Women as witnesses

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Again though, you don’t see a reason to celebrate when a wrong is corrected?

No, I don't think the mormon church believes they were wrong.

[SettingDogStar]

2 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

No, I don't think the mormon church believes they were wrong.

I get that vibe, but I’m not sure

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I struggle to see what one thing has to do with the other.  We could also ask, why does God want children to be witnesses (now) but doesn't want them to perform ordinances?  From my perspective, it's because being a witness and being ordained are two separate issues and one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

As to the bolded part, arguments from silence aren't usually seen as valid, but one could say that the fact that His prophet has not o.k.'d the ordination of women suggests that God has not told His prophet to ordain women.

 

I think most people see a strong connection between (i) performing an ordinance and (ii) serving as a formal witness of that ordinance.  The two actions are not the same thing, obviously, but they are intertwined. In my view, both are beneficial in allowing people to build ties through shared spiritual experiences. That's why parents I know in the church want their sons and husbands to perform ordinances (yes, children do perform the ordinances of sacrament and baptism). Doing so gives them a spiritual experience that will bring them closer to Christ and help keep them rooted in the gospel. Likewise, I (and I imagine other parents) will now want their daughters to serve as witnesses. Doing so gives them something they would not otherwise have. Otherwise, why open this door and encourage them to participate?

So I'm still puzzled as to why members would be encouraged that girls and women can now have more involvement in ordinances (by serving as witnesses), but would not also desire them to have a more complete involvement (by officiating). The common tie is that both actions are good. We want all people to have access to all good.

As for arguments from silence, my reading of the scriptures suggests that God stays silent until we actively desire something and ask for it. That's how Joseph got the first vision, Emma got the WOW, the primary and YMMA were formed, temples are built, and on and on. If God wants women to be ordained, He's not going to direct that until we as a people actively desire it and ask. Sitting by passively will not cut it. We have to be actively engaged and wrestle with whether this is really a good thing. 

[JAHS]

26 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’m patient enough, I just think it silly to wait if they have a solution now. I don’t know what they talk about and discuss, but stuff like this is resolved very easily. A little tiny press release, an email, and update. 

I don't think it is that easy when they have to consider the  world wide membership with all their customs and cultures which might come into play as they consider each policy.   

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

think most people see a strong connection between (i) performing an ordinance and (ii) serving as a formal witness of that ordinance.  The two actions are not the same thing, obviously, but they are intertwined. I

Most justifications I heard was the priesthood was needed to be witnesses because it was part of a priesthood ordinance.  Essentially the same justification that was used for having priesthood holders give opening/closing prayers in SM.

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Most justifications I heard was the priesthood was needed to be witnesses because it was part of a priesthood ordinance.  Essentially the same justification that was used for having priesthood holders give opening/closing prayers in SM.

Makes sense, but I think they realized that the entire meeting is not really the ordinance, it is just the part when the sacrament is blessed and passed. 
There are many people who witness a baptism besides the two witnesses, any one of which is perfectly in their right to let those in charge know that something was not done right. 

[Avatar4321]

The Lord is hastening the work more.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am open to that, but I doubt it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't.

 

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

There are many people who witness a baptism besides the two witnesses, any one of which is perfectly in their right to let those in charge know that something was not done right. 

It's always nice when people in the back of the room can see things that people 10 feet away can't.

[Lemuel]

4 hours 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.

Russell Nelson's key insight is that traditions created without revelation can be changed without revelation, and many people will think it is a revelation.

He, and his successors, will get a ton of mileage out of it since most of the things we do in the church are traditions, taught for doctrines.

 

[SettingDogStar]

5 minutes ago, Lemuel said:

Russell Nelson's key insight is that traditions created without revelation can be changed without revelation, and many people will think it is a revelation.

He, and his successors, will get a ton of mileage out of it since most of the things we do in the church are traditions, taught for doctrines.

 

Yeah...this I can agree. I wouldn’t say most of the things, but a lot.

[JAHS]

I wonder if there is a secondary reason for this, especially for temple work. With women able to be witnesses it makes it easier to have enough temple workers available to perform that duty and not have to rely on having enough priesthood holders available. 

[carbon dioxide]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I wonder if there is a secondary reason for this, especially for temple work. With women able to be witnesses it makes it easier to have enough temple workers available to perform that duty and not have to rely on having enough priesthood holders available. 

If this is the case then then we could see girls pass the sacrament soon as there are wards with not enough deacons and even older young men to pass it.  Carrying and passing a trey is not a priesthood ordinance and women pass the trey already when they are sitting in the congregation.

[SettingDogStar]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If this is the case then then we could see girls pass the sacrament soon as there are wards with not enough deacons and even older young men to pass it.  Carrying and passing a trey is not a priesthood ordinance and women pass the trey already when they are sitting in the congregation.

I’m down for this.

[Lemuel]

16 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If this is the case then then we could see girls pass the sacrament soon as there are wards with not enough deacons and even older young men to pass it.  Carrying and passing a trey is not a priesthood ordinance and women pass the trey already when they are sitting in the congregation.

That one's best saved for a week with unusually bad PR.

[SettingDogStar]

1 minute ago, Lemuel said:

That one's best saved for a week with unusually bad PR.

Yikes haha

[strappinglad]

Recently I was asked for my temple recommend in order to serve as a witness to my grandsons baptism in a town not mine. Now any baptised person can do it. That will put the person conducting the meeting in the position of personally knowing the witnesses, no? Maybe we all should get an ID from the Church to prove we are what we say we are. 

A thought arises. Pres. Nelson has a wife who is a boomer and may have more modern input. Just saying. 

[JAHS]

Just now, strappinglad said:

Recently I was asked for my temple recommend in order to serve as a witness to my grandsons baptism in a town not mine. Now any baptised person can do it. That will put the person conducting the meeting in the position of personally knowing the witnesses, no? Maybe we all should get an ID from the Church to prove we are what we say we are. 

A thought arises. Pres. Nelson has a wife who is a boomer and may have more modern input. Just saying. 

it also specifies any baptized member including, children and youth. So an 8-year old baptized member is going to be a witness? I hope someone else is looking over their shoulder to help them. 

[JAHS]

28 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

If this is the case then then we could see girls pass the sacrament soon as there are wards with not enough deacons and even older young men to pass it.  Carrying and passing a trey is not a priesthood ordinance and women pass the trey already when they are sitting in the congregation.

I think taking the trays from the sacrament table to the congregation might be considered part of the ordinance requiring priesthood. At least right now it is. I guess it's possible.  There is historical evidence of this happening already during World War II when there was a shortage of men in a ward.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

I think most people see a strong connection between (i) performing an ordinance and (ii) serving as a formal witness of that ordinance.  The two actions are not the same thing, obviously, but they are intertwined.

Other than personal opinion, why is it obvious that they are intertwined?  

Quote

In my view, both are beneficial in allowing people to build ties through shared spiritual experiences. That's why parents I know in the church want their sons and husbands to perform ordinances (yes, children do perform the ordinances of sacrament and baptism).

We don't consider those children in the church though, we consider them to be young men and young women.  Nine year olds don't perform ordinances, but they can act as a witness.

Quote

Doing so gives them a spiritual experience that will bring them closer to Christ and help keep them rooted in the gospel. Likewise, I (and I imagine other parents) will now want their daughters to serve as witnesses. Doing so gives them something they would not otherwise have. Otherwise, why open this door and encourage them to participate?

True, but in my experience, God doesn't really work that way.  He doesn't make sure that we all get to have the same experiences just because they give us something we would not otherwise have.  Saying "but the priesthood will give women experiences they otherwise won't have" isn't a valid reason, in my opinion, to press for women to be ordained.  There are lots of wonderful experiences that could bring you closer to Christ, or me closer to Christ, that God is not going to allow you or I to have, for one reason or another.  That's just life.

Quote

So I'm still puzzled as to why members would be encouraged that girls and women can now have more involvement in ordinances (by serving as witnesses), but would not also desire them to have a more complete involvement (by officiating). The common tie is that both actions are good. We want all people to have access to all good.

Speaking only for myself, it's probably because I don't see this as a chance for women and children to be more involved in ordinances as much as I see it as a chance for women and children to be more involved in church.  For me, the fact that ordinances are involved is irrelevant to my excitement.  

Quote

As for arguments from silence, my reading of the scriptures suggests that God stays silent until we actively desire something and ask for it. That's how Joseph got the first vision, Emma got the WOW, the primary and YMMA were formed, temples are built, and on and on. If God wants women to be ordained, He's not going to direct that until we as a people actively desire it and ask. Sitting by passively will not cut it. We have to be actively engaged and wrestle with whether this is really a good thing. 

None of your examples had anything to do with 'we as a people' actively desiring something though.  They had to do with the Lord's prophet having a question and seeking the Lord's input on the subject.  Some might believe that Pres. Nelson is sitting by passively on the issue of women and the priesthood, but I don't believe that, and I don't believe the evidence supports that.  The fact that women have not been ordained yet, despite my belief that the prophet is actively engaged and wrestling with these questions, is evidence to me that it's not currently God's will.  

Maybe that will change in the future.

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

Opinions will vary on the list of unnecessary/silly policies. How do you know the other silly policies are being ignored? Perhaps they have long conversations and moments of prayer seeking revelation on those policies. We just don't know about it until they make an announcement.  Like I said before, Line upon line the church is growing and continuing to perfect itself based on the needs of the people at this particular time and the will of God.

Maybe it would have happened earlier if Ordain Women didn't ask for it, haha. Or maybe they did it because...and it's from the bottom up that get things done. I just saw this today, and hadn't known Ordain Women asked for this. 

https://fox13now.com/2016/02/17/ordain-women-urges-lds-church-to-change-policies-regarding-women-serving-as-official-witnesses/

Edited October 2, 2019 by Tacenda

[SettingDogStar]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe it would have happened earlier if Ordain Women didn't ask for it, haha. Or maybe they did it because...and it's from the bottom up that get things done. I just saw this today, and hadn't known Ordain Women asked for this. 

https://fox13now.com/2016/02/17/ordain-women-urges-lds-church-to-change-policies-regarding-women-serving-as-official-witnesses/

Holy cow that is interesting..

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Other than personal opinion, why is it obvious that they are intertwined?  

I will admit to sharing in this attitude:  that there is a connection between having performed an ordinance and being a witness to it.  It's not something that I consciously thought about but in the back of my mind, the thought was that the witness ought to be one who has performed the ordinance so that they know how it is to be done.  However, such logic fails when it comes to temple sealings (where the witnesses are often not temple sealers).

That said, I love the idea of a leader or really any more experienced church member sitting down with an 8 year old or with a new Beehive and teaching them what it is that one should look for in a baptism (living or proxy) to make sure it has been done correctly.  As has been noted, it doesn't take the priesthood to know if a person has been fully submerged and it doesn't take a college-degree to memorize the baptismal prayer.  I think this change has great potential to make our children and youth feel that they have additional important roles in the ordinances.

What a great thing!  I'm so excited for our next youth temple trip.

I'm also picturing upcoming baptisms of my nieces and nephews with the opportunity for moms and grandmas to be Witnesses (capital W).  Beautiful!

[BlueDreams]

6 hours 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?

(Forewarning, likely typos. Doing this on a phone while rocking a baby) I’ve been pretty busy today and haven’t read the thread much past the first page. So some of this may likely be redundant. I’d likely fit the bolded thought. Definitely excited about the change and several of the recent ones. But still at least hesitant to assert priesthood ordination for women in the same way as men. I know i’ve mentioned before that I looked at a number of the reasoning and desires for with the question of could we get what they desire without ordination and would ordination be sufficient to meet several of the concerns. The answer for myself was yes and no. 

Beyond that and on this specific concern i’ve seen some assume these are the baby steps leading to eventual ordination. I’ve seen those who’ve taken it with a more pragmatic outlook for the changes (comfort of others, number of ordained priesthood leaders being limited, meeting gender concerns for members who that would be a stumbling block, etc). Personally, feel like they both focus on a part of the recent changes and not the whole in aggregate. Certain changes especially get highlighted that appear to bouy ones position.

With the changes i’ve seen at large, i feel like it’s leading us somewhere definitely better than what i had as a child. I think it more tied to reaching the image in the scriptures in the beginning of Moses 5 with how their relationship and cooperation in their role and obligations from god as equal partners. And to better match Nelson’s focus of a family centered-church supported body of believers. Most of the changes i’ve seen reaffirm this emphasis by deconstructing the more male-centered and  hierarchical oriented power to one of family centered parent led community oriented power. Some of the wording in the endowment, initiatory, sealings, and now this policy points me more toward this more collaborative power.

I also think it giving space to see what the priesthood really is rather than what we’ve traditionally assumed it to be (ie. Male dominated and something the dudes do/possess). Instead it’s point out that the priesthood is the power of Christ to act on earth and all who partake in it receive said power and Authority. It’s strength isn’t seen fully when only men wield said power. It’s when we realize that all of us can and do and can do even more so if we just ask and seek. Which is why I think baptized children can now participate in witnessing...because they too have been given power through the ordinances they received the baptism and receiving the HG. I think there’s more to come. I hope for more to come as we implement these changes. But what i desire from the priesthood, can be done without ordination...though not without priesthood power. I want to be able to know god, receive revelation, more fully use the gifts i’ve been promised, lead my family and other when needed spiritually, and build up the Kingdom of god with greater knowledge and power. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Makes sense, but I think they realized that the entire meeting is not really the ordinance, it is just the part when the sacrament is blessed and passed. 
There are many people who witness a baptism besides the two witnesses, any one of which is perfectly in their right to let those in charge know that something was not done right. 

Yep