Women and Blessings (aka now I really want to read this book)

[JLHPROF]

LDSLiving just published an article concerning the release of a new book by the Church History Department on the First 50 Years of the Relief Society.
Apparently it is done in much the same style as the Joseph Smith papers, featuring a huge collection of primary documents.

Pricey little book but it seems to provide much information on topics of interest right now (from the article):

• by 1880, women had developed a ritual to help those who were about to give birth, often calling this a "washing and anointing previous to confinement
• Relief Society general president Eliza R. Snow explained in 1883, “Women can administer in the name of JESUS [through faith], but not by virtue of the Priesthood
• Eliza R. Snow - “Is it necessary for sisters to be set apart to officiate in the sacred ordinances of washing, anointing, and laying on of hands in administering to the sick?
  "It certainly is not. Any and all sisters who honor their holy endowments, not only have the right, but should feel it a duty, whenever called upon to administer to our sisters in these ordinances, which God has graciously committed to His daughters as well as to His sons;
• Wilford Woodruff - There is no impropriety in sisters washing and anointing their sisters in this way, under the circumstances you describe; but it should be understood that they do this, not as members of the priesthood, but as members of the Church, exercising faith for, and asking the blessings of the Lord upon, their sisters; just as they, and every member of the Church, might do for members of their families

Given all the discussion currently taking place about women's roles in the Church this book seems like it could provide some invaluable source information.

Do you think if this book were to generate sales similar to the Joseph Smith papers, that this could provide clarification on some of these issues? 
Is this something that the general population of the Church would even bother to read or will it be a curiosity for academia and apologists?
And could this be yet another example where the Church (ie Church History Department) publishes and makes this information readily available, but yet when the average member comes across this information they will say "the Church kept this secret", as certain gender advancement groups might claim?

[The Nehor]

I was taught about my great great grandmother healing the sick in Family Home Evening and thought it was wonderful. I would like to see similar things return and encourage others who want to see it return to make it a matter of prayer. It works better then making a scene on social media and is less likely to get you excommunicated.  

[mtomm]

So do we use consecrated oil or just the stuff in our cupboards?

(This is a serious question, I'm not being snarky for a change.) 

Edited February 26, 2016 by mtomm

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

LDSLiving just published an article concerning the release of a new book by the Church History Department on the First 50 Years of the Relief Society.
Apparently it is done in much the same style as the Joseph Smith papers, featuring a huge collection of primary documents.

Pricey little book but it seems to provide much information on topics of interest right now (from the article):

• by 1880, women had developed a ritual to help those who were about to give birth, often calling this a "washing and anointing previous to confinement
• Relief Society general president Eliza R. Snow explained in 1883, “Women can administer in the name of JESUS [through faith], but not by virtue of the Priesthood
• Eliza R. Snow - “Is it necessary for sisters to be set apart to officiate in the sacred ordinances of washing, anointing, and laying on of hands in administering to the sick?
  "It certainly is not. Any and all sisters who honor their holy endowments, not only have the right, but should feel it a duty, whenever called upon to administer to our sisters in these ordinances, which God has graciously committed to His daughters as well as to His sons;
• Wilford Woodruff - There is no impropriety in sisters washing and anointing their sisters in this way, under the circumstances you describe; but it should be understood that they do this, not as members of the priesthood, but as members of the Church, exercising faith for, and asking the blessings of the Lord upon, their sisters; just as they, and every member of the Church, might do for members of their families

Given all the discussion currently taking place about women's roles in the Church this book seems like it could provide some invaluable source information.

Do you think if this book were to generate sales similar to the Joseph Smith papers, that this could provide clarification on some of these issues? 
Is this something that the general population of the Church would even bother to read or will it be a curiosity for academia and apologists?
And could this be yet another example where the Church (ie Church History Department) publishes and makes this information readily available, but yet when the average member comes across this information they will say "the Church kept this secret", as certain gender advancement groups might claim?

I have always known this and can't understand why others can't figure this out

You can pray for people, right?  Anyone can pray for anybody!

If you want to lay your hands on them and pray for them and say anything you like as guided by the spirit, of course anyone can do that.  It's a prayer for Pete's sake!!

If you want to add oil, what's the big deal??  Do we think that God condemns people in other churches for praying for the sick, annointing, and laying on hands?   Would HE NOT honor their prayers because they are not LDS and do not hold the Priesthood?

Of course not!  To me this is common sense!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anointing_of_the_Sick

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, mtomm said:

So do we use consecrated oil or just the stuff in our cupboards?

(This is a serious question, I'm not being snarky for a change. 

If the oil wasn't consecrated, then what would be the purpose?  There's nothing special about the oil without it being blessed, right?  (also not being snarky.  Just thinking out loud and going along with your question).

[Garden Girl]

I am reminded of the washing and dressing of a deceased sister that ward sisters perform.  I participated in one such washing.  We surrounded the body and offered prayer before we began.  I was surprised and pleased at the reverence and love I felt for that sister, and the Spirit I felt as we proceeded.  It was a very good experience.

GG

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 minute ago, Garden Girl said:

I am reminded of the washing and dressing of a deceased sister that ward sisters perform.  I participated in one such washing.  We surrounded the body and offered prayer before we began.  I was surprised and pleased at the reverence and love I felt for that sister, and the Spirit I felt as we proceeded.  It was a very good experience.

GG

Agh, I'm very uncomfortable around dead bodies, even at viewings and funerals. I could never do that.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

I am reminded of the washing and dressing of a deceased sister that ward sisters perform.  I participated in one such washing.  We surrounded the body and offered prayer before we began.  I was surprised and pleased at the reverence and love I felt for that sister, and the Spirit I felt as we proceeded.  It was a very good experience.

GG

My mother would have loved this ritual.  She loved taking care of people.  If nothing else, this book might give women information that it is okay. 

[mtomm]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the oil wasn't consecrated, then what would be the purpose?  There's nothing special about the oil without it being blessed, right?  (also not being snarky.  Just thinking out loud and going along with your question).

That's what I was thinking also. But I bet you'd have some really uncomfortable conversations when you ask for it.

I helped a friend of mine do the hair of a woman in our ward, she has requested she prepare it. It wasn't squicky at all and we visited with the funeral home director who shared a lot of interesting stories.

[Garden Girl]

2 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Agh, I'm very uncomfortable around dead bodies, even at viewings and funerals. I could never do that.

Lots of people have this feeling.  When I was asked to participate in the washing, I was somewhat hesitant and nervous but agreed because it was the mother of a close friend.  But from the moment we offered our prayer, I felt the Spirit and a closeness to the other participants, and absolute reverence for the deceased sister.  What I thought would be uncomfortable or even scary turned out to be a real blessing for me spiritually, and gladness that I could help my friend with her mother, who looked beautiful in her temple clothes.

GG

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, mtomm said:

So do we use consecrated oil or just the stuff in our cupboards?

(This is a serious question, I'm not being snarky for a change.) 

It's up to you.  It is a prayer.  Do what you want to do, there is nothing wrong with it.

Consecrated oil is not magical- its use denotes obedience to the idea of "making it holy" through the priesthood.  In my opinion we do it to show obedience to the ritual and that is what makes it an "ordinance"- it must be performed in a certain way to show obedience

What we are talking about here is not a church "ordinance"- it is a prayer, and oil is very soothing.  My honest belief is that human touch bears healing powers and oil somehow increases that effect through the skin, but that is totally my personal opinion.

I have literally seen miracles through priesthood blessings in this church.   This is not a priesthood blessing we are talking about here, but there can be no harm in it and I am certain it also can have great effects.

If other churches can have miraculous effects, and they do, without the priesthood, then so can others.  My opinion.  God hears and answers the prayers of everyone.

What this really gets to is the difference between an "ordinance" and a "prayer", and that is unknown turf I think for Mormon theology.  Certainly the form and words figure into it importantly and the citing of the priesthood.   But the metaphysics?  I haven't a clue.

Edited February 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Consecrated oil is not magical- its use denotes obedience to the idea of "making it holy" through the priesthood.  In my opinion we do it to show obedience to the ritual and that is what makes it an "ordinance"- it must be performed in a certain way to show obedience

While I agree it's not "magical", I think it being consecrated means more than just our obedience.
By that same argument a priesthood blessing isn't magical, just a prayer.  The blessing itself does nothing in that argument.
I think that understates the power inherent in the authority used.

It is set apart by authority for the purpose of anointing the sick.
It's interesting that the CHI now forbids applying it to afflicted parts of the body.  That used to be a common practice (although never internally).
 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

LDSLiving just published an article concerning the release of a new book by the Church History Department on the First 50 Years of the Relief Society.
Apparently it is done in much the same style as the Joseph Smith papers, featuring a huge collection of primary documents.

Pricey little book but it seems to provide much information on topics of interest right now (from the article):

• by 1880, women had developed a ritual to help those who were about to give birth, often calling this a "washing and anointing previous to confinement
• Relief Society general president Eliza R. Snow explained in 1883, “Women can administer in the name of JESUS [through faith], but not by virtue of the Priesthood
• Eliza R. Snow - “Is it necessary for sisters to be set apart to officiate in the sacred ordinances of washing, anointing, and laying on of hands in administering to the sick?
  "It certainly is not. Any and all sisters who honor their holy endowments, not only have the right, but should feel it a duty, whenever called upon to administer to our sisters in these ordinances, which God has graciously committed to His daughters as well as to His sons;
• Wilford Woodruff - There is no impropriety in sisters washing and anointing their sisters in this way, under the circumstances you describe; but it should be understood that they do this, not as members of the priesthood, but as members of the Church, exercising faith for, and asking the blessings of the Lord upon, their sisters; just as they, and every member of the Church, might do for members of their families

Given all the discussion currently taking place about women's roles in the Church this book seems like it could provide some invaluable source information.

Do you think if this book were to generate sales similar to the Joseph Smith papers, that this could provide clarification on some of these issues? 
Is this something that the general population of the Church would even bother to read or will it be a curiosity for academia and apologists?
And could this be yet another example where the Church (ie Church History Department) publishes and makes this information readily available, but yet when the average member comes across this information they will say "the Church kept this secret", as certain gender advancement groups might claim?

FYI, here's the piece I wrote about the book. I didn't include the same information, but there's a lot there in the book.

Of note: Portions of the book are available for free online now; the entire content will be available eventually (see my story).

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

While I agree it's not "magical", I think it being consecrated means more than just our obedience.
By that same argument a priesthood blessing isn't magical, just a prayer.  The blessing itself does nothing in that argument.
I think that understates the power inherent in the authority used.

It is set apart by authority for the purpose of anointing the sick.
It's interesting that the CHI now forbids applying it to afflicted parts of the body.  That used to be a common practice (although never internally).
 

Except in another temple ordinance.  

That shows the confusion that resulted in the apostasy.  Others confused ordinances we now know as separate with separate functions in the restored church.

And I agree with you about the priesthood and authority. I would change that, but then this post would not make sense.  Oh well, even I make mistakes.   When one has the priesthood, it is hard to distinguish prayer from ordinance in this context.  If I have no consecrated oil, I go to the cupboard, pour some into a vial, and consecrate it. One Elder can do that without a companion.   It is easy to do so.  It is easy to confuse a prayer and an ordinance in that context.

But it is still interesting to ponder the differences.

Edited February 27, 2016 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It's interesting that the CHI now forbids applying it to afflicted parts of the body.  That used to be a common practice (although never internally).

Yes, it was used internally: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/our-rites-worship-latter-day-saint-views-ritual-history-scripture-and-practice/pouring-oil

"[Consecrated oil] was taken as a cure for appendicitis. Mixed with grains of sugar, it was given for coughs and croup. Combined with a few drops of camphor, it followed the stinging mustard plaster. ...Bishop Ravsten said at the bedside of one sick patient, “I feel prompted to oil the bowels.” An olive oil enema was given. [50]

"Such examples abound in the primary documents of the era. Brigham Young sometimes mixed consecrated oil with other materials for use as an enema..."

However, changes in procedure and protocol over the years reflect the Lord's purposes in training His saints in the finer points of faith and knowledge. Not that everyone has to start somewhere in good faith.

[juliann]

Good article, Scott. I am so impressed with what the Church is doing. It seemed to be at a slow crawl but it is so exciting to see this book and the women's history seminar. I think the Church is taking the right approach with going to history first. It gives us something solid to build on. I believe the feminist activism failed because they didn't provide that.

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, mtomm said:

So do we use consecrated oil or just the stuff in our cupboards?

(This is a serious question, I'm not being snarky for a change.) 

I would stick to praying for and over others now. I think using oil would fall under a similar situation as Paul's counsel on eating meat previously sacrificed to pagan gods. There was no real harm in it but if it might disturb another or cause them to question then it is best not to. Then wait on the Lord. It is an exciting dispensation. So much more to be revealed and restored.  

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

FYI, here's the piece I wrote about the book. I didn't include the same information, but there's a lot there in the book.

Of note: Portions of the book are available for free online now; the entire content will be available eventually (see my story).

Thanks for that link Scott.
I have to say it's interesting to compare the area of focus from your article with the area of focus in the OP article.

Different perspectives, different audiences, etc.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Thanks for that link Scott.
I have to say it's interesting to compare the area of focus from your article with the area of focus in the OP article.

Different perspectives, different audiences, etc.

An implied audience is an essential element for any piece of writing. 

Sometimes I will write two different stories about the same topic or event -- one for the Church News and one for the daily Deseret News. I will always write them differently with the implied audience in mind. 

[Eek!]

On ‎2‎/‎25‎/‎2016 at 5:25 PM, mtomm said:

So do we use consecrated oil or just the stuff in our cupboards?

(This is a serious question, I'm not being snarky for a change.) 

This is just my opinion, but I see nothing wrong with sisters anointing and blessing the sick, and I see an awful lot right about it.  Apparently that was also Joseph Smith's opinion - see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 223.

Nor do I see anything wrong with sisters using consecrated oil, as it is like a symbolic (or maybe more than symbolic) link to the faith and spiritual power of those who consecrated the oil.

While the argument can be made that sisters can just pray instead of actually blessing the person, in my opinion there is an important difference between the two:  When you pray for someone, you are just asking God to do something,   When you bless someone, you've really got skin in the game - you are actively putting your faith into the fray, as you take on the role of being a conduit for God's healing power.  You and the others participating now meet the criteria of "where two or more are gathered in my name...", and that's a pretty powerful thing. 

In my opinion you could follow the same basic format as in the Priesthood manual, except that you "confirm" rather than "seal" the anointing, and the authority you cite would be "as a disciple of Jesus Christ", this being implied by what Jesus taught in Mark 16:17-18:  "These signs shall follow them that believe [females included]: In my name... they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover."  These are the verses Joseph Smith cited as well in his defense of sisters blessing the sick, reference given above.

The ordinary laws of this world are set aside when you lay your hands on someone and bless them.  Normally if you give something to someone, you now have less and she now has more.  But when you bless someone, you BOTH end up with more than you had before.  This would be a case where to give is to receive, and to receive is to give.  That's about as close to the economics of Heaven as I think we get down here.  Back in my active LDS years (decades ago), it saddened me that the experience of blessing someone was largely denied to my sisters... though a few did give blessings in secret. 

I really hope the publication and distribution of The First Fifty Years of Relief Society sparks the renaissance of sisters as hands-on healers, because they will be better at it than most men.  Arguably the greatest healer in the Restored Church was a woman who I'm sure is a main character in that book.