sjdawg Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Duncan said: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-first-presidency-leadership-session?fbclid=IwAR3KyO-x9S1woEO9jBr4rTZAtX6Jtg7HuQfpNN1oObiJB8UqADVVbo-m0Dk There is Canadian Coca-Cola all over my screen now, women can serve as witnesses for baptisms in and out of the Temple Women even have the vote these days. What amazing times we live in. 1
mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 24 minutes ago, Duncan said: or accidentally drop the cards into the water, I saw that once, "looks like Julio ...............or Juliette or Jaswinder?" Holy cow. Here in developed countries the names appear on a monitor 1
CV75 Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: No need to give women priesthood if the priesthood isn't needed to perform what used to be priesthood functions. I'm kind of curious why people would be excited about something like this yet still be opposed to women having the priesthood. If priesthood isn't even needed any more for some of these functions, is the act of witnessing (for example) less important? I think women performing priestly/priesthood functions more a matter of what gets delegated than what gets conferred and ordained. For example, in temples women can perform ordinances by delegation after receiving the priesthood endowment, without having been ordained to a priesthood office. I see the same with the ordinance witnessing, which doesn't seem to have an age or number limit --just checked my phone!--, though two witnesses are the norm/minimum (and the paperwork is currently formatted that way). Gives the bishop a fine row to hoe in picking which two! Edited October 2, 2019 by CV75
mfbukowski Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Duncan said: I wonder if women will be able to be a recorder? all you do, as you know, is tick a box with a red pencil, hardly priesthood is needed for that, maybe next time! The sisters scan all the cards for all the ordinances. All of this is a result of a lack of male Temple workers. I think the decision was done on a very practical basis having nothing to do with women and the priesthood particularly. Sisters serve as officiators in other ordinances in the temple every day and have been forever. The poor sealers are constantly looking for brothers with no assignment to be Witnesses for a few minutes, now Sisters can participate. I have had to give up lunch breaks to be a witness because they were short on Brothers to do the job. Not that I missed the calories. Edited October 2, 2019 by mfbukowski 2
Duncan Posted October 2, 2019 Author Posted October 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Holy cow. Here in developed countries the names appear on a monitor oh that's rich! no, we have cards and we tick off the boxes as the ordinances are done. In the baptistry though they appear on a monitor so the baptizer knows what name to do, but it's all on cards
MustardSeed Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: If you understand how it works they already have it. I agree, and if we can eliminate all these ridiculous unnecessary limits such as this one then all is well imo. 2
sjdawg Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I just saw this and am so excited for the change. And it's not just a change for women, youth can serve as witnesses as well. Both in and out of the temple. I'm glad you are excited and I hope you find the change to be positive and beneficial for you personally. For me I'm struggling to get too excited about a change made to what was a nonsensical policy. Edited October 2, 2019 by sjdawg
SettingDogStar Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, sjdawg said: I'm glad you are excited and I hope you find the change to be positive and beneficial for you personally. For me I'm struggling to get too excited about a change made to what was a nonsensical policy. It’s interesting. Why now? Why not before? Was the church wrong and corrected a mistake? Was there a revelation that we needed, and if so, where is it? An explanation? Probably won’t get one. Its great we have an out of the box thinker, but if we’re gonna start eliminating non-sensical policies like this we need get rid of ALL of them. Edited October 2, 2019 by SettingDogStar 1
CA Steve Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 Any mention of allowing non-priesthood holders to stand in the circle when blessing a baby?
sjdawg Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said: It’s interesting. Why now? Why not before? Was the church wrong and corrected a mistake? Was there a revelation that we needed, and if so, where is it? An explanation? Probably won’t get one. Its great we have an out of the box thinker, but if we’re gonna start eliminating non-sensical policies like this we need get rid of ALL of them. You are right. Suspect we will never see an explanation. The cynic in me would suggest that mormonism is under pressure from feminists and equal rights advocates but that can't be the reasoning. The church would never give in under pressure Edited October 2, 2019 by sjdawg
smac97 Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 27 minutes ago, JAHS said: I would think that there would be a requirement to make sure the witnesses are trained on what a proper baptism procedure is both in the words and acts. Yep. I once attended a baptism at which the person officiating (performing the baptism) did it wrong. He raised his left hand to the square, rather than the right hand. Both witnesses missed it, as did the bishop who was conducting the service. An attendee (who was a former bishop) had to stand up and speak with the bishop, and even get the counselor in the stake presidency involved, in order to clarify that the ordinance had not been properly performed, and needed to be re-done. So yes, clarification and training would be helpful. It would only take a few minutes prior to the service. Thanks, -Smac
bluebell Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 17 minutes ago, Duncan said: oh that's rich! no, we have cards and we tick off the boxes as the ordinances are done. In the baptistry though they appear on a monitor so the baptizer knows what name to do, but it's all on cards That’s how it is in Utah and Montana as well.
smac97 Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: It seems much more likely that both have a common cause - increasing focus on gender equality in society as a whole. OW woman was demanding female ordination. "Nothing less [than female ordination] will suffice" was a phrase they used over and over and over. So the focus was not about "society as a whole," but about the Church in particular. If and when the Church receives revelation on this matter, I will support it. I strongly disagree with, and even resent, manipulative tactics such as were used by OW. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 2, 2019 by smac97 4
Duncan Posted October 2, 2019 Author Posted October 2, 2019 1 minute ago, bluebell said: That’s how it is in Utah and Montana as well. yeah! I don't know where mfbukowski lives, maybe Toledo where it's all different 1
Nacho2dope Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said: It’s interesting. Why now? Why not before? Was the church wrong and corrected a mistake? Was there a revelation that we needed, and if so, where is it? An explanation? Probably won’t get one. Its great we have an out of the box thinker, but if we’re gonna start eliminating non-sensical policies like this we need get rid of ALL of them. I have seen this in a couple of places mostly on social media. My question is why if something changes does that make they way it was done before wrong? 4
MustardSeed Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said: I have seen this in a couple of places mostly on social media. My question is why if something changes does that make they way it was done before wrong? In this case yes. And I keep returning to it today, befuddled to discover yet one more stupid rule for which I was just drinking the juice. I love Christ’s gospel but sometimes I get pretty mad at the church and at humans, and at myself. Edited October 2, 2019 by MustardSeed 1
Duncan Posted October 2, 2019 Author Posted October 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said: I have seen this in a couple of places mostly on social media. My question is why if something changes does that make they way it was done before wrong? not necessarily, it could be an easier or better way of doing something i.e camping was fine and good until the house got invented and now we don't do that anymore😏 4
bluebell Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 13 minutes ago, sjdawg said: I'm glad you are excited and I hope you find the change to be positive and beneficial for you personally. For me I'm struggling to get too excited about a change made to what was a nonsensical policy. So you don’t care when nonsensical things get fixed? No excitement at all when a wrong is corrected? It seems kind of odd to struggle to be happy when a wrong has been made right.
JAHS Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 Just got the email: Dear Brothers and Sisters, Witnessing Ordinances Early in this dispensation, the Lord instructed that "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (Doctrine and Covenants 6:28). Consistent with this direction, members of the Church serve as witnesses when sacred ordinances of salvation and exaltation are performed. We are pleased to announce procedural adjustments for the two individuals who serve as witnesses to baptisms and sealing ordinances. These adjustments are effective immediately in all temples and in all Church units. As invited by presiding authorities: 1. Any member holding a current temple recommend, including a limited-use recommend, may serve as a witness to a proxy baptism. 2. Any endowed member with a current temple recommend may serve as a witness to a living or proxy sealing. 3. Any baptized member of the Church, including children and youth, may serve as a witness to the baptism of a living person. We trust that you, as individuals and families, will find great joy in your service as you help provide saving ordinances to Heavenly Father's children. Sincerely yours, The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 3
Raingirl Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: Yep. I once attended a baptism at which the person officiating (performing the baptism) did it wrong. He raised his left hand to the square, rather than the right hand. Both witnesses missed it, as did the bishop who was conducting the service. An attendee (who was a former bishop) had to stand up and speak with the bishop, and even get the counselor in the stake presidency involved, in order to clarify that the ordinance had not been properly performed, and needed to be re-done. So yes, clarification and training would be helpful. It would only take a few minutes prior to the service. Thanks, -Smac When I was baptized (convert from Judaism in 2011), I was back in the dressing room, having just removed the jumpsuit, when a sister came in and informed me that we had to do it over. The official witnesses had missed the mistake. My bishop was not in attendance, but another bishop was there, and he caught the error. So, yes, I would agree that training is very necessary. I wonder who will do that and how it will be done. 1
Ahab Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 I am more and more impressed by how most of these "changes" President Nelson has announced are common sense types of changes. And I wonder why it took so long before anyone else thought of making them. Being a witness to a baptism, or to any other ordinance, is simply a matter of someone telling others what that person has seen. So if a little girl sees her brother get baptized, she is technically a "witness" of her brother receiving that ordinance. I'm like, okay. Yeah, I understood that. A witness is someone who has seen something. So any person who sees something is a witness of what they have seen. Or heard, or felt. A witness is just someone who has experienced something. What am I missing? Is there a form or something where witnesses are supposed to sign something to state what they have seen? Or heard, or felt, or otherwise experienced? Is the word "witness" now taking on some sort of extra significance now that we are hearing that women and children can be witnesses, as well as the men? Like how "testimony" means something a little more in the Church than in everyday use? 1
JAHS Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said: It’s interesting. Why now? Why not before? Was the church wrong and corrected a mistake? Was there a revelation that we needed, and if so, where is it? An explanation? Probably won’t get one. Its great we have an out of the box thinker, but if we’re gonna start eliminating non-sensical policies like this we need get rid of ALL of them. An explanation was given in the article: "President Nelson said that “any adjustments made to ordinances and/or procedures do not change the sacred nature of the covenants being made. Adjustments allow for covenants to be planted in the hearts of people living in different times and circumstances.” Wilford Woodruff, the fourth President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Nelson said: “We have not gotten through with revelation. … President [Brigham] Young, who followed Joseph Smith … organized these temples and carried out the purposes of his calling and office. … He accomplished all that God required at his hands. But he did not receive all the revelations that belong to this work; neither did President Taylor, nor has Wilford Woodruff. There will be no end to this work until it is perfected.”" "Line upon line" Edited October 2, 2019 by JAHS 1
Duncan Posted October 2, 2019 Author Posted October 2, 2019 I've mentioned before another change that can take place is wearing short sleeve white shirts in the instruction room, if they can do in the baptistry then why not in the instruction room? I have a theory as to why but ah who knows!
Popular Post bluebell Posted October 2, 2019 Popular Post Posted October 2, 2019 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: No need to give women priesthood if the priesthood isn't needed to perform what used to be priesthood functions. I'm kind of curious why people would be excited about something like this yet still be opposed to women having the priesthood. If priesthood isn't even needed any more for some of these functions, is the act of witnessing (for example) less important? I'm excited when things are clarified or corrected to better match God's will. I'm opposed to changing things to match the wills of other people regardless of what God thinks about it. This is why I'm excited about the change but still currently oppose ordaining women. If God ever says that women need to be ordained, then I'll try to be excited about that as well. 5
carbon dioxide Posted October 2, 2019 Posted October 2, 2019 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: Great. Perhaps another small step in granting women the priesthood? Not sure how you would arrive at that. Even something like preparing the sacrament is not really a priesthood specific function.
Recommended Posts