Women as witnesses

[Buckeye]

2 hours 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. 

Not true. Only the designated witnesses have a right to make a correction. Others can speak up but their voice is not authoritative.
 

It’s the same with the sacrament prayer. Anyone can listen and speak up when the words are not spoken correctly but only the bishop has authority to require the prayer be said again. If he deems it valid it is valid, regardless of what anyone else says. 
 

For old timers, allowing a 12 year old girl to serve as official witness for baptism seems as odd as allowing the same girl to exercise the bishops role to deem the sacrament prayer valid. 

[JAHS]

28 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Not true. Only the designated witnesses have a right to make a correction. Others can speak up but their voice is not authoritative.
 

It’s the same with the sacrament prayer. Anyone can listen and speak up when the words are not spoken correctly but only the bishop has authority to require the prayer be said again. If he deems it valid it is valid, regardless of what anyone else says. 

That's what I meant. Others can speak up if they see or hear something wrong and they can let the official witnesses know.

Edited October 3, 2019 by JAHS

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I will admit to sharing in this attitude:  that there is a connection between having performed an ordinance and being a witness to it.

As ward mission leader, I always chose priests as witnesses if a new convert didn't have her or his own preferences. With one exception, I don't think any of these boys had ever baptised anyone.

Quote

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. 

Same! And I'm 100 per cent confident that they'll be brilliant at it.

[Lemuel]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

Not true. Only the designated witnesses have a right to make a correction. Others can speak up but their voice is not authoritative.
 

It’s the same with the sacrament prayer. Anyone can listen and speak up when the words are not spoken correctly but only the bishop has authority to require the prayer be said again. If he deems it valid it is valid, regardless of what anyone else says. 

Is this in the scriptures anywhere?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

10 hours 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

I am happy they can serve in this capacity, since when it comes to baptisms, in the Church, or the Temple,  so many are already serving as witnesses. The primary function, is for two people (now male or female) is to ensure the person being baptized goes all the way under, and that the prayer is said correctly. So very often, it is difficult to get two Elders to squeeze in, due to children and family, who are already serving as witnesses to the baptisms of those they love. So, it is both a practical and good idea, as it is not a part of the ceremony where names are taken down, as they are for the one who does the baptism, and the one who set the person apart. At most baptisms, witnesses are often an afterthought, someone forgot to ask someone, so they have to look around for someone who can do it. This way, our Mothers, Sisters (be that Sisters in the Gospel, or Sister Missionaries) and others can feel more a part of the ceremony, and of the process. So good move, but why as of late within days of Conference, with 12 hours of one type or another this weekend, why so many leaks, or announcements. It would seem better to do this, the way they did when they announced new Missionary age, for young men and women, so all could people rejoice together. It seems now, they wish to leak things weeks or days before, and avoid the fun, or joy of seeing the faces of those at Conference, and the wonderful gasps of joy and laugher, and for those who cannot attend Conference in person, seeing and hearing those  joyful reactions, is great fun. 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 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?

Women regularly exercise priesthood functions in the temple and always have. This merely expands the number and type of such functions that they can perform.  Joseph did the same thing with the Relief Society many years ago.  There is really nothing new or shocking here, so move along people.  Pres Nelson has things well in hand.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Women regularly exercise priesthood functions in the temple and always have. This merely expands the number and type of such functions that they can perform.  Joseph did the same thing with the Relief Society many years ago.  There is really nothing new or shocking here, so move along people.  Pres Nelson has things well in hand.

Yes, but at least the witnessing of baptisms doesn't seem like women being given the opportunity to perform priesthood functions. For witnessing baptisms it doesn't appear priesthood is involved at all any more. Or are 8 year olds also exercising priesthood if they witness a baptism?

The entire concept of priesthood seems to be turning on its head. I'm fine with that, but that's why I don't quite understand why some would be so willing to accept changes in definition and practice of priesthood to even involve small children, yet still be opposed to women receiving a more formal role.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, but at least the witnessing of baptisms doesn't seem like women being given the opportunity to perform priesthood functions. For witnessing baptisms it doesn't appear priesthood is involved at all any more. Or are 8 year olds also exercising priesthood if they witness a baptism?

The entire concept of priesthood seems to be turning on its head. I'm fine with that, but that's why I don't quite understand why some would be so willing to accept changes in definition and practice of priesthood to even involve small children, yet still be opposed to women receiving a more formal role.

You missed my point:  Being a witness in baptisms or sealings is not and never was a priesthood function, and that younger people and females can now do it is merely an expansion of roles, as I said.  What you apparently don't get is that women have always performed formal priesthood functions in LDS temples.  How do you imagine that women perform initiatories, or work in the endowment rooms and at the veil?  These are formal priesthood functions, and Pres Oaks has made a point of that fact.  That women can even perform other priesthood functions is clear from the time when Pres Joseph Smith had the Relief Society explicitly doing them.  Women have even been prophets in biblical times.  This indicates a lot of open options, and does  in no way turn the concept of priesthood on its head.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Women have even been prophets in biblical times.

I would even go further to say that a primary or relief society president can, under the direction of the spirit, act as a prophet and prophecy within her stewardship.  Prophet is not a priesthood office.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You missed my point:  Being a witness in baptisms or sealings is not and never was a priesthood function, and that younger people and females can now do it is merely an expansion of roles, as I said.  What you apparently don't get is that women have always performed formal priesthood functions in LDS temples.  How do you imagine that women perform initiatories, or work in the endowment rooms and at the veil?  These are formal priesthood functions, and Pres Oaks has made a point of that fact.  That women can even perform other priesthood functions is clear from the time when Pres Joseph Smith had the Relief Society explicitly doing them.  Women have even been prophets in biblical times.  This indicates a lot of open options, and does  in no way turn the concept of priesthood on its head.

No. You didn't understand my point.

BTW- I would dispute that being a witness was never a priesthood function. Now that it's no longer a priesthood function it's easy and natural to pretend like it has never been, but it was. That's why priesthood was required to do it.

[JLHPROF]

I have no issue with this policy change at all.  I am curious when it was put in place?  I've never seen it in early Church teachings or revelation.  Do we know when the now removed limits were codified?

As far as I know the only requirements to be an official witness to an ordinance is to have received it yourself.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

BTW- I would dispute that being a witness was never a priesthood function. Now that it's no longer a priesthood function it's easy and natural to pretend like it has never been, but it was. That's why priesthood was required to do it.

Being a witness was always a priesthood function?  Where do you get that idea?  Just from the fact that only priesthood holders performed it?  That is no evidence at all.  When I see a priest blessing the sacramental emblems through a formal blessing, that is clearly a priesthood function.  When the diaconate serves those emblems to the congregation, that is clearly a priesthood function.  When, however, ordinary members and non-members pass the tray of emblems down the row, that is clearly not a priesthood function.

You have confused formal blessings with collateral actions which do not require any priesthood authority or function.  There may have been an automatic assumption or pretense that witnessing was a priesthood function, but it seems manifestly specious to me.  One of the reasons why the Brethren have been streamlining temple functions lately has been that there was no real reason not to do so.  This has also been true in past alterations in temple procedures (from before your time).

[SettingDogStar]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. You didn't understand my point.

BTW- I would dispute that being a witness was never a priesthood function. Now that it's no longer a priesthood function it's easy and natural to pretend like it has never been, but it was. That's why priesthood was required to do it.

It never was. Joseph F. Smith restricted it to priestholders in 1959, where as previously it was not a standard.

[Robert F. Smith]

28 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I would even go further to say that a primary or relief society president can, under the direction of the spirit, act as a prophet and prophecy within her stewardship.  Prophet is not a priesthood office.

Well, for that matter, anyone can prophesy.  Even small children.  Prophecy and inspiration may follow any that believe.  That wasn't quite what I had in mind.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, SettingDogStar said:

It never was. Joseph F. Smith restricted it to priestholders in 1959, where as previously it was not a standard.

Do you mean Joseph Fielding Smith?  And could you cite a source?  Thanks.

[SettingDogStar]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Do you mean Joseph Fielding Smith?  And could you cite a source?  Thanks.

No problem. It’s the study of LDS historian Ardis Parshall. It was Joseph Fielding Smith, my bad.

She says that Smith was surprised in 1959, when he heard that women witnessed temple marriages in Alberta, Parshall reports. “He asked for the temple president’s authority, and learned that it was a longstanding practice, based on ‘Item No. 53’ in the written instructions given to temple presidents.”

To that, Smith replied, “Where the idea of having women for witnesses for marriages began I do not know, but my training convinces me that it is the proper thing to have the priesthood not only officiating but witnessing the ceremonies of the temple.”

and it’s been that way since.

 

It wasn’t a common practice but it did happen.

Edited October 3, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, SettingDogStar said:

No problem. It’s the study of LDS historian Ardis Parshall. It was Joseph Fielding Smith, my bad.

She says that Smith was surprised in 1959, when he heard that women witnessed temple marriages in Alberta, Parshall reports. “He asked for the temple president’s authority, and learned that it was a longstanding practice, based on ‘Item No. 53’ in the written instructions given to temple presidents.”

To that, Smith replied, “Where the idea of having women for witnesses for marriages began I do not know, but my training convinces me that it is the proper thing to have the priesthood not only officiating but witnessing the ceremonies of the temple.”

and it’s been that way since.

Thank you for providing this.  I was curious where it originated.  

Considering how it came about I'm even more content with it ending.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

It never was. Joseph F. Smith restricted it to priestholders in 1959, where as previously it was not a standard.

But it was not unusual to hear justification for the restriction was because it was a Priesthood function in my experience.

[Calm]

Read a short thread from 2011 discussing this very topic...if witnesses had to have the Priesthood.  And of course people provided reasoning for it.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/54583-do-witnesses-to-a-baptism-have-to-hold-the-priesthood/

Quote

I point out that the witnesses must have the authority that they would need if they were to perform the baptism themselves (i.e. be priests in the Aaronic Priesthood or hold the Melchizedek Priesthood). I think Libs is correct in the assumption that, because it is a priesthood ordinance, officiators (including the witnesses) must bear the proper authority.

There is no explanation given in the topic (not updated yet) on the Church site though.

Quote

Two priests or Melchizedek Priesthood holders witness each baptism to make sure it is performed properly. The baptism must be repeated if the words are not spoken exactly as given in Doctrine and Covenants 20:73 or if part of the person’s body or clothing is not immersed completely.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings/baptism-and-confirmation?lang=eng

(I am looking for examples of past reasoning out of curiosity)

Edited October 3, 2019 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

It never was. Joseph F. Smith restricted it to priestholders in 1959, where as previously it was not a standard.

Cool detail. Thanks.

So it was never a priesthood function prior to 1959? Interesting.

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Being a witness was always a priesthood function?  Where do you get that idea?  Just from the fact that only priesthood holders performed it?  That is no evidence at all.  When I see a priest blessing the sacramental emblems through a formal blessing, that is clearly a priesthood function.  When the diaconate serves those emblems to the congregation, that is clearly a priesthood function.  When, however, ordinary members and non-members pass the tray of emblems down the row, that is clearly not a priesthood function.

You have confused formal blessings with collateral actions which do not require any priesthood authority or function.  There may have been an automatic assumption or pretense that witnessing was a priesthood function, but it seems manifestly specious to me.  One of the reasons why the Brethren have been streamlining temple functions lately has been that there was no real reason not to do so.  This has also been true in past alterations in temple procedures (from before your time).

I got that idea from a lifetime of lessons both taught and learned in priesthood. Inevitably, the question would arise about why a priesthood holder was required to serve as a witness. The answer was never "it's just a church policy." The answer was always something to the effect of "A witness serves to ensure a priesthood function was carried out properly therefore a priesthood holder is required to review the ordinance performed by another priesthood holder".

I'd be really curious to see what old handbooks stated about the requirement of priesthood witnesses. But yes, if it was always that way, at least during my entire life and the adult life of my parents, then there is an assumption that there is a reason for the requirement. I'll grant you it may have been a faulty assumption, but I still contend that there was likely formal teaching about why a priesthood holder must witness. I'd love to see if anyone has any documentation on that but I'm not feeling up to researching it. I know my experience of being taught priesthood responsibilities.

I had to look up the definition of "diaconate". Why not just say deacon?    But I don't think that that function is any more clearly a priesthood function than witnessing. It certainly doesn't exist as a priesthood duty of a deacon in D&C.

[SettingDogStar]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Thank you for providing this.  I was curious where it originated.  

Considering how it came about I'm even more content with it ending.

I can’t seem to find the actual source for the quote though so I’m getting suspicious. However, have witnesses for a baptism always been required in this dispensation? Now that I’m curious about.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

No problem. It’s the study of LDS historian Ardis Parshall. It was Joseph Fielding Smith, my bad.

She says that Smith was surprised in 1959, when he heard that women witnessed temple marriages in Alberta, Parshall reports. “He asked for the temple president’s authority, and learned that it was a longstanding practice, based on ‘Item No. 53’ in the written instructions given to temple presidents.”

To that, Smith replied, “Where the idea of having women for witnesses for marriages began I do not know, but my training convinces me that it is the proper thing to have the priesthood not only officiating but witnessing the ceremonies of the temple.”

and it’s been that way since.

 

It wasn’t a common practice but it did happen.

Thanks for sharing.

So this is one instance of a church leader teaching the priesthood was required for witnessing. Is there any reason we should expect that to be an unusual teaching, or is it reasonable to think that witnessing has long been taught to be a priesthood function?

[10THAmendment]

Women will have the priesthood within 30 years time. 

[SettingDogStar]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Cool detail. Thanks.

So it was never a priesthood function prior to 1959? Interesting.

I got that idea from a lifetime of lessons both taught and learned in priesthood. Inevitably, the question would arise about why a priesthood holder was required to serve as a witness. The answer was never "it's just a church policy." The answer was always something to the effect of "A witness serves to ensure a priesthood function was carried out properly therefore a priesthood holder is required to review the ordinance performed by another priesthood holder".

I'd be really curious to see what old handbooks stated about the requirement of priesthood witnesses. But yes, if it was always that way, at least during my entire life and the adult life of my parents, then there is an assumption that there is a reason for the requirement. I'll grant you it may have been a faulty assumption, but I still contend that there was likely formal teaching about why a priesthood holder must witness. I'd love to see if anyone has any documentation on that but I'm not feeling up to researching it. I know my experience of being taught priesthood responsibilities.

I had to look up the definition of "diaconate". Why not just say deacon?    But I don't think that that function is any more clearly a priesthood function than witnessing. It certainly doesn't exist as a priesthood duty of a deacon in D&C.

Im not saying it was never a priesthood function, but if women were allowed to do it then it obviously wasn’t solely a function of the priesthood as we understand it.

Edited October 3, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[Duncan]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have no issue with this policy change at all.  I am curious when it was put in place?  I've never seen it in early Church teachings or revelation.  Do we know when the now removed limits were codified?

As far as I know the only requirements to be an official witness to an ordinance is to have received it yourself.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2019/10/02/the-witness-of-women-historical-context/