How Many Women Are Leading Service at Home?

[JamesBYoung]

On 3/22/2020 at 10:30 AM, The Nehor said:

And I will cheer if it happens and I suspect the Brethren have considered it.

I would not judge those who have preemptively decided to take authority to themselves as worthy of getting it if it does until they repent. They are currently showing contempt for the Priesthood Keys that are vital to how the Priesthood operates and I would suspect that contempt would continue.

That is your opinion, and they are acting on their opinion and their faith in Jesus Christ.

[JamesBYoung]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, in response to the pandemic -- same attitude as buying up toilet tissue and selling it for $50 a roll!

Please report anyone (make sure you have proof) who is doing this to the Governor and Mayor's offices.

They have people who will investigate and refer cases to the county and state DAs offices.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Please report anyone (make sure you have proof) who is doing this to the Governor and Mayor's offices.

They have people who will investigate and refer cases to the county and state DAs offices.

I find such behavior (hoarding/scalping TP and hand sanitizer), but how is it criminal?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JamesBYoung]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find such behavior (hoarding/scalping TP and hand sanitizer), but how is it criminal?

Thanks,

-Smac

I read a report from the Governor's office to report such behavior, and it would follow it up.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find such behavior (hoarding/scalping TP and hand sanitizer), but how is it criminal?

Thanks,

-Smac

It’s against the law to price gouge during an emergency in Utah. The governor said they would fine everyone found guilty of doing it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/19/2020 at 1:43 PM, JamesBYoung said:

My sister told me that several of her friends in woman-led households are preparing, blessing, and administering the sacrament to their children.

The basic argument is that in the absent of priesthood holders they have the right by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ and their temple endowments to do so in the place of worthy priesthood holders.

Have any of you heard similar stories, and how do you feel about it.

 

On 3/19/2020 at 1:46 PM, smac97 said:

There is no such "right."  It is plainly and obviously inappropriate to officiate in sacred ordinances without authority.

Thanks,

-Smac

It wouldn't even be appropriate for a priesthood holder to do it without specific authorization from the bishop.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/19/2020 at 1:43 PM, JamesBYoung said:

My sister told me that several of her friends in woman-led households are preparing, blessing, and administering the sacrament to their children.

The basic argument is that in the absent of priesthood holders they have the right by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ and their temple endowments to do so in the place of worthy priesthood holders.

Have any of you heard similar stories, and how do you feel about it.

I think their reasoning might stem from a misreading and strained interpretation of a talk given by President Oaks to the effect that a mother in a single-parent household presides in her own home by virtue of authority delegated to her by priesthood power and stemming from her temple covenants. But that is not the same thing as holding the priesthood. And it is decidedly not the same thing as arrogating to oneself authorization that can only come from one holding priesthood keys.

The women you speak of are plainly in error.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

That is your opinion, and they are acting on their opinion and their faith in Jesus Christ.

Their opinion is fundamentally stupid. They want to exercise the Priesthood while ignoring how it works. That is akin to saying it is a matter of opinion whether a car should be fueled before driving it. Someone might honestly hold the opinion that not having gas in the tank is a valid option but they are not equivalent positions.

[JamesBYoung]

JamesBYoung said:

That is your opinion, and they are acting on their opinion and their faith in Jesus Christ.

The Nehor said:

Their opinion is fundamentally stupid. They want to exercise the Priesthood while ignoring how it works. That is akin to saying it is a matter of opinion whether a car should be fueled before driving it. Someone might honestly hold the opinion that not having gas in the tank is a valid option but they are not equivalent positions.

JamesBYoung said:

Once again that is your opinion.  They will exercise their faith in Jesus Christ and in the power of their temple endowments.

[Amulek]

49 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Once again that is your opinion.  They will exercise their faith in Jesus Christ and in the power of their temple endowments.

Faith in Christ is necessary, but it isn't sufficient: "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (Heb. 5:4)

And D&C 20:76 expressly states that an "elder or priest shall administer [the sacrament]."

Having faith in Christ is valuable, but it doesn't make one an "elder or priest." After all, Deacons and Teachers have faith in Christ, but they do not have the authority to administer the sacrament. (D&C 20:58)

It boggles the mind that there could be any confusion here.

This is literally all outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - which is most definitely not an opinion piece.

And I find it ironic that you would speak of the "power of their temple endowments." The only way for endowments to have any power at all is if they are genuinely administered by those authorized to exercise the keys of the priesthood which allow those blessings to be made available. Yet the key holders which direct the administration of the endowment are the exact same key holders who direct that church meet together often to partake of the sacrament and specify how that ordinance is supposed to be performed. You get that, right?

 

[MustardSeed]

IMO. Women don’t need to perform the sacrament.  The Lord understands, and there are plenty of ways to feel connected spiritually when the sacrament is not optional. 

[Jeanne]

On 3/22/2020 at 11:00 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

I just wanted to highlight this comment.  Everyone, everywhere, should know there are people out there who think stuff like this.  It's not a fiction.

By all means highlight Jeanne...she is stupid...and hopefully no one thinks the way she does. 

[Amulek]

48 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

By all means highlight Jeanne...she is stupid...and hopefully no one thinks the way she does.

I thought his reaction was to your use of the word "illegal."

There were some other posters who asked you to clarify what you meant by that, but you never did. 

Perhaps now would be good opportunity to do so.

 

[MorningStar]

This is silly. I had my husband ordain me first and then I blessed the sacrament. 

 

Yes. This is a joke. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

Once again that is your opinion.  They will exercise their faith in Jesus Christ and in the power of their temple endowments.

No, it is not my opinion. It is my conviction. Faith is only truly valid and saving when exercised towards truth. Faith without truth is about as dead as faith without works.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

By all means highlight Jeanne...she is stupid...and hopefully no one thinks the way she does. 

Don't play the victim. If you say stuff that is not true you should expect correction. I was not trying to gang up on you. If you had just said it was discriminatory I would have agreed but you called it illegal.

Legal tests for discrimination generally do not apply in churches. If a church wants to accord men, women, red-haired people, blue-eyed people, people over the age of 40, people who go through certain ceremonies or rituals, or whatever certain privileges not granted to others it is not illegal. You obviously find it distasteful in this case but I find lots of religions distasteful. It does not make them illegal.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

This is silly. I had my husband ordain me first and then I blessed the sacrament. 

 

Yes. This is a joke. 

Well played.  

But did he get permission from the person with the keys?  

Edited March 24, 2020 by The Nehor

[MustardSeed]

My thoughts are this - there have been several weeks in a row that I have not been able to attend sacrament in the past.  I never felt compelled to insist I have extra measures provided to receive sacrament. 

Yet last Sunday, I insisted my menfolk prepare sacrament.  

Why?  I imagine a few reasons.  First, this might go on for a while, and I'd like to be in the habit of Sunday worship because if I don't start now, it will be hard to get going.  I enjoy Sunday worship, it connects me to my best self. And I also think my men will benefit from exercising their priesthood.

Admittedly, the other reason is a reaction to internal pressure I feel as I see on social media evidence that "everyone is doing it."  pictures of families in suits and ties.  Discussion of sacrament at home.  If I'm not doing it too, maybe I'm doing it wrong.  That type of thinking I believe is pretty common. 

I spoke to a woman yesterday who has never been married and who lives with relatives, many relatives, and no active members.  She feels on the outside of what she sees as a type of movement - church at home, priesthood providing leadership and ordinances - and she feels disconnected.  She decided that she is planning to Skype in with other family on Sunday out of state so that at least she can participate in their family's worship.  She is also reaching out to her primary students weekly.  

I feel for her exclusion, and I respect her efforts to adjust.  I understand any woman's impulse to fill in the blanks as a priesthood provider but it is truly an empty gesture.  Just because everyone is doing it one way doesn't mean you're doing it wrong if you simply have a worship event without sacrament IMO.  I believe the Lord understands the limits here - IMO no family will be punished because they could't receive sacrament.  Its going to be OK. 

Edited March 24, 2020 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Don't play the victim. If you say stuff that is not true you should expect correction. I was not trying to gang up on you. If you had just said it was discriminatory I would have agreed but you called it illegal.

Legal tests for discrimination generally do not apply in churches. If a church wants to accord men, women, red-haired people, blue-eyed people, people over the age of 40, people who go through certain ceremonies or rituals, or whatever certain privileges not granted to others it is not illegal. You obviously find it distasteful in this case but I find lots of religions distasteful. It does not make them illegal.

I’m guessing Jeanne used the word illegal because I used the term in my analogy. I could be wrong, but I don’t think she meant it was actually illegal. I think she used my term but was implying she believes it is illegitimate. 

She can correct me if I’m misunderstanding her. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

My thoughts are this - there have been several weeks in a row that I have not been able to attend sacrament in the past.  I never felt compelled to insist I have extra measures provided to receive sacrament. 

Yet last Sunday, I insisted my menfolk prepare sacrament.  

Why?  I imagine a few reasons.  First, this might go on for a while, and I'd like to be in the habit of Sunday worship because if I don't start now, it will be hard to get going.  I enjoy Sunday worship, it connects me to my best self. And I also think my men will benefit from exercising their priesthood.

Admittedly, the other reason is a reaction to internal pressure I feel as I see on social media evidence that "everyone is doing it."  pictures of families in suits and ties.  Discussion of sacrament at home.  If I'm not doing it too, maybe I'm doing it wrong.  That type of thinking I believe is pretty common. 

I spoke to a woman yesterday who has never been married and who lives with relatives, many relatives, and no active members.  She feels on the outside of what she sees as a type of movement - church at home, priesthood providing leadership and ordinances - and she feels disconnected.  She decided that she is planning to Skype in with other family on Sunday out of state so that at least she can participate in their family's worship.  She is also reaching out to her primary students weekly.  

I feel for her exclusion, and I respect her efforts to adjust.  I understand any woman's impulse to fill in the blanks as a priesthood provider but it is truly an empty gesture.  Just because everyone is doing it one way doesn't mean you're doing it wrong if you simply have a worship event without sacrament IMO.  I believe the Lord understands the limits here - IMO no family will be punished because they could't receive sacrament.  Its going to be OK. 

While I fully agree with the above, I will add that there has been explicit instruction from the First Presidency to local leaders that everyone in their local units have opportunity to receive the sacrament (by proper authority and exercise of keys) at least once a month while we weather this crisis. I believe we all have a stake in supporting them in carrying out this directive. 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

While I fully agree with the above, I will add that there has been explicit instruction from the First Presidency to local leaders that everyone in their local units have opportunity to receive the sacrament (by proper authority and exercise of keys) at least once a month while we weather this crisis. I believe we all have a stake in supporting them in carrying out this directive. 

I would add the 'where possible' qualification. It is possible some areas may be so locked down that it is not feasible. That being I support the initiative. I took the sacrament to several sisters on Sunday.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m guessing Jeanne used the word illegal because I used the term in my analogy. I could be wrong, but I don’t think she meant it was actually illegal. I think she used my term but was implying she believes it is illegitimate. 

She can correct me if I’m misunderstanding her. 

You are, of course, being charitable. And you might be right in this instance. 
 

Yet I’m finding there is a rampant and growing attitude in society that if one doesn’t like something, that thing is ipso facto illegal. 
 

It’s like the woman on the college campus who snatched the MAGA hat off a man’s head and ran off with it, then expected the university to support her in her criminal act  on the theory that the hat “represents genocide of a bunch of people.” 
 

Or the woman who stole a sign from activists at an anti-abortion display on campus and walked off with it, then expressed amazement when campus police arrested her. 
 

Or the woman who was so incensed about an anti-abortion display that she physically assaulted someone at the table and felt perfectly justified in doing so because he, in her mind, was “a horrible person.”

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would add the 'where possible' qualification. It is possible some areas may be so locked down that it is not feasible. That being I support the initiative. I took the sacrament to several sisters on Sunday.

Yes, of course. If something is not possible, by definition it can’t be done. 😉 

[smac97]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find such behavior (hoarding/scalping TP and hand sanitizer), but how is it criminal?

Thanks,

-Smac

So I did a little digging.  Here's the state statute in question:

Quote

 

13-41-201.  Excessive price prohibited.

(1)

Except as provided in Subsection (2), if a state of emergency exists, a person may not charge a consumer an excessive price for goods or services sold or provided at retail: (a) (i) during the time period for which a state of emergency declared by the governor exists; or (ii) for 30 days after the day on which the state of emergency begins, if declared by the President of the United States; and (b) within the emergency territory.

(2)

A person may charge an excessive price if: (a) that person's cost of obtaining the good or providing the service exceeds the average cost to the person of obtaining the good or providing the service in the 30-day period immediately preceding the day on which the state of emergency is declared; and (b) the price charged for the good or service does not exceed the sum of: (i) 10% above the total cost to that person of obtaining the good or providing the service; and (ii) the person's customary markup.

(3)	Upon request of the division, a person allegedly charging an excessive price under Subsection (2) shall provide documentation to the division that the person is in compliance with this chapter.

(4)	If a good or service has not been sold by a person during the 30-day period immediately preceding the day on which the state of emergency is declared, a price is not excessive if it does not exceed 30% above the person's total cost of obtaining the good or providing the service.

Here are the definitions for "state of emergency" and "excessive price":

Quote

13-41-102.  Definitions.
     For purposes of this chapter:

...

(4)	"Excessive price" means a price for a good or service that exceeds by more than 10% the average price charged by that person for that good or service in the 30-day period immediately preceding the day on which the state of emergency is declared.

...

(8)	"State of emergency" means a declaration of: (a) an emergency or major disaster by the president of the United States of America; or (b) a state of emergency by the governor under Section 53-2a-206.

And here is the provision allowing for fines for price gouging (charging an "excessive price") during a state of emergency:

Quote

13-41-202.  Enforcement -- Penalty.

(1)	The division shall enforce this chapter.

(2)

In determining whether to impose penalties against a person who violates this chapter, the division shall consider: (a) the person's cost of doing business not accounted for in the cost to the person of the good or service, including costs associated with a decrease in the supply available to a person who relies on a high volume of sales; (b) the person's efforts to comply with this chapter; (c) whether the average price charged by the person during the 30-day period immediately preceding the day on which the state of emergency is declared is artificially deflated because the good or service was on sale for a lower price than the person customarily charges for the good or service; and (d) any other factor that the division considers appropriate.

(3)

(a) If the division finds that a person has violated, or is violating, this chapter, the division may: (i) issue a cease and desist order; and (ii) subject to Subsection (3)(b), impose an administrative fine of up to $1,000 for each violation of this chapter. (b) Each instance of charging an excessive price under Section 13-41-201 constitutes a separate violation, but in no case shall the administrative fine imposed under Subsection (3)(a) exceed $10,000 per day.

(4)	The division may sue in a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce an order under Subsection (3).

(5)	In a suit brought under Subsection (3), if the division prevails, the court may award the division: (a) court costs; (b) attorney fees; and (c) the division's costs incurred in the investigation of the violation of this chapter.

(6)	All money received through an administrative fine imposed, or judgment obtained, under this section shall be deposited in the Consumer Protection Education and Training Fund created by Section 13-2-8.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JamesBYoung]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it is not my opinion. It is my conviction. Faith is only truly valid and saving when exercised towards truth. Faith without truth is about as dead as faith without works.

Your opinion is your conviction.  Some of these women, so my sister says, have been ordained by active, temple-going members of the priesthood.