hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) I'm reading through the new volume of Saints (Vol 2) and have been pleasantly surprised by what I'm coming across. In chapter 3, I read this section: Quote The next day, the company rolled into the Saints’ new settlement, Winter Quarters, the largest of several settlements of Saints along the Missouri River. About twenty-five hundred people lived in Winter Quarters on land shared by the Omahas and other local Indian tribes. Most of the Saints occupied cabins made from logs or sod, but some lived in tents, wagons, or cave-like dwellings called dugouts. The women of Winter Quarters immediately surrounded Louisa, anxious to help her. They gave her brandy and sugar as medicine, which at first made her feel better. But soon her fever worsened, and she began to shake violently. Afraid she was dying, she cried to the Lord for mercy. Some of the women who attended to Louisa anointed her with oil, laid their hands on her, and blessed her by the power of their faith. In Nauvoo, Joseph Smith had taught the Relief Society that healing was a gift of the Spirit, a sign that followed all believers in Christ.18 The blessing comforted Louisa, giving her strength to endure her sickness, and she soon hired a nurse to care for her until her fever broke. There are no negative statements accompanying this story, nothing even implying that this was somehow out of order. Is this a signal that the church is warming up to the idea of officially condoning women giving blessings again? This is the kind of story that I think a generation ago would not have been published in official church materials. I'm pretty encouraged by this, and wanted to know what the rest of you think. P.S. also of note in this chapter are the references to brandy (in this story) and warm coffee and nothing negative associated with either, they are portrayed as matter of fact stories about early pioneers. Very happy with what I'm reading so far! Edited February 17, 2020 by hope_for_things 2
JAHS Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 Women have always been allowed to give blessings if there are no priesthood holders available: According to President Joseph Fielding Smith: "The Lord has given us directions in matters of this kind; we are to call in the elders, and they are to anoint with oil on the head and bless by the laying on of hands. The Church teaches that a woman may lay on hands upon the head of a sick child and ask the Lord to bless it, in the case when those holding the priesthood cannot be present. A man might under such conditions invite his wife to lay on hands with him in blessing their sick child. This would be merely to exercise her faith and not be, cause of any inherent right to lay on hands. A woman would have no authority to anoint or seal a blessing, and where elders can be called in, that would be the proper way to have an administration performed. (Doctrines of Salvation) And President Joseph Fielding Smith, quoting from his father, said: "Does a wife hold the priesthood with her husband, and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority? A wife does not hold the priesthood with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, she may do so with perfect propriety." When this is done the wife is adding her faith to the administration of her husband. The wife would lay on hands just as would a member of the Aaronic Priesthood, or a faithful brother without the Priesthood, she in this manner giving support by faith to the ordinance performed by her husband. (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56], 3:177.) 3
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Author Posted February 17, 2020 11 minutes ago, JAHS said: Women have always been allowed to give blessings if there are no priesthood holders available: According to President Joseph Fielding Smith: "The Lord has given us directions in matters of this kind; we are to call in the elders, and they are to anoint with oil on the head and bless by the laying on of hands. The Church teaches that a woman may lay on hands upon the head of a sick child and ask the Lord to bless it, in the case when those holding the priesthood cannot be present. A man might under such conditions invite his wife to lay on hands with him in blessing their sick child. This would be merely to exercise her faith and not be, cause of any inherent right to lay on hands. A woman would have no authority to anoint or seal a blessing, and where elders can be called in, that would be the proper way to have an administration performed. (Doctrines of Salvation) And President Joseph Fielding Smith, quoting from his father, said: "Does a wife hold the priesthood with her husband, and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority? A wife does not hold the priesthood with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, she may do so with perfect propriety." When this is done the wife is adding her faith to the administration of her husband. The wife would lay on hands just as would a member of the Aaronic Priesthood, or a faithful brother without the Priesthood, she in this manner giving support by faith to the ordinance performed by her husband. (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56], 3:177.) I recommend you read this essay, it gives a nice history of the practice from the early days in the church to the present. https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/029-16-25.pdf I'm also guessing that if you polled active women in your ward about how many of them believe that the church condones the giving of blessings, including anointing with oil and sealing of blessings as was done in the early church, that you would find very few if any women who think this is kosher behavior. 1
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Author Posted February 17, 2020 16 minutes ago, JAHS said: "Does a wife hold the priesthood with her husband, and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority? A wife does not hold the priesthood with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, she may do so with perfect propriety." When this is done the wife is adding her faith to the administration of her husband. The wife would lay on hands just as would a member of the Aaronic Priesthood, or a faithful brother without the Priesthood, she in this manner giving support by faith to the ordinance performed by her husband. (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56], 3:177.) As for this piece, in my time in the church I've never seen this happen. I would venture to say that there are very few, if any, leaders of wards and stakes that would be comfortable having a woman stand in the circle and lay hands on the head of a sick person with men. I would absolutely welcome this as a baby step in the right direction, but I haven't seen it happen myself and I can imagine just how uncomfortable many orthodox men would be if a woman tried to stand in the circle. Good grief, they won't even let a woman hold her baby for a baby blessing. 1
Tacenda Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: As for this piece, in my time in the church I've never seen this happen. I would venture to say that there are very few, if any, leaders of wards and stakes that would be comfortable having a woman stand in the circle and lay hands on the head of a sick person with men. I would absolutely welcome this as a baby step in the right direction, but I haven't seen it happen myself and I can imagine just how uncomfortable many orthodox men would be if a woman tried to stand in the circle. Good grief, they won't even let a woman hold her baby for a baby blessing. Maybe this is going to be a big change coming up and the kind that may need vitamins and a seat belt.
Jeanne Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 10 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Maybe this is going to be a big change coming up and the kind that may need vitamins and a seat belt. This was what I was thinking too. I would so love this for female members of the church!! 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) On 2/17/2020 at 7:09 AM, hope_for_things said: I'm reading through the new volume of Saints (Vol 2) and have been pleasantly surprised by what I'm coming across. In chapter 3, I read this section: There are no negative statements accompanying this story, nothing even implying that this was somehow out of order. Is this a signal that the church is warming up to the idea of officially condoning women giving blessings again? This is the kind of story that I think a generation ago would not have been published in official church materials. I'm pretty encouraged by this, and wanted to know what the rest of you think. P.S. also of note in this chapter are the references to brandy (in this story) and warm coffee and nothing negative associated with either, they are portrayed as matter of fact stories about early pioneers. Very happy with what I'm reading so far! Yes, and it’s an indication that brandy will be soon taken off the verboten list....for medicinal purposes only, of course. It’s high time the Church revisit the oppressive restrictions of the WoW. My mother, who was of pioneer families in the LDS colonies of southern Colorado, gave us children hot toddies when we had severe chest congestion. That must mean something really, really significant....like maybe the WoW isn’t true or something. Edited February 20, 2020 by Bernard Gui 4
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Author Posted February 17, 2020 18 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Maybe this is going to be a big change coming up and the kind that may need vitamins and a seat belt. I'm hoping so. My only worry is that later in the Saints narrative history that they make some really strong statements about how only men can administer blessings and characterize these changes in the language of revelation from God on the subject. But I'm hopeful that this represents an opening of the possibility for change as well. Take your vitamins, just make sure they aren't multilevel marketing psuedo scientific herbal supplements with no FDA regulation.
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Author Posted February 17, 2020 9 minutes ago, Jeanne said: This was what I was thinking too. I would so love this for female members of the church!! Can you even imagine how cool this would be! I'm just imagining my wife being pregnant again and having the RS come over to anoint her belly and bless her and the baby. Imagine a world where women stand in circles with men, side by side to give blessings to kids. Imagine my Mom giving me a blessing. Its enough to make me tear up with joy to think of how wonderful this would all be. 3
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Author Posted February 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Yes, and it’s an indication that brandy will be soon taken off the verboten list....for medicinal purposes only, of course. It’s high time the Church revisit the oppressive restrictions of the WoW. My mother, who was of pioneer families in the LDS colonies of southern Colorado, gave us children hot toddies when we had severe chest congestion as a child. That must mean something really, really important. I've never touched alcohol and my staying away from certain substances I think has benefited my life greatly. The bad side of our current WoW culture in the church is it hurts those who don't feel welcome because they partake of these things. We need to get them into our big tent. These are some amazing people. The focus should be not on strict avoidance of these substances rather it should be on living a healthy lifestyle overall. Exercise, eating right, balance, mindfulness, avoiding substance dependence and addiction. The spirit of the WoW, rather than a cherry picked strict interpretation of certain passages as prohibitions. 2
mfbukowski Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm reading through the new volume of Saints (Vol 2) and have been pleasantly surprised by what I'm coming across. In chapter 3, I read this section: There are no negative statements accompanying this story, nothing even implying that this was somehow out of order. Is this a signal that the church is warming up to the idea of officially condoning women giving blessings again? This is the kind of story that I think a generation ago would not have been published in official church materials. I'm pretty encouraged by this, and wanted to know what the rest of you think. P.S. also of note in this chapter are the references to brandy (in this story) and warm coffee and nothing negative associated with either, they are portrayed as matter of fact stories about early pioneers. Very happy with what I'm reading so far! Within my family I have given blessings with my wife also laying on hands, but I act as voice. I can see no way that that is harmful or in any way opposes church doctrine. Do female hands somehow short circuit the healing Force? I think they add to it if anything. The simple Gentle Touch of one's mother can do wonders. It is OUR priesthood held through our marriage covenants , and I think that view is upheld by recent the temple changes. Edited February 17, 2020 by mfbukowski 2
mfbukowski Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Yes, and it’s an indication that brandy will be soon taken off the verboten list....for medicinal purposes only, of course. It’s high time the Church revisit the oppressive restrictions of the WoW. My mother, who was of pioneer families in the LDS colonies of southern Colorado, gave us children hot toddies when we had severe chest congestion. That must mean something really, really significant. Yep. You start with toddies, and on to heroin. The slippery slope. 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I've never touched alcohol and my staying away from certain substances I think has benefited my life greatly. The bad side of our current WoW culture in the church is it hurts those who don't feel welcome because they partake of these things. We need to get them into our big tent. These are some amazing people. The focus should be not on strict avoidance of these substances rather it should be on living a healthy lifestyle overall. Exercise, eating right, balance, mindfulness, avoiding substance dependence and addiction. The spirit of the WoW, rather than a cherry picked strict interpretation of certain passages as prohibitions. In my experience, those who have WoW problems self-isolate from the Church, not the other way around. On the other hand, if all our sins emitted a distinctive odor, there wouldn't be anyone left in the P.U.s. Plus, I've never seen the Church promote exercise, eating right, balance, mindfulness, avoiding substance abuse, or following the spirit of the WoW. It's about time! Edited February 17, 2020 by Bernard Gui 2
CV75 Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm reading through the new volume of Saints (Vol 2) and have been pleasantly surprised by what I'm coming across. In chapter 3, I read this section: There are no negative statements accompanying this story, nothing even implying that this was somehow out of order. Is this a signal that the church is warming up to the idea of officially condoning women giving blessings again? This is the kind of story that I think a generation ago would not have been published in official church materials. I'm pretty encouraged by this, and wanted to know what the rest of you think. P.S. also of note in this chapter are the references to brandy (in this story) and warm coffee and nothing negative associated with either, they are portrayed as matter of fact stories about early pioneers. Very happy with what I'm reading so far! I'm not sure if much is said in correlated materials to suggest or imply that anything in our past religious practices were somehow out of order. I think it is a signal that those with they keys, either by reason or intuition, navigate the differences between doctrine, principle and application (as in Handbook versions of who gives blessings, and how). Application is a good-faith arrangement between the covenant people, God and their judge(s) in Israel.Those who understand the history of the evolution of priesthood blessings and Word of Wisdom standards will take these stories of application in a pragmatic manner, but that is a proper attitude to have anyway, given that we are in the midst of a Restoration and things are bound to change as time goes on. History is the application of what one takes or breaks as his raison de vivre (doctrine) and his principle of action (faith) he uses upon it. 2
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Author Posted February 17, 2020 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Within my family I have given blessings with my wife also laying on hands, but I act as voice. I can see no way that that is harmful or in any way opposes church doctrine. Do female hands somehow short circuit the healing Force? I think they add to it if anything. The simple Gentle Touch of one's mother can do wonders. It is OUR priesthood held through our marriage covenants , and I think that view is upheld by recent the temple changes. I love it! I don't think your approach would be looked on favorably by the majority of active members I come in contact with. I know my Mom and my wife both wouldn't be comfortable doing that. Unfortunately... Deference to church leaders is the real "force" happening in the dominant church culture.
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Author Posted February 17, 2020 48 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: In my experience, those who have WoW problems self-isolate from the Church, not the other way around. On the other hand, if all our sins emitted a distinctive odor, there wouldn't be anyone left in the P.U.s. Plus, I've never seen the Church promote exercise, eating right, balance, mindfulness, avoiding substance abuse, or following the spirit of the WoW. It's about time! I wouldn't blame those the people who partake of substances for feeling isolated. Its our culture that makes them feel that way. Thats like blaming LGBTQ people for feeling anxiety for the ways they are treated throughout out culture. Its not their fault. Otherwise, I agree completely on what the spirit of the WoW focus should be!!
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Author Posted February 17, 2020 44 minutes ago, CV75 said: I'm not sure if much is said in correlated materials to suggest or imply that anything in our past religious practices were somehow out of order. I think it is a signal that those with they keys, either by reason or intuition, navigate the differences between doctrine, principle and application (as in Handbook versions of who gives blessings, and how). Application is a good-faith arrangement between the covenant people, God and their judge(s) in Israel.Those who understand the history of the evolution of priesthood blessings and Word of Wisdom standards will take these stories of application in a pragmatic manner, but that is a proper attitude to have anyway, given that we are in the midst of a Restoration and things are bound to change as time goes on. History is the application of what one takes or breaks as his raison de vivre (doctrine) and his principle of action (faith) he uses upon it. Agreed in concept. In practice, good luck as a woman, trying to participate in a priesthood blessing with other men in the ward. I doubt the men allow that to happen very often, and then of course there are the negative consequences for being willing to voice a difference of perspective. We have a long ways to go in this church...
CV75 Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Agreed in concept. In practice, good luck as a woman, trying to participate in a priesthood blessing with other men in the ward. I doubt the men allow that to happen very often, and then of course there are the negative consequences for being willing to voice a difference of perspective. We have a long ways to go in this church... Advocating for a different application has to be accomplished within that good-faith arrangement between the covenant people, God and their judge(s) in Israel, typically requiring a council approach. I don't think it matters much what people do in private unless it is eventually found to negatively affect themselves or others, or prove to arise from a negative place (in which case it is no longer private and can hopefully be negotiated within the good-faith arrangement).
Bernard Gui Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 58 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I wouldn't blame those the people who partake of substances for feeling isolated. Its our culture that makes them feel that way. Thats like blaming LGBTQ people for feeling anxiety for the ways they are treated throughout out culture. Its not their fault. Otherwise, I agree completely on what the spirit of the WoW focus should be!! I'm not blaming them for anything. They have a WoW issue, usually coffee, alcohol, or smoking stuff, and since those have associated odors, they withdraw from church activities of their own volition. I have seen it happen many times even in my own family. I have never heard anyone berate them for the lingering odors. 1
hope_for_things Posted February 17, 2020 Author Posted February 17, 2020 46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I'm not blaming them for anything. They have a WoW issue, usually coffee, alcohol, or smoking stuff, and since those have associated odors, they withdraw from church activities of their own volition. I have seen it happen many times even in my own family. I have never heard anyone berate them for the lingering odors. There are many ways that cultures police norms. Some more overt (berating people) and others more subtle, but they are no less effective at excluding people. I'm not willing to say that anyone withdraws from church due to their own volition, things are often much more complicated than that. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 17, 2020 Posted February 17, 2020 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I love it! I don't think your approach would be looked on favorably by the majority of active members I come in contact with. I know my Mom and my wife both wouldn't be comfortable doing that. Unfortunately... Deference to church leaders is the real "force" happening in the dominant church culture. "The majority of active members" and their beliefs are the problem, not the solution. If someone can show me scripture saying women cannot lay their hands on people and pray for them- even simultaneously while the individual is receiving a priesthood blessing- please show me. If you can show me anything doctrinal that says women cannot do this, please show me the sources. I am mostly saying this to those critical of my posiition- I know you personally are not. 1
Bernard Gui Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: There are many ways that cultures police norms. Some more overt (berating people) and others more subtle, but they are no less effective at excluding people. I'm not willing to say that anyone withdraws from church due to their own volition, things are often much more complicated than that. Of course there are many ways to police norms. From my experience, we (the Church) don’t want to weed out the sinners. Just the opposite. We want them to be there. We’ll agree to disagree. Edited February 18, 2020 by Bernard Gui 3
stemelbow Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 If you think about it, what could possibly stop a woman from praying to bless another? The priesthood? Kind of sad the church ever preferred men to women in giving others blessings. I recall many times I showed up to give a blessing after dozens of women were already there. They were all unanimous in thinking the priesthood had to be there.
hope_for_things Posted February 18, 2020 Author Posted February 18, 2020 27 minutes ago, stemelbow said: If you think about it, what could possibly stop a woman from praying to bless another? The priesthood? Kind of sad the church ever preferred men to women in giving others blessings. I recall many times I showed up to give a blessing after dozens of women were already there. They were all unanimous in thinking the priesthood had to be there. Women are amazing and I’m sure would give excellent blessings, with or without the Priesthood.
CV75 Posted February 18, 2020 Posted February 18, 2020 28 minutes ago, stemelbow said: If you think about it, what could possibly stop a woman from praying to bless another? The priesthood? Kind of sad the church ever preferred men to women in giving others blessings. I recall many times I showed up to give a blessing after dozens of women were already there. They were all unanimous in thinking the priesthood had to be there. At the time, how did this impact your service to the one receiving the blessing? How did it impact you? And tell us more about the convent!
Recommended Posts