And they came to pass...the sacrament?

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

Chi 2 sec 20

Under the direction of the bishopric, priesthood holders bless the sacrament and pass it to members of the congregation during each sacrament meeting. Aaronic Priesthood holders usually perform these duties. Under the direction of the bishopric, the deacons quorum president has the privilege and responsibility to invite others to help pass the sacrament. When there are not enough deacons, he counsels with a member of the bishopric to determine who may be asked to assist.
Generally, teachers and priests in the Aaronic Priesthood should be invited to pass the sacrament before Melchizedek Priesthood holders are invited to do so. Where there are enough Aaronic Priesthood holders, Melchizedek Priesthood holders should not be invited to bless and pass the sacrament on a regular schedule.

All of us know these rules, but they do not address the problem of passing the Sacrament in a women's only room, as has been pointed out. What do you recommend?

[Maidservant]

14 hours ago, katherine the great said:

This is less about the young women needing to pass the sacrament and more about nursing mothers needing to receive the sacrament. 😊

I understand that.  😊  Perhaps I jumped the gun, but I assumed the point of sharing an instance would be to be to make a case for the general.

[Maidservant]

12 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'm not seeing this in the case of my oldest daughter (10 years old).  Several years ago she began making unsolicited comments asking my wife/her mom and I why God liked boys better.  We've been working quite hard in the intervening years to help her see her valued place in the church.  But, she still sees her older brothers as having more important roles and given greater opportunities.

I'm not sure that my daughter needs to feel free from the need to contribute.

This is not to say that I don't find value in your comments.  I tend to agree with the need for the young men to have these activities with which to bond.  I'm just not sure that the young women don't need them.

I agree that young women's needs are not met well in the current structure of the church nor our society.  I guess I don't see the rectifying of that being the passing of the Sacrament (not that you particularly are saying that), nor even a movement in the right direction, but rather a deepening of the misunderstanding of their needs.

I love your firsthand observations and experiences.  It helps me refine what I think I see and know.  Young women definitely need to have place, be initiated ritually by other women into adulthood and sisterhood, be a part of a sisterhood, create and see that their creations have impact in their community and for those they love.  I think I may be defining contribution quite narrowly when it is a much wider word.

[Doctrine 612]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All of us know these rules, but they do not address the problem of passing the Sacrament in a women's only room, as has been pointed out. What do you recommend?

Deacon takes it to the door.

[Stargazer]

On 10/13/2018 at 9:50 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Makes sense to me.

Me, too.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I agree that young women's needs are not met well in the current structure of the church nor our society.  I guess I don't see the rectifying of that being the passing of the Sacrament (not that you particularly are saying that), nor even a movement in the right direction, but rather a deepening of the misunderstanding of their needs.

I love your firsthand observations and experiences.  It helps me refine what I think I see and know.  Young women definitely need to have place, be initiated ritually by other women into adulthood and sisterhood, be a part of a sisterhood, create and see that their creations have impact in their community and for those they love.  I think I may be defining contribution quite narrowly when it is a much wider word.

Beautifully stated. 

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because we are claiming a restriction.  We are limiting who is permitted to perform an act without any justification or correct principle behind it.

It's a correct principle if the Lord has inspired those whom he has appointed to make it so.  But agreed that this appears to be discretionary rather than prescriptive.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Doctrine 612 said:

Deacon takes it to the door.

Exactly -- and beyond that door women pass it, just as they do in each row.  Even non-member children take the Sacrament and pass it on down the row.  We are not strict at all.

[Bernard Gui]

58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly -- and beyond that door women pass it, just as they do in each row.  Even non-member children take the Sacrament and pass it on down the row.  We are not strict at all.

Indeed. There doesn’t really appear to be an issue here. Where’s the beef?

Edited October 15, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

I agree with what has been said: that this is a non-issue. For those who see girls passing the sacrament down the row as setting precedent for girls to assume Aaronic priesthood duties, people passing the sacrament down the row does not constitute "passing the sacrament." Priesthood holders bringing the sacrament to the congregation constitutes "passing the sacrament." Thus, having a girl bring it into the mother's lounge is exactly like the scenario with a girl passing it down the row (whether getting up and walking or not). Another SLTrib "stir the pot" Mormon article . . . 

---

On a separate note, I asked my wife about how much demand there should be for the sacrament in the mother's lounge.

She said that she never breast-fed during the sacrament, and that it should be possible for mothers to either feed before the sacrament or "hold down the fort" until the sacrament is over. At times, this might entail walking around or bouncing the baby in the foyer (where the sacrament is brought), but she saw a red flag with any claims that the sacrament in the mother's lounge would need to be a regular thing. She said that, just as with naps or meal times, planning and execution are key, but that women should be able to prepare for and take the sacrament without extreme measures. For that that's worth . . . 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

She said that she never breast-fed during the sacrament, and that it should be possible for mothers to either feed before the sacrament or "hold down the fort" until the sacrament is over. At times, this might entail walking around or bouncing the baby in the foyer (where the sacrament is brought), but she saw a red flag with any claims that the sacrament in the mother's lounge would need to be a regular thing. She said that, just as with naps or meal times, planning and execution are key, but that women should be able to prepare for and take the sacrament without extreme measures. For that that's worth . . . 

Ditto Sister Gui and 7 kids. 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎10‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 9:29 PM, Maidservant said:

I feel it is crucial--not 'nice'--but crucial to have 12 and 13 year old boys have a concretely outlined duty that is an outgrowth of their brotherhood (male group), a sign (and actuality) of their participation and identity in that brotherhood.  While passing the Sacrament may not have to be that thing, and it may not be a 'priesthood' thing properly, it does have to be something that is a sign of the brotherhood and not something shared with their sisters.  Passing the Sacrament may not be priesthood, but again, I find it crucial to the psychological and spiritual growth of a young man of that age.  If you permit girls to participate, you will need to find something else for the boys to do that can outline their maleness/brotherhoodness/contribution to the greater community, then.  As in, we NEED you, 12 and 13 year old boys--you are NECESSARY to the upholding of our community--without you, we [fill in the blank/wouldn't have a complete Sacrament service].  This kind of contribution is more crucial now in our times than ever before when this age of boys are not only 'falling through the cracks' but 'tumbling through the chasm'.  It may be easier to allow it to continue to be passing the Sacrament.

Young girls of that age actually have a different psychological need, and it is not particularly contribution.  They actually need to be somewhat free from contribution.  Young girls of that age are receiving their purpose in life internally, and it is either being cultivated, nourished, and allowed to express; or it is in the process of becoming supressed because there is no room for it in the world, or their corner of it, and the people around them don't know how to help them.  Their initiation into sisterhood is a different track than a young man's initiation into brotherhood.  Passing the Sacrament (and other concrete duties) are a young man's initiation into the maleness of the community, and if you remove that as a sign of maleness, you will need to supply another, or there will be a detriment to both the young men and thereby to the communities they are supposed to be a part of.

(Although contribution is also a human need, and a specific personality need; but it is also a deeply male need in other regards.)

I will say that if women's priesthood ever becomes conflated with men's priesthood, will be the last day I participate in this church.  I say that because I value my priesthood endlessly and it is not a man's priesthood.

I appreciate your perspective but I'm hoping you can help me understand it better.

You seem to be arguing that it is critical for boy to feel separate from females in making a contribution to the community, and that girls don't have the psychological need to make a contribution. What is that based on. It seems very counter-intuitive to what I know about young people. I don't know why girls wouldn't have the same, or similar, desire and need to contribute to the community. You seem to recognize that passing the sacrament isn't necessarily a priesthood duty yet the boys need to have a sense in purpose in not only contributing but in contributing in a way girls cannot.

You seem to feel so strongly about this that you say you would not participate in the church if "women's priesthood" were to be conflated with "men's priesthood". I wasn't aware there were two separate priesthoods. Can you explain this? I'd specifically be interested in your understanding of what is uniquely "women's priesthood".

 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem to feel so strongly about this that you say you would not participate in the church if "women's priesthood" were to be conflated with "men's priesthood". 

I've shared this before, but this is exactly how many women I know feel about this. Once, my wife and I were talking with some friends who included former female ward leaders and their husbands. Women and the priesthood came up, and they (small sample size, I know, but in my experience, they are representative of normative Mormons) all were very much opposed to anything looking like women being given priesthood duties. One said that she would forever think that it was political expediency, being tossed with the social winds, etc. My wife said that she would feel like there was a big hole if women held priesthood office. For her, she treasures accessing that through me, and other women agreed with that. 

I think that's why it's a non-starter in the Church. Normative Mormons (those typical of the norm) don't want it at all. 

I don't think any of them (including my wife) would go inactive or stop coming, but they would definitely feel a drop in enthusiasm and commitment. 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

I've shared this before, but this is exactly how many women I know feel about this. Once, my wife and I were talking with some friends who included former female ward leaders and their husbands. Women and the priesthood came up, and they (small sample size, I know, but in my experience, they are representative of normative Mormons) all were very much opposed to anything looking like women being given priesthood duties. One said that she would forever think that it was political expediency, being tossed with the social winds, etc. My wife said that she would feel like there was a big hole if women held priesthood office. For her, she treasures accessing that through me, and other women agreed with that. 

I think that's why it's a non-starter in the Church. Normative Mormons (those typical of the norm) don't want it at all. 

I don't think any of them (including my wife) would go inactive or stop coming, but they would definitely feel a drop in enthusiasm and commitment. 

I think you're right that there are many who simply don't care about the issue. The status quo works for them just fine.

I'm reminded of the quote "Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." I've always enjoyed that quote and think there's some truth to it. But in lieu of other duties that would be unique to women, why not at least allow those who are interested to participate in ways that are not priesthood specific? For example, couldn't it be argued that having young women participate in ministering is simply political expediency? How would having YW help in this kind of activity that was previously viewed as a male youth activity not be similar to having YW assist with passing the sacrament? Not every YW would want to participate. Not every YW would find it to be an important allowance. Not every YW would care at all about it...but SOME would.

What I find most surprising about the previous post I was asking questions about, was the idea that YW don't feel a need/desire to contribute to the larger church community. I don't understand why that would be. Especially around activities like "ministering" and passing/preparing the sacrament which are not specifically priesthood functions found in doctrine, what would be the harm in recognizing that at least some YW have different needs and desire to participate and there is nothing unique for them to do in serving the community.

[SettingDogStar]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you're right that there are many who simply don't care about the issue. The status quo works for them just fine.

I'm reminded of the quote "Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." I've always enjoyed that quote and think there's some truth to it. But in lieu of other duties that would be unique to women, why not at least allow those who are interested to participate in ways that are not priesthood specific? For example, couldn't it be argued that having young women participate in ministering is simply political expediency? How would having YW help in this kind of activity that was previously viewed as a male youth activity not be similar to having YW assist with passing the sacrament? Not every YW would want to participate. Not every YW would find it to be an important allowance. Not every YW would care at all about it...but SOME would.

What I find most surprising about the previous post I was asking questions about, was the idea that YW don't feel a need/desire to contribute to the larger church community. I don't understand why that would be. Especially around activities like "ministering" and passing/preparing the sacrament which are not specifically priesthood functions found in doctrine, what would be the harm in recognizing that at least some YW have different needs and desire to participate and there is nothing unique for them to do in serving the community.

I agree with this as well. While I don't necessarily believe that women should get the priesthood, but from a secular point of view I don't see a negative (other then Godly disapproval and upheaval in the church). However as I've read I came across some quotes from Joseph Smith that would SEEM to imply he had some ideas on how he was going to possibly organize the "The Society." While his quotes could be interpreted in other ways it could be possible that Joseph was familiar with Adoptive Masonry. We know that Joseph was involved with Freemasonry and while I believe he didn't outright steal from them, God may have used it as a catalyst to teach the Prophet. Perhaps he wanted to us the rising Adoptive Masonry organization to help the women have an organization almost identical to the men. It seems it wasn't intended to combine the men and women, but provide the two with separate but powerful organizations to channel the power of God into their lives.

....Or I could be wildly off base. The article on SLTrib (while maybe meant to stir the pot) sparked my interest and I went on a far to long research into early church history.   

[Maidservant]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I appreciate your perspective but I'm hoping you can help me understand it better.

You seem to be arguing that it is critical for boy to feel separate from females in making a contribution to the community, and that girls don't have the psychological need to make a contribution. What is that based on. It seems very counter-intuitive to what I know about young people. I don't know why girls wouldn't have the same, or similar, desire and need to contribute to the community. You seem to recognize that passing the sacrament isn't necessarily a priesthood duty yet the boys need to have a sense in purpose in not only contributing but in contributing in a way girls cannot.

You seem to feel so strongly about this that you say you would not participate in the church if "women's priesthood" were to be conflated with "men's priesthood". I wasn't aware there were two separate priesthoods. Can you explain this? I'd specifically be interested in your understanding of what is uniquely "women's priesthood".

 

Well I think you are asking me two things.  First are about the needs of young men and young women at the age of 12 or 13 which is the only time period I am referring to in my original statement.  I do think that, especially at that age, there is a need for young men and young women to "do things" [to be defined by the culture] and be in groups, separate from the other gender.  I don't know why.  I only have had six children and when I watch my four sons, they are unfathomably hungry for a male group experience and to be respected within that group as male.  They define themselves male from other males (elders, fathers and older siblings, peers, warriors; in the culture).  This has to be separate from the girls.  I don't know why.  It doesn't mean they can't also have integrated experiences (and I think they should be guided to), as long as the separate ones aren't completely missing.  What I love is that in our Church (as opposed to some other cultures), this male separateness "doing" is tied to a contribution/service element--rather than, say, strength games or some such.

I think that girls at this age also have an anticipation to be women and to be seen as older and as women.  They are awaiting their first menses usually with excitement.  I haven't personally seen that they need as much 'separateness' as males do (at that age).  Although I think both genders are renewed by gender specific spaces and times and activities, such as the value of "girl's night out" and "boy's night out" as simple examples (that would be as adults).  So I think girls don't need "as much" but it doesn't mean I think they need "none".  (I also, by the way, think that female gender is defined by men also, not by the women.  Girls know what they are gendered by their engagement with their fathers +.)

I don't think boys need to show that they can do things girls cannot.  I think they need to show that they can do things men can.  I feel there is a  distinction between those ways of thinking.  I think they need to be able to fulfill the markers of their male cultural group in order to feel psychologically comfortable and to grow psychologically.  I don't think it needs to be in foil that 'women cannot' only that 'we men do this'.  Those markers could be anything--but not missing.  It's not about 'can' in an ultimate sense.  It's about entering the brotherhood and not being cast out as the lone male, or fought as the weak male, or eaten alive by all the males.  In some ways the markers could be the same--for example, let's say that a particular dance was the male initiation.  The dance could also be the female initiation.  Same dance, different dance, either is okay.  Different dance might be more powerful, but the same dance would also work--as long as the participants in the dance at the time of the initiation were gendered and separate--a unique experience.  In any case--there's lots of room here--but the result somehow has to be acceptance of the male into the group, and some outward sign of maleness to himself, his male group, to females and the community at large.  Again--I love that for our culture, it is a contribution/service.  As adult males, that contribution service will be varied and deep and not as tied to "markers" and not as separate because as an adult the necessary step is to become integrated with females, but for it to make sense to a 12-13 year old boy, he has to have it clear and concrete and outward: "I pass the Sacrament with my brothers" not particularly because girls can't.  It think there is a distinction.

10 to 13 year old girls are receiving revelation downloads as to who they are and what they will create for the rest of their lifetime.  They do need the opportunity to understand what is coming to them and how to begin creating it, and yes it very much will be a creation that will bless those around them.  So this may also be termed a contribution.  But whereas for 12 or 13 year old boys, a concrete token (such as passing the Sacrament) makes the most sense as they learn to understand and live beyond the token, young women do not need the token--they need to be supported in beginning their life's work.  Boys also have a life work but it is a different process and timing than young women.

These are my observations as I've raised children and taught others.  So that's all I know.  I'm sure there's more to know, but this is as far as I've gotten.  Gender and children is something I think about a lot.  If you want me to point to a study or someone else's science, I can't do that.  This is me and in my head, that's all.

Priesthood is a different discussion for me.  I can't say everything I think about it in this reply.  But suffice it to say that 1) I have priesthood NOW; 2) the church is a specific, temporary structure for the telestial kingdom, or gathering out of the telestial kingdom; 3) that there are orders of the priesthood relating to the function of the church (not the entire universe by any means! not all the priesthood by any means!) that are male-only; and 4) that to offer me a position within those orders and to tell me that now I have been given the priesthood I would find untrue, a deep misunderstanding, and close to insulting (were I to cultivate that emotion instead of forgiveness).  I'll add 5) male priesthood is not a leadership issue (men and women are leaders) but a salvific one; still pondering that; but to cast it only as a leadership issue causes deep misunderstanding also.  For that matter, 'female' priesthood is also salvific.  So there is a salvation being effected between men and women for each other (and may be said, their priesthoods).

I also think massively about priesthood.

Edited October 15, 2018 by Maidservant

[SettingDogStar]

I also think it is good to note the role women played in the very early days of the church in reference to the priesthood. Our definition of priesthood is a little different from the original intention. Before and especially after the Relief Society was formed women often participated in washing, anointing, sealing, and blessing the sick. This did not seem to be a Priesthood only function at all and Joseph preached many times about how the gifts of healing were for all who believed and that if God gave a women the faith to heal all should hold their tongues on the matter. This changed over time as the Church associated healing with "elders" and cited James as the example we should follow. While I agree we should follow the Keys, even if we don't agree, I'm curious as to what impact removing these policies would have on the Church today.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/14/2018 at 9:37 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Exactly -- and beyond that door women pass it, just as they do in each row.  Even non-member children take the Sacrament and pass it on down the row.  We are not strict at all.

In other words, business as usual.

[CV75]

On 10/13/2018 at 12:40 PM, SettingDogStar said:

So the Salt Lake Tribune (not always friendly to the Church) published this article a weeks ago. This is just a portion of it but it got me thinking about women’s role in church/priesthood and if maybe this would become church wide? Or maybe it would just stay isolated?

Im not opposed to the idea by any means but I’m curious if it would ever get expanded or not. 

 

“They don’t have the priesthood, but who says they can’t carry the sacrament trays?

Not the bishop. And not church headquarters.

Turns out, a Hyde Park congregation in Chicago is assigning teenage girls to pass the bread and water — which count as Communion in Latter-day Saint services — to the women in the mother’s lounge, where male priesthood bearers can’t enter.“It is appropriate for a sister to assist by carrying the sacrament tray into the mother’s lounge,” church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a statement, “just as it is common for members to pass the sacrament tray to one another in the chapel.”

It only makes sense, says Neylan McBaine, author of “Women at Church: Magnifying LDS Women's Local Impact.”

“In the sacrament, the prayer said over the bread or water is scripturally mandated. Who then holds the tray and passes it around the congregation is not,” McBaine said. “This seems like an appropriate area to examine whether or not we have needlessly overextended the necessity of the priesthood.””

 

I think the motivation for whatever the presiding authority implements should cultivate faith in the Savior and His gospel, and not promote any kind of "ism."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/10/young-adults/our-motivation-to-live-the-gospel?lang=eng

The straight and narrow way is not the same as a narrow focus on other things. As Elder Bednar pointed out, strength and happiness are found in integrating many gospel principles, and as Elder Oaks pointed out, not by weaving a particular personal agenda into them (referring to their conference talks).

[blueglass]

On 10/13/2018 at 10:29 PM, Maidservant said:

I feel it is crucial--not 'nice'--but crucial to have 12 and 13 year old boys have a concretely outlined duty that is an outgrowth of their brotherhood (male group), a sign (and actuality) of their participation and identity in that brotherhood.  While passing the Sacrament may not have to be that thing, and it may not be a 'priesthood' thing properly, it does have to be something that is a sign of the brotherhood and not something shared with their sisters.  Passing the Sacrament may not be priesthood, but again, I find it crucial to the psychological and spiritual growth of a young man of that age.  If you permit girls to participate, you will need to find something else for the boys to do that can outline their maleness/brotherhoodness/contribution to the greater community, then.  As in, we NEED you, 12 and 13 year old boys--you are NECESSARY to the upholding of our community--without you, we [fill in the blank/wouldn't have a complete Sacrament service].  This kind of contribution is more crucial now in our times than ever before when this age of boys are not only 'falling through the cracks' but 'tumbling through the chasm'.  It may be easier to allow it to continue to be passing the Sacrament.

Young girls of that age actually have a different psychological need, and it is not particularly contribution.  They actually need to be somewhat free from contribution.  Young girls of that age are receiving their purpose in life internally, and it is either being cultivated, nourished, and allowed to express; or it is in the process of becoming supressed because there is no room for it in the world, or their corner of it, and the people around them don't know how to help them.  Their initiation into sisterhood is a different track than a young man's initiation into brotherhood.  Passing the Sacrament (and other concrete duties) are a young man's initiation into the maleness of the community, and if you remove that as a sign of maleness, you will need to supply another, or there will be a detriment to both the young men and thereby to the communities they are supposed to be a part of.

(Although contribution is also a human need, and a specific personality need; but it is also a deeply male need in other regards.)

I will say that if women's priesthood ever becomes conflated with men's priesthood, will be the last day I participate in this church.  I say that because I value my priesthood endlessly and it is not a man's priesthood.

Here is the list of duties for Deaconesses from the Salt Lake 15th ward relief society minutes: https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-3/3-9?lang=eng&highlight=deaconess|Deaconesses

"It is their duty to open the Hall—adjust seats and to see that the room is in proper order to receive the members—to provide fresh21 water if necessary—to attend to lights and fire—in short to make everything as pleasant and agreeable as possible for the meetings,"

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Here is the list of duties for Deaconesses from the Salt Lake 15th ward relief society minutes: https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-3/3-9?lang=eng&highlight=deaconess|Deaconesses

"It is their duty to open the Hall—adjust seats and to see that the room is in proper order to receive the members—to provide fresh21 water if necessary—to attend to lights and fire—in short to make everything as pleasant and agreeable as possible for the meetings,"

I think this gets to the distinctions between priesthood power, order and office. Both men and women exercise priesthood power through their faith in Christ, and in carrying our their callings as delegated and set apart by those with the priesthood keys. They exercise the priesthood order through temple covenants and sealing. There are offices in the priesthood (Deacon, Teacher... etc. ...Apostle) and quorums for men, and there are offices in the priesthood (delegated auxiliary presidencies  and members who assist them) for both women and men. It seems to me the Deaconess office fell under the delegated auxiliary kind of priesthood office, which are organized differently today. The "Offices of the Female Relief Society" have their counterparts today through assignment by the RS presidency and have different titles.

[blueglass]

On 10/18/2018 at 4:25 PM, CV75 said:

I think this gets to the distinctions between priesthood power, order and office. Both men and women exercise priesthood power through their faith in Christ, and in carrying our their callings as delegated and set apart by those with the priesthood keys. They exercise the priesthood order through temple covenants and sealing. There are offices in the priesthood (Deacon, Teacher... etc. ...Apostle) and quorums for men, and there are offices in the priesthood (delegated auxiliary presidencies  and members who assist them) for both women and men. It seems to me the Deaconess office fell under the delegated auxiliary kind of priesthood office, which are organized differently today. The "Offices of the Female Relief Society" have their counterparts today through assignment by the RS presidency and have different titles.

As Hugh B. Brown said, "Celestial Marriage enables worthy parents to perform a transcendentally beautiful and vital service as priest and priestess in the temple of the home."  

[Scott Lloyd]

There is new content in the “Gospel Library” app called “Priesthood Ordinances and Blessings “ I was reading some of it today and noticed this under the heading “Sacrament”:

 

“After a priesthood holder hands a sacrament tray to a member, others may pass the tray from one to another for convenience.” 

Having someone receive a sacrament tray from a priesthood holder (such as a deacon) and take it into a mothers room for the benefit of those therein does not seem at all out of keeping with the above instruction, nor does it seem startling or strange or all that remarkable. 

Edited October 22, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

On 10/14/2018 at 9:30 AM, katherine the great said:

 It sounds to me like it’s just a way to get sacrament into the mothers lounge. Many women feel uncomfortable breast-feeding in public because U.S. culture has made them feel uncomfortable. Therefore they retreat into a women’s only room so that people who are uncomfortable with it don’t have to see it.  I agree with you that it’s ridiculous that women have to feel ashamed of breast-feeding their children. But it’s the way it is and if men aren’t allowed in the women’s lounge then the only logical solution is to have a female enter the room to take the sacrament tray to them. 

It's probably not a great idea to assign feelings and motives to women who choose to breastfeed in the mother's lounge.  I used the mother's lounge often when my babies were little, even though I bottle-fed most of my babies.  Shame had nothing to do with it.  

[bluebell]

On 10/15/2018 at 7:58 AM, rongo said:

On a separate note, I asked my wife about how much demand there should be for the sacrament in the mother's lounge.

She said that she never breast-fed during the sacrament, and that it should be possible for mothers to either feed before the sacrament or "hold down the fort" until the sacrament is over. At times, this might entail walking around or bouncing the baby in the foyer (where the sacrament is brought), but she saw a red flag with any claims that the sacrament in the mother's lounge would need to be a regular thing. She said that, just as with naps or meal times, planning and execution are key, but that women should be able to prepare for and take the sacrament without extreme measures. For that that's worth . . . 

Why?  This makes no sense to me.  Why should a baby have to wait 20+ minutes to eat when there is absolutely no reason the sacrament can't be taken to the mother's lounge?  It's certainly not an extreme measure, or any more extreme than taking it into the foyer. 

That seems like a sacrifice without any purpose at all.