Ordain Women still taking little bites out of the big apple

[Russell C McGregor]

On ‎19‎/‎02‎/‎2016 at 5:29 AM, consiglieri said:

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

You are entitled to your opinion, such as it is.

Those who actually value (and understand the purpose of) Priesthood ordinances, unlike you, disagree.

On ‎19‎/‎02‎/‎2016 at 5:29 AM, consiglieri said:

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 thought is that this is merely a rumour that cannot be checked. As an apostate's "urban legend" it may have some utility, but I see no other value for it.

 

Edited February 21, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[Damien the Leper]

I attended a Community of Christ congregation a few years ago. Twin boy and girl were being blessed. Both parents were Elders. The father held his son while the mother blessed the boy and the mother held her daughter as the father blessed the little girl.

The power, the love and the Spirit present as that ordinance was performed was palpable. It was truly a blessing to witness a child's blessing. The power of a parent's love can never be matched.

[Sleeper Cell]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

I attended a Community of Christ congregation a few years ago. Twin boy and girl were being blessed. Both parents were Elders. The father held his son while the mother blessed the boy and the mother held her daughter as the father blessed the little girl.

The power, the love and the Spirit present as that ordinance was performed was palpable. It was truly a blessing to witness a child's blessing. The power of a parent's love can never be matched.

It is my understanding that most CofC members -- male or female -- do not hold their church’s priesthood.  If so, wouldn’t this mean that, in most cases, neither parent would be able to bless their children (at least, not in a formal church setting)?   Do you regard this as an improvement?

[The Nehor]

On 2/20/2016 at 10:45 AM, 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.

Elder Oaks would think your interpretation of his words is insane.

[Damien the Leper]

On 2/21/2016 at 4:38 PM, Sleeper Cell said:

It is my understanding that most CofC members -- male or female -- do not hold their church’s priesthood.  If so, wouldn’t this mean that, in most cases, neither parent would be able to bless their children (at least, not in a formal church setting)?   Do you regard this as an improvement?

Priesthood is a calling and not a rite of passage. There are more than enough priesthood holders to carry on the sacraments of the church.

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Priesthood is a calling and not a rite of passage. There are more than enough priesthood holders to carry on the sacraments of the church.

Thank you for your opinion.

However, the President of the Church, who holds the keys of the Priesthood, has determined that it is not to be restricted to a professional class of clergy, but is to be shared with all eligible and worthy males.

And you must know that we regard the CofC as having cut themselves off, and thus no longer holding the Priesthood. They are left with only the outward forms.

I'm not surprised that they're able to put on a good show; but I prefer the substance.

 

[Sleeper Cell]

4 hours ago, Valentinus said:

Priesthood is a calling and not a rite of passage. There are more than enough priesthood holders to carry on the sacraments of the church.

I never suggested otherwise.  

I was responding to your post in context of the discussion that preceded it.  The LDS practice was being criticized for excluding the mother.   You pointed out that in the CofC it is possible for both the mother and father to participate fully and equally in giving the blessing -- presumably because both men and women can hold the priesthood in their church.  Yet, in most instances, the CofC practice also excludes the mother since most mothers do not hold their priesthood.  It also excludes most fathers, since most fathers do not hold their priesthood.  

Even if one believes that both parents should participate equally in giving a blessing to their child, wouldn’t it be better to allow only the father to bless their child than to allow neither parent to bless their child?  Especially if one believes that “the power of a parent's love can never be matched” (as you stated in your previous post).  

BTW, I meant no disrespect to the CofC.  I do not doubt that the blessing you witnessed was a very spiritual experience. I wouldn’t presume to tell them how to run their church.  

[Damien the Leper]

16 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Thank you for your opinion.

However, the President of the Church, who holds the keys of the Priesthood, has determined that it is not to be restricted to a professional class of clergy, but is to be shared with all eligible and worthy males.

And you must know that we regard the CofC as having cut themselves off, and thus no longer holding the Priesthood. They are left with only the outward forms.

I'm not surprised that they're able to put on a good show; but I prefer the substance.

 

Opinion? I only stated their view and practice on priesthood.

LDS opinion of CoC is irrelevant.

[Damien the Leper]

14 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

I never suggested otherwise.  

I was responding to your post in context of the discussion that preceded it.  The LDS practice was being criticized for excluding the mother.   You pointed out that in the CofC it is possible for both the mother and father to participate fully and equally in giving the blessing -- presumably because both men and women can hold the priesthood in their church.  Yet, in most instances, the CofC practice also excludes the mother since most mothers do not hold their priesthood.  It also excludes most fathers, since most fathers do not hold their priesthood.  

Even if one believes that both parents should participate equally in giving a blessing to their child, wouldn’t it be better to allow only the father to bless their child than to allow neither parent to bless their child?  Especially if one believes that “the power of a parent's love can never be matched” (as you stated in your previous post).  

BTW, I meant no disrespect to the CofC.  I do not doubt that the blessing you witnessed was a very spiritual experience. I wouldn’t presume to tell them how to run their church.  

I don't have a dog in this fight where blessing a child is concerned. What the churches do with their priesthood is their issue. In the end God pours out his blessing equally and unconditionally and that is all that matters.

[Guest]

On February 18, 2016 at 7:48 PM, JAHS said:

‘Ordain Women’ urges LDS Church to change policies regarding women serving as official witnesses

"The organization “Ordain Women” is launching a new campaign aimed at changing policies that prevent women in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from serving as official witnesses in religious ceremonies.

The group was organized to push for ordination of women to the LDS Church’s priesthood, but the “Ready to Witness” campaign launched Wednesday focuses on roles women are excluded from that, in their view, are not gender specific due to doctrine but rather because of policy.

The changes include allowing women to hold their babies during blessings performed by men and serving as witnesses in ceremonies like baptisms or sealing ceremonies in LDS temples. They also want women to be able to sit with young women during worthiness interviews conducted by male leaders to, “witness and protect them.”

It seems to me that priesthood ordinances would have to include priesthood holders as witnesses which are part of the ordinance. Right?

Two things come to mind...

1. Witnesses for baptisms are two priesthood holders asked on the fly, it is not something well planned and in most cases not even though about until someone notices that they are missing. It is barely an afterthought, except in the Temple. Any who are setting their sights on this are aiming very low. IMO

2. The blessing of babies is something usually done on the stand I. Very tight and uncomfortable circumstances. Even when it is a larger group and moved down onto the chapel floor it is very difficult for all to put their hands under the baby to bless. Young deacons hate holding the mic as it a cramped and difficult service to perform. I would think that a young mother would find it a very cramped and uneasy feeling being in such close quarters, unless if you made sure your dad or brothers were next to you. 

Of course such callings and more allow women to serve in Priesdhood functions such as these in the Temple. Women also hold the keys of Presidency within other Church callings. I have been a member for 37 years and have never held any of the keys of Presidency. I served as High Priest Group Leader, (no keys) in the Bishopric as a counslor (no keys)...that was 10 years all total. I also served as a counslor to Elder's Quorum, (no keys), and all my other years as a teacher in Gospel Doctrine and Gospel Essentials, and now Ward Missionay, (all not keys, or no Presidency. In all of these callings the only key I held was the one to the building  Personally, I don't see any issue with Sisters being witnesses, but if these are Priesthood callings, then the responsibilies must be carried out as spelled out in D&C 20, if the Doctrine and Covenants is the word of God revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, which I believe it to be. 

Edited February 23, 2016 by Pa Pa

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

Opinion? I only stated their view and practice on priesthood.

You also held forth about how beautiful it was.

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

LDS opinion of CoC is irrelevant.

While the relative impressiveness of CofC's clergy caste vis-à-vis LDS Priesthood holders is irrelevant to us.

But this fact remains: if Joseph never received any Priesthood keys, then the CofC don't have any.

But if he did, then the CofC cut themselves off from those keys, so they still don't have any. The branch has no life without the trunk.

 

Edited February 23, 2016 by Russell C McGregor

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

I don't have a dog in this fight where blessing a child is concerned. What the churches do with their priesthood is their issue. In the end God pours out his blessing equally and unconditionally and that is all that matters.

Some blessings are unconditional. Some are not.

[mtomm]

1 hour ago, Pa Pa said:

Two things come to mind...

1. Witnesses for baptisms are two priesthood holders asked on the fly, it is not something well planned and in most cases not even though about until someone notices that they are missing. It is barely an afterthought, except in the Temple. Any who are setting their sights on this are aiming very low. IMO

2. The blessing of babies is something usually done on the stand I. Very tight and uncomfortable circumstances. Even when it is a larger group and moved down onto the chapel floor it is very difficult for all to put their hands under the baby to bless. Young deacons hate holding the mic as it a cramped and difficult service to perform. I would think that a young mother would find it a very cramped and uneasy feeling being in such close quarters, unless if you made sure your dad or brothers were next to you. 

 

 

You are killing me dude. I'm trying really hard to live by my resolution to avoid any snarky answers and to only share comments that add to the conversation but this might make my brain explode. 

Edited February 23, 2016 by mtomm

[Jeanne]

On 2/21/2016 at 3:20 PM, Valentinus said:

I attended a Community of Christ congregation a few years ago. Twin boy and girl were being blessed. Both parents were Elders. The father held his son while the mother blessed the boy and the mother held her daughter as the father blessed the little girl.

The power, the love and the Spirit present as that ordinance was performed was palpable. It was truly a blessing to witness a child's blessing. The power of a parent's love can never be matched.

I so love that.

[Calm]

How about I try then.

PaPa, there are a lot of things that are uncomfortable in our ordinances (for me it is the veil over my face).  I have never heard a teaching that we should allow discomfort to get in the way of our service to God and to our fellowman as well as our own seeking out of God.

These reasons you are giving seem to me to only diminish the value of the ordinance as something that should not be wanted to be involved in simply because of minor discomfort.  There are better ways to answer the desire of women to have the Priesthood than to try and make it look like those who serve in it are having a rough time or get little out of it.

As far as calling witnesses last minute so it is no big deal, that seems to indicate a perception that women only desire to participate for the recognition and that is not what the majority of women who desire the priesthood or something like it are motivated by in my experience.  Plus just because it is a last minute consideration in many events does not mean that it should be treated that way.  Perhaps the men should be treating that part of the ordinance with more respect.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Calm

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, mtomm said:

 

You are killing me dude. I'm trying really hard to live by my resolution to avoid any snarky answers and to only share comments that add to the conversation but this might make my brain explode. 

Don't you just hate it that "Patience is a virtue?"  I can't possibly think of any poorer excuses for the mother to remain outside that circle.  Of course, we wouldn't want to crowd out microphone..  I think next time there is a baby blessing..they should just grab a mom..on the fly.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Jeanne

[Calm]

Just now, Jeanne said:

  Of course, we wouldn't want to crowd out microphone..

I don't think PaPa was saying that.  He was just using the experience of the deacons to extrapolate to what the experience of mothers might be.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't think PaPa was saying that.  He was just using the experience of the deacons to extrapolate to what the experience of mothers might be.

I would imagine it would be tough trying to get the mic where it is of use.  I can understand that too.  I am sure that the deacons don't feel like this is a fun job.  But the job itself wouldn't be change a bit if Mom was there.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Jeanne

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, mtomm said:

 

You are killing dude. I'm trying really hard to live by my resolution to avoid any snarky answers and to only share comments that add to the conversation but this might make my brain explode. 

Not sure what you mean, I make every effort to never be rude or snarky and would never do so if I thought I might offend and dear Sister of mine. As I stated in my remarks, I see no harm in letting sisters act as witnesses, and having stood in many circles helping to bless babies, I assure you that many a brother would love to have the mother of a baby there to ease and aid their child when frightened and crying. I think that Sister's within the Church and out have amazing ablities which are more reflective of the Saviour's true nature and would only add to any calling. But my wishes and concerns are not what makes doctrine, no more than the Apostles. If we are to believe that the Church was formed and ordained by God, then he alone can make changes. I do not see any reason why Sisters cannot witness baptisms in the Ward or in the Temple, I do not see why they cannot hold their baby during a blessing, as they already do in the home. Mothers have faith and abilities that leave so many men and fathers in awe.

I have been here for nine years, and any posters who have been here for a while, know that it is just not in my nature to be disresptful to those I know or don't. So if I read your statement correctly, please forgive me if it sounded condensing. Also to any reading this, I would also ask that the General Authority's be forgiving of comments or matters out of their control relating to this issue for not being able to do as they wish. But for fear of offending, I will bow out. 

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

You also held forth about how beautiful it was.

While the relative impressiveness of CofC's clergy caste vis-à-vis LDS Priesthood holders is irrelevant to us.

But this fact remains: if Joseph never received any Priesthood keys, then the CofC don't have any.

But if he did, then the CofC cut themselves off from those keys, so they still don't have any. The branch has no life without the trunk.

 

You're welcome to this opinion though it is not a substantiated absolute truth based on the historical evidence. 

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

You also held forth about how beautiful it was.

 

So what? I thought the endowment ceremony was beautiful too. I think the local Buddhist temple is beautiful. I think a Muslim worship service is beautiful. What's the problem?

[mtomm]

18 minutes ago, Pa Pa said:

Not sure what you mean, I make every effort to never be rude or snarky and would never do so if I thought I might offend and dear Sister of mine. As I stated in my remarks, I see no harm in letting sisters act as witnesses, and having stood in many circles helping to bless babies, I assure you that many a brother would love to have the mother of a baby there to ease and aid their child when frightened and crying. I think that Sister's within the Church and out have amazing ablities which are more reflective of the Saviour's true nature and would only add to any calling. But my wishes and concerns are not what makes doctrine, no more than the Apostles. If we are to believe that the Church was formed and ordained by God, then he alone can make changes. I do not see any reason why Sisters cannot witness baptisms in the Ward or in the Temple, I do not see why they cannot hold their baby during a blessing, as they already do in the home. Mothers have faith and abilities that leave so many men and fathers in awe.

I have been here for nine years, and any posters who have been here for a while, know that it is just not in my nature to be disresptful to those I know or don't. So if I read your statement correctly, please forgive me if it sounded condensing. Also to any reading this, I would also ask that the General Authority's be forgiving of comments or matters out of their control relating to this issue for not being able to do as they wish. But for fear of offending, I will bow out. 

See Calm's reply. She points out why I found your numbered responses less than helpful.  It's common for men to use examples of why having to perform ordinances or participate in priesthood functions are really, really awful and women wouldn't want to do it. 

Edited February 23, 2016 by mtomm

[Russell C McGregor]

14 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

You're welcome to this opinion though it is not a substantiated absolute truth based on the historical evidence. 

And neither is this:

Quote

The power, the love and the Spirit present as that ordinance was performed was palpable.

 

[Russell C McGregor]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Don't you just hate it that "Patience is a virtue?"  I can't possibly think of any poorer excuses for the mother to remain outside that circle.  Of course, we wouldn't want to crowd out microphone..  I think next time there is a baby blessing..they should just grab a mom..on the fly.

Those who actually value the Priesthood -- i.e. believing Latter-day Saints -- disagree.

 

[Damien the Leper]

27 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said:

And neither is this:

 

I was speaking for myself. Are you suggesting I was delusional? If so, what evidence do you have to prove so?