Women as witnesses

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If you are referring to D&C 68 that's not what it says.

I see no evidence of valid priesthood authority among the Jews.

1 Chronicles 23:13 "The sons of Amram were Aaron and Moses And Aaron was set apart to sanctify him as most holy, he and his sons forever, to burn incense before the LORD, to minister to Him and to bless in His name forever."

I edited my answer.

Edited October 6, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

On 10/3/2019 at 6:45 PM, JLHPROF said:

Women will be ordained, and sooner than that.

Whether they'll hold priesthood is debatable.

The difference between being ordained and set apart is a very fine distinction when judging the function of each practice.

I suppose the main difference functionally is that if one is set apart for a particular calling that doesn't mean that they can set apart others for the same calling. On the other hand ordination does provide that opportunity.

Edited October 5, 2019 by mfbukowski

[MDalby]

On 10/3/2019 at 1:05 PM, 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.

 

Then in January 1961, Elder Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles visited Delhi. I spent three days traveling with him to the Taj Mahal at Agra and to Dharamsala. I was like a sponge soaking up all the gospel lessons he taught. On the final day of his visit, I was ready for baptism. On January 7, 1961, I was baptized by Elder Kimball in the Yamuna River; Sister Kimball was the official witness, though there were many curious onlookers. I was confirmed that evening.
(My Journey as a Pioneer from India, By Mangal Dan Dipty, as told to John Santosh Murala, The author is from Telangana, India., Ensign, July 2016)

 

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, MDalby said:

Then in January 1961, Elder Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles visited Delhi. I spent three days traveling with him to the Taj Mahal at Agra and to Dharamsala. I was like a sponge soaking up all the gospel lessons he taught. On the final day of his visit, I was ready for baptism. On January 7, 1961, I was baptized by Elder Kimball in the Yamuna River; Sister Kimball was the official witness, though there were many curious onlookers. I was confirmed that evening.
(My Journey as a Pioneer from India, By Mangal Dan Dipty, as told to John Santosh Murala, The author is from Telangana, India., Ensign, July 2016)

Wow!!  Just wow.

[Robert F. Smith]

Bonnie Cordon just stated that young women who are called and set apart in class presidencies "exercise priesthood authority" in their callings.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The difference between being ordained and set apart is a very fine distinction when judging the function of each practice.

I suppose the main difference functionally is that if one is set apart for a particular calling that doesn't mean that they can set apart others for the same calling. On the other hand ordination does provide that opportunity.

Hebrew hiqdîš “set apart, sanctify, make holy, consecrate” (Exodus 13:12, Leviticus 20:7-8,26, Deuteronomy 7:6, 1 Chronicles 23:13, Psalm 4:3).  Cf. generally Semitic gzr = Egyptian dsr “to set apart, make sacred, consecrate.”

1 Chronicles 23:13 "Aaron was set apart, he and his descendants forever, to consecrate the most holy things, to offer sacrifices before the Lord, to minister before him and to pronounce blessings in his name forever."

[Jake Starkey]

Witnessing baptisms or sealings is now permitted to all, young and old, man and woman, who are baptized members.  It is an inclusive ordinance respecting neither age nor sex.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2019 by Jake Starkey

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/3/2019 at 12:58 PM, 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.

My 1944  handbook says nothing about witnesses at baptisms, but it does say....

Quote

It is improper for those who are appointed to perform baptisms to use waders or hip boots to avoid wetting the clothing or to keep the water from coming in contact with the body....Children should not be baptized in bathtubs....The wearing of bathing caps by women who are being baptized should not be be permitted....The dedicating of water by prayer for baptism is not a part of the baptismal ordinance or ceremony, and is, therefore, not necessary.

It's been my experience that some policies are set because somewhere someone is doing what needs to be “adjusted."

Also of interest...

Quote

We advise that the children of men and women who have been excommunicated from the Church because of their having entered into illicit relations under the guise of plural marriage, be not baptized until they have sufficient understanding to apply intelligently for baptism, and can give assurance that they accept the teaching and practices of the Church, and express regret for the opposition manifested by their parents to the rules of the Church. There is no consistency in baptizing a child and having him re-enter a home, the spirit of which is antagonistic to the authorities of the Church, and out of harmony with its principles.

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/5/2019 at 7:40 AM, MDalby said:

 

Then in January 1961, Elder Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles visited Delhi. I spent three days traveling with him to the Taj Mahal at Agra and to Dharamsala. I was like a sponge soaking up all the gospel lessons he taught. On the final day of his visit, I was ready for baptism. On January 7, 1961, I was baptized by Elder Kimball in the Yamuna River; Sister Kimball was the official witness, though there were many curious onlookers. I was confirmed that evening.
(My Journey as a Pioneer from India, By Mangal Dan Dipty, as told to John Santosh Murala, The author is from Telangana, India., Ensign, July 2016)

 

There is no indication that any members or priesthood holders other than Elder and Sister Kimball were present at the baptism, which would have made this an exception rather than the rule. In any event, the issue is now moot.

Also, as far as I can tell, there are no instructions for missionary baptisms to have witnesses at baptisms in Preach My Gospel. Although there was this in Handbook 2. Interesting.

Quote

20.3.7 Witnesses of a Baptism 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.

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[blueglass]

On 10/7/2019 at 5:19 PM, Bernard Gui said:

20.3.7 Witnesses of a Baptism 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.

The handbook2 20.3.7 entry requiring that witnesses be two priests or melchizedek priesthood holders serve as witnesses makes sense.  They would know how to perform the ordinance properly because they receive training on how to perform the ordinances themselves.  I suppose the danger for the church is that a 12 year-old girl may study carefully the ordinance and then correct a boy 15 y/o priest if he makes a mistake and may then ask in her mind?  "Lord, I'm ready for the responsibility to baptize - will this day ever arrive?"   At that point a kind leader will explain that women can wash with water in the temple but they can't immerse someone in water outside of the temple.  Jurisdiction rules. And certainly no ordination to an office as that would require a massive back-propagation proxy-ordination project to ordain all our kindred women who are dead to the office of priestess, elder, or high priestess.  Again I'm confused on why the office of Elder was chosen as the proxy ordination office in the late 19th century rather than "priest" or "high priest".  This creates a stratification of priesthood offices in heaven in which someone may become a God - but only hold the office of Elder, because this is a mandatory mortal ordinance?  

Edited October 11, 2019 by blueglass

[SettingDogStar]

2 minutes ago, blueglass said:

The handbook2 20.3.7 entry requiring that witnesses be two priests or melchizedek priesthood holders serve as witnesses makes sense.  They would know how to perform the ordinance properly because they receive training on how to perform the ordinances themselves.  I suppose the danger for the church is that a 12 year-old girl may study carefully the ordinance and then correct a boy 15 y/o priest if he makes a mistake and may then ask in her mind?  "Lord, I'm ready for the responsibility to baptize - will this day ever arrive?"   At that point a kind leader will explain that women can wash with water in the temple but they can't immerse someone in water outside of the temple.  Jurisdiction rules. And certainly no ordination to an office as that would require a massive back-propagation proxy-ordination project to ordain all our kindred women who are dead to the office of priestess, elder, or high priestess.  Again I'm confused on why the office of Elder was chosen as the proxy ordination office in the late 19th century rather than "priest" or "high priest".  This creates a stratification of priesthood offices in heaven in which someone may become a God - but only hold the office of Elder, because this is a mandatory mortal ordinance?  

It is curious that women can wash with water within Temple confines, but cannot wash outside of it. I wonder why this is? Have women always done the washings within temples?

[ksfisher]

On 10/7/2019 at 3:19 PM, Bernard Gui said:

Also, as far as I can tell, there are no instructions for missionary baptisms to have witnesses at baptisms in Preach My Gospel. Although there was this in Handbook 2. Interesting.

This isn't surprising as a convert baptism service is held under the direction of the local ward or branch, not the mission.  Having the instructions in Handbook 2 is the appropriate place.

[ksfisher]

16 hours ago, blueglass said:

Again I'm confused on why the office of Elder was chosen as the proxy ordination office in the late 19th century rather than "priest" or "high priest".  This creates a stratification of priesthood offices in heaven in which someone may become a God - but only hold the office of Elder, because this is a mandatory mortal ordinance?

A high priest holds the same priesthood as an elder.  The only difference between the two offices is the right to preside at different levels of church organization.  Proxy ordination of the dead to the office of elder seems sufficient at this point. 

[SettingDogStar]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

A high priest holds the same priesthood as an elder.  The only difference between the two offices is the right to preside at different levels of church organization.  Proxy ordination of the dead to the office of elder seems sufficient at this point. 

It seems odd to me to ordain them to any office at all. Offices have changed dramatically from the beginning of the world to now, which makes it obvious to me that the “other side” and the celestial kingdom are not organized the way our church is. Not even the Original Church was organized like ours. So why ordain then to an office at all? We don’t know the needs of the other side! Christ chose his missionary force from among he righteous and I can assume that many of them probably didn’t hold any “office” except they held the High Priesthood. 

So just give them the priesthood and let the next side figure it out.

Edited October 11, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

So why ordain then to an office at all?

I guess the converse question is also applicable.  Why not?  We do the best we can, line upon line etc. and we learn.

9 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

let the next side figure it out

It's always seemed to me that we should do the best we can with the knowledge we have now.  Letting someone figure something out later, as a general principle, seems lazy (maybe that's not the right word) to me.  Some things we need to let sit for now, but I believe we should always do the best and most we can with the direction we've received.

[JLHPROF]

18 hours ago, blueglass said:

 Again I'm confused on why the office of Elder was chosen as the proxy ordination office in the late 19th century rather than "priest" or "high priest".  This creates a stratification of priesthood offices in heaven in which someone may become a God - but only hold the office of Elder, because this is a mandatory mortal ordinance?  

Priesthood is conferred, and an office is named, except in one specific case where priesthood was conferred without restriction to any office.

An Elder holds ALL the Melchizedek priesthood because that's what's conferred.  Elder is the office they are authorized to act in, their specific calling.

To receive the endowment with Aaronic and Melchizedek ordinances requires both priesthoods be conferred.  Office is irrelevant to that.

Edited October 11, 2019 by JLHPROF

[SettingDogStar]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I guess the converse question is also applicable.  Why not?  We do the best we can, line upon line etc. and we learn.

It's always seemed to me that we should do the best we can with the knowledge we have now.  Letting someone figure something out later, as a general principle, seems lazy (maybe that's not the right word) to me.  Some things we need to let sit for now, but I believe we should always do the best and most we can with the direction we've received.

Well it’s not really, to me, a “why not?” Question. It literally seems pointless haha the church has been organized so many different ways throughout history that ordaining everyone to an elder is just silly.

Also im not saying that someone should figure it out later. If someone has died and gone to paradise they are in the hands of the righteous and they should be the ones to figure it out since they understand how the work/church/organization works on that side and we don’t. Why force our church organization onto people who live in a state of which we don’t understand? It always felt very silly to me since they I obvioulsy must structer themsveles differently.

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

ordaining everyone to an elder is just silly

I'm not sure I see the silliness in it.  If it turns out it need to be changed I'm confident that the Lord will reveal new direction.

 

5 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

Why force our church organization onto people who live in a state of which we don’t understand?

Where is the force?  We're acting according to the direction the Lord has revealed to his prophets.  If those who have passed decline the proxy ordinances performed on their behalf who would force them?

[blueglass]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

A high priest holds the same priesthood as an elder.  The only difference between the two offices is the right to preside at different levels of church organization.  Proxy ordination of the dead to the office of elder seems sufficient at this point. 

I suppose after 2018 elders and high priests meet together in the spirit world now? 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

 It literally seems pointless haha the church has been organized so many different ways throughout history that ordaining everyone to an elder is just silly.

It's the conferral of Melchizedek priesthood that matters, not the office.  They don't need any particular Church office in the next world but they do need to be after the order of the Son of God.

And it's temporary anyway since the completion of ordinances will elevate them to a fulness of priesthood at some point.

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

I suppose after 2018 elders and high priests meet together in the spirit world now? 

Until they eventually move to the Celestial kingdom and the fullness of priesthood authority.

[SettingDogStar]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's the conferral of Melchizedek priesthood that matters, not the office.  They don't need any particular Church office in the next world but they do need to be after the order of the Son of God.

And it's temporary anyway since the completion of ordinances will elevate them to a fulness of priesthood at some point.

Until they eventually move to the Celestial kingdom and the fullness of priesthood authority.

That’s more what i mean. Just lay hands upon the head in proxy for bestowing the preisthood, no need to separately ordain to an office. Offices didn’t seem to exist in Adams time, they just had the priesthood and acted as what we would now see as the office of “patriarchs.” 

Edited October 12, 2019 by SettingDogStar

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

That’s more what i mean. Just lay hands upon the head in proxy for bestowing the preisthood, no need to separately ordain to an office. Offices didn’t seem to exist in Adams time, they just had the priesthood and acted as what we would now see as the office of “patriarchs.” 

But you can't receive an ordinance by proxy you haven't received yourself.  By using Elder anyone ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood can perform work for the dead.  If more priesthood authority were given by proxy more priesthood authority would be needed on the  part of the patron.

Which is probably why we do so few second anointings by proxy.

[SettingDogStar]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But you can't receive an ordinance by proxy you haven't received yourself.  By using Elder anyone ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood can perform work for the dead.  If more priesthood authority were given by proxy more priesthood authority would be needed on the  part of the patron.

Which is probably why we do so few second anointings by proxy.

I’m confused. I’m talking about ordaining the dead to the office of Elder.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, SettingDogStar said:

I’m confused. I’m talking about ordaining the dead to the office of Elder.

Which requires the patron to be at least an Elder.  All men have to receive the Melchizedek priesthood prior to being endowed.  Living or dead.

In order to allow elders to perform endowment for the dead the deceased patron can be ordained an Elder.  If we ordained them High Priest or Apostle only High Priest or Apostles could be the proxy.

And if we ordained to priesthood without limitation of office the patron would likewise need to be unlimited in office.

You cannot be a patron for a higher ordinance than you yourself have received.

What's confusing?

[JLHPROF]

On 10/2/2019 at 11:14 AM, mfbukowski said:

If you understand how it works they already have it.

I agree.  But I wonder if we understand it the same way.