Women as witnesses

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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!

That would certainly make one specific part of the ordinance easier to do. Add it to the list of future common sense changes.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

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. 

I think a quick tutorial video posted on the Church's website, plus a checklist for the person conducting the service, would be plenty.

[carbon dioxide]

I like the changes President Nelson is making.  There are absolutes  and traditions that are not absolutes but more baggage that can distract from more important things.  Perhaps getting rid of some of these traditions will emphasize the absolutes more strongly.   Other traditions that could be eliminated are having girls collect fast offerings and even preparing the sacrament.  An absolute would be blessing the sacrament which is a priesthood function so that should stay where it is. 

[Rivers]

35 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

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

The feminists will never be fully satisfied no matter what.  They’re always looking for stuff to whine about.

But this is a nice little change nonetheless.  This is a kind of change I had never really thought about.  

I would say this easily paves the way for women holding the baby during a baby blessing.

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Rivers

[stemelbow]

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?

As the list of priesthood functions grows smaller, the purpose for gender exclusive power lessens, I figure.  I suppose that means some day down the line, a woman will be allowed to baptize someone, then oversee a congregation.  It'll be interesting to see the evolution.  And many of the explanations and justifications of today will be seen as silly.  

[carbon dioxide]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Exactly my position.  The Ordain Women group has a "my will be done" approach. WE believe women should have the priesthood therefore the Church should change its position and give the priesthood to women. It ignored the entire premise of the priesthood which is a "thy will be done" authority.   God can give the priesthood to dogs and cats if he wants. Its his authority and he makes the rules.  We just comply with those rules.  If God wants the priesthood to be given to women, he will do it on his own time schedule.  Not through some organization whose methods instantly creates contention and debate. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

If you understand how it works they already have it.

I went to find the rolling eyes emoji but I figured I"d just LOL this comment and mention to you that I looked for the rolling eyes emoji.  

[Buckeye]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Why do you think God wants women to be witnesses (now) but doesn't want them to perform ordinances?  I haven't seen anything to suggest he doesn't want them to perform ordinances. 

[The Mean Farmer]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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.

 

May be less of 'why it took so long before anyone else thought of making them' and more having a Leader/President/Prophet that is willing to look at how everything is done, and openly analyze the policy, tradition, and meanings behind them and is willing and open to changes.

 

Major props to Russell M. Nelson and his merry band of Apostles!  

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Merely pointing out that it is unlikely OW directly caused this and other changes the church has made. However, it is likely that society's increased focus on gender equality has likely led to both. That is the Ordain Women movement led by fringe members seeking priesthood ordination shares a common cause with more mainstream members reevaluating current church policy to see where improvements can be made.  

Edited October 2, 2019 by SeekingUnderstanding

[sjdawg]

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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. 

I'm not struggling to be happy but I dont see anything to celebrate.  Just another instance of the church being late to the party

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I like the changes President Nelson is making.  There are absolutes  and traditions that are not absolutes but more baggage that can distract from more important things.  Perhaps getting rid of some of these traditions will emphasize the absolutes more strongly.   Other traditions that could be eliminated are having girls collect fast offerings and even preparing the sacrament.  An absolute would be blessing the sacrament which is a priesthood function so that should stay where it is. 

What makes the one a “priesthood function” and the other not?  I don’t know that anyone can say with certainty. Hence the need for prophets and revelation to guide us. 

[carbon dioxide]

2 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I'm not struggling to be happy but I dont see anything to celebrate.  Just another instance of the church being late to the party

 

Late to what party?

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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?

IIRC on the old baptismal forms there was a place for the witnesses to sign. But that may have been changed a while ago.

As others have mentioned, it seems important that a person "witnessing" understands what is being witnessed. It's not just witnessing that a person was baptized but also witnessing that the prayer is said correctly, full immersion etc. I doubt many 8 year olds would catch that. Not only had it been policy to have priesthood holders witness, I had always heard it explained that a witness ratified the ordinance by witnessing that it was done correctly. So if Priesthood must perform the ordinance, priesthood must also witness and ratify.

If someone witnesses a legal document, there are some requirements to who can and can't witness. If a person notarizes a document (which is essentially like witnessing) there are even more requirements. In other words, if a witness is unprepared or unknowledgeable about what they are witnessing, then the "witness" doesn't really mean much.

But the requirement of priesthood witness was never taught or described as a policy. It was priesthood duty and authority. So apparently those teachings were wrong.

Don't get me wrong. I think the change is great, for the most part (I think having children witnessing diminishes the value of a witness, but whatever), but this, like some of the other policies aren't just changes to the way we do things. They require changes to the teachings about why we do certain things and have certain requirements and rules. Clearly, anything can be changed. Young women passing the sacrament? Why not? Women serving as clerks and bishopric counselors and mission leaders, sure. There's really no limit to what could be changed by altering a policy. But it should be remembered that those policies are were tied to gospel teachings.

Edited October 2, 2019 by HappyJackWagon

[carbon dioxide]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What makes the one a “priesthood function” and the other not?  I don’t know that anyone can say with certainty. Hence the need for prophets and revelation to guide us. 

Some things are pretty certain.  For example a priest can baptize but not confirm.  Others i believe were given just to give young men a job to do.  There is no ordinance in collecting money from fast offerings for example.  Many do it online today so its sort of becoming less necessary. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, The Mean Farmer said:

May be less of 'why it took so long before anyone else thought of making them' and more having a Leader/President/Prophet that is willing to look at how everything is done, and openly analyze the policy, tradition, and meanings behind them and is willing and open to changes.

 

Major props to Russell M. Nelson and his merry band of Apostles!  

 

I'm kind of hoping he'll replace the water we use for sacrament with grape juice fairly soon. It may not matter at all to the Lord what we use but grape juice would sure taste a lot better than the water we use in our sacrament service. The water we use in our ward is from the tap and it has an off taste to it, too many minerals or something, not at all like the good tasting water I get from my well on my property.  But I suppose grape juice would get spilled onto floors and the pews and cause stains, which wouldn't be good.  May take a while longer to come up with an alternative which would be more pleasing to everybody.  At least the water from the tap in the building is included in the ward's water bill and is relatively inexpensive when compared to grape juice.

[carbon dioxide]

Hopefully there will be no changes on the bathrooms at church.  Portland is spending 200 million to get rid of public urinals to promote gender equality.   Lets hold the line on some of this stuff.

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm kind of hoping he'll replace the water we use for sacrament with grape juice fairly soon. It may not matter at all to the Lord what we use but grape juice would sure taste a lot better than the water we use in our sacrament service. The water we use in our ward is from the tap and it has an off taste to it, too many minerals or something, not at all like the good tasting water I get from my well on my property.  But I suppose grape juice would get spilled onto floors and the pews and cause stains, which wouldn't be good.  May take a while longer to come up with an alternative which would be more pleasing to everybody.  At least the water from the tap in the building is included in the ward's water bill and is relatively inexpensive when compared to grape juice.

Are there no small children in your ward? Grape juice would be a disaster. But maybe help transition away from white shirts.

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

Yes, and I am sure that anger comes from God and not, say, his adversary.

Things change. The Restoration is still young. It was not wrong before but is becoming more perfect. We do not see its full shape yet. It is going to be a fun ride.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Merely pointing out that it is unlikely OW directly caused this and other changes the church has made.

Ah.  I misunderstood.  My apologies.  I agree with you.

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

However, it is likely that society's increased focus on gender equality has likely led to both.

Certainly an influence, yes.

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That is the Ordain Women movement led by fringe members seeking priesthood ordination shares a common cause with more mainstream members reevaluating current church policy to see where improvements can be made.  

"Nothing less will suffice" doesn't sound like "a common cause."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, Rivers said:

The feminists will never be fully satisfied no matter what.  They’re always looking for stuff to whine about.

But this is a nice little change nonetheless.  This is a kind of change I had never really thought about.  

I would say this easily paves the way for women holding the baby during a baby blessing.

Now that's a good common sense type of change that I can see some prophet making fairly soon.  The mother holding the baby while the father places both of his hands on their child's head and gives the name and the blessing.  With other men placing one of their hands on the child's head too if the parents desire that.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Any mention of allowing non-priesthood holders to stand in the circle when blessing a baby?

No.  But I predict that will change in the not too distant future. 

Also, I think we’re likely to see YW being permitted to prepare and pass the sacrament as those aren’t ordinances requiring the priesthood. 

[Nacho2dope]

56 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

Thanks 

[Nacho2dope]

56 minutes ago, Duncan said:

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😏

Yes I agree with this

[Wellmired]

Was not able to click like icon.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Great.  Perhaps another small step in granting women the priesthood?

Now it seems like that poster/commenter had a high number of posts too so that wasn't the reason.  So-- any ideas eh!?!?!?

---

  Oh also, someone commented that the OW fringe group would never be happy no matter what.  I so agree that's like a proverb eh?! /sarc    
( that means S A R C A S M )
Concerning :: 

51 minutes ago, Ahab said:

we use for sacrament with grape juice fairly soon.

    I didn't know this, yes quickly I hope so to, it will make everyone guard it with their life so to speak . . . . .  or there goes the dress / shirt ! 

Edited October 2, 2019 by Wellmired