohibition at the time the bishop asked my husband to join in his daughter's blessing. It wasn't an exception. It was not prohibited until a year or so later.  Obviously, this has been a flexible policy and will continue to be. 

[JAHS]

5 minutes ago, juliann said:

 That doesn't make sense. You now seem to be saying that it is where you are standing or sitting relative to an imaginary "circle"  that is the criteria, not the priesthood.  

There is no circle mentioned in the verse you cite. You said  "  In conformity with this revelation, only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may participate in naming and blessing children. "   Now you are saying, well, not really. 

There was no prohibition at the time the bishop asked my husband to join in his daughter's blessing. It wasn't an exception. It was not prohibited until a year or so later.  Obviously, this has been a flexible policy and will continue to be. 

The point is we go with what our church leaders ask us to do in our time and we don't campaign for changes that we personally think should be made, which is what the  Ordain Women are doing. 

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, JAHS 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).

Let's start with this scriptural mandate.

"Every member" includes mothers having children.

The mother (and/or father) is to bring the child to the elders of the church.

The elders are then "to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name."

There is nothing here that suggests the mother is to relinquish control of the child for the elders to perform the blessing.

The very fact the elders are to "lay their hands upon" the child suggest somebody else is to hold the child.

Why can this "somebody" not be the mother who brings the child unto the elders?

Such a procedure is consonant with the scripture.

[carbon dioxide]

On 2/18/2016 at 7:44 PM, Avatar4321 said:

4 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Let's start with this scriptural mandate.

"Every member" includes mothers having children.

The mother (and/or father) is to bring the child to the elders of the church.

The elders are then "to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name."

There is nothing here that suggests the mother is to relinquish control of the child for the elders to perform the blessing.

The very fact the elders are to "lay their hands upon" the child suggest somebody else is to hold the child.

Why can this "somebody" not be the mother who brings the child unto the elders?

Such a procedure is consonant with the scripture.

 

It this actually done for older children.  We do bless infants but I can't recall it being done to say a 5 year old?

[carbon dioxide]

If women can stand in the prayer circle in the temple which is also a priesthood ordinance, there is no reason they can't stand in the circle of a baby blessing.  It is not like if a woman touches a priesthood holder that it interferes with the priesthood like some barrier introduced in a electric circuit interferes with the flow of electricity.

[Meadowchik]

29 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Let's start with this scriptural mandate.

"Every member" includes mothers having children.

The mother (and/or father) is to bring the child to the elders of the church.

The elders are then "to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name."

There is nothing here that suggests the mother is to relinquish control of the child for the elders to perform the blessing.

The very fact the elders are to "lay their hands upon" the child suggest somebody else is to hold the child.

Why can this "somebody" not be the mother who brings the child unto the elders?

Such a procedure is consonant with the scripture.

I agree it sounds fine if that's how we decide it.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Let's start with this scriptural mandate.

"Every member" includes mothers having children.

The mother (and/or father) is to bring the child to the elders of the church.

The elders are then "to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name."

There is nothing here that suggests the mother is to relinquish control of the child for the elders to perform the blessing.

The very fact the elders are to "lay their hands upon" the child suggest somebody else is to hold the child.

Why can this "somebody" not be the mother who brings the child unto the elders?

Such a procedure is consonant with the scripture.

In your opinion, but our church leaders have not interpreted it the same way as you. Being prophets, seers, and revelators I trust their interpretation more than yours or mine. The mother does not have to "relinquish control" (you make it sound like they are kidnapping the kid). The faithful mother gladly and voluntarily gives her child to the elders so it can receive the blessing. Like I said earlier it sounds like a good idea for the mother to take the child up to the circle of elders for the blessing if the Bishop is ok with that.

[consiglieri]

58 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I agree it sounds fine if that's how we decide it.

I think women (and members generally) need to stop asking for permission from priesthood holders before doing things the way they feel is best.

As Elder Oaks has told us recently, women exercise the priesthood in this church as well as the men.

Therefore women shouldn't be asking men for permission.

Women need to claim their rights, as do the members generally.

The very act of asking for permission from priesthood holders cedes authority to priesthood holders which is not theirs to begin with.

[ksfisher]

24 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think women (and members generally) need to stop asking for permission from priesthood holders before doing things the way they feel is best.

As Elder Oaks has told us recently, women exercise the priesthood in this church as well as the men.

Therefore women shouldn't be asking men for permission.

Women need to claim their rights, as do the members generally.

The very act of asking for permission from priesthood holders cedes authority to priesthood holders which is not theirs to begin with.

By all means!  As the scriptures say, defiance is next to godliness.  No more of that sappy turning the other cheek and walking another mile stuff.  That kind of thing was for other people.  No more knocking at doors and then waiting for some good shepard to answer, just barge right in and assert yourself.

 

[Meadowchik]

28 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I think women (and members generally) need to stop asking for permission from priesthood holders before doing things the way they feel is best.

As Elder Oaks has told us recently, women exercise the priesthood in this church as well as the men.

Therefore women shouldn't be asking men for permission.

Women need to claim their rights, as do the members generally.

The very act of asking for permission from priesthood holders cedes authority to priesthood holders which is not theirs to begin with.

How does that apply to my comment?

[Calm]

And asking permission from those who have stewardship over us, stewardship we chose to sustain?

[juliann]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Let's start with this scriptural mandate.

"Every member" includes mothers having children.

The mother (and/or father) is to bring the child to the elders of the church.

The elders are then "to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name."

There is nothing here that suggests the mother is to relinquish control of the child for the elders to perform the blessing.

The very fact the elders are to "lay their hands upon" the child suggest somebody else is to hold the child.

Why can this "somebody" not be the mother who brings the child unto the elders?

Such a procedure is consonant with the scripture.

This is a helpful observation. 

 

57 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

 
The very act of asking for permission from priesthood holders cedes authority to priesthood holders which is not theirs to begin with.

I understand the intent here but asking is required in a hierarchy where authority is established. This wouldn't work well at a place of work or in social situations that others are in charge of, either.

However, this is the position that differentiates moderates from the more extreme (for Mormons, none of these distinctions would make sense outside of that). Moderates, some of whom don't claim the label feminist,  want more inclusion of women. But they do not consider asking men to give women anything to be a feminist position at all and prefer to have something of their own.  It is a rather ironic set-up.

[Jeanne]

7 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

It this actually done for older children.  We do bless infants but I can't recall it being done to say a 5 year old?

Me neither..I thought the blessing would be forgo and then baptism first.