Fiona Givens speculates that Joseph Smith gave Priesthood Keys to women?

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've never felt the need to whisper about Her.  We just don't know much about Her.  And we are not supposed to pray to Her.

There is a 2011 article in BYU Studies that may interest you: "'A Mother There': A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven."  The authors of this article make what I think are probably correct points about "cultural perceptions" within the Church that have led to "a 'sacred' censorship" about Her, but that claims "that the Church mandates silence or gives only simplistic portrayals of Mother in Heaven" are "mostly false" because "Church leaders and others in Church-approved venues have actually taught about Heavenly Mother."  Give in a read.  I think you'll enjoy it.  You may also be interested in FAIR's page on this topic.

I think the principal problems with discussing Heavenly Mother are as follows:

• 1) In the main, we lack sufficient revealed light and knowledge about Her, such that informed, substantive discussion about Her is not possible.

    Latter-day Saints sometimes seem uncomfortable with limiting ourselves as regarding what I think could be called "known unknowns."  For example, I have seen many discussions over the years about how many people will end up as Sons of Perdition, or why God has limited the ordination to the priesthood to men, or who Raphael was during his mortal probation, and so on.  We know about these things, but we don't have answers to them.  They are "known unknowns."  

    The existence of Heavenly Mother is, I think, pretty much an established, though still largely inferential, tenet of the LDS Church.  We are therefore left to guess as to the nature, attributes and - perhaps most controversially - the roles She plays in the Plan of Salvation.  Does She have a resurrected, glorified body (or is she the Holy Spirit)?  Does she "co-create" earths with the Father?

    I have my own thoughts on these and other issues relating to Heavenly Mother.  But I generally don't share them publicly.  I will share my thoughts with those over whom I have stewardship, but that's about it.  I will review what the Brethren have said and will leave it to them to define appropriate parameters for public discussion about this topic (which, as noted above, are probably broader than most Latter-day Saints currently think).

• 2) In the absence of revealed light and knowledge, speculation and guesswork and agenda-driven declarations (which are often, though not always, hostile to the Church) generally form the basis of most discussions about Her.  We Latter-day Saints take a lot of comfort in being part of a visible, organized Church that claims to be guided by revelation, by prophets and apostles, etc.  Open-ended, anything-goes speculation about a topic as supremely sacred as Heavenly Mother is just not our thing.

• 3) The topic of Heavenly Mother has been appropriated by critics and apostates as a weapon against the Church, and many Latter-day Saints know this.  So when some whackadoo posts incessantly about Heavenly Mother (not objectionable in and off itself), and then adds speculation about Her and declares the Church to be in a state of apostasy because we don't emphasize Her enought and advocates praying to Her and lards up his/her posts with a bunch of politicized misandrist feminist rhetoric against the Brethren . . . well, you can see why many faithful Latter-day Saints might recoil and such offensive things and decide to not discuss Heavenly Mother at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Very interesting.  Thank you.  I just want her to be a part of my life here on earth.  I believe a lot of us had we felt free to talk about her a little more..would have done so with great reverence and it may have changed for good some relationships with our earthly mother.  I didn't really know about a Heavenly Mother or connect any dots until my early teens in Jr. High.  Even the hymn "O My Father" didn't trigger anything until my sister happened to mention a Heaveny Mother from her Seminary course.  Thanks again.

[Ginger Snaps]

I paid to read the article yesterday (apparently it's been put up for free since). I found it fascinating.  My takeaway was more that JS was establishing a complementary "priestesshood" rather than ordaining women with the "male" priesthood (for lack of better terms). It's an idea VH Cassler has been writing about for some time.  As to her exploration of the idea that the Holy Ghost is Heavenly Mother. .   Margaret Baker expressed those ideas much more bluntly at her recent FAIR address. I don't think either of these ideas is really new or shocking, in the academic world at least. 

[consiglieri]

54 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

I don’t see the Church marginalizing her.

I was referring to smac.

 

EDITED TO ADD: Inasmuch as I am now out of my meager daily ration of posts, I will be unable to comment further for the near future.

 

Inasmuch as I was advised in January my limited status would be rescinded in February, and inasmuch as my attempts to contact the moderators directly over this dereliction of their duty have gone unresponded to, I am left to conclude the moderators have gone on a lengthy holiday to the South Pacific Islands.

 

 

 

Edited June 22, 2016 by consiglieri

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I was referring to smac.

Huh. I don’t see it that way. I see smac commenting on the content of the article, expressing hopes that she not set herself up as an alternate to Church authority, and providing FAIRMormon links on the issue. None of this “smac”s of trivialization (couldn’t help that…!). I think you’ll need to duke that one out with smac.

[cinepro]

19 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I was referring to smac.

 

EDITED TO ADD: Inasmuch as I am now out of my meager daily ration of posts, I will be unable to comment further for the near future.

 

Inasmuch as I was advised in January my limited status would be rescinded in February, and inasmuch as my attempts to contact the moderators directly over this dereliction of their duty have gone unresponded to, I am left to conclude the moderators have gone on a lengthy holiday to the South Pacific Islands.

 

 

 

Did they specify which February?

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Did they specify which February?

I wish they would get over this..I want to rep Consig once in awhile without having to always quote. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Huh. I don’t see it that way. I see smac commenting on the content of the article, expressing hopes that she not set herself up as an alternate to Church authority, and providing FAIRMormon links on the issue.

Yep.  That's all I have done.

Quote

None of this “smac”s of trivialization (couldn’t help that…!). I think you’ll need to duke that one out with smac.

I generally don't interact with Consig.  I have previously explained why.

In any event, I would prefer this thread to focus on the article, not on me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

58 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

I paid to read the article yesterday (apparently it's been put up for free since). I found it fascinating.  My takeaway was more that JS was establishing a complementary "priestesshood" rather than ordaining women with the "male" priesthood (for lack of better terms). It's an idea VH Cassler has been writing about for some time.  As to her exploration of the idea that the Holy Ghost is Heavenly Mother. .   Margaret Baker expressed those ideas much more bluntly at her recent FAIR address. I don't think either of these ideas is really new or shocking, in the academic world at least.

And Joseph did establish a priestesshood under two higher priesthoods shortly following his statements to the Relief Society.
He just never went back and retroactively added women to the lesser priesthoods.
 

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And Joseph did establish a priestesshood under two higher priesthoods shortly following his statements to the Relief Society.
He just never went back and retroactively added women to the lesser priesthoods.

I couldn't find that in the article. Do you have another reference?

I can see from the article how he established an “order” (or “Order” for the enthusiastic) that is conferred confirmation. It is expressed differently in men and women (and children, who grow into it) by virtue of how it is applied by the respective gender. (and essential eternal characteristic).

Power is a function of faith and the effects of the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. Authority in matters of morality (discerning right and wrong), law, governance and administration, generating life, organization and creation, knowledge, etc. is a function of the Light of Christ (D&C 88:7-13), which is given to everyone but also enhanced by those who have the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. While the principles of power and authority can be had in relation to the priesthood and the Holy Ghost, they can also be had and exercised without priesthood keys or even and office.

I really think the article needs to be read not only from the original use and understanding of some of the terms (such as "ordination"), but the differences in the meanings of the terms associated with priesthood and other divinely ordained states, conditions, characters, natures, etc., and bodies of persons of a particular character or class.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

In so many ways, the Mormonism of today is becoming similar to Jehovah's Witnesses when it comes to discounting education and research.

I know Mormonism advocates education and now talks about learning Church history.

............................................................

Crazy talk, Counselor.  You are talking out of both sides of your Schizoid mouth:  Within your lifetime, the LDS Church Historical Dept has been fully professionalized in line with secular standards, and you seem to admit that Mormonism advocates education and learning Church history, yet you simultaneously claim that Mormonism today discounts education and research?  Which is it?

[hope_for_things]

15 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Thoughts on the article or my musings here? 

I really like the Givens' and I like what Fiona is trying to do here.  I think its admirable.  I did find that her article seems to cherry pick positives.  I think this is true with respect to both the priesthood for women argument and the Mother in Heaven teachings.  I also think the church's gospel topic essay on Mother in Heaven is very thin on historical evidence and heavy on interpretation.  

I don't think Fiona is at risk of disciplinary action based on her article as I think it was artfully written. 

Ultimately I want the same things that she's advocating for, if that's Priesthood for Women and a theology about a Mother in Heaven.  However, I don't find the scriptural and historical precedents for these things very compelling, but I think Mormonism has the mechanism to change anything, and that's modern revelation.  Hoping for change!  

[Eek!]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

It is clear Fiona Givens is closer to what Joseph Smith had in mind than the opinions of two modern apostles who are devoted to maintaining the status quo.

In other words, Fiona is talking about things as they were; the apostles are talking about things as they are.

They are by no means one and the same.

^Like. reputation, thumbs-up, +1.^

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think Fiona is at risk of disciplinary action based on her article as I think it was artfully written. 

I thought it was scholarly and then I noticed about 2/3 through it seemed to become more artful (a good word to describe it, though I thought some of the support for a couple of  foregone conclusions seemed a bit forced), which was a bit disappointing. Let's stick to facts when doling anything with "-ology" attached to it, especially when one has a name and a reputation to live up to!

[BlueDreams]

18 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

http://religionnews.com/2016/06/21/mormon-founder-turned-over-priesthood-keys-to-women-says-deseret-book-author/

Incidentally, history may be experiencing an echo of that period: some trend-watchers are suggesting that while some Evangelical churches are languishing, others are still growing (at an admittedly slower pace); while mainstream liberal and progressive ecclesial communities are hemorrhaging membership. 

 

And Fiona Givens is indeed trodding on dicey ground. I worry that, despite the good work she and her husband are doung on behalf of people like myself, speculative work of this sort could leaf to negative consequences.

 

Thoughts on the article or my musings here? 

On your commentary: I don't get the Ev connection, it feels more running similar parallels that are inevitable due to some similar pasts and some basic beliefs (Judeo-Christian). I've found similarities in several Judeo-Christian faiths and Mormonism. I don't think it means Mormonism is necessarily following one or another or will in the future. I think assuming that we will in general is ignoring the differences a lot of LDS people not only are invested in keeping (temple worship, covenants, authority/priesthood, etc) but are also wanting to explore or develop (HM, divine feminine being a biggie)

As for the article, I wasn't surprised by basically any of it. I've never liked the HG as HM model, but I think Givens gives a good argument for how the HG could be feminine period. None of this could I see her being excommunicated for. These are things that I've heard at a women's LDS history symposium at BYU. I've also heard from other avenues of scholarly work and LDS Feminism. Most of these would be considered "moderate LDS feminist" ideas. Because it isn't an exact shout out for female ordination in male offices. Rather for the expanse and realization for female offices that are viewed and used more equitably in collaborative roles. I liked the quote about appendages in the main article (about to start a session so can't look it up). It reminded me of Oak's quote for that and my concern with it (that RS was of a similar appendage as YW/YM's or sunday school....as auxiliaries)....instead it realigns "priesthood" as the power of God and all earthly organizations having priesthood office or purpose as appendages of the priesthood. Quorums would then count as appendages as well. Givens still used quotes that I haven't seen as well as several others that I have. Obviously there are points not made or glossed over that run antithetical (like the bible quote about women in church). But I don't think it's entirely about what has happened in its entirety but what direction is the best example from our spiritual lineage and should develop in the future.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by BlueDreams

[Meg Stout]

The comments Jonathan Stapley made at MHA pointed out a shift in how priesthood is described. My poor memory of it is that prior to Joseph F. Smith, it was understood that the priesthood was the power of God to be used by mankind to bless God's children. Joseph F. Smith proposed that priesthood become seen as something that was given the male humans who had ecclesiastical responsibility. Even though Joseph F. Smith was the prophet at the time, his proposed definition was not accepted as a Church-wide position. However as Joseph F. Smith's devotees included son Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, the Church eventually came to accept the "priesthood as thing given to men" definition rather than the "power of God" definition.

Under the power of God paradigm, with progenitors (rather than just "fathers") seen as those to be honored, it was acceptable for women to exercise the power of God in accordance with their faith in God to bless.

Under the priesthood as male privilege paradigm, Joseph Fielding Smith requested that women stop giving the sole blessing that was still being practiced by some women in the 1940s, washing and anointing pregnant mothers, suggesting to Belle Spafford that she request women to look to their male priesthood holders for all blessings.

Dallin H. Oaks' discussion of priesthood (in 2014, iirc) moves back towards the "priesthood as power of God to be exercised by all" paradigm.

It would be nice to see guidance suggesting that women can resume performing select blessings by the power of their faith in God. I would suggest that some such blessings could include pronouncing blessings of comfort on loved ones, voicing blessings of healing (though perhaps not to include anointing with oil) and blessing homes with the spirit of God. These are the kinds of blessings that my female ancestors pronounced, and need not infringe on the useful delegation of general ecclesiastical responsibility to men, which it seems provides community benefits. [Mormon women exercise at least a form of ecclesiastical responsibility over women, young women, and children already.] Or at least, I see evidence that religious communities that don't delegate general ecclesiastical responsibility solely to men are in shocking decline.

[Duncan]

41 minutes ago, Meg Stout said:

The comments Jonathan Stapley made at MHA pointed out a shift in how priesthood is described. My poor memory of it is that prior to Joseph F. Smith, it was understood that the priesthood was the power of God to be used by mankind to bless God's children. Joseph F. Smith proposed that priesthood become seen as something that was given the male humans who had ecclesiastical responsibility. Even though Joseph F. Smith was the prophet at the time, his proposed definition was not accepted as a Church-wide position. However as Joseph F. Smith's devotees included son Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, the Church eventually came to accept the "priesthood as thing given to men" definition rather than the "power of God" definition.

Under the power of God paradigm, with progenitors (rather than just "fathers") seen as those to be honored, it was acceptable for women to exercise the power of God in accordance with their faith in God to bless.

Under the priesthood as male privilege paradigm, Joseph Fielding Smith requested that women stop giving the sole blessing that was still being practiced by some women in the 1940s, washing and anointing pregnant mothers, suggesting to Belle Spafford that she request women to look to their male priesthood holders for all blessings.

Dallin H. Oaks' discussion of priesthood (in 2014, iirc) moves back towards the "priesthood as power of God to be exercised by all" paradigm.

It would be nice to see guidance suggesting that women can resume performing select blessings by the power of their faith in God. I would suggest that some such blessings could include pronouncing blessings of comfort on loved ones, voicing blessings of healing (though perhaps not to include anointing with oil) and blessing homes with the spirit of God. These are the kinds of blessings that my female ancestors pronounced, and need not infringe on the useful delegation of general ecclesiastical responsibility to men, which it seems provides community benefits. [Mormon women exercise at least a form of ecclesiastical responsibility over women, young women, and children already.] Or at least, I see evidence that religious communities that don't delegate general ecclesiastical responsibility solely to men are in shocking decline.

women could set up the sacrament up until the 1950's! today we can't even get the youth to do it, I say those guys from Mythbusters could build robots or something, solve everyone's problems

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

http://religionnews.com/2016/06/21/mormon-founder-turned-over-priesthood-keys-to-women-says-deseret-book-author/

 

My personal observations, from an e-mail sent to a friend:

The Givens are, jointly, two of the most important of the LDS Newpologists, those striking a new tone in Mormon apologetics. 

 

If Fiona Givens can persuade the LDS General Authorities and Apostles of this thesis, women's ordination in the SLC Mormon Church could emerge within a half-generation.

 

The danger is that she will find herself excommunicated, as have other women and men who have explored this issue. 

 

Contemporary Mormonism has hitched it's buggy to looking more like an Evangelical Protestant Church, not like a Christian Science Church with it's Father-Mother God: and not like liberal Protestantism, with it's speculative Divine Feminine theology. 

 

My concern is that liberal theology does not flourish. It does not inspire zeal or devotion, it does not draw nor hold it's membership, and those who stay don't even breed enough offspring to replenish itself.

 

In the 1960's, Vatican II and 'Honest to God' and "Death of God" and the "Dutch Catechism" and similar movements tried to make Christianity relevant to the baby boom generation, assumed to be outgrowing old forms of religious expression.

 

The upshot of that was that both Catholic and mainstream Protestant denominations experienced a contractiin of bith active memership and of wealth and influence.

 

Meanwhile, and contrary to expectations, Evangelicals experienced an explosion of popularity, growth, and influence, culminating in the rise of the Religious Right in the 1980's. 

 

The LDS Church, which began in the 1950's to model and to market itself as a variant on Evangelicalism, was a beneficiary of that trend.

 

Incidentally, history may be experiencing an echo of that period: some trend-watchers are suggesting that while some Evangelical churches are languishing, others are still growing (at an admittedly slower pace); while mainstream liberal and progressive ecclesial communities are hemorrhaging membership. 

 

And Fiona Givens is indeed trodding on dicey ground. I worry that, despite the good work she and her husband are doung on behalf of people like myself, speculative work of this sort could leaf to negative consequences.

 

Thoughts on the article or my musings here? 

Haven't read any more of the thread than this- and I did read the article of course.

It's no biggie really.  If you have studied the history of this, AND understand the temple, it virtually HAS to go this way.  This in no way represents any kind of concession to "Ordain Women", it is a natural development of history

I have been privileged, due to certain circumstances to be invited into more than one setting apart of a female temple worker, by temple presidents, and I am aware of other blessings given to women that most do now know about simply because they are not curious and have the opportunity.  This information is available to any couple married in the temple who is active enough to learn the ordinances well and listen carefully, and discuss the differences while in the celestial room- which of course eliminates many.  Life just gets in the way.

This talk is one of the greatest doctrinal talks I have ever heard, bar none, and it was offered by a woman who is IN CHARGE of the relief operations of the church, LDS Charities and a former member of the Relief Society General Board 

 

She associates with the 12 on a regular basis.  I don't think she was exactly concerned about saying what she said.

I frankly think this was the beginning of a strategy to set the direction the church already has plans to go, they are just permitting the ideas to get out there for discussions like this one.

Remain calm and carry on!

This has been part of the early church and it IS coming back, just as priesthood for Black people came back.  It just should have developed earlier in our history.

It's really a shame Joseph died so young imo.   Yes bad things happen to good people, even prophets.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

I couldn't find that in the article. Do you have another reference?

I can see from the article how he established an “order” (or “Order” for the enthusiastic) that is conferred confirmation. It is expressed differently in men and women (and children, who grow into it) by virtue of how it is applied by the respective gender. (and essential eternal characteristic).

Power is a function of faith and the effects of the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. Authority in matters of morality (discerning right and wrong), law, governance and administration, generating life, organization and creation, knowledge, etc. is a function of the Light of Christ (D&C 88:7-13), which is given to everyone but also enhanced by those who have the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. While the principles of power and authority can be had in relation to the priesthood and the Holy Ghost, they can also be had and exercised without priesthood keys or even and office.

I really think the article needs to be read not only from the original use and understanding of some of the terms (such as "ordination"), but the differences in the meanings of the terms associated with priesthood and other divinely ordained states, conditions, characters, natures, etc., and bodies of persons of a particular character or class.

 

One can be "set apart" by laying of hands to perform ordinances.

A phone call from a stake president to a high councilor can confer the president's authority to perform ordinances which typically only the stake president can perform

Honestly, to me, the difference between conferring authority, even if temporary, and ordaining, is pretty darn blurry.

What's the difference between "Having authority..." and "Under proper authority...."  ?   There IS a difference, but practically speaking..... not much.  ALL authority is delegated, even the Savior's authority is delegated authority.

That's why it's called "authority"- it operates under "AUTHORized" delegation.

[salgare]

LDS Newpologists

Sweet a new label, no one has complained about, perhaps I'll use it.

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  That's all I have done.

I don't know if you have read much of their stuff- but they are avant garde perhaps, but VERY straight, faithful, devout members, or at least that is my opinion.

I honestly think this was with full approval of the Brethren.

[Eek!]

1 hour ago, Meg Stout said:

It would be nice to see guidance suggesting that women can resume performing select blessings by the power of their faith in God. I would suggest that some such blessings could include pronouncing blessings of comfort on loved ones, voicing blessings of healing (though perhaps not to include anointing with oil) and blessing homes with the spirit of God. These are the kinds of blessings that my female ancestors pronounced, and need not infringe on the useful delegation of general ecclesiastical responsibility to men, which it seems provides community benefits.

I don't see any reason why women can't lay their hands on the sick and bless them, citing as authority "as a disciple of Jesus Christ", which would be in keeping with the pattern implied in Mark 16: 17-18... and which are the verses Joseph Smith's cited when giving instructions on the subject (History of the Church, Volume 4, page 603 IIRC, and/or Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 223 IIRC). 

Actually I'm not even sure words need be spoken, but that's just me. 

 

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

Women ordinance workers in the temple have priesthood given to them to do the signs and tokens.

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, CV75 said:

As far as traditions associating Heavenly Mother with the Holy Spirit, no priesthood keys are required for bearing witness of the truth or of the validity of priesthood ordinances. Such witnessing is actually a sustaining function, not that it is any less powerful, or divine, than that exercised through priesthood keys. So I’m thinking the Divine Feminine “don’t need no sealin’ badges!”

 

In fact this is confirmed in the difference in ordinances I mentioned earlier.  But in fact the ordinances to which I am referring are performed by women themselves using delegated authority.  So there's a little paradox there in the idea that no authority is needed.

So if that is right the women use delegated priesthood authority to give other women the status of not needing the priesthood.

Perhaps that needs to be resolved to make it coherent.

If none of this sounds coherent, PM me and I will push the line a little farther

Edited June 23, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Eek!]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have been privileged, due to certain circumstances to be invited into more than one setting apart of a female temple worker, by temple presidents, and I am aware of other blessings given to women that most do now know about simply because they are not curious and have the opportunity.  This information is available to any couple married in the temple who is active enough to learn the ordinances well and listen carefully, and discuss the differences while in the celestial room- which of course eliminates many.  Life just gets in the way.

In the spirit of "listening carefully" to what is being said and done in the Temple, consider how many things are specifically identified as the "_____ of the _____ Priesthood", or something similar, AND consider that the sisters participate fully in each of these things right alongside the men.  Thus in the Endowment ceremony, you have a room full of people dressed in ways are all about Priesthood, and performing acts that are all about Priesthood... and supposedly half of these people are not Priesthood holders?  Does that really make sense?

I submit that, just as it would be out of place for a man who is not a Priesthood holder to participate in the Endowment ceremony, so too would it be out of place for a woman who is not a Priesthood holder to participate in the Endowment ceremony. 

Therefore, I put forward the theory that the sisters in the room must already be Priestesses, just as the men in the room must already be Priesthood holders.  I realize this is a rather unorthodox interpretation, so let me offer one more bit of supporting evidence:

Mentally play back the words you speak in the Endowment room.  Do you not see, somewhere in those words, a rather specific affirmation of Priesthood upon yourself - whether you are male or female - and upon your descendants, again without regard to whether they are male or female?    Note that this affirmation does not include time limits, so it does not expire when you leave the temple later that day, and arguably its wording extends both backwards and forwards in time.

As to how or where the women received Priesthood, I have a theory about that too, but this is probably enough heresy for one post. 

 

[salgare]

I have a close connection with a younger woman who was the RSP at the time.  I was starting radiation treatments with two years of chemo and several surgeries ahead.  I asked this RSP and my wife to give me a blessing.  The RSP was liberal but this scared her and she told the Bishop.  Of course several offers from Priesthood holders, whom I did not know quickly followed.  They had no connection with me, nor the feelings of compassion and love that those personal relationships bring.  They had nothing to offer that I needed and I turned them all down.

My wife is very TBM but I kept after her to give me the blessing by herself, which she finally did.  It is shameful that women, often having the most to offer during baby blessings, healing blessings, dare one say mothers blessings or parents blessings are excluded.

It's good to see that Fiona dares to go where the Toscano's went and were brutally punished for.  Its good to keep pushing this boundary.  

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by salgare