Should women be allowed to be witnesses for priesthood ordinances?

[inho]

Now, when priests are allowed to baptize and witness proxy baptisms in the temple (see this thread), some ask again why women can't be witnesses. For example, this question is raised in a big way in the Salt Lake Tribune article.

The explanation most people give is that since the witness has duty to see if the ordinance is performed correctly he should be one who is able to perform the ordinance himself. This is not a very satisfying answer. One doesn't really need priesthood to tell if the correct words were used and correct procedures taken.

Those who say that women should be allowed to witness ordinances usually refer to the New Testament and point out that it was women who were the first witnesses of the resurrection. They also bring forward the fact that YW motto (which is repeated constantly) quotes the responsibility in the baptismal covenant to “stand as a witness at all times, in all things, and in all places”. However, one could claim that witnessing resurrection and standing as a witness at all times is something different than witnessing a priesthood ordinance.

If women were allowed to witness, what harm would it cause? Especially, if young women witnessed baptisms in the temple that would prepare them for other temple ordinances where women have a more active role.

Actually, women have been witnesses in the temple:

In 1845, for no clear reason, only twenty-four baptisms were registered. The record did record one particularly noteworthy event, however. For the first time a woman, Melissa Lott, was listed as a witness (Nauvoo Baptisms, Book C).

(source: “What Has Become of Our Fathers?” Baptism for the Dead at Nauvoo, by M. Guy Bishop in Dialogue vol. 23, no. 2)

The Tribune article tells us

Until the 1950s, Mormon women routinely served as witnesses in the temple, according to LDS history researcher Ardis Parshall.

[Joseph Fielding] Smith was surprised in 1959, when he heard that women witnessed temple marriages in Alberta, Parshall reports. “He asked for the temple president’s authority, and learned that it was a longstanding practice, based on ‘Item No. 53’ in the written instructions given to temple presidents.”

To that, Smith replied, “Where the idea of having women for witnesses for marriages began I do not know, but my training convinces me that it is the proper thing to have the priesthood not only officiating but witnessing the ceremonies of the temple.”

It has been that way, Parshall said, ever since.

What do you think, should women be allowed to witness ordinances?

Edited the Tribune quote to tell who Smith is.

[MMbelieve]

For me it seems like a non issue. If there are men around let them witness if there isint, I see a woman just as valid and equal in the ability to witness.

Many of these man/woman issues that are brought up seem like non issues to me. The only real issue I ever have with gender disparity is polygamy, everything else is just fine. Polygamy is the only "thing" that elevates one gender over the other and that is where I draw a line on acceptability. A witness, doesn't matter really. We're both equally capable but reserve the responsibility to men. No biggy.

[kittycat51]

First off to see a Salt Lake Trib article turns my nose. I don't like anything they do, so I choose not to ever read their newspaper. Remember I posted about their billboard on 1-15 in Salt Lake county that states something to the effect of "We exist because there are people who don't want us to". The "people" being referred to are the prominent faith. The Salt Lake Tribs goal in life is to throw any type of controversy into the Church that they can.

Anyway, to answer the OP I'm OK either way. I don't go campaigning in the Church to do anything. (I'm GLAD not to have the responsibility of the priesthood) If it's God's will for women to be witnesses then great. I think it would be cool to do so.

[inho]

First off to see a Salt Lake Trib article turns my nose. I don't like anything they do, so I choose not to ever read their newspaper. Remember I posted about their billboard on 1-15 in Salt Lake county that states something to the effect of "We exist because there are people who don't want us to". The "people" being referred to are the prominent faith. The Salt Lake Tribs goal in life is to throw any type of controversy into the Church that they can.

My primary reason to mention the Trib article was the quote I shared from it. I respect Ardis E. Parshall, she is a top-notch amateur historian. I love her blog www.keepapitchinin.org.

[Michelle]

3 Nephi 11:28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

I don't get why everyone keeps harping on these things. It probably doesn't matter, except that we believe in being obedient.

Won't it be funny (not funny) if we find out in the eternities all these non-issues were just a test to those who have rebellious hearts?

I honestly don't see why this stuff is always such a big deal to so many people.

[Juliet]

Because it is the priesthood's responsibility to make sure they are performed correctly. Sometimes this war about having women hold the priesthood... How about if only men were allowed to clean the bathrooms? Would any women complain then? Hey, now that's not such a bad idea. Can we make bathroom duty a Priesthood responsibility?

Why do women want Priesthood responsibilities, it is just going to give us more work to do. Tell you what, if they ever do, I will be the first to complain.

I will admit, men get more accolades then women. I don't get to stand in front of a group of people with a nice dress on and let everyone see how good I am because I held my baby for 2 hours. I think what women really crave is respect, attention, and to be noticed because lets face it, no one really cares what moms do unless it is your mom and your underwear that didn't get washed in time. Wouldn't it be easier to stand in a circle and witness because you have the priesthood and that makes you oh so special?

For some reason, getting the underwear washed doesn't elicit the same communal satisfaction. But if it did, women would be vying to get the laundry done if society saw it as oh so special like holding the Priesthood seems to be.

[inho]

For me, this isn't just about gender equality. It really is a non-issue, as many have already said. But if it is a non-issue, then any change shouldn't be an issue either. What interest me most, is the historical precedent we have. Women have been witnesses in the temple.
Sure, when Joseph Fielding Smith changed it, that probably just reflected the opinions and values of his time. So, maybe this is a gender (in)equality issue any way.

[LdsMarco]

Because it is the priesthood's responsibility to make sure they are performed correctly. Sometimes this war about having women hold the priesthood... How about if only men were allowed to clean the bathrooms? Would any women complain then? Hey, now that's not such a bad idea. Can we make bathroom duty a Priesthood responsibility?

It is in our ward. The bishop doesn't like the women to clean it

[LdsMarco]

You know what's crazy about this whole thing? SPEAKING OF OUR WARD - We usually have a hard time trying to find someone who actually wants to perform the baptisms in the temple. Temple worker often asks: "Who is the baptizer?" .... then you hear crickets.... I'm always happy to do it. I think it's always a privileged

[gardener4life]

Because it is the priesthood's responsibility to make sure they are performed correctly. Sometimes this war about having women hold the priesthood... How about if only men were allowed to clean the bathrooms? Would any women complain then? Hey, now that's not such a bad idea. Can we make bathroom duty a Priesthood responsibility?

Why do women want Priesthood responsibilities, it is just going to give us more work to do. Tell you what, if they ever do, I will be the first to complain.

I will admit, men get more accolades then women. I don't get to stand in front of a group of people with a nice dress on and let everyone see how good I am because I held my baby for 2 hours. I think what women really crave is respect, attention, and to be noticed because lets face it, no one really cares what moms do unless it is your mom and your underwear that didn't get washed in time. Wouldn't it be easier to stand in a circle and witness because you have the priesthood and that makes you oh so special?

For some reason, getting the underwear washed doesn't elicit the same communal satisfaction. But if it did, women would be vying to get the laundry done if society saw it as oh so special like holding the Priesthood seems to be.

Thanks to the nice comments by you and also by kitty above! It's wonderful that you posted a helpful comment and were showing support for truth.

I would say though that men don't get more attention than women. We get treated as outsiders constantly and that's very hard to deal with, especially seeing that women are always together. Psychologically that's just how women are. They will unite and be together more than the men will. So we are often outside of things and the last to find out any family news. You can check in your families and things on stuff like baby notices and family events and the men are usually the last to find out about anything. So women have a lot of power already even without the Priesthood.

As a matter of principle though and to the real issue I would point out, that in sealing ordinances only Priesthood are witnesses. So its not going to change for baptisms too. Also I think there would be too much temptation for wanting the 'next step up' if they were allowed to be witnesses.

[gardener4life]

You know what's crazy about this whole thing? SPEAKING OF OUR WARD - We usually have a hard time trying to find someone who actually wants to perform the baptisms in the temple. Temple worker often asks: "Who is the baptizer?" .... then you hear crickets.... I'm always happy to do it. I think it's always a privileged

I've sort of forgotten because I go to other areas more than the baptistry...but can you do baptism work without going near initiatory work, or being asked to do initiatory work?

[LdsMarco]

You know what's crazy about this whole thing? SPEAKING OF OUR WARD - We usually have a hard time trying to find someone who actually wants to perform the baptisms in the temple. Temple worker often asks: "Who is the baptizer?" .... then you hear crickets.... I'm always happy to do it. I think it's always a privileged

I've sort of forgotten because I go to other areas more than the baptistry...but can you do baptism work without going near initiatory work, or being asked to do initiatory work?

You can do baptisms only if you like. There are always names provided but they prefer that we bring our own names.

[inho]

As a matter of principle though and to the real issue I would point out, that in sealing ordinances only Priesthood are witnesses.

It hasn't been always this way. See the quote in the OP.

[gardener4life]

As a matter of principle though and to the real issue I would point out, that in sealing ordinances only Priesthood are witnesses.

It hasn't been always this way. See the quote in the OP.

The ones you should be talking to about this are temple sealers. Ask them. It has only been priesthood holders acting as witnesses at temple sealings. That was what I was talking about. And I said it this way because they would be similar. Now there is absolutely no way you will ever see non-priesthood acting as witnesses at temple sealing. To say otherwise is incorrect procedure.

Also the Salt Lake Tribune is NOT credible as a paper when talking about religion. Since dozens and dozens of years ago they have always pursued a vendetta against Mormonism and the LDS church to discredit them whenever possible. If they told me the sky was blue, I'd probably have to check. Because they shouldn't be so anti-LDS. Old timers will tell you how they pursued a relentless campaign against Joseph F Smith way back in the day, and others. They have a long history doing such. So...not credible as a newspaper.

This isn't personal feelings against them. But if you spend every chance you get discrediting someone's religion those people of that religion aren't going to believe things you say because you've spent your trust.

Also be careful assuming feminine sounding names to be feminine. In the old days a lot of names we consider strictly female were used for both. Like Marion...and Leslie used to be used for boys in the 1800s, 1700s, and early even past WW1. There's a whole bunch of names like this.

[inho]

The ones you should be talking to about this are temple sealers. Ask them. It has only been priesthood holders acting as witnesses at temple sealings. That was what I was talking about. And I said it this way because they would be similar.

How many of the current temple sealers have been involved in sealings in 50's?

Now there is absolutely no way you will ever see non-priesthood acting as witnesses at temple sealing. To say otherwise is incorrect procedure.

Similarly, many thought that you wouldn't ever see priests baptizing in the temple. Now it is going to happen. Much of what we do is just policy and tradition.

Also the Salt Lake Tribune is NOT credible as a paper when talking about religion.

I agree. However, Ardis Parshall is extremely credible historian. You apparently don't know her.

[gardener4life]

The idea of priests baptizing isn't new. People in missions do it all the time and elsewhere. But proposing women with priesthood or priesthood responsibilities like a priesthood holder does is completely way more radical. You are taking a stand that we allowed an inch here so lets switch the train to another set of tracks.

Now I hope you don't get offended. I'm not meaning to be offensive. But this how people start changing doctrine and doing things you aren't supposed to do; truth versus error stands here. Someone has their own agenda to create a quite possibly fictitious record (which has happened before on many occasions) to be used a lever by others to try to say its OK to give women the priesthood, or more likely have them do priesthood duties first, and then get the priesthood by the next argument. Also in the early church when Joseph Smith was first getting the church organized he was only given some very temporary conditions with the warning that he would be in hot water if he didn't change things and get it up to speed to a higher standard after a very short period of time.

So right now there are anti groups that want to change the church and give women the priesthood, there are also anti groups to push gays into the temples, and in church leadership. Because of this, principles or procedures are rules associated with those groups are NOT going to change because people are trying to force a change by being loud instead of obedient. If something like this were to happen in something connected to a goal with one of these groups they would also then use it as further momentum to gain more ground.

On the other hand you have young people trying to want to be good. Thus, they get approval for something that's not anything new anyway. All rewards and opportunities given associated with heavenly things or gifts from God are won through obedience, not forcing a change.

This is why I am sure there isn't going to be a change like this anytime soon.

I wouldn't put a historian before a priesthood authority though, in this particular case the information you provided might be correct.

Also if you want to know if this will or won't be allowed just look at D&C 128.

2 I wrote a few words of revelation to you concerning a recorder. I have had a few additional views in relation to this matter, which I now certify. That is, it was declared in my former letter that there should be a recorder, who should be eye-witness, and also to hear with his ears, that he might make a record of a truth before the Lord.

3 Now, in relation to this matter, it would be very difficult for one recorder to be present at all times, and to do all the business. To obviate this difficulty, there can be a recorder appointed in each ward of the city, who is well qualified for taking accurate minutes; and let him be very particular and precise in taking the whole proceedings, certifying in his record that he saw with his eyes, and heard with his ears, giving the date, and names, and so forth, and the history of the whole transaction; naming also some three individuals that are present, if there be any present, who can at any time when called upon certify to the same, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

4 Then, let there be a general recorder, to whom these other records can be handed, being attended with certificates over their own signatures, certifying that the record they have made is true. Then the general church recorder can enter the record on the general church book, with the certificates and all the attending witnesses, with his own statement that he verily believes the above statement and records to be true, from his knowledge of the general character and appointment of those men by the church. And when this is done on the general church book, the record shall be just as holy, and shall answer the ordinance just the same as if he had seen with his eyes and heard with his ears, and made a record of the same on the general church book.

5 You may think this order of things to be very particular; but let me tell you that it is only to answer the will of God, by conforming to the ordinance and preparation that the Lord ordained and prepared before the foundation of the world, for the salvation of the dead who should die without a knowledge of the gospel. (If a particular order was organized and setup before the foundation of the world its best not to mess with it.)

[inho]

The idea of priests baptizing isn't new. People in missions do it all the time and elsewhere.

Have priest done proxy baptisms for dead before? Before the announcement, I had heard many to say that there is some doctrinal reason that Melchizedek priesthood is required for all ordinances for the dead. Now we see that this is not true, it was just a policy that the baptist was required to hold MP and be endowed.

But proposing women with priesthood or priesthood responsibilities like a priesthood holder does is completely way more radical. You are taking a stand that we allowed an inch here so lets switch the train to another set of tracks.

Now I hope you don't get offended. I'm not meaning to be offensive. But this how people start changing doctrine and doing things you aren't supposed to do; truth versus error stands here.

I'm not offended, I like to discuss things. My point is that we do not know if acting as witness is priesthood responsibility. There is nothing in the scriptures about it. Since there seem to be a historical precedent for women being witnesses, I would say that it is just a policy.

[inho]

Also if you want to know if this will or won't be allowed just look at D&C 128.

I admit that the temple recorder needs to be a priesthood holder. However, that is not a same thing as a witness. Actually, is there anything about having witnesses for the baptism (in our out of a temple) in scriptures?

I guess the D&C 128:2 (and 127:6) mandates that there needs to be a witness for the baptism for dead. However, the same verses equates the witness with the recorder. Nowadays, the witnesses do no recording. they do not sign anything, they do not record the ordinances to church databases, they just watch the baptisms.

[h_p]

Now I hope you don't get offended. I'm not meaning to be offensive. But this how people start changing doctrine and doing things you aren't supposed to do; truth versus error stands here.

That's the crux of the whole matter, isn't it? How much of what we do is based on actual eternal, unchanging doctrine vs. accommodation of cultural mores vs. simple tradition? I would say that the vast majority of the things we consider "right" are taken that way because it's how things have always been done. I doubt there are very many of us alive today who do things understanding the "why" behind them. I know I don't.

As an example, women used to give laying-on-hands healing blessings in the church. Now they're not allowed? Why? If this policy is based on a principle of doctrine, does that mean the early church leadership was wrong about it, or is the modern leadership wrong? Or is it based on something more cultural? If it's a cultural thing, we shouldn't have a problem reverting back to the original policy, as our culture changes. I honestly don't know the reasoning behind it, but I'd like to. I just have to say that the more I go to the temple, the more I realize there's a lot I don't know about priesthood power. The temple hints that women have a lot more access to it than they (and we men) think they do.

Reading the Old Testament shows me a religion that feels pretty alien to modern sensibilities. But they obviously had a relationship with God, and access to His blessings, even though the things they considered "right" seem anything but, these days. How much of it was based on doctrine, and how much was it just God mercifully accommodating their culture so they could relate to Him?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Haven't gotten many answers yet...

[Juliet]

Because it is the priesthood's responsibility to make sure they are performed correctly. Sometimes this war about having women hold the priesthood... How about if only men were allowed to clean the bathrooms? Would any women complain then? Hey, now that's not such a bad idea. Can we make bathroom duty a Priesthood responsibility?

Why do women want Priesthood responsibilities, it is just going to give us more work to do. Tell you what, if they ever do, I will be the first to complain.

I will admit, men get more accolades then women. I don't get to stand in front of a group of people with a nice dress on and let everyone see how good I am because I held my baby for 2 hours. I think what women really crave is respect, attention, and to be noticed because lets face it, no one really cares what moms do unless it is your mom and your underwear that didn't get washed in time. Wouldn't it be easier to stand in a circle and witness because you have the priesthood and that makes you oh so special?

For some reason, getting the underwear washed doesn't elicit the same communal satisfaction. But if it did, women would be vying to get the laundry done if society saw it as oh so special like holding the Priesthood seems to be.

Thanks to the nice comments by you and also by kitty above! It's wonderful that you posted a helpful comment and were showing support for truth.

I would say though that men don't get more attention than women. We get treated as outsiders constantly and that's very hard to deal with, especially seeing that women are always together. Psychologically that's just how women are. They will unite and be together more than the men will. So we are often outside of things and the last to find out any family news. You can check in your families and things on stuff like baby notices and family events and the men are usually the last to find out about anything. So women have a lot of power already even without the Priesthood.

As a matter of principle though and to the real issue I would point out, that in sealing ordinances only Priesthood are witnesses. So its not going to change for baptisms too. Also I think there would be too much temptation for wanting the 'next step up' if they were allowed to be witnesses.

It is true that women have a lot more of the bonding hormone. And it does tend to create a dependency on others. Men usually don't have that dependence on others until old age when the tables turn, and women have more independent hormones and men are the ones with the bonding hormones. Which makes sense because women won't need to take care of children in old age and men will be retired and finally can care more about relationships than money. I found this out by some books entitled "the male brain" and "the female brain". I forget the author.

Now days, it is very hard for some to be dependent on the Priesthood or even have a man provide for us, even though it is our nature to want a man to help us.

Yesterday we were throwing a rope up the tree to hang a swing, and my husband could get it 2 times as high if not 3 times as high as me. I thought, in the days where brute strength was necessary for life, there is no way women would try to do things without men. I think in those days women respected that they wouldn't survive without men and realized that they had an important job as well in reproducing.

But now days we are quite dissociated from our need for men, and we are much more miserable for it. Even Dr. Laura who is the biggest mother advocate I know didn't even realize the importance of her role as a mother until she was in her late 30's and aching for a way to put her arms and body to use in raising a child.

How do you tell someone they don't want the priesthood, they want motherhood, they want men to be men and they will be happier in their role as mothers? So many women resent their husbands because they have to financially provide for them. They are so miserable and all because they grew up being treated on the school system the same as men, with no thought to what it takes to be a nurture and care giver, as if it comes naturally and needs no time, practice, or education.

That is where real postpartum depression comes from. From having a new baby with zero prior experience in care taking, and I don't mean a 2 hour babysitting experience. Including the skill to remain kind when the baby and child is not kind, and to manage a household when it feels like your nerves are burning out their sockets because you have no sleep and the only thing that keeps you going is that weird off feeling you get from your hormones drugging you inside out every time you nurse.

Ok, I have said too much. I trust it to nature to bring it back into balance. Women don't need men right now but during the apocalypse we will be fighting over them.

By the way, I not only lay on of hands, I down right pick up my child and hold their whole body to rid them of sorrows and dark spirits. If I feel prompted to lay hands or hugs on my child and to cast out an unclean spirit, as a faithful member of Christ and an endowed member of Christ, I take that authority. As a mother I have right to know when my child has an unclean spirit and to receive revelation on what to do about it. And heaven help someone that stands in my way when I know from heaven what my child needs. I honestly think women are the powers of heaven that are spoken of in D&C 121:36

That the rights of the priesthood are inseparable connected with the powers of heaven.....

Yeah isn't a man sealed, an inseparable connection to his wife?

[h_p]

Yesterday we were throwing a rope up the tree to hang a swing, and my husband could get it 2 times as high if not 3 times as high as me. I thought, in the days where brute strength was necessary for life, there is no way women would try to do things without men.

Yes! This is so true. No matter how much we think technology has changed our culture, we still under-estimate the depth of it. What used to be seen as a natural division of labor is now seen as oppression by the "patriarchy." Maybe some things do need to change. Or maybe it was never meant to, I dunno.

[gardener4life]

Also if you want to know if this will or won't be allowed just look at D&C 128.

I admit that the temple recorder needs to be a priesthood holder. However, that is not a same thing as a witness. Actually, is there anything about having witnesses for the baptism (in our out of a temple) in scriptures?

I guess the D&C 128:2 (and 127:6) mandates that there needs to be a witness for the baptism for dead. However, the same verses equates the witness with the recorder. Nowadays, the witnesses do no recording. they do not sign anything, they do not record the ordinances to church databases, they just watch the baptisms.

That's a good question. I also acknowledge despite not giving you flattery you still had an inquiring mind and open to ask. That says you have good character.

There is a hint at baptisms for the dead by Paul in the new testament that is very vague and only a couple verses, it doesn't go over the rules (1 Corinthians 15:46-48). The only scriptures we have going into how its done is that Section 128. People who have served in areas that have Lamanite ruins will tell you some of those sites have baptismal fonts. (No known references re: baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon.) (Baptism yes, baptism for the dead unknown.) Its interesting to note too that I knew a sister that served in Italty, and she claims to have visited a spot there with other missionaries that is believed to be a baptismal font near Rome from early days many many many years ago. Interesting obviously but I can't say its credible.)

We have a few snippets of interesting history however.
1836 Joseph Smith sees in vision that his brother Alvin would go to the Celestial kingdom. (The seed is planted for him to soon question why that is possible given that he knows baptism is required to enter the Celestial Kingdom.)
August 15, 1840 At a funeral of a Seymour Brunson, Joseph Smith openly teaches reveals the idea & doctrine of the Baptisms for the dead.
1841 Joseph Smith receives the revelation to build the new Temple. (OK this is interesting. Why didn't the Lord reveal all of this at Kirtland? My personal opinion is that a lot of the 'wolves' hadn't yet been separated from the sheep at Kirtland. Kirtland events and the hardship there separated the wolves from the sheep, including several individuals that used positions of authority to steal from the Kirtland bank.) (Font at Nauvoo temple site & basement done by 1841, but the rest wasn't done yet.)
1842 Persecution intensifies on Joseph Smith
August 31, 1842 Joseph Smith first lays out the rules that a recorder and witnesses must be present for baptisms to the dead. But he DOES SO at a meeting for the SISTERS! (That's actually pretty cool!) Right after this the rest of the Saints get the rest of the information.

Oops, I forgot to include that D&C 127 also has some information on Baptisms for the dead also. (second part). (However 128 is more detailed than 127.)

Also to clarify when Brigham Young received the mantle of authority and became President of the Church, he received the additional inspiration at that time that brothers should only be proxy for brothers, and sisters proxy for sisters but not to mix them (explained at 1845 Conference. He had received this information from the Lord that winter previous, a few months earlier.) (This part I didn't know, but I'd always thought you shouldn't cross gender proxy.)

Also here's a link for some of the information.

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrin ... d?lang=eng

(In the link above, historical documents are interesting, but the Spirit is more important than documents. In the past there have been people who have forged Joseph Smith letters; it came out later though.)

[inho]

In her blog, Ardis Parshall tells the fuller story behind the quote in the Salt Lake Tribune:
Women as Temple Witnesses in Living Memory: What I Know, and What I Don’t Know
I encourage you to read the whole post, but the main point is this:

I do know that women served as witnesses to some temple ordinances, in a limited capacity, in at least one temple, in 1959 and for some time before that.

I do not know, and have not stated, that women witnessed all types of ordinances, or that we had served as witnesses as an unbroken practice from the beginning, or that all temples utilized women as witnesses, or that it was such a common occurrence as to be unremarkable, or even that Joseph Fielding Smith, who disapproved of the practice, was single-handedly, without input from other Church leaders, responsible for ending the practice.

All those limitations suggest that while women as witnesses were routine in the sense that nobody in Alberta balked at the service of a woman, it was still an extremely limited practice – one woman, one type of ordinance, only when necessary. Still, even within those limitations, a woman’s witness was treated as valid.

[gardener4life]

Now I hope you don't get offended. I'm not meaning to be offensive. But this how people start changing doctrine and doing things you aren't supposed to do; truth versus error stands here.

That's the crux of the whole matter, isn't it? How much of what we do is based on actual eternal, unchanging doctrine vs. accommodation of cultural mores vs. simple tradition? I would say that the vast majority of the things we consider "right" are taken that way because it's how things have always been done. I doubt there are very many of us alive today who do things understanding the "why" behind them. I know I don't.

As an example, women used to give laying-on-hands healing blessings in the church. Now they're not allowed? Why? If this policy is based on a principle of doctrine, does that mean the early church leadership was wrong about it, or is the modern leadership wrong? Or is it based on something more cultural? If it's a cultural thing, we shouldn't have a problem reverting back to the original policy, as our culture changes. I honestly don't know the reasoning behind it, but I'd like to. I just have to say that the more I go to the temple, the more I realize there's a lot I don't know about priesthood power. The temple hints that women have a lot more access to it than they (and we men) think they do.

Reading the Old Testament shows me a religion that feels pretty alien to modern sensibilities. But they obviously had a relationship with God, and access to His blessings, even though the things they considered "right" seem anything but, these days. How much of it was based on doctrine, and how much was it just God mercifully accommodating their culture so they could relate to Him?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Haven't gotten many answers yet...

HI h_p,

Looking back I wanted to go over your questions. I think you have an honest heart. When I read your comments I was thinking how many honest women came to Jesus and he gave them comfort. "Woman, where are they accusers?" "Lord, if you had been here my brother wouldn't have died." There are many stories. And Jesus at the well with the Samaritan woman, "Will you give me to drink?" he asked her but was actually mirroring what she wanted to test her.

This means that the basic going over simple questions should be our focus. I'm sorry I didn't answer this earlier and I will try to do better. I shouldn't have skipped your question earlier. I will go over something you said about the Old Testament feeling very alien first because I think it sheds light on why we do our procedures a certain way. You said, 'the OT shows me a religion that feels pretty alien to modern sensibilities.' And also, 'how much was based on doctrine or God accommodating culture so they could relate to him'.

Surprisingly, there are some very interesting things in the Old Testament that I really, really, really wish we had more of. I wish we had more about Abraham's life, we know next to nothing about Melchizedek (believed to be Shem but not proven), Noah (come on we only have like 1 chapter...), and very little on Enoch. I think the reason for this is how EVIL the world of the Old Testament, and specifically the canaanites is/was. Also they were very physically vile and not just spiritually vile. The stuff they did back in those days, openly, broadly, and among the public was so wicked and vile if we saw just a glimpse of it we'd probably have PTSD. No joke.

The wicked practices of the Canaanites summed up...The Lord told the Israelites that it was merciful to kill them because their way of life was tragic. It could be described as themselves eating their own body because they were so far down to the very bottom of the Telestial Kingdom that things we classify as the Telestial Kingdom were a daily occurrence there. The Canannites that should have been done away with wasn't about race, religion, or land. It was about mercy. Now compare that to prison executions. We wouldn't execute an innocent. We would only do that to serial killers and such. That tells you how awful the world of the Canaanites was.

Now when I put the list here, bear in mind they did this together. So just saying idolatry doesn't cut it. They did the incest, rape, baby killing, all that icky stuff AT the idolatry sites and doing idolatry there while doing it. That's how awful it was. Here's the list; idolatry, incest, rape, murder, cannibalism, adultery, family killing, patricide, bestiality (+with idolatry and publicly open viewing), homosexuality, molesting of children (their own & others), and child sacrifice (the child sacrifice was made into soup, which is why the Israelites were told not to mix certain foods.) Particularly the child sacrifice also was mixed with cannibalism as I mentioned but they put all of this together mixing that whole list. And it was public done in their Idol God temples or wherever...the Old Testament describes this being done at the 'groves of Baal'. (Which was why Josiah and others were so adamant to cut down the groves when they were reforming Israel.)

Now if you think about it. Why wouldn't the Lord tell them they should be mercifully released? They'd reached a cycle of endless torment in this life and no way of pulling out without 'intervention'.

OK, so why did I focus on that first, before your other question. I think I was led to do it that way through the Spirit to help you see that some of the procedures in the OT and even our day are done not because of cultural reasons or procedural reasons but because our world is literally a Telestial world and its very hard to live in the Telestial Kingdom for people like you and me because we're trying to not become part of it or be changed by it. And while we're resisting it, Satan is trying to put wolves in the church to do whatever he can to mess it up. I think this is why some of our procedures are done the way they are; because we're enduring to the end and we're just given a 'simple procedure' that the Lord thinks is the most likely to resist evil for as long as possible while Satan is trying to change and come into the church to turn it into the great and spacious building, have people deny testimonies, ordinances, gifts of the Spirit, and faith. (And people are easily confused in the Telestial Kingdom so it has to be kept simple while we're here.)

so if you think about it like that, the real reason that sisters aren't involved in as many ordinances is just because the world is evil and just as vile as it was in the days of the OT, save that its more spiritual than physical, and the sisters are being protected from being targets of Satan and some day they'll get more due (they absolutely will get more due but even I don't know everything about how.) Its mercy from the Lord that women aren't the targets of Satan as much as they used to be, or that the priesthood has been targetted for/with, etc. (But he's caught onto this now and knows to destroy our civilization all he has to do is corrupt the righteous women raising kids. Then its guaranteed. This is also how the Jaredites and Nephites had their doom set in motion. ) So what does that mean? I think it means women will have more they can do after this life when the 'mists of darkness' and confusion on our minds because of absence of light isn't there anymore. Then people won't be easily confused. (Also recall the words of Joseph Smith...he describes that the adversary was working particularly hard against him (and priesthood holders) because he knew that he was a disturber of his kingdom.)

What we're dealing with? Heavy mists of darkness over our minds and all over this world, a world of captivity, mass confusion rampant because of a spiritual famine is still in effect, absence of light, tyrants rule, veil over our minds and over our full identities, and The Lord isn't currently presiding and reigning over this world yet. (When he does preside and rule over this world, I can assure it will be much better, more peaceful, and a lot of the things we're worried about like this will get worked out. If you think about it like this its actually a wonder that things aren't worse than they are. Actually its surprising how much missionary work we've got done if you think about how many disturbing things are working their effects in our world right now.) (Why is it Satan can get people so mixed up and riled up all the time? I think part of that has to do with the mists of darkness and the veil making it so hard to see what's going on.)

That's why some of the procedure rules of women doing laying on of hands, and the men being witnesses rather being cultural, or procedural either I don't think is the right classification but more like we're in an evil world, and while we're here we'll get the simplest form that won't be corrupted. And a world full of mists of darkness, confusion is very easy to get everything mixed up and have total chaos reign with very little effort. And someday it won't have to be like that when the veil is taken from our minds and we can see more clearly. (During the Millenium the veil will be open. Thats in church hyms and in some scriptures though if that's open everywhere on Earth is still something I am not entirely clear on.)

So in conclusion, someday it won't have to be like this. It WILL get better, and there are a lot of wonderful things to look forward to especially for the sisters. The fault isn't the church, or the brethren though. It's so we don't get confused, and the fault of those other influences I described above. I think that as you think on this, things will feel more clear and not so much it doesn't matter what I say. I'm just a guide. But most of our worries, hurts, absense of fullfillment, and desires for things to be better come from the world being how awful it is, and how the Lord tells us he's going to help us to get to the point where we've got a fullness of joy. Or a fullness of life, feeling like we're going to be where we belong. That's so exciting, we're going to feel like we belong somewhere! We won't feel an absence of needs being met. We'll be able to be happy and have a full happiness that things aren't missing in our lives! How exciting that is!

We are reminded by the Lord several times that his children are his treasures. You can find versus like this about us being called both 'jewels' and 'treasures'. (When the Lord makes up his jewels; can mean his children. It can also mean gospel programs that make jewels, because the end goal is to make people into his treasures.) (This is scriptural. It's not flattery. When you think of jewels or treasures its something wonderful and beautiful that you want to keep with you always.)

[gardener4life]

Because it is the priesthood's responsibility to make sure they are performed correctly. Sometimes this war about having women hold the priesthood... How about if only men were allowed to clean the bathrooms? Would any women complain then? Hey, now that's not such a bad idea. Can we make bathroom duty a Priesthood responsibility?

Why do women want Priesthood responsibilities, it is just going to give us more work to do. Tell you what, if they ever do, I will be the first to complain.

I will admit, men get more accolades then women. I don't get to stand in front of a group of people with a nice dress on and let everyone see how good I am because I held my baby for 2 hours. I think what women really crave is respect, attention, and to be noticed because lets face it, no one really cares what moms do unless it is your mom and your underwear that didn't get washed in time. Wouldn't it be easier to stand in a circle and witness because you have the priesthood and that makes you oh so special?

For some reason, getting the underwear washed doesn't elicit the same communal satisfaction. But if it did, women would be vying to get the laundry done if society saw it as oh so special like holding the Priesthood seems to be.

Thanks to the nice comments by you and also by kitty above! It's wonderful that you posted a helpful comment and were showing support for truth.

I would say though that men don't get more attention than women. We get treated as outsiders constantly and that's very hard to deal with, especially seeing that women are always together. Psychologically that's just how women are. They will unite and be together more than the men will. So we are often outside of things and the last to find out any family news. You can check in your families and things on stuff like baby notices and family events and the men are usually the last to find out about anything. So women have a lot of power already even without the Priesthood.

As a matter of principle though and to the real issue I would point out, that in sealing ordinances only Priesthood are witnesses. So its not going to change for baptisms too. Also I think there would be too much temptation for wanting the 'next step up' if they were allowed to be witnesses.

It is true that women have a lot more of the bonding hormone. And it does tend to create a dependency on others. Men usually don't have that dependence on others until old age when the tables turn, and women have more independent hormones and men are the ones with the bonding hormones. Which makes sense because women won't need to take care of children in old age and men will be retired and finally can care more about relationships than money. I found this out by some books entitled "the male brain" and "the female brain". I forget the author.

Now days, it is very hard for some to be dependent on the Priesthood or even have a man provide for us, even though it is our nature to want a man to help us.

Yesterday we were throwing a rope up the tree to hang a swing, and my husband could get it 2 times as high if not 3 times as high as me. I thought, in the days where brute strength was necessary for life, there is no way women would try to do things without men. I think in those days women respected that they wouldn't survive without men and realized that they had an important job as well in reproducing.

But now days we are quite dissociated from our need for men, and we are much more miserable for it. Even Dr. Laura who is the biggest mother advocate I know didn't even realize the importance of her role as a mother until she was in her late 30's and aching for a way to put her arms and body to use in raising a child.

How do you tell someone they don't want the priesthood, they want motherhood, they want men to be men and they will be happier in their role as mothers? So many women resent their husbands because they have to financially provide for them. They are so miserable and all because they grew up being treated on the school system the same as men, with no thought to what it takes to be a nurture and care giver, as if it comes naturally and needs no time, practice, or education.

That is where real postpartum depression comes from. From having a new baby with zero prior experience in care taking, and I don't mean a 2 hour babysitting experience. Including the skill to remain kind when the baby and child is not kind, and to manage a household when it feels like your nerves are burning out their sockets because you have no sleep and the only thing that keeps you going is that weird off feeling you get from your hormones drugging you inside out every time you nurse.

Ok, I have said too much. I trust it to nature to bring it back into balance. Women don't need men right now but during the apocalypse we will be fighting over them.

By the way, I not only lay on of hands, I down right pick up my child and hold their whole body to rid them of sorrows and dark spirits. If I feel prompted to lay hands or hugs on my child and to cast out an unclean spirit, as a faithful member of Christ and an endowed member of Christ, I take that authority. As a mother I have right to know when my child has an unclean spirit and to receive revelation on what to do about it. And heaven help someone that stands in my way when I know from heaven what my child needs. I honestly think women are the powers of heaven that are spoken of in D&C 121:36

That the rights of the priesthood are inseparable connected with the powers of heaven.....

Yeah isn't a man sealed, an inseparable connection to his wife?

You had some wonderful things to say. I thought I might comment on some the things you said and asked. I liked what you said about the positive traits of women especially and what they grow through. (go through = grow through ;p )

Now days, it is very hard for some to be dependent on the Priesthood or even have a man provide for us, even though it is our nature to want a man to help us. (I found this very interesting. I do think everyone wants to be with someone and not be alone though. I hope that after this life it can be so that we're never alone, that we're always with whoever we're with and so that we can be such peaceful and so complete that we're doing all the chores together.)

"How do you tell someone they don't want the priesthood, they want motherhood, they want men to be men and they will be happier in their role as mothers? So many women resent their husbands because they have to financially provide for them. They are so miserable and all because they grew up being treated on the school system the same as men, with no thought to what it takes to be a nurture and care giver, as if it comes naturally and needs no time, practice, or education."

I don't think you said too much. This is how we actually get gospel questions talked about. Someone has the courage to start talking about things. Also the part about not having enough sleep really testifies to the courage of mothers, (and fathers), when they are fighting to keep their family together so much that they aren't getting enough sleep continuously for their bodies. I wish I had that kind of strength. (I think I sleep a lot more than other people haha.)

Some of the things I mentioned to h_p's comments I think apply here.

What effects are on this TELESTIAL world; mists of darkness (on our minds, in our civilizations, and in people's thinking to deny truth, to know know truth, and to pervert truth, and push people to deny the things of God), mass confusion (we can't see how things should be, as a result we can't see what would make us feel the most complete and we're pushed to act before we can understand all our choices), tyrants rule (predators prey on the innocent), worship of the flesh and strength to the cannibalism of the innocent (preying upon the Saints of God by the Church of the Devil), Satan teaching people to twist and deform their identities of children of God into something vile that worships things in the great and spacious building (I can't overemphasize this one enough. This is what's happening all over our world. It shows the Church of Abominations or Church of the Devil twisting eternal identities into a spiritual dying cannibalistic chimeira (LGBTQ and soon bestiality and robots(?)), a world of captivity (captivity and being restrained enforces desperation to change, he then brings in the suggestions to overcompensate into things we desire for), absense of light (with less light or no light we can't see how far away we're being led away from the other Saints, and also he's trying to get us isolated. It's easier to lead astray those that are isolated), spiritual famine described by OT prophets is STILL in effect in our world outside of where Zion homes exist, and the Church of Babylon, the mother of all harlots is currently in charge (but won't be soon! Tune in next time for special episode of the Fall of Babylon!).

So think about it step by step. The mists of darkness we can't see how things should be. We're placed in spiritual captivity, we want a better life, Satan twists and uses constant bombardments of suggestions of what might look stronger (But that isn't true or complete), then he tries to get people to sacrifice bits of their identity over time to push them towards the edge of the cliff seeking after lusts of the flesh, prestige, power, gain, harlots, etc. (All in Lehi's tree of life dream.)

I hope this helps.

What's important to understand is that the Lord tells us he and his plan will make us complete if we can endure to the end.

He tells the woman of Samaria at the well, if you drank of my water you would never thirst again. (Think about that in terms of identity. Also restoration of the family through sealing ordinances. Death in the family = thirst. We seek completeness. Our weak spots will be covered by each other in family units, especially with an eternal companion.)

Psalms 16:11 Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore. (Completeness will be given for what we lack someday. We just have to trust that it will be worked out. I think part of why we have to suffer a little is to get us to the point of being willing to accept and even adopt the other innocents of God's children into our lives and families someday...to be willing to not exclude anyone that's worthy.)