Women and children can now be witnesses to an ordinance

[_Sanctorian]

http://www.ldsliving.com/President-Nelson-Announces-Changes-in-Church-Policy-Regarding-Baptism-Witnesses/s/91687?fbclid=IwAR1T7wypfwGDoonv1-zxUdWXIfcaoEJHe14fIKZsrat01oIBQzIykne5kVw

One step closer to the priesthood

[Guest]

Wow! It sounds like Kate Kelly made a real difference.

[_Sanctorian]

Every excommunicated member a missionary.

[_Lemmie]

Interesting. Two witnesses are required, right? BOTH can be non-M-Priethood holders?

Also a great comment from reddit:

Why am I miffed that adult women just got lumped in with any baptized child as a witness for a baptism?

This is bugging me. It feels like I'm supposed to think this is some grand gesture to now allow me, a lowly woman, the courtesy of men believing that I can watch a baptism and be trusted to say if it was done correctly or not. How wonderful! Let's shout it from the rooftops!

Oh yeah and my 8 yr-old who still believes in Santa and the tooth fairy, we trust them too with the same super special responsibility.

Ugh.

I'm just so far past that BS. It's hilarious, sad, and infuriating at the same time.

It almost seems like the priesthood is made up.

[_toon]

http://www.ldsliving.com/President-Nelson-Announces-Changes-in-Church-Policy-Regarding-Baptism-Witnesses/s/91687?fbclid=IwAR1T7wypfwGDoonv1-zxUdWXIfcaoEJHe14fIKZsrat01oIBQzIykne5kVw

One step closer to the priesthood

I doubt that. I mean, any baptized kid under the new policy can be a witness to a live baptism. So this puts women on par with 8-year-olds.

I see this more as adopting a more politically correct and socially palatable position on an issue where the church can easily claim it isn't changing doctrine. Wouldn't be surprised to see other similar changes, like women being allowed to participate in baby blessings or serve in certain auxiliary presidencies (sunday school). But I don't see this as a slippery slope to allowing them to have the priesthood. In other words, all they're doing is admitting or confirming that in the Mormon worlds, being a witness to an ordinance does not require the priesthood.

[Guest]

I have a few immediate thoughts.

Reducing the perceived status of the required two witnesses from needing to be Melchizedek Priesthood holders to just any member of the Church, including 8 year old children, reduces the perceived sacredness of the baptism ordinance itself. It also means the Church has been unnecessarily pharisaical from the beginning with requiring two Melchizedek Priesthood holding witnesses to validate a baptism. There is no scriptural basis for insisting that the witnesses needed to hold the priesthood. In fact there's no scriptural basis for having official witnesses at all.

Removing the requirement that baptism witnesses must be Melchizedek Priesthood holders reduces the importance of the Melchizedek Priesthood, albeit slightly.

This feels like a cheap attempt at headline creation that actually carries no significance in terms of gender equality whatsoever. But it opens the door to the question - Why do the people that simply pass around the sacrament trays need to hold the Priesthood? After all, when those trays are passed along the pew anybody and everybody, member and non member, male and female, adult and child, can pass them. There is, as far as I can see, no scriptural basis for insisting the people who pass the sacrament need to hold the priesthood.

[_I have a question]

“We are joyful about these changes,” President Russell M. Nelson said. “Imagine a beloved sister serving as a witness to the living baptism of her younger brother. Imagine a mature couple serving as witnesses in the temple baptistry as their grandson baptizes their granddaughter for and in behalf of a dear ancestor.”

https://www.deseret.com/2019/10/2/20894 ... conference

“Sisters” already witness baptisms of their younger brothers. The only change is that you now call them witnesses rather than attendees.

[_lemuel]

Russell Nelson's key insight is that traditions created without revelation can be changed without revelation, and the people will think it is a revelation.

He, and his successors, will get a ton of mileage out of it since most of the things we do in the church are traditions, taught for doctrines.

[_Shulem]

Mormon dialogue & discussion board

I point out that the witnesses must have the authority that they would need if they were to perform the baptism themselves (i.e. be priests in the Aaronic Priesthood or hold the Melchizedek Priesthood). I think Libs is correct in the assumption that, because it is a priesthood ordinance, officiators (including the witnesses) must bear the proper authority.

[_Lemmie]

Mormon dialogue & discussion board

I point out that the witnesses must have the authority that they would need if they were to perform the baptism themselves (i.e. be priests in the Aaronic Priesthood or hold the Melchizedek Priesthood). I think Libs is correct in the assumption that, because it is a priesthood ordinance, officiators (including the witnesses) must bear the proper authority.

I suspect we will eventually find out that one of the witnesses must be a MPriesthood holder, in order to satisfy this requirement.