Oh my heck! It's another Ordain Women thread! (A poll, actually . . .)


Just_A_Guy
 Share

Would you support women's LDS priesthood ordination if it meant abolition of the Relief Society?  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you support women's LDS priesthood ordination if it meant abolition of the Relief Society?

    • I support ordaining women and abolition of the Relief Society wouldn't change my mind.
      5
    • I support ordaining women but abolition of the Relief Society would change my mind.
      1
    • I'm ambivilant about ordaining women and abolition of the Relief Society wouldn't change my mind.
      7
    • I'm ambivilant about ordaining women, but abolition of the Relief Society would change my mind.
      4
    • I oppose ordaining women and abolition of the Relief Society wouldn't change my mind.
      18
    • I oppose ordaining women, but abolition of the Relief Society would change my mind.
      0


Recommended Posts

Yes, but how do you believe God leads? Isn't it through your Prophet and the General Authorities, who all hold the priesthood?

M.

My personal relationship with christ enables me to prayerfully enquire about any doctrine, ordinance, performance, calling, or revelation they may effect me and find out directly if it is from God. There is a great miss judgment by non LDS that LDS people walk around in blind obedience when the actual truth is very much the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's sort of like saying, "I can't imagine how it would take away from baptism to sprinkle them instead of using immersion." I mean, I honestly can't imagine why immersion is so important. I have never, personally, understood why we have to get dunked in water to enter God's kingdom. That's the way God set it up though. So I trust it despite my inability to imagine the importance of it.

I don't think that's a equal comparison. If you believe that the priesthood you hold is given to you by God then you have conviction that the blessings you give are accepted by God. If all members of your family can be blessed by the priesthood, then how would the mother of the baby interfere in those blessings by holding her baby? You would think that having all family members (father, mother and baby) involved in the blessing would be ideal for a church who celebrates family.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maureen... Not sure how things are done in other wards, or even what the exact doctrine is now...

But in every Baby Blessing in our ward... The mother DOES hold the child in her arms for the blessing.

I find myself quite confused to hear that that isn't the way it is ordinarily done.

There have been many many babies born in our ward, and with each, either a chair is brought, or the mother kneels, and the priesthood encircle parents and child together, and the blessing is given. Also, in each case, all of the important people who have chosen to be present (LDS or not) are right there in the front pews set aside / kept for them. Just like in a christening, the important people are there, and the parents are involved.

I think I find that the alternative presented, is downright heartbreaking.

And, so, too... Can't see any reason why the Power of God and His Priesthood should be stymied by a mother holding her baby.

If so, then I reserve the right to be completely ticked off at Our Heavenly Father for such a hurtful and exclusionary practice of sending a mother away from her newborn child.

That makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

Which has nothing to do with my faith and belief in Himself, nor the Gospel.

It was difficult enough for me when my son was baptized/confirmed, as a single mother, there being no one to stand with my child, no one bound by blood, oaths, and love to stand there with him. As if he were alone in the world. I looked upon it as my son making his first promise to HF & the Spirit on his own. Because that's what he was doing. But an infant child?! And what of children who don't have a father who holds the priesthood? Should they be cleaved from both their parents? How does any of this make sense? This just doesn't sound like the church I know and love. It sounds wrong. It feels wrong.

So... DP... If what you're saying is that mothers ARENT allowed, that my ward is "doing it wrong" , can you take a moment and think about what that would be like if it were true for all parents? Why that might ring wrong, for some, to separate parents from their children?

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maureen... Not sure how things are done in other wards, or even what the exact doctrine is now...

But in every Baby Blessing in our ward... The mother DOES hold the child in her arms for the blessing.

I find myself quite confused to hear that that isn't the way it is ordinarily done.

There have been many many babies born in our ward, and with each, either a chair is brought, or the mother kneels, and the priesthood encircle parents and child together, and the blessing is given. Also, in each case, all of the important people who have chosen to be present (LDS or not) are right there in the front pews set aside / kept for them. Just like in a christening, the important people are there, and the parents are involved.

I think I find that the alternative presented, is downright heartbreaking.

And, so, too... Can't see any reason why the Power of God and His Priesthood should be stymied by a mother holding her baby.

If so, then I reserve the right to be completely ticked off at Our Heavenly Father for such a hurtful and exclusionary practice of sending a mother away from her newborn child.

That makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

Which has nothing to do with my faith and belief in Himself, nor the Gospel.

It was difficult enough for me when my son was baptized/confirmed, as a single mother, there being no one to stand with my child, no one bound by blood, oaths, and love to stand there with him. As if he were alone in the world. I looked upon it as my son making his first promise to HF & the Spirit on his own. Because that's what he was doing. But an infant child?! And what of children who don't have a father who holds the priesthood? Should they be cleaved from both their parents? How does any of this make sense? This just doesn't sound like the church I know and love. It sounds wrong. It feels wrong.

So... DP... If what you're saying is that mothers ARENT allowed, that my ward is "doing it wrong" , can you take a moment and think about what that would be like if it were true for all parents? Why that might ring wrong, for some, to separate parents from their children?

Q

Lacking blood oaths and cleaving children from parents...sounds scary

:scared.freaked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's sort of like saying, "I can't imagine how it would take away from baptism to sprinkle them instead of using immersion." I mean, I honestly can't imagine why immersion is so important. I have never, personally, understood why we have to get dunked in water to enter God's kingdom. That's the way God set it up though. So I trust it despite my inability to imagine the importance of it.

Is a baby blessing an official Priesthood ordinance where we've been given specific revelation on exactly how we're supposed to do it? I would have answered "no" to that question, but now that you're comparing it to baptism I'm honestly not sure anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maureen... Not sure how things are done in other wards, or even what the exact doctrine is now...

But in every Baby Blessing in our ward... The mother DOES hold the child in her arms for the blessing.

I find myself quite confused to hear that that isn't the way it is ordinarily done.

There have been many many babies born in our ward, and with each, either a chair is brought, or the mother kneels, and the priesthood encircle parents and child together, and the blessing is given. Also, in each case, all of the important people who have chosen to be present (LDS or not) are right there in the front pews set aside / kept for them. Just like in a christening, the important people are there, and the parents are involved.

I think I find that the alternative presented, is downright heartbreaking.

And, so, too... Can't see any reason why the Power of God and His Priesthood should be stymied by a mother holding her baby.

If so, then I reserve the right to be completely ticked off at Our Heavenly Father for such a hurtful and exclusionary practice of sending a mother away from her newborn child.

That makes no sense to me, whatsoever.

Which has nothing to do with my faith and belief in Himself, nor the Gospel.

It was difficult enough for me when my son was baptized/confirmed, as a single mother, there being no one to stand with my child, no one bound by blood, oaths, and love to stand there with him. As if he were alone in the world. I looked upon it as my son making his first promise to HF & the Spirit on his own. Because that's what he was doing. But an infant child?! And what of children who don't have a father who holds the priesthood? Should they be cleaved from both their parents? How does any of this make sense? This just doesn't sound like the church I know and love. It sounds wrong. It feels wrong.

So... DP... If what you're saying is that mothers ARENT allowed, that my ward is "doing it wrong" , can you take a moment and think about what that would be like if it were true for all parents? Why that might ring wrong, for some, to separate parents from their children?

Q

Yes, this is absolutely incorrect and your ward is absolutely doing it wrong. This is clear in the church handbook. It is so wrong, in fact, that it is hardly believable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is a baby blessing an official Priesthood ordinance where we've been given specific revelation on exactly how we're supposed to do it? I would have answered "no" to that question, but now that you're comparing it to baptism I'm honestly not sure anymore.

Of course we've been given directions on how to do it.

The comparison to baptism is not apples to apples, of course. Baptism is a saving ordinance. Blessing a child is not. But that is not really relevant. What is relevant is that the Lord has set the standard for how ordinances are to be performed and we are meant to do as He has told us to. If the Lord changes this, His will be done. But until He changes it, we have instructions that should be followed.

Edited by church
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is a baby blessing an official Priesthood ordinance where we've been given specific revelation on exactly how we're supposed to do it? I would have answered "no" to that question, but now that you're comparing it to baptism I'm honestly not sure anymore.

It is not a saving ordinance, as in it is not actually required. It is performed as a "blessing" to the faithful mostly pertaining to mortality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a equal comparison.

Baptism is not equal to baby blessings. They are different. Different purposes, different methods, and different levels of importance.

The comparison that is valid is that the Lord sets the standards whereby we perform ordinances. It is not our prerogative to change them. If we do not follow His standards for them, they are invalid. The Lord set immersion as the standard. If we ignore that, the baptism does not count. If we bless our babies by ignoring the method giving by the Lord, same thing.

Now, the difference is, a baby blessing is not a saving ordinance. So it somewhat matters less if it's done wrong. But it still needs to be done right or it's useless to do.

I cannot use my priesthood to heal the sick with apple juice instead of consecrated oil either.

The Lord sets the methods whereby we use His priesthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course we've been given directions on how to do it.

The comparison to baptism is not apples to apples, of course. Baptism is a saving ordinance. Blessing a child is not. But that is not really relevant. What is relevant is that the Lord has set the standard for how ordinances are to be performed and we are meant to do as He has told us to. If the Lord changes this, His will be done. But until He changes it, we have instructions that should be followed.

Oh, ok, I got confused for a minute. I decided not to be lazy and look it up, and there is a section in Handbook 2 about it. I've been in a student ward so long I hardly remembered what a baby blessing was. ;)

EDIT: Ok, who hacked JaG's account and made him thank every single post in the past 2 pages? :P

Edited by LittleWyvern
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but how do you believe God leads? Isn't it through your Prophet and the General Authorities, who all hold the priesthood?

The authority and power that God gives to man to act in all things for the salvation of man (D&C 50:26–27). Male members of the Church who hold the priesthood are organized into quorums and are authorized to perform ordinances and certain administrative functions in the Church.

M.

This is indeed the way God has chosen to set things up. He calls upon men to be his spokesmen on the earth to the church. He calls upon all of his children to support and sustain his anointed.

The thing is it makes no more sense to quibble over why God has thus far only ordained men to the priesthood than it does to quibble over why thus far only women get to bear children. Are we not equal partners as parents? Or does mom trump dad because she gave birth... I know some who will say that mom trumps dad, and these are likely to be the same who think that women are somehow inferior because they don't hold the priesthood, while at the same time acknowledging a role they feel that women are superior to men.

It is confusing equality with same roles instead of same value. For a plant to grow is water more important than planting a seed or having the right minerals and compounds in the soil? All of these provide different roles but are of equal importance because as soon as any one is completely missing the plant is done.

God recognizes men and women are different but equal and as such has laid out a plan for us to work together in harmony.

Again the ultimate point is that God leads the church, not men. Yes they are in the position to dispense His word and revelations, but also under greater condemnation if they do not. As far as doctrine and policy are concerned it would change nothing if women were in these positions because God would tell them the same thing he tells the men. He simply hasn't put them in this position for reasons we do not fully understand, but one great reason is because women are great nurturers for their children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews. Moms hold the family unit together better than dads do in many ways and it would be contrary to the plan to weaken families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: Ok, who hacked JaG's account and made him thank every single post in the past 2 pages? :P

I had the same thought. You know JaG, if you thank EVERYBODY, then thanks start to lose all meaning. :D

Edit: Seriously. It's EVERY post. There's got to be some sort of bug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a equal comparison. If you believe that the priesthood you hold is given to you by God then you have conviction that the blessings you give are accepted by God.

For myself: Absolutely not! A priesthood ordination is not God's promise to rubber-stamp whatever blessing the priesthood holder chooses to pronounce upon another individual. Certainly for myself and for a lot of other priesthood holders of my acquaintance--and I daresay for nearly all of us--there is a constant tension between what we want to bless someone with versus what we are inspired to bless someone with; and continual anxiety to make sure that we aren't obscuring that line.

I don't deny the emotional reasons for wanting to have a mother stand in on a baby blessing; and nor do I wish generally to downplay the idea of priesthood as being actual power. But I really don't think that my holding the priesthood leads me to believe that God will consider my petitions to Him to be any more efficacious than a prayer of faith offered by my wife. Rather, I lean towards the idea that the non-saving priesthood ordinances primarily serve to ritualize and add a more explicit element of "teaching" to specific moments that already have inherent power to draw us closer to God (birth, death, healing/near-death experiences, miracles, etc).

@ Quin: The Church Handbook (at Little Wyvern's link) specifies, with respect to blessing children, that "only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may participate in naming and blessing children. Priesthood leaders should inform members of this instruction before their children are named and blessed. While preserving the sacred nature of the blessing, leaders should make every reasonable effort to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families." I think someone who is determined to read the policy ambiguously can certainly find the ambiguity there (is Mom "participating" if she's just holding the kid?); and frankly I'm personally sympathetic to that argument. But I think most in LDS leadership would assert that the plain meaning of the policy is reasonably clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LW and Church -

Ordinarily I agree with you re excessive "thanking". But I really value the discussion that's been happening here and I know that, in light of recent events, this is kind of a sensitive topic that some people are loath to participate in; so I feel like someone's being willing to put themself "out there" to address the topic at all merits some sort of thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LW and Church -

Ordinarily I agree with you re excessive "thanking". But I really value the discussion that's been happening here and I know that, in light of recent events, this is kind of a sensitive topic that some people are loath to participate in; so I feel like someone's being willing to put themself "out there" to address the topic at all merits some sort of thanks.

I was going to test it by posting something like "JaG's a moron" and see if you thanked it. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Quin: The Church Handbook (at Little Wyvern's link) specifies, with respect to blessing children, that "only Melchizedek Priesthood holders may participate in naming and blessing children. Priesthood leaders should inform members of this instruction before their children are named and blessed. While preserving the sacred nature of the blessing, leaders should make every reasonable effort to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families." I think someone who is determined to read the policy ambiguously can certainly find the ambiguity there (is Mom "participating" if she's just holding the kid?); and frankly I'm personally sympathetic to that argument. But I think most in LDS leadership would assert that the plain meaning of the policy is reasonably clear.

Ambiguous until it later clarifies with specificity: "Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle and place their hands under the baby."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... DP... If what you're saying is that mothers ARENT allowed, that my ward is "doing it wrong" , can you take a moment and think about what that would be like if it were true for all parents? Why that might ring wrong, for some, to separate parents from their children?

Instructions for naming and blessing a child.

When blessing a baby, Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle and place their hands under the baby. When blessing an older child, brethren place their hands lightly on the child’s head. Handbook of a Instructions

No I'm not going to say your ward is doing it wrong. You have a Bishop in your ward that has been set apart to be a judge in Israel. It is his call on what happens in your ward not mine.

If your Bishop deems that a mother holding a baby is not acting in the role of priesthood then there's no problem. But this thread is not about women holding babies. It's about women being ordained to the priesthood something The Lord has not set forth.

I do have a problem with priesthood blessings and ordinances being compared to christenings and other religious rituals.

There is no such thing as LDS priesthood as stated earlier. There is Melchezedik and Aaronic both which have been restored through the prophet Joseph Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm not going to say your ward is doing it wrong. You have a Bishop in your ward that has been set apart to be a judge in Israel. It is his call on what happens in your ward not mine.

If your Bishop deems that a mother holding a baby is not acting in the role of priesthood then there's no problem.

A bishop does not have the right to change ordinances within his purview as a judge in Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bishop does not have the right to change ordinances within his purview as a judge in Israel.

I agree, dosen't sound like to me he is trying to change it. It's more his interpretation of the handbook obviously deeming that the women holding the baby is not part of the circle.

My real point was I'm not going to counsel a Bishop what he should be doing in his ward. That's not my place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, dosen't sound like to me he is trying to change it. It's more his interpretation of the handbook obviously deeming that the women holding the baby is not part of the circle.

My real point was I'm not going to counsel a Bishop what he should be doing in his ward. That's not my place.

Well, yeah...I'm not going to hunt the bishop down and cuss him out. :) I'm certainly comfortable stating publicly that he is mistaken, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a mother hold the baby is not orthodox (Quin, is this the only ward you've been in?), but I don't see what the problem is. She's not laying her hands on the baby's head, she's holding the baby. I've held my babies while their father blessed them when they were sick and it never occurred to me that I was interfering.

Again, it's not orthodox. I don't feel like I missed out on anything by not holding the baby. I'm glad my husband could and for us wouldn't have it any other way. I could only share the experience of birth with him to a certain degree, and I feel that the name and blessing is a special time for the father and child. But as far as following the rules goes, what rule does it break to have the mother hold the baby?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ordinarily I agree with you re excessive "thanking". But I really value the discussion that's been happening here and I know that, in light of recent events, this is kind of a sensitive topic that some people are loath to participate in; so I feel like someone's being willing to put themself "out there" to address the topic at all merits some sort of thanks.

I'm slightly disappointed that you didn't thank your own post. ;)

Again, it's not orthodox. I don't feel like I missed out on anything by not holding the baby. I'm glad my husband could and for us wouldn't have it any other way. I could only share the experience of birth with him to a certain degree, and I feel that the name and blessing is a special time for the father and child. But as far as following the rules goes, what rule does it break to have the mother hold the baby?

And I suppose that's what "leaders should make every reasonable effort to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families" is for. Culture may vary around the world, and some things are done just to be practical. On my mission I saw one instance where a mom was holding her baby in a baby blessing because otherwise the baby would be crying like crazy during the whole thing. It was clear, though, that she wasn't participating in the blessing or becoming a part of it in any way. Perhaps having a tradition where the mom participates in all baby blessing blurs that "participating" line too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share