Bazooka wrote:I would suggest the simplest thing is to let the Church do its worst and make sure it is all aired in public. Bad PR seems to be the only effective deterrent the Church recognises.
I can guarantee you that if a story gets out with the following headline, all hell will break loose in the COB:
LDS Priesthood holder's Temple Recommend revoked for giving father's blessing..
This would gain no traction outside of Utah.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Mormon Church Disciplines New Mother for Holding Her Own Baby
This might raise a few eyebrows outside of Utah.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:His wife's TR was blocked because she participated in the ceremony by holding the baby.
This would make sense. If what Loyd did was a "blessing" ordinance, then it appears no one other than a MP holder can participate. Here's the language in Section 16.2.1 of Handbook 1 (emphasis added):
"Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name." (D&C 20:70). In conformity with this revelation, 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 to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families.
I suppose it depends how you define "participate". One could reasonably conclude the wife hadn't participated in the naming and blessing if all she did was sit quietly holding the baby without being an integral part of the prayer circle.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
harmony wrote:His wife's TR was blocked because she participated in the ceremony by holding the baby.
This would make sense. If what Loyd did was a "blessing" ordinance, then it appears no one other than a MP holder can participate. Here's the language in Section 16.2.1 of Handbook 1 (emphasis added):
"Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name." (D&C 20:70). In conformity with this revelation, 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 to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families.
I think it's interesting how out of this box the ordinance now is. The elders of the church... implying the ward's leadership... are to do the blessing, not the father/grandfather/designated individual. And there is no naming mentioned at all in that verse.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Bazooka wrote:I suppose it depends how you define "participate". One could reasonably conclude the wife hadn't participated in the naming and blessing if all she did was sit quietly holding the baby without being an integral part of the prayer circle.
I agree; however, I think most TBM local leaders would read it to mean that a mother holding the baby (which I think would require that she be sitting in the middle of the circle) is "participating." Another "however" -- a deacon holding the microphone is not considered "part of the circle" (but just there for logistical support), so perhaps a mother could be viewed the same way.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Bazooka wrote:I suppose it depends how you define "participate". One could reasonably conclude the wife hadn't participated in the naming and blessing if all she did was sit quietly holding the baby without being an integral part of the prayer circle.
I agree; however, I think most TBM local leaders would read it to mean that a mother holding the baby (which I think would require that she be sitting in the middle of the circle) is "participating." Another "however" -- a deacon holding the microphone is not considered "part of the circle" (but just there for logistical support), so perhaps a mother could be viewed the same way.
The deacon has more authority than the mother.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Bazooka wrote:I suppose it depends how you define "participate". One could reasonably conclude the wife hadn't participated in the naming and blessing if all she did was sit quietly holding the baby without being an integral part of the prayer circle.
I agree; however, I think most TBM local leaders would read it to mean that a mother holding the baby (which I think would require that she be sitting in the middle of the circle) is "participating." Another "however" -- a deacon holding the microphone is not considered "part of the circle" (but just there for logistical support), so perhaps a mother could be viewed the same way.
I remember reading a story somewhere about a mother who asked if she could hold the microphone at her baby's blessing. The bishop told her "no" and had a deacon do it instead.
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13
Rollo Tomasi wrote:I agree; however, I think most TBM local leaders would read it to mean that a mother holding the baby (which I think would require that she be sitting in the middle of the circle) is "participating." Another "however" -- a deacon holding the microphone is not considered "part of the circle" (but just there for logistical support), so perhaps a mother could be viewed the same way.
The deacon has more authority than the mother.
Perhaps, but under the rules I quoted above, a deacon does not hold the MP and, therefore, cannot be part of the circle just like the mother.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)