Comments on: The Space In-Between http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/04/the-space-in-between/ A Mormon Blog Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:38:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Jessawhy http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/04/the-space-in-between/#comment-132896 Tue, 06 Mar 2007 15:22:47 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/the-space-in-between/#comment-132896 Thanks

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/04/the-space-in-between/#comment-132897 Tue, 06 Mar 2007 06:12:14 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/the-space-in-between/#comment-132897 Jessawhy, I really believe that the current Church hierarchy has the divine right/obligation to set doctrine and policy in the Church. To be fair, I was a bit over-generalizing. People definitely viewed things as priesthood ordinances in the 19th century, but there happened to be less of a focus on explicit naming of authority in those ordinances. The reality is that it is the Church’s duty to save souls and minister the basic doctrine of Christ. I think it does a pretty good job of it.

Grappling with history and discerning the ramifications of it in our day is sometimes challenging, and I don’t think it is something that the Church is particularly required to do with what little time it has.

These are also some of the most complicated issues in the Church. Hopefully we will have a study published this year that you may find useful, but even if we don’t, now more than ever there are resources to explore.

]]> By: Jessawhy http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/04/the-space-in-between/#comment-132898 Tue, 06 Mar 2007 04:36:31 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/the-space-in-between/#comment-132898 Today I read in Alma that when Alma became the High Priest (I also discovered that there is no use of the word “priesthood” in the Book of Mormon)he was not ordained or set-apart, he was “consecrated.” It struck me as an odd word considering we think of it in such a different context. (I’ve been reading the women and the priesthood Part I)
I think this idea is interesting because maybe consecrate is not the same thing as ordain? (any thoughts?)

]]> By: Jessawhy http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/04/the-space-in-between/#comment-132899 Tue, 06 Mar 2007 04:26:41 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/the-space-in-between/#comment-132899 I asked my husband if he maybe meant “saving ordinances” instead of just “ordinances” and he agreed.
Which makes more sense in my mind.
So, based on your comment, do you believe there is too much done in the name of the priesthood? (that which was previously done in the name of Jesus Christ?)
It seems to me that this change is indeed what has excluded women from excercising spiritual gifts of healing, etc.
Also, you said I was asking the right questions, but these are not questions I hear at church, much les answers.
Why do you think that is?

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/04/the-space-in-between/#comment-132900 Tue, 06 Mar 2007 04:12:15 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/the-space-in-between/#comment-132900 Jessawhy, those are the right questions, I think. Though, I would disagree with your husband’s limited definition. Men typically didn’t state that they were doing blessings or healings by the authority of the priesthood until the 20th century. They simply acted in the name of Jesus Christ. The earliest ordinances reflect this as well (think of the baptismal and sacramental prayers). Historically it was considered the right of members to bless and heal in the name of Jesus Christ. Different people have varying levels of faith and consequently power. Joseph envisioned the endowment bestowing power on the saints. Hence, “the endowment of power.”

]]> By: Jessawhy http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/04/the-space-in-between/#comment-132901 Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:55:17 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/the-space-in-between/#comment-132901 I have to admit, J Stapley, that I was rather embarassed yesterday at your comment, and almost decided not to read the rest of the thread today, but I’m glad I did. I think the points that have been made by Serenity Valley echo what I was thinking (but I’m not nearly as articulate as she is).
As far as priesthood ordinances are concerned, I think there is definately some confusion out there. My husband tells me that a baby blessing is not a priesthood ordinance because it’s not required to achieve exaltation.
My question is, if a woman who is not ordained to the priesthood, lays her hands on the head of her child/husband, is it any different than her offering a prayer? Does she have power to speak in the name of God for comfort, healing, etc? If so, do we attribute that to a unique woman at a unique time, or is there a pattern for women to have this power?

]]> By: Serenity Valley http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/04/the-space-in-between/#comment-132906 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:46:51 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/the-space-in-between/#comment-132906 Arrow, sorry, I’ve just reread your comment and realized that I missed the parenthetical in which you disavowed the extension of your ordinance accountability theory to non-ordinance related spiritual gifts. I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Of course, I stand by my reasoning – if a woman can, under any circumstances, perform an ordinance, she is accountable for it. To claim otherwise is both to reduce her to the level of a spiritual child and to allow (or force) some other person to claim accountability for events which are ultimately outside his control. Unless it’s the case that man is punished for his own sin and not Adam’s transgression, but man’s wife’s transgressions are a different story? :)

]]> By: Serenity Valley http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/04/the-space-in-between/#comment-132913 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:17:47 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/the-space-in-between/#comment-132913

#18…Serenity, I apologize if my comment sounded insentitive. I assure you my intent was the opposite. I truly feel for those sisters who cannot have children. I can assure you those same feelings run through us gents as well when they find that they are the reason.

Thanks – I realize you weren’t meaning to be insensitive. My real issue with this arguement isn’t actually that it’s unkind, though; rather, it just doesn’t make sense, and it’s not historically legitimate. (Our current practice is a development of the last century, and we haven’t got any scripture or revelation backing up the changes we’ve made).

There is no “relegating” women to the side here. Their endowment to carry the race is not only related to reproductive features, but also the nurturing characteristics in association. Sure, we blokes can learn a thing or two, but you ladies are born with it.

Evidence, please? Both that women are born with nurturing instincts and that men aren’t?

Likewise, men are born to bear authority and the accountability with its association. Notice please that in my original comment I mention “preside.” This does preclude women from exercising spiritual gifts. And it some rare cases, it does not even preclude them from exercising some ordinances. However, that exercise (ordinances only) is to be accounted to God from a priesthood holder who presides.

So what you’re saying is that in some cases, women can excersize spiritual gifts – even perform some ordinances, but as God sees it, it’s the supervising men who are responsible for those women’s actions? So we’re like spiritual wards, then? Where’s the evidence for this? I’ve always understood that God holds me responsible for my own actions, as I’m a mentally competent adult. If such is not the case, I can hardly expect to be credited with any righteousness, and I can’t expect to be cut off from God through sin.

My point is that there are some specifics with which we each are endowed that cannot be breached. Yet we support one another in bringing about the blessings and enjoyment of those blessings from each.

That may be, but it seems doubtful. Most especially, it seems doubtful that the distribution of spiritual gifts, the ability to perform blessings, or the accompanying accountability is dictated by gender or even one’s status as a member of the priesthood. As has been mentioned already, such an assertion is contradictory to our historical practice. It’s not supported by anything resembling a canonized revelation; it’s not even supported by noncanonical church statements like the family proclamation. And frankly, it flies in the face of scripture.

]]> By: J. Stapley http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/04/the-space-in-between/#comment-132916 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:50:23 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/the-space-in-between/#comment-132916 the claim that the “forms adapted to healing aren’t” temple or priesthood ordinances is a theological one, not a historical one. For it to be a historical claim, you’d have to identify which period’s and which people’s belief system you’re invoking.

Fair enough.

]]> By: Arrow http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/04/the-space-in-between/#comment-132915 Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:44:40 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/03/the-space-in-between/#comment-132915 #18…Serenity, I apologize if my comment sounded insentitive. I assure you my intent was the opposite. I truly feel for those sisters who cannot have children. I can assure you those same feelings run through us gents as well when they find that they are the reason.

There is no “relegating” women to the side here. Their endowment to carry the race is not only related to reproductive features, but also the nurturing characteristics in association. Sure, we blokes can learn a thing or two, but you ladies are born with it.

Likewise, men are born to bear authority and the accountability with its association. Notice please that in my original comment I mention “preside.” This does preclude women from exercising spiritual gifts. And it some rare cases, it does not even preclude them from exercising some ordinances. However, that exercise (ordinances only) is to be accounted to God from a priesthood holder who presides.

My point is that there are some specifics with which we each are endowed that cannot be breached. Yet we support one another in bringing about the blessings and enjoyment of those blessings from each.

]]>