I didn't see this discussed before and thought it would be interesting to discuss.

So a woman inquired to hold her baby during a church blessing. It was denied (both privately in the home as well as during the standard sacrament meeting). Ultimately, she was given permission to hold the microphone during the blessing.

She felt frustrated about the lack of equality in the church and shared it on her social media. She received some negativity about her post and then her bishop decided to openly rebuke and shame her for having the audacity to question the church's position of so-called equality.

Tonya is the guest of JD's Mormon Stories #1130.

“Uppity baggage!"

--people trying to kiss up to ghawd

No even when should bounced it up and down on the circle as seemed to be the accepted way?

That sentence made perfect sense when I typed it on my tablet. Should read: Not even when bounced up and down by the circle as seemed the accepted way?

I confess to having spent a couple of minutes trying to sort that out before realizing you'd clarified matters below!

the ONLY point of these silly, not mentioned / backed in scriptures is the perpetuation of the PH myth of authority - supremacy, period.


It's just a step behind unbelievable that women 'tolerate' these things, ONLY continue because men insist on them.

SHAME SHAME SHAME to the LDS church & their silly, unreasoned, counter-productive rituals to continue their lies and to those who 'go along to get along'.

Claimed 'family values' my arse.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/23/2021 02:19PM by GNPE.

I vaguely remember a baby's blessing in my ward back in the late 70s or early 80s, where the mother stood in the blessing circle with her finger in the baby's mouth to keep it from screaming. I remember some people were outraged that she was allowed to stand in the circle but no one stopped the blessing. I lived in a more progressive area.

It makes no sense to me that a mother is not allowed to hold her baby during the blessing. She's just holding it for Pete's sake, not blessing it.

I have 2 kids, the first was blessed and that's as far as they went in mormonism.

My ex-wife's parents came to visit after the first was born. When we blessed him, my FIL wanted to be in the circle, but he was totally inactive, had no temple recommend, smoked cigarettes and drank now and then. I asked the bishop and he said it was fine.

So from the mormon perspective, the mother of the child is not allowed to participate, but her apostate father is.

An apostate man/ grandpa is more valued that a fully active woman/ mother.

It takes balls to wield the priesthood!

I don't like any attention at all. I never wanted the priesthood. I would have died before I passed the sacrament or blessed it. My "husband" is the type that doesn't mind doing stuff like this. Now staying and helping to raise the kids as co-parents kind of went right out the window and he failed to keep his end of the bargain.

I hate to say it, but then again I don't, I raised those kids. I carried them. I don't consider him members of his family, but I don't say anything. I do admit he is their father and they need him, but I also feel they are MORE MINE than his as he bailed on them for many years. I don't voice these feelings to very many people if any. I don't think I've ever said it to anyone except here. He's a good father to them now and they need him. But his family. He doesn't even like his family very much. His parents were lousy parents. He would agree. All the kids would agree.

So I could care less about being part of the blessing. But that is just me. I know many women who wanted to be a part of the blessing. If a bishop had rebuked me for saying anything on fb about it, that would be one of those BIG CLUES that it is all bullshit.

The pendulum has swung back and forth the last half century plus.

I remember a time when women would not only hold the baby in the circle but participate in administering to the sick.

But someone got a burr under their garments and that ended.

Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I remember a time when women would not only hold
> the baby in the circle but participate in
> administering to the sick.

Heartless, could you clarify these two points?

Where and when did you see women hold babies in the circles? I've never heard of that happening.

And when and where did you see women participate in administering to the sick? I've read that the RS did that in Joseph's day but did not know it happened more recently.

Thanks.

In the 70s one of the books used is sunday school was Joseph Fielding Smith's answers to gospel questions. This was a gathering of his monthly column in the Ensign.

He clearly stated that Joseph Smith taught that there was no more sin in a woman participating in a blessing of the sick than there was if she laid a wet cloth on a forehead.

There was also about this time an article in the Ensign about Joseph F Smith and his wife giving blessings for the sick to their children.

Then something about women being priestess to their husbands.

So....many women would participate in administering these blessings to their children and husbands.

Of course they never pronounced the blessing just laid hands on their childrens heads with their husbands.

This was all pre correlation of course.

Before correlation, if an infant required a healing blessing before the official church ceremony, they were often named, then blessed and most often the mother held the child. I know of many such instances. Most occured in hospitals or at home shortly after the childs birth.

In the early days, JS affirmatively told the RS women to bless each other. That was the point at which he was edging towards the bestowal of the priesthood, through the temple ceremony and more generally, on women. He was also, of course, giving the priesthood to a small number of black people. My view is that BY killed all that experimentation.

From that point onward, women have always been able to "bless" people in the sense of saying a prayer over them and requesting divine healing. But that's not quite the exercise of priesthood healing power.

I have seen lots of that sort of blessing. What I have never seen is women participating in the blessing of a baby since that is the exercise of strict priesthood power. Did you see that in the 1970s or 1980s?

In Davis County twice. In Box Elder county once. Outside the US a few times.

All before 1983

Thanks.

HISTORY TIME!!!!!!!!!

Up until the 1980s, males of any description were allowed- nay, welcomed- into the circle. Melchizedek, Aaronic, no Priesthood designation or even non-members, especially if they were the fathers and/or close relations. It was understood by the church to be the prerogative of the male type Mormon, and no female had ever entertained the thought of being part of the ceremony. At the time, then, there was no rule whatsoever, because there was no need for a rule if no female had ever wanted to participate. That's how rules work.

Then around 1980 a few women noticed that priesthood authority apparently was not a requirement, so they humbly requested permission to participate, seeing as how they did most of the work in the situation. When the COB got wind of it, within seconds there was a rule that only PH holders could be part of the rite and damn them wimmens for even thinking they had any right to be included in the all-male fraternity and go back to Relief Society and make plans for your next baby and shut up.

And that, boys and girls, is why we don't allow women to be part of the baby blessing circle.

Still, I have seen it plenty of times. Just like all bishops make arbitrary decisions, the whole church is nothing but arbitrariness. But it has been allowed, I just don't know if it was that particular bishop or not.

Yes a woman can hold her baby. I passed the bread and water in a blue shirt all the time. I saw women wear pants to church,

Believing that telling a woman that she can't hold her baby during a baby blessing is somehow "inequality" that should be angry about is like loudly calling out burkas when Islam still kills rape victims.

Of course a woman could hold the baby, but if she was refused, who the hell cares? Its a cult.