Breastfeeding in LDS Meetings

[dwgmom]

You are completely misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. That's why I suggested to remove the breastfeeding out of the equation and discuss this as what the problem truly is - Priesthood authority or Priesthood keys and how we sustain them.

I am reading your post and seeing that you can replace the word Bishop with Next-Door-Neighbor and there is no difference.

But, the fact that this is a Bishop makes ALL the difference.

Because, this is not a matter of RIGHTS or whatever anymore. This is a matter of "Does a Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have the Spirit of Discernment or does he not?"

Now, if you think that in this case, he is clearly acting without the spirit of discernment then the question becomes "How do I Sustain/Unsustain a Bishop of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

As you can see - breastfeeding is completely out of the picture.

When the Bishop is asking something that is illegal there is a conflict. We are expected to uphold the laws of the land. This Bishop is not upholding the laws of the land. Why is it perfectly normal for saints in other areas of the world to breastfeed their babies (and incidentally we were told as missionaries to encourage women to breastfeed their babies in the Philippines at least up until the age of 4+, we were never told to discourage them to breastfeed their babies) and not in certain countries? This is the Bishop's personal opinion and again it is against the law to express his opinion and frankly not nice to put this sister in this situation.

[Doctrine_Guy]

Everyone is getting way too up in arms about this thing. So I figured I might as well throw my hat into the ring. By background for being able to comment is that I am the father of 4 children and my wife breastfed them all (actually she's still feeding our 4th). I would have no problem with her feeding in sacrament meeting because she is very discreet, but she prefers the mothers lounge. (I think it's to get away from the rest of the kids and give me a "chance to grow" by taking care of them myself.)

Point #1 - Obviously there is nothing wrong with breastfeeding, it's a great thing.

Point #2 - The law says you can do it anywhere.

So, if you base your actions on these 2 things, it's obvious you can just keep doing what your doing and anyone who tries to stop you can be charged with a crime. HOWEVER, that's not necessary and IMO it's not what Christ would do.

Point #3 - There are people (especially boys) who will be uncomfortable with your actions, so their feelings must be considered.

Adding this one to the mix changes things very little. Obviously they're in the wrong, not you, and you don't have to bend to their feelings, just consider them. Covering up and being discreet is all that is required by you, and you have done that.

Point #4 - Sustaining priesthood leaders IS an important consideration. So, anything your Bishop asks you to do in the course of his calling must be seriously pondered, and when no resolution can be reached, his request needs to be honored above your own preferences.

HOWEVER, priesthood leaders are men that make mistakes. While it is extremely unwise to dig your heels in and fight them, there is no reason that a problem can't be discussed calmly. Simply make sure he has all the facts and reasons for your actions. Chances are he'll reconsider, pray more fervently, and listen to the spirit to figure out the best solution.

For example, has anyone been extended a calling that they absolutely did not want to do??? Is it correct to flatly refuse and be offended, or is it best to discuss why you think it's not for you? I have done this, and the result was that after further consideration he changed him mind and had a different calling for me. But, after the discussion if the bishop still extends the calling, then you had better pray pretty hard about it, because the chances are he's right.

I hope the OP did discuss it with the Bishop and inform him of the law. But not in a confrontational "This is the law and if you don't follow it I'll have you arrested" kind of way. Simply informing him, and the stake, that you have the right to feed your child. Also explaining that you are discreet and covered. Also explaining the situation of the mothers room.

In the end, I'm sure there will be a solution. The solution may be as easy as setting aside a classroom (or even the nursery) as a mothers lounge and covering the window with a curtain. But be aware the solution STILL might involve him asking you to refrain during Sacrament meeting, and that is not necessarily against the law. Obviously he can't force you to leave, but be aware, if he says "By law I cannot require you to leave, however I'm asking you as your Bishop to respect our wishes", then he is not breaking the law, but making a request as a priesthood leader. Whatever solution results, make sure you are not just being stubborn and putting your own preferences above the word of one of God's representatives.

** As a side note, yes there are instances when a bishop is unrighteous, but those instances are few and far between. If you suspect that is the case, then contact the Stake. I have never heard of both a Bishop and the Stake President being unrighteous, so if they agree and you disagree . . . . . well, you figure it out.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Doctrine_Guy

[MarginOfError]

Point #4 - Sustaining priesthood leaders IS an important consideration. So, anything your Bishop asks you to do in the course of his calling must be seriously pondered, and when no resolution can be reached, his request needs to be honored above your own preferences.

Really? How so very 1970's of you!

Whatever happened to the 'with confirmation from the Spirit?'

[Doctrine_Guy]

Really? How so very 1970's of you!

Whatever happened to the 'with confirmation from the Spirit?'

With respect to anything the Bishop has stewardship over, if he and you have different "revelations", HIS as the presiding representative of God is the correct one.

And as I explained, that does not mean you do anything he says on a whim, but after serious discussion of all the relevant issues/feelings/opinions and after serious thought and prayer, a priesthood leader's decision (when it is part of his stewardship to make such decisions) is the final word.

Even in the extremely rare instance that a leader is being unrighteous and acting against the spirit, no church member will ever be punished for following their leaders. (the same cannot be said about going against your leaders because you "felt" you should)

Again, if you really think they are out of line, it is up to the Stake authorities to judge whether the Bishop is acting with the spirit, not an individual's. But if the Stake and Bishop agree on the proper course (again, pertaining to something within their stewardship) then that is the correct course because the Lord will not allow his servants to lead people astray. AND I might add, you do have a right to "confirmation of the spirit" to any decision they make. And if you don't get the confirmation, chances are it's not their problem, it's your own.

Do I need to be any clearer?

**DISCLAIMER** My use of the word you is not a personal reference to any individual, but is rather a common general usage.

[MarginOfError]

With respect to anything the Bishop has stewardship over, if he and you have different "revelations", HIS as the presiding representative of God is the correct one.

You're going to have to work a lot harder to distinctly win this one. A bishop telling a mother when and how it is appropriate to feed and nurture her child in infancy is a pretty hefty intrusion into the parents' responsibilities. Particularly when it has to do with issues of social custom and law.

And as I explained, that does not mean you do anything he says on a whim, but after serious discussion of all the relevant issues/feelings/opinions and after serious thought and prayer, a priesthood leader's decision (when it is part of his stewardship to make such decisions) is the final word.

But in this instance, it isn't in the priesthood leader's stewardship. The law has stated that the decision on when and where to breastfeed is in the mother's stewardship, and that the priesthood leader needs to accommodate.

Even in the extremely rare instance that a leader is being unrighteous and acting against the spirit, no church member will ever be punished for following their leaders. (the same cannot be said about going against your leaders because you "felt" you should)

And if a priesthood leader is exercising unrighteous dominion and you ignore his counsel, you will not be punished for doing so. The only time you are culpable for ignoring his counsel is when it is inspired counsel within his stewardship. But if my bishop orders me to give up Pepsi because he has received revelation that it is contrary to the word of wisdom and I do not follow his counsel, I am not guilty of any misdeed.

Again, if you really think they are out of line, it is up to the Stake authorities to judge whether the Bishop is acting with the spirit, not an individual's.

Nonsense. When any priesthood leader gives us individual counsel, it is our obligation to seek confirmation from the Spirit and determine if it is the Lord's will for us.

But if the Stake and Bishop agree on the proper course (again, pertaining to something within their stewardship) then that is the correct course because the Lord will not allow his servants to lead people astray. AND I might add, you do have a right to "confirmation of the spirit" to any decision they make. And if you don't get the confirmation, chances are it's not their problem, it's your own.

Or it could be their social biases. Surely, we've seen enough of those revolving around family planning and divorce to realize that such biases do exist and can influence leaders' behavior--and sometimes to the detriment of the individual.

Do I need to be any clearer?

No. You've been perfectly clear. It wouldn't hurt if you could be a little more correct though.

[NeuroTypical]

Let's try to remember this thread was started in July, and the OP hasn't posted since then.

[zippy_do46]

:) On the lighter side. I would not suggest the Nursery. Can you imagine a room of little ones who have just been weaned off the breast. :)))

[Doctrine_Guy]

You're going to have to work a lot harder to distinctly win this one. A bishop telling a mother when and how it is appropriate to feed and nurture her child in infancy is a pretty hefty intrusion into the parents' responsibilities. Particularly when it has to do with issues of social custom and law.

First off, the Bishop did NOT tell her not to breast feed. Simply asked her to do it in another part of the building. There's a big difference.

Second, what occurs during Sacrament meeting IS the bishop's stewardship. He has more insight as to the whole ward is more aware of any distractions/problems this may have caused.

And finally, it's not against the law for him to ask her to do it elsewhere. Only for him to demand she leaves.

But in this instance, it isn't in the priesthood leader's stewardship. The law has stated that the decision on when and where to breastfeed is in the mother's stewardship, and that the priesthood leader needs to accommodate.

Once again, there is a difference between demanding she leaves and asking her to leave. Like I said, if she wants to rely strictly on law, then don't change a thing. But if she is wise, she will respect the wishes of her priesthood leaders.

And if a priesthood leader is exercising unrighteous dominion and you ignore his counsel, you will not be punished for doing so. The only time you are culpable for ignoring his counsel is when it is inspired counsel within his stewardship. But if my bishop orders me to give up Pepsi because he has received revelation that it is contrary to the word of wisdom and I do not follow his counsel, I am not guilty of any misdeed.

But my point is, in a disagreement with priesthood leaders that VAST majority of instances results from the member being wrong, not the leader. Nothing in any of the OP's statements said she had prayed about it or received witness from the spirit that she was correct. She was going solely by her thoughts and feelings, not necessarily the spirit. So, I would wager that after they discussed it, they would both come to a good solution and agree. But if not, the probability is that the leader is correct.

Nonsense. When any priesthood leader gives us individual counsel, it is our obligation to seek confirmation from the Spirit and determine if it is the Lord's will for us.

We do need to seek confirmation. However, our confirmation from the spirit should be the same as that given to the leader. If it doesn't, it is not our place to judge that the Bishop is unrighteous. It is the Stake President's stewardship to make sure of the Bishop's righteousness.

In a case like this, I guarantee that the spirit will not tell the OP to completely disregard the bishop. It's just not going to happen.

Or it could be their social biases. Surely, we've seen enough of those revolving around family planning and divorce to realize that such biases do exist and can influence leaders' behavior--and sometimes to the detriment of the individual.

Again, the Lord will not allow his servants to lead us astray. If both the bishop and the stake president agree on a proper course, it's going to be the right one. If you believe anything different, then I don't believe you have a proper understanding of sustaining leaders.

[Doctrine_Guy]

:) On the lighter side. I would not suggest the Nursery. Can you imagine a room of little ones who have just been weaned off the breast. :)))

Except that the nursery will be empty during Sacrament meetings so there won't be any other little ones there.

[MarginOfError]

First off, the Bishop did NOT tell her not to breast feed. Simply asked her to do it in another part of the building. There's a big difference.

Second, what occurs during Sacrament meeting IS the bishop's stewardship. He has more insight as to the whole ward is more aware of any distractions/problems this may have caused.

And finally, it's not against the law for him to ask her to do it elsewhere. Only for him to demand she leaves.

And she is under neither legal nor spiritual obligation to oblige without confirmation that her bishop's request is the will of the Lord.

Once again, there is a difference between demanding she leaves and asking her to leave. Like I said, if she wants to rely strictly on law, then don't change a thing. But if she is wise, she will respect the wishes of her priesthood leaders.

I'm not sure he can ask her to leave. That's a matter for local legal specialists to debate. But I can tell you for sure, if a black man walked into my hospital and I requested--but not demanded--that he go to another facility for treatment, I'd have the law all over me.

But my point is, in a disagreement with priesthood leaders that VAST majority of instances results from the member being wrong, not the leader. Nothing in any of the OP's statements said she had prayed about it or received witness from the spirit that she was correct. She was going solely by her thoughts and feelings, not necessarily the spirit. So, I would wager that after they discussed it, they would both come to a good solution and agree. But if not, the probability is that the leader is correct.

I'm not sure I fully agree. But I think that would depend on the number of eligible cases. The question I pose is how much stewardship does the bishop hold when it comes to social norms? Should a bishop oppose a woman breast feeding in the chapel on a spiritual basis because, "it's never been done like this?" My point being, this really isn't a spiritual matter subject to the Great Micro-Manager.

We do need to seek confirmation. However, our confirmation from the spirit should be the same as that given to the leader. If it doesn't, it is not our place to judge that the Bishop is unrighteous. It is the Stake President's stewardship to make sure of the Bishop's righteousness.

In a case like this, I guarantee that the spirit will not tell the OP to completely disregard the bishop. It's just not going to happen.

I never said it was our place to judge whether the bishop was unrighteous. I said it was our place to judge if the bishop had overstepped his bounds. And in a contest between the bishop's confirmation of what is best for me, and my confirmation of what is best for me; sorry, pal, but personal revelation trumps the bishop's.

Again, the Lord will not allow his servants to lead us astray. If both the bishop and the stake president agree on a proper course, it's going to be the right one. If you believe anything different, then I don't believe you have a proper understanding of sustaining leaders.

Listen to yourself man! "The bishop won't lead you astray in your breast feeding decisions!" The bishop shouldn't have anything to do with your breast feeding decisions!

[Gwen]

totally derailed and old thread. sorry boys. thread closed. :)