Women Giving Blessings - Will the Church Condone?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

"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.

https://www.ldsliving.com/Women-Giving-Blessings-in-the-Early-Days-of-the-Church/s/81418

"While the Authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the Priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the Elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted" (The First Fifty Years of the Relief Society, 541, footnote 329).

 

 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.ldsliving.com/Women-Giving-Blessings-in-the-Early-Days-of-the-Church/s/81418

"While the Authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the Priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the Elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted" (The First Fifty Years of the Relief Society, 541, footnote 329).

 

 

I am not advocating they " wash and anoint" anybody.

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not advocating they " wash and anoint" anybody.

You wanted scripture, is not the Lord scripture? Read the bold, not sure you read the whole quote before.

"While the Authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the Priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the Elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted" (The First Fifty Years of the Relief Society, 541, footnote 329).

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.ldsliving.com/Women-Giving-Blessings-in-the-Early-Days-of-the-Church/s/81418

"While the Authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the Priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the Elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted" (The First Fifty Years of the Relief Society, 541, footnote 329).

Why we give a flying flip what church leaders think about these kinds of things is astounding to me.  Deference to authority figures who claim to be speaking for God.  Sometimes I just think we should tell them all to go jump in a lake and let the members run the church according to their own inspiration.   

[Hamba Tuhan]

50 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Why we give a flying flip what church leaders think about these kinds of things is astounding to me ... Sometimes I just think we should tell them all to go jump in a lake and let the members run the church according to their own inspiration.   

There are plenty of churches run by the members. I suspect it wouldn't be very hard to find one near you.

What I don't understand is why people who don't believe in prophets feel compelled to repeatedly lecture and badger those who do. Doesn't it grow tiring?

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

There are plenty of churches run by the members. I suspect it wouldn't be very hard to find one near you.

What I don't understand is why people who don't believe in prophets feel compelled to repeatedly lecture and badger those who do. Doesn't it grow tiring?

Who's badgering who?  I started the thread and I'm just sharing my perspective, sometimes frustrations, sometimes joy.  If you can't handle authenticity and recognize that not everyone believes the same way as you, then thats an unfortunate thing.  We're all part of the same family and tradition in this church.  I'm not asking you or others to leave just because you may express an opinion I disagree with.

 

You are being disrespectful towards church leaders. It isn't necessary. Tone it down.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

You wanted scripture, is not the Lord scripture? Read the bold, not sure you read the whole quote before.

"While the Authorities of the Church have ruled that it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the Priesthood, for sisters to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel that it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the Elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted" (The First Fifty Years of the Relief Society, 541, footnote 329).

 

Washings and annointings are given in the temple by women.  Obviously it is speaking of blessings on the sick then- we no longer do "washings" outside the temple.

Of course "calling for the elders" IS "far better" because they can annoint for the sick outside the temple.

I never ever said or implied that blessings by the priesthood were precluded by anything I said.   It appears you are not reading carefully.

If you call the elders and the elders give the blessing, WHAT IS TO PREVENT a woman placing her hands on the head and praying silently along with the elders as opposed to standing of sitting in the room while they pray?

Is there something wrong with touching a sick person while others are leading a prayer?   As I mean it that is what you are saying.

Would it be permitted for a woman to hold the hand of someone receiving a blessing?

Why then is it not permitted to touch the head of the person receiving a priesthood blessing by elders?   Could one touch the cheek of that person?

What exactly is the harm??   And it is not necessary to repeat the same quote for a third time, but I would perhaps request that you read it more carefully.

It says nothing about anyone touching anyone else during a blessing.  It is totally irrelevant to what I am suggesting.  Of course one should call for elders if one is sick, I am saying nothing about that.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours 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.  

Actually the main problem we have in training brethren to give proper blessings is to AVOID making a blessing into a "prayer" by saying something like "Heavenly father please bless (this person) that he/she will be well and please bless her to be xyz.

In giving a proper blessing, the ELDER is the one who, by the authority of his priesthood commands the elements of his/her body to do what is necessary to heal/bless their lives.   The format should always be "We bless you that xyz will happen" not that we pray that God will bless the person.

In other words, you are right that no one can stop another person from PRAYING to bless another person, but that is not the same as giving a priesthood blessing, with one's priesthood authority

Edited February 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Actually the main problem we have in training brethren to give proper blessings is to AVOID making a blessing into a "prayer" by saying something like "Heavenly father please bless (this person) that he/she will be well and please bless her to be xyz.

In giving a proper blessing, the ELDER is the one who, by the authority of his priesthood commands the elements of his/her body to do what is necessary to heal/bless their lives.   The format should always be "We bless you that xyz will happen" not that we pray that God will bless the person.

In other words, you are right that no one can stop another person from PRAYING to bless another person, but that is not the same as giving a priesthood blessing, with one's priesthood authority

Thanks, Mr. Bukowski.  Are you suggesting that praying with the words, "we bless you that xyz will happen.." is not a good or proper way?  Asking because it appears the act of prayer and the act of blessing seems to be the same thing.  Does God care if people follow the written rule, as opposed to just seeking God's blessing?  Is God more concerned about form, letter of the law, following rules and all of that?  

One must wonder what blessings have worked and what mere prayers have worked.  Which one has a better success rate.  I don't know that either really work at all, of course.  

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Washings and annointings are given in the temple by women.  Obviously it is speaking of blessings on the sick then- we no longer do "washings" outside the temple.

Of course "calling for the elders" IS "far better" because they can annoint for the sick outside the temple.

I never ever said or implied that blessings by the priesthood were precluded by anything I said.   It appears you are not reading carefully.

If you call the elders and the elders give the blessing, WHAT IS TO PREVENT a woman placing her hands on the head and praying silently along with the elders as opposed to standing of sitting in the room while they pray?

Is there something wrong with touching a sick person while others are leading a prayer?   As I mean it that is what you are saying.

Would it be permitted for a woman to hold the hand of someone receiving a blessing?

Why then is it not permitted to touch the head of the person receiving a priesthood blessing by elders?   Could one touch the cheek of that person?

What exactly is the harm??   And it is not necessary to repeat the same quote for a third time, but I would perhaps request that you read it more carefully.

It says nothing about anyone touching anyone else during a blessing.  It is totally irrelevant to what I am suggesting.  Of course one should call for elders if one is sick, I am saying nothing about that.

Sorry, it was my reading of your quote that I missed the bold (mine), sorry!

"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 position- I know you personally are not.

Edited February 18, 2020 by Tacenda

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Thanks, Mr. Bukowski.  Are you suggesting that praying with the words, "we bless you that xyz will happen.." is not a good or proper way?  Asking because it appears the act of prayer and the act of blessing seems to be the same thing.  Does God care if people follow the written rule, as opposed to just seeking God's blessing?  Is God more concerned about form, letter of the law, following rules and all of that?  

One must wonder what blessings have worked and what mere prayers have worked.  Which one has a better success rate.  I don't know that either really work at all, of course.  

I have seen literal miracles 

Pres Nelson has taught the difference between blessings and prayer. It can be found out lds.org using google.

They are not the same. No time to look it up.

Edited February 18, 2020 by mfbukowski

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have seen literal miracles 

Many have claimed to have seen miracles.  Has someone been raised from the dead in your presence?  

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Many have claimed to have seen miracles.  Has someone been raised from the dead in your presence?  

Yes.

[stemelbow]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes.

That's cool.  I wonder if I witnessed such a spectacle if I"d believe, as they say.

[CV75]

16 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Why we give a flying flip what church leaders think about these kinds of things is astounding to me.  Deference to authority figures who claim to be speaking for God.  Sometimes I just think we should tell them all to go jump in a lake and let the members run the church according to their own inspiration.   

We do sustain them in the exercise of their keys, which I think is what is meant by words such as "ruled" (a function of keys of presidency), "approval" (a function of keys for judging -- as in judge in Israel), and "feel" (as in keys of revelation). As far as teh difference between what is instructed of the Lord and allowed of the Lord, see: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

"The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood." Who gives blessings under the priesthood keys, and the faithful calling upon the Elders, are both administrative matters and the revealed order of things. Thus, women may be prompted to give blessings as a gift of the Spirit without being called upon, as opposed to having a priesthood obligation to give them.

 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 9:09 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!  

I hope you're right and change is afoot. I knew a small group of women in my ward about 20 years ago who very much believed they had authority to lay hands and give blessings to each other as needed. This was not acceptable to local leadership. 1 of the women was excommunicated and another disciplined but not sure what the outcome was. I heard the bishop refer to these women as a coven. That's how negatively he viewed their behavior of giving blessings. IIRC they weren't even anointing with oil. In any case, it has never been acceptable during my lifetime for women to give blessings. How many stories have we heard about women who aren't even allowed to hold her baby when it is being blessed? If it's acceptable for them to stand in a circle and participate in a blessing why wouldn't they be permitted to hold their child? Obviously, despite a few outliers, women giving blessings has been frowned upon (or worse), at least for my generation.

But watch out, IF the church makes some changes allowing women to more fully participate in priesthood ordinances (as is slowly starting to happen) we will surely be told that "women have ALWAYS been able to participate." People will quote Joseph Smith and his talk of "keys" as it relates to the Relief Society as evidence that such behavior has always been approved and good. It will be the next level/topic of gaslighting within the church.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Has someone been raised from the dead in your presence?  

Yes.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I wonder if I witnessed such a spectacle if I"d believe, as they say.

I wonder too. Especially since it was no 'spectacle'. There were about a dozen police officers in the adjoining room who were sipping tea and talking loudly amongst themselves; they saw and heard nothing. In my experience, that's usually how these things go. I suspect it's by design.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hope you're right and change is afoot. I knew a small group of women in my ward about 20 years ago who very much believed they had authority to lay hands and give blessings to each other as needed. This was not acceptable to local leadership. 1 of the women was excommunicated and another disciplined but not sure what the outcome was. I heard the bishop refer to these women as a coven. That's how negatively he viewed their behavior of giving blessings. IIRC they weren't even anointing with oil. In any case, it has never been acceptable during my lifetime for women to give blessings. How many stories have we heard about women who aren't even allowed to hold her baby when it is being blessed? If it's acceptable for them to stand in a circle and participate in a blessing why wouldn't they be permitted to hold their child? Obviously, despite a few outliers, women giving blessings has been frowned upon (or worse), at least for my generation.

But watch out, IF the church makes some changes allowing women to more fully participate in priesthood ordinances (as is slowly starting to happen) we will surely be told that "women have ALWAYS been able to participate." People will quote Joseph Smith and his talk of "keys" as it relates to the Relief Society as evidence that such behavior has always been approved and good. It will be the next level/topic of gaslighting within the church.

Thanks for sharing, I hadn't thought about this as a gaslighting possibility, but you make an excellent point and I can definitely see the harmonizer personality types trumpeting a narrative like you envision.  Its interesting how quickly things change in our culture and then the old ways are forgotten or even looked down upon. My preference would be a very vulnerable transparency and openness about the change that happens in the church, doctrines change, times change, people change.  I'm hoping for some really positive changes coming for women in the future!  

[strappinglad]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I wonder if I witnessed such a spectacle if I"d believe, as they say.

Some would be too busy moving the goal posts. 😉

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing, I hadn't thought about this as a gaslighting possibility, but you make an excellent point and I can definitely see the harmonizer personality types trumpeting a narrative like you envision.  Its interesting how quickly things change in our culture and then the old ways are forgotten or even looked down upon. My preference would be a very vulnerable transparency and openness about the change that happens in the church, doctrines change, times change, people change.  I'm hoping for some really positive changes coming for women in the future!  

You miss that this is true of all slow paradigm changes. Yes some are revolutionary but not most. Some begin asking questions and then gradually over time there are discussions and it seems clear that was old has inexplicably morphed into the new, that was really there all the time in the cracks and corners and remained unobserved within the old ideas.

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes.

I wonder too. Especially since it was no 'spectacle'. There were about a dozen police officers in the adjoining room who were sipping tea and talking loudly amongst themselves; they saw and heard nothing. In my experience, that's usually how these things go. I suspect it's by design.

It was no spectacle?  Wow.  How could seeing someone who was dead come back to life not be quite a sight to behold?  Was he/she really dead?  The police came over and were like,  "Ope.  Looks like he's dead, lets go have some tea and chat...we'll call it a tea party."  I'm beside myself imagining the scene.  

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Some would be too busy moving the goal posts. 😉

I don't understand.  why would you move goal posts, if magically someone was raised from the dead?  

[CV75]

17 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I hope you're right and change is afoot. I knew a small group of women in my ward about 20 years ago who very much believed they had authority to lay hands and give blessings to each other as needed. This was not acceptable to local leadership. 1 of the women was excommunicated and another disciplined but not sure what the outcome was. I heard the bishop refer to these women as a coven. That's how negatively he viewed their behavior of giving blessings. IIRC they weren't even anointing with oil. In any case, it has never been acceptable during my lifetime for women to give blessings. How many stories have we heard about women who aren't even allowed to hold her baby when it is being blessed? If it's acceptable for them to stand in a circle and participate in a blessing why wouldn't they be permitted to hold their child? Obviously, despite a few outliers, women giving blessings has been frowned upon (or worse), at least for my generation.

But watch out, IF the church makes some changes allowing women to more fully participate in priesthood ordinances (as is slowly starting to happen) we will surely be told that "women have ALWAYS been able to participate." People will quote Joseph Smith and his talk of "keys" as it relates to the Relief Society as evidence that such behavior has always been approved and good. It will be the next level/topic of gaslighting within the church.

This is interesting to me in that the doctrine is there all the time while the applications change with changing circumstances.

Some tend to view applications as doctrine and conclude the doctrine is changing. But the Church leadership is typically very frank about the reasons for changes in procedure (such as youth witnessing proxy baptisms), practice (as with the Manifesto), administration (missionary terms of service and ages, who gives blessings), etc.

As far as doctrine goes, in this case it seems the distinction between the two doctrines of priesthood and gifts of the Spirit (and perhaps even the light of Christ) need to be correctly understood, and that actions undertaken under the auspices of either are ultimately controlled by someone with the keys, either through conferral and ordination (priesthood) or ordinance (confirmation). Even “natural” gifts of the Spirit such those that are cultivated and exercised by faithful persons outside of the Church, for members, become subject to the powers that be within the Church.

The truly important and essential things are the doctrines, and these are where our energy and priorities are most fully answered with a blessing. Is it gaslighting to say that to promote a correct understanding of doctrine, principle and application is not gaslighting?

Edited February 19, 2020 by CV75

[strappinglad]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Was he/she really dead? 

Good start goalie 

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It was no spectacle?  Wow.  How could seeing someone who was dead come back to life not be quite a sight to behold?

Nope, no 'visual impact' at all. All very simple ... and as quiet as the drawing of a breath.

Quote

The police came over and were like,  "Ope.  Looks like he's dead, lets go have some tea and chat...we'll call it a tea party." 

Nope, the police didn't witness the death either. I arrived at the police station that morning with a living (though severely injured) boy , and when the cops were finally able to help me get him to hospital, we left the police station with a living boy as well. There were only two witnesses to what happened in between.

Quote

Was he/she really dead?

That's always the question, isn't it? People also asked it of Jesus's death.

I could, of course, go into further detail regarding my own personal experience, including what the doctors later told me, but you and I both know that no amount of detail per se is sufficient to compel agreement. After all, I'm just telling a story. I could easily just be making it up. Or taking a real event and significantly embellishing it.

When we hear an account that sounds familiar or that slots neatly into our own personal experiences, it has a 'ring of truth' to it. And when we hear an account that doesn't, the natural response is to doubt and question. Sometimes doubts and questions lead people on to having new experiences of their own, and sometimes they are the final stop.