Blessing sick Children
As many of you know, in the early days of the church women gave blessings to the sick. I had always heard rumors to this effect, but prior to reading In Sacred Loneliness I had assumed this was an exception for desperate circumstances, but instead I found that it was standard and expected practice.
I’m not entirely clear on the process by which women giving healing blessing and excercising other spirit gifts became taboo, it’s something I need study more. Anyway . . .
Keeping that in mind, here is my (true) story.
My best friend’s family all fell ill on Christmas Eve. And her youngest, (2yo) having other complicating health factors ended up in the hospital just as Santa was landing on rooftops around town. Her (very sick) dh stayed home with the other (very sick) kids. Even with five on-call doctors being called in at 3am on Christmas morning, they couldn’t get babyboy’s breathing under control, and things got very scary, very fast.
As she sat in the Emergency Ward, praying desperately, watching doctors scramble, watching her son struggle for every shallow breath, she knew he needed a blessing. She couldn’t call her dh,
and she couldn’t think of a single man in their new ward that she felt she could call at 3am on Christmas morning to rush to the hospital.
“You could do it,” I told her at that point in the story, “women in the early church gave blessings all the time.”
“I haven’t told anyone this,” she admitted, “But I did.”
I can not know what was in her heart and mind at that moment, I can’t know what prompted her to give that blessing, I don’t know the words she said, and I’m not clear on the power or authority she did or did not have to do so. But I’m glad she did.
All in all, though, the story makes me sad. Sad that she should feel so helpless and dependent on men, sad that something so precious has been lost to us, sad that she should feel embarrassed even guilty for using the gifts of the spirit.
So . . . what would you have done?
I would have done it, had the thought crossed my mind. The Lord knows your heart and I think, ‘propriety’ aside, He would honor it.
Comment by Amy — January 11, 2007 @ 10:54 am
Amy - you expressed my feeling exactly.
Comment by Patti — January 11, 2007 @ 10:59 am
If she was talking to you at that point, why wasnt she talking to others that could have helped? Her own RS. Her own Bishop, Her HT or VT? That is was is kind of sad to me, that she - according to your story - didnt even try.
That was not a comment about her. It is a general comment. We are pushed so much to be self sufficient in that Church, that at the times of greatest need, we still try to be that way. It is sad to me that more people in the Church dont make the call at 3 in the morning. Even if she didnt know anyone, Her RS president, or Bishop would have known.
To clarify, I think what she did was a good thing. I just think that its sad that we (the members of the Church in general) are always ready to give help, but we are almost never ready to ask for it.
Comment by David — January 11, 2007 @ 11:10 am
There’s a paper by Linda King Newell entitled “A Gift Given: A GIft Taken: Washing , Anointing and Blessing the Sick Among Mormon Women”. It’s fascinating and outlines it’s use in the early church. Joseph approved of women blessing the sick, and defended them when its practice was brought into question. (If anyone knows where this is online - you’d be doing me a favour - I only have a paper copy).
Also here J. Stapley discusses this also.
Teaching used to be that a woman could lay her hands on her child and bless them with ‘perfect propriety’. (Joseph Fielding Smith I think - again I can’t find the exact quote sorry!) She was able to invoke the blessing through her faith and in the name of Jesus Christ.
I think your friend did exactly what she should have. We forget that the gift of healing is NOT limited to the priesthood. As a gift of the Spirit it is available to all.
Comment by Rebecca — January 11, 2007 @ 11:31 am
A few years ago my BF was talking to her (rather conservative) husband and asked him if he’d approve of her giving him a blessing should they ever be in circumstances where his health was seriously in question and there weren’t any priesthood holders handy. He told her he’d be rather upset if she DIDN’T because, after all, they were a team. He even suggested (assuming i recall the story correctly) that she offer the blessing by the power of the priesthood he held, with her as proxy.
I wouldn’t give anyone a priesthood blessing because I don’t believe I have that authority, but the authority of parental love is not a paltry thing. I can’t imagine God would object to a mother blessing her child by the power of her love. So that’s what I’d do–and then I’d probably get the hospital to page on-call LDS staff and get a priesthood blessing on the books too. Hospitals (most, I think) will do that, and you can never have too many blessings!
Comment by Janet — January 11, 2007 @ 11:36 am
I asked a bishop about this once upon a time, when I was a RS pres. He told me “I can’t think of a thing that a blessing can accomplish that couldn’t also be accomplished by sincere prayer”. So… calling upon the Lord in faith in a time of need, by woman or man, through the invocation of power of the Priesthood or not, can do the same stuff. The list of spiritual gifts in the Doctrine and Covenants includes the gift to heal and the gift to be healed…not restricted by gender.
Comment by allison — January 11, 2007 @ 11:46 am
“I can’t think of a thing that a blessing can accomplish that couldn’t also be accomplished by sincere prayer”
The rather obvious response to that remark is, why then is there such an ordinance as administering to the sick? Prayer seems rather more convenient.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — January 11, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
I was just wondering the same thing Vernal. If there is nothing that a prayer couldn’t accomplish then why even ever bother with priesthood blessings?
Comment by Mikel — January 11, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
One thought I have had is that the giving of the blessing is as much for the giver as for the receiver, just as prayer is for the person praying as much as for the object of one’s prayer. I know that would still leave a question about why men “need” the priesthood if that reasoning has any merit, but it’s a thought I have had.
Comment by m&m — January 11, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
When I was probably 10 or so I game one of our cat (who had feline leukemia and had lost movement in his legs) a priesthood blessing. It didn’t do anything but looking back on it, I’m touched that I had so much faith in the power of blessings (and the strength that we women possess) to try!
Comment by tesseract — January 11, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
One “thing” women don’t realize is that when they are endowed, they too hold (part of) the Priesthood. Another “thing” is that the Priesthood can be defined in simply one word - organization.
When a hands on head blessing is given, think of it this way: the priesthood holder has the AUTHORITY to act as a physical barrier to interrupt, slow, or halt the miraculous ever-constant flow of life/HF/love/spirit/etc., that freely flows through each atom, neutron and smaller particles that may exist. The interruption allows for a re-alighnment (POWER OF HF) of biochemical or cellular actions in a correct direction. Once cells and/or biochemicals are re-alighned, the result might be an immediate healing or a building recovery, or more “temporary” time for the ill person to accomplish or tie up what needs to be done on earth. The person getting the blessing and the person or people giving the blessing often walk away with a feeling of what HF’s will is at that time - a peaceful feeling of healing, or a peaceful feeling from HF that there is an alternative path superceding our earthly desires for the ill person. If we were to decribe this feeling, it is often described at “time” - and time is yet one of those things that we do not comprehend as HF comprehends - but we are allowed fleeting impressions.
The priesthood is given the highest ability to organize just as Christ organized matter and intelligence to form our world. A setting apart gives one temporary authority to fulfill HF’s plans for organizing those under/within that calling (think Bishop, RSP, Primary Teacher, etc.). Also, we’ve been taught that prayers may be guided and addressed further to HF by priesthood holders beyond, acting with the HG (who can only be in one place at one time) and HF - so logically, if the priesthood can act from beyond, they can probably intercess on the behalf of women. All blessings offer the ability to re-align and reorganize.
Our prayers are often not this specific - we rarely ask directly for a re-alignment or organization of a highly specific part of our lives. Instead we tend to ask for blessings, help, guidance, etc. which to me is sort of a “tell me a bit at a time” plea. To reorganize means to engage in some sort of work (often harder) here on earth - and we rarely ask for work!
I guess an effective prayer should ask directly for reorganization of whatever we need changed so it/we are in closer alignment with HF - or should be followed up by a blessing.
Comment by anon — January 11, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Newell’s article is available here:
A Gift Given
Comment by Justin — January 11, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Kris and I are going to present on this at MHA in the spring. Tons of previously unpublished goodness and a fairly significant shift in the narrative. Newell’s essay is decent, but, as I just mentioned it is incomplete and in several ways flawed.
Rebecca, it is available here. I would also note that my posts at Splendid Sun and BCC on the topic, while not bad are very, very incomplete.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 11, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
I would have prayed, but I doubt I would have even thought to give any kind of formal blessing.
I also wouldn’t have called anyone at 3 am. Though I agree with David’s (#3) comment that it’s too bad we’re not willing to ask for help even when it’s inconvenient, I’m afraid I’m one of those that would never want to impose on anyone but family. Which is too bad, like David said.
#11 Anon - I think it is awesome to think about the priesthood on such a level as creating and organizing matter, but if this is truly how it works, I wonder why we don’t give more blessings asking from healing from paralysis, missing limbs, etc. If you are a man, would you feel comfortable asking for such miraculous healing in a formal priesthood blessing?
Comment by Elise — January 11, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Thanks Justin!
Comment by Rebecca — January 11, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
And thanks J - I can’t wait to hear about/read yours and Kris’s paper.
Comment by Rebecca — January 11, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
My dh is not a member. I do not have the preisthood in my home. I don’t live by any of my family who hold the preisthood or close to any church member who does either. Until recently(last month) I didn’t even know who my home teachers were. I have given blessings to my children when they are sick. I usally pray first and ask permission, then I will put my hands on my child’s head and bless him/her. It works. They get better. and it has strengthened my faith that Heavenly Father hears and answers my prayers, and that my family is important even though we are without the preisthood.
Comment by purplesandel — January 11, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
I would have prayed, in faith, in the name of Jesus, that my child would be healed. When Christ was doing miracles and healing people, and the people were in awe, as were the disciples, he told them “all these things and greater you will do in my name”. I think that any believer of Christ, praying in faith in his name, has just as much “power” working through them as any other believer- male, female, adult, child, minister, etc. Last week at a prayer meeting I was surrounded by a group of women, and we all laid hands on one woman who was ill, and we all prayed for her. The power in that circle was electric, I was shaking and crying, covered in an immense feeling of God’s love. I would never give that up. Never. I simply refuse to believe that I don’t have access to that kind of “authority”, because I have had too many cherished memories of the peace and assurance I feel when I move that way in faith.
Comment by sophia*rising — January 11, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
anon (#11) that was very beautiful, I wrote parts of it in my journal…
like Elise, though I wonder why there is not more of such a significant use of such “re-aligning” in the blessings that are typical in the church. Is it fear of failure? fear of trying to change god’s will? fear of not really being God’s voice?
and could you expound a little more upon “they can probably intercess on behalf of woman” ? do you feel that woman can use this same power to change the course of an illness?
Comment by G — January 11, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
David, it seems that you are the type that is willing to help others and is willing to be called at 3 am in order to assist others, but not many people are. Not all of us in the church are in wards that have people who are willing to do the same. While I have some great people in the ward, my bishop and his wife are probably the only ones (male or female) that I could call at 3 am for anything. In fact, my home teacher no showed giving me a blessing prior to me having surgery last month. At another time my relief society president (same ward) knew I was in chemo for 6 months while struggling to hold down a full-time job and I never heard a word from her. I bring this up just to make sure you realize that not all people have ward leaders that welcome requests for help and not everyone is willing to give help when asked.
I think that your friend did the right thing. I do think it is unfortunate that she felt she couldn’t tell anyone that she did it. I agree that as women we have lost out because we have been counseled to no longer administer to the sick. Brigham Young spoke often about women administering, and that it was our right. “It is the privilege of a mother to have faith and to administer to her sick child; this she can do herself as well as sending for the Elders to have the benefit of their faith”. He also said “I want a wife that can take care of my children when I am away, who can pray, lay on hands, anoint with oil, and baffle the enemy; and this is a spiritual wife”.
I would hope that in the same situation I would do the same thing.
Comment by Tanya Sue — January 11, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
She absolutly did the right thing. Personally, I don’t think our church shuns in that much, our big PR movie Legacy had the main character laying hands on an animal. I don’t think most people would think this as weird as we tend to think. I think most members understand Faith enough to be behind something like this. Maybe its just because I have never lived in places like Utah with lots of Mormons, but, I just can’ t imagine anyone thinking that God’s miracles are subject to some sort of strict rule system. Anyone with faith has the power to heal, and a Mother (especially one endowed in the Temple) has special power bless her children.
(funny aside - this whole conversation makes me think of Harry Potter)
Comment by Veritas — January 11, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Would you mind posting links or citations for those BY quotes? I would love to read more.
Comment by Mikel — January 11, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
Purpel i have blessed my own child as well.
(before i changed her diet she got sick alot)
I did feel guilty about it but i dont think
we should, esp when we are alone and
there is no one at the moment to help us.
Its kinda like calling 911, sometimes they dont
make it. I do use some major preventative
measures to keep my daughter well, but
if she was injured and we were alone
i would give that blessing again.
Comment by Lovely.Ishtar — January 11, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
our big PR movie Legacy had the main character laying hands on an animal.
Actually, she just knelt and prayed. No hands were laid. Just wanted to clarify.
Comment by m&m — January 11, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
This is regarding the question posed earlier
One difference I see is that with prayer, we are requesting something of the Lord whereas with a blessing, the priesthood holder is authorized to pronounce a blessing as guided by the Spirit.
Both are dependent on one’s faithfulness and the will of God.
Comment by Patti — January 11, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
Personally, I don’t think our church shuns in that much
Also, clearly people do this, but it was officially discouraged starting somewhere in the first half of the 20th century, I believe. I would suspect the church still doesn’t encourage it. People choose what they want to do, but I think it’s important to not assume that the church doesn’t care. If it didn’t, I would ask why we don’t see more encouragement or at least approval of it.
Comment by m&m — January 11, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Sure. The first quote is from Discourses of Brigham Young-it is from the 1844 General Conference. The second quote is from Mormon Sister Women in Early Utah, edited by Claudia Bushman. The quote is cited as being from History of the Church, 6:322. It is from the 1869 General Conference. The chapter it is from is actually titled Mystics and Healers.
It actually goes on to say that in 1888 the Relief Society formerly inquired on the guidelines for female administration. The sisters were told they did have the privilege and “therefore it is not necessary to call in the Brethren. The Lord has heard and answered the prayers of the sisters in these ministrations many times”. That letter was circulated from 1888-1910.
1907-Joseph F. Smith said “It is no uncommon thing for a man and his wife unitedly to administer to their children.-Improvement Era February 1907
In 1914 the First Presidency (under Joseph F. Smith) issued a new letter that said basically the same, but included “It should, however, always be remembered that the command of the Lord is to call in the elders to administer to the sick, and when they can be called in, they should be asked to anoint the sick or seal the anointing”.-Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
1946-Joseph Fielding Smith sent a letter to the Relief Society saying “While the authorities of the church have ruled it is permissible, under certain conditions and with the approval of the priesthood, for sister to wash and anoint other sisters, yet they feel it is far better for us to follow the plan the Lord has given us and send for the Elders of the Church to come and administer to the sick and afflicted”.-Messages
The author of the book states that she cannot find anything more recent than the 1946 letter. Does anyone know if there is anything officially forbidding the practice? If so, where? While these quotes discourage it, they don’t forbid it.
Comment by Tanya Sue — January 11, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
yep i would have done the same by proxy calling on my husbands phd or another worthy holder. On my mission i met a a scary woman, who was convinced she had demons in her home. She asked us to bless it, which i did, calling upon the powers of the phd held by my mission president. Don’t think there were demons to be honest, only in her mind, but it was faith promting , calmed the woman and i never felt bad about it.
Debra
Comment by debra — January 11, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
There is an entry in the Smithfield ward records about a family who had moved into the ward, about 1860, if I remember right. It said that they had also had a baby which had died by the banks of the Bear River as the family was moving. It said that the baby had been blessed by the grandmother. I wondered why the men had not done it, but perhaps the women were travelling with no men.
As for the ox story, I assume it was based on the story of Mary Fielding Smith and her ox, but in that story, the men did the blessing– however, they did lay their hands on the head of the ox.
Comment by Paula — January 11, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
priesthood holder is authorized to pronounce a blessing as guided by the Spirit.
I still wonder though…can’t prayers also be guided by the spirit? I believe that under those conditions prayers would be answered also. There are also priesthood blessings that aren’t fulfilled. That could be a result of any number of things; maybe the priesthood holder was not worthy or not acting through the guidance of the spirit. But if worthiness and guidance of the spirit are the only criteria then how are priesthood blessings truly different than prayer? I do not mean to be argumentative, this is just a topic that I find very interesting and that I do not have my own beliefs decided yet!
Comment by Mikel — January 11, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
The rather obvious response to that remark is, why then is there such an ordinance as administering to the sick? Prayer seems rather more convenient
Another reason for having the elders called refers back to #3 (David) By calling the the “elders” you are inviting the church community to assist you in a time of need. This, as already discussed, takes a bit of humility. We are humbled to ask for help.
Although the outcome of a blessing and prayer may be the same - since prayers are answered through God’s priesthood - the community connection of calling in the elders (and their wives - how many of us really call our home teachers instead of our close friends for blessings?) would provide more strength and support than solitary prayer could.
Comment by Gilgamesh — January 11, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
While I think that the community aspect of this may be a positive side-effefct, I have a hard time believe that the only reason that the priesthood has been given commandment and authority to administer to the sick is so that we’ll call our friends and hometeachers when we have a problem.
Comment by Mikel — January 11, 2007 @ 4:50 pm
Several years ago, I spoke with a member of my stake presidency about this. After researching all the official and unofficial statements (including the ones cited above), he gave his permission to me and my wife to bless our children at home. I was already persuaded that my wife had this authority given her in the temple, but didn’t want to run into problems with our local authorities over it. We have since moved, and I’m not sure of the views of our new leaders on the matter, but my wife and I jointly anoint and administer to our children when they are sick. The Spirit attends these blessings and we have witnessed several remarkable healings as a consequence. Because my wife did not receive training on how to administer to the sick, as we do in priesthood quorums, it was initially awkward, but she has grown more comfortable with it. Who better to administer to their children than their mother and father? Who better to administer to a man than his wife? and to a woman than her husband?
I endorse the remarks of Elder Franklin D. Richards of the Quorum of the Twelve to the Relief Society on July 19, 1888:
“I ask any and everybody present who have received their endowments, whether he be a brother Apostle, Bishop, High Priest, Elder, or whatever office he may hold in the Church, ‘What blessings did you receive, what ordinance, what power, intelligence, sanctification or grace did you receive that your wife did not partake of with you?’ I will answer, that there was one thing that our wives were not made special partakers of, and that was the ordination to the various orders of the priesthood which were conferred upon us. Aside from that, our sisters share with us any and all of the ordinances of the holy anointing, endowments, sealings, sanctifications and blessings that we have been made partakers of.
Now, I ask you: Is it possible that we have the holy priesthood and our wives have none of it? Do you not see, by what I have read, that Joseph desired to confer these keys of power upon them in connection with their husbands? I hold that a faithful wife has certain blessings, powers and rights, and is made partaker of certain gifts and blessings and promises with her husband, which she cannot be deprived of, except by transgression of the holy order of God. They shall enjoy what God said they should. And these signs shall follow them if they believe.
Moses said, when some one told him that a certain man was prophesying in the camp, and the people thought he had no right to do so, Moses replied saying: ‘I would to God that all of the Lord’s people were prophets.’ So I say: I wish all the sisters were so faithful that they were healers of the sick, through the power of God. Then would their children have a foundation to grow up from their youth in the fear and admonition of the Lord and in the power of His might. …
Sisters, may the Lord bless you. Bishops, may the Lord bless us all and give us the spirit of liberality. The more we do for the sisters, the more they will do for us; and so may the Spirit of the Lord bless us all with the feeling of liberality to all, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.”
Comment by Anon for this post — January 11, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Every single time I heard that story in primary, the leaders told us MARY blessed the ox. When did we change the narrative? Yargh.
Comment by Janet — January 11, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
I agree with anon that the endowment bestows priesthood on women–at least it seems like it to me! But what it doesn’t seem to do is give us permission to use it. I certainly assume that will change, if not until the next life.
So here’s the difference I see between a prayer and a (non-priesthood) blessing: couldn’t the latter still involve administration of consecrated oil? I’m frankly not sure what the deal is with the oil past the lovely metaphors in the Scriptures, but hey. I believe in it nonetheless. And I see nothing wrong with a woman administering such a blessing, though I’ve never done it.
As for whether or not the church would officially discourage such a thing, I agree with M&M. It probably would. But I think the perceived problem wouldn’t be so much with the act itself as with the “slippery slope” effect. (And apologies for using the really lame term “slippery slope”–since anything and everything can be one.) But isn’t it still officially considered dandy for a woman to administer to another woman in labor, or did I miss the cultural boat again?
Comment by Janet — January 11, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
Ok, I rattle on. Two semi-funny stories:
1. Last week I seriously considered giving my baby bunny a blessing. I knew DH, though he loves the little guy, would feel silly doing it and thought such feeling might cancel out the beneficial effect. I was all willing to break out the oil!
2. In high school I carried around a vial of consecrate oil on my key chain. My parents knew and mum is WAY conservative about this sort of thing, so they must not have thought it too weird. I did hang out with a couple of Mormon guys, so I guess it was kosher. After play rehearsal one night a “gentile” friend was messing with my keys and opened the oil vial upside-down into his lap. He cursed and asked me what it was for. “Emergencies,” I answered. “What?” he understandably queried back, “an emergency SALAD?”
Comment by Janet — January 11, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
This topic is really interesting. An interesting irony here is that despite the gains made by women through suffrage and the civil rights movement, it seems that in the church we have lost some of the rights and responsibilities honored in the past.
found this Brigham Young quote interesting
Comment by Patti — January 11, 2007 @ 5:40 pm
Women do recieve the Priesthood through the Temple Endowment AND Temple Sealing (both are needed). We have an opportunity to hear this as we listen to Peter in the Temple.
Here are some church member quotes - but I don’t have any info on where this became a cultural no-no for us.
“It is a precept of the Church that women of the Church share the authority of the priesthood with their husbands, actual or prospective; and therefore women, whether taking the endowment for themselves or for the dead, are not ordained to specific rank in the priesthood. Nevertheless, there is no grade, rank, or phase of the temple endowment to which women are not eligible on an equality with man.”
- James E. Talmage, The House of the Lord (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1912), p. 94.
“If a woman is requested to lay hands on the sick with her husband or with any other officer holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, she may do so with perfect propriety. It is no uncommon thing for a man and wife unitedly to administer to their children, and the husband being mouth, he may properly say out of courtesy, ‘By authority of the holy priesthood in us vested.’”
- Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Improvement Era 10 (February 1907), page 308.
Wilford Woodruff’s namesake son, just ordained a priest, was about to begin his duties. The future Church president summoned his family on 3 February 1854. “His father and mother [Phoebe Carter Woodruff] laid hands upon him and blessed him and dedicated him unto the Lord” (Wilford Woodruff Jr. Journal , 4:244) On 8 September 1875, George Goddard recorded a similar incident about his sixteen-year-old son, Brigham H. On his birthday, “his Mother and Myself, put our hands upon his head and pronounced a parents blessing upon him.”
John Taylor on “The Order and Duties of the Priesthood” reaffirmed that women “hold the Priesthood, only in connection with their husbands, they being one with their husbands”
- Apostle John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, 21:368
Women have joined men in giving priesthood blessings to men:
In 1873, Apostle George A. Smith, then a member of the first presidency, travelled with a party of Mormons, including Lorenzo Snow, his sister Eliza, Feramorz Little and others, to the Holy Land. At a stopover in Bologna, Italy, he felt ill. “I became fatigued and dizzy,” he wrote in his diary. “I got into a carriage and returned to the hotel. On arriving at the hotel I found myself so unwell that I requested Bros. Snow and Little and Sister Eliza to lay hands on me.”
- George A. Smith, Diary, 9 January 1873, holograph, CA.
Women also used to give priesthood blessings to women, using consecrated oil:
In 1849 Eliza Jane Merrick, an English convert, reported healing her sister: “I anointed her chest with the oil you consecrated, and also gave her some inwardly …. She continued very ill all the evening: her breath very short, and the fever very high. I again anointed her chest in the name of the Lord, and asked his blessing; he was graciously pleased to hear me, and in the course of twenty-four hours, she was as well as if nothing had been the matter.”
- Jane Merrick Journal and Letters 1849, page 205
Comment by anon — January 11, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Oops, that last part was my words, not BY’s. I’m new at this.
Comment by Patti — January 11, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
Janet, #34, I was thinking the same thing too. In fact I think I dimly remember reading something about the change in the story and investigation about which version was older and/or correct. But I can’t remember where now either. I’ll try to remember to figure out where I read it.
Comment by Paula — January 11, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
38 - I guess I never thought of this before, but your post got me thinking about how in the temple both men and women dress in the robes of and receive the tokens of the holy priesthood.
So the fact that women are not “ordained” to offices, doesn’t mean they don’t share in its ordinances. I am interested in when and why women participating in the laying on of hands became taboo.
Comment by Patti — January 11, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Anon: Women do recieve the Priesthood through the Temple Endowment AND Temple Sealing (both are needed).
This isn’t particularly accurate. Any 19th century comments about women and the priesthood are taking into account a higher order of authority. See here.
Regarding the Jane Merrick healing, it absolutely was not a priesthood blessing. She lived in England, and hadn’t been through the Temple at that time. The more common reference to her description of the events is Millennial Star vol. 11, page 205.
Also, copying resources from ex-mo boards is lame.
Comment by J. Stapley — January 11, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
G #11 - Skousen wrote on the Priesthood being virtually, only, the ability to organize things closer to or in accordance to HF will. You can dig around further in some of his, or ancillary material about his life and thoughts.
Comment by anon — January 11, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
Janet,
I never thought to give my bunny a blessing but did ask my brother if he would do it. He said he asked around and was told it was inappropriate. (I doubt he did but that is beside the point.)
When your pets are your fur babies and are ailing and costing LOTS of money, comfort in the form of a healing, full on oil, blessing seems very appropriate to me.
Comment by LAGirrrl — January 11, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
I don’t want to sound flippant. I think there’s nothing wrong with administering to animals. So, no offense is meant. But . . . We have a sick goldfish at the moment. I started to think about the technicalities of administering a blessing to a sick goldfish and I just couldn’t stop laughing . . . Annointing the head of this little 2 inch long fish . . . Laying on of hands . . . You’ve got to admit, it’s a pretty funny picture.
Comment by Quimby — January 11, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Hmm. I had assumed that ‘bunny’ was a nickname for your (human) child.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — January 11, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
“Hmm. I had assumed that ‘bunny’ was a nickname for your (human) child”
heheheheheheheeeh
Comment by purplesandel — January 11, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
I always heard the story of Mary Fielding Smith as her laying her hands on the ox. But Lavina Fielding Anderson did some research on the story and wrote an article for Dialogue called, “Mary Fielding Smith: Her Ox Goes Marching On,” 14 (4): 9. I don’t believe this is online. However, as I remember, Lavina found some primary references which showed that Mary called the elders to bless the ox.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — January 11, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
The article is online here:
Her Ox Goes Marching On
Comment by Justin — January 11, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
I’m not sure if that article is the one I’m thinking of or not. I was thinking that there was more detail about the sources in the one I dimly remember. But it is odd that we think it is Mary who blessed the ox, when the stories say the elders of the church did.
Comment by Paula — January 11, 2007 @ 11:54 pm
Quimby-
My Dh gave a blessing to Mr. Woo, our Betta, after my son filled his home with pine-sol. He just put a drop of oil in the water and put his hands on the bowl. Laugh if you will, but that fish lived. I did not feel silly nor did my husband.
Also my son insists that mommy give him a blessing when he is sick. So I do so with my husband. He annoits with the oil and I put my hands on his head and DH puts his hands on top of mine and we pray together. It feels wonderful, and united, and stronger when my husband and I administer together. I cannot see how this is wrong.
Comment by just call me Cassandra... — January 12, 2007 @ 1:48 am
I asked a priesthood holder to bless a cat once. Understand that my cats are my children. And this cat was desperately ill with Cushings disease, near death. He refused. Is there a rule against it? Or was that just his choice?
I bless animals, to the best of my ability. My authority is not official, but I trust God that it’s real.
Comment by Tatiana — January 12, 2007 @ 6:58 am
cassandra, that is beautifu.
Comment by G — January 12, 2007 @ 8:58 am
It is true that women receive some 26 orders of the PH, along with men, in the temple ordinances. But this has nothing to do with blessing the sick. Remember that there are three priesthoods. The two of effect here upon the earth are known as the Aaronic and Melchizedec. Does a man, ordained only to the Aaronic, bless the sick by his PH authority? No. Why not? Because the ordinance of blessing the sick is under the Melchizedec PH. Women who have received as many orders of the higher PH in the temple as men do not therefore bless the sick by that PH. Why not? Because the ordinance of blessing the sick does not pertain to that higher PH. Sisters are not ordained to the MPH. So they do not bless the sick reciting their authority as holding the MPH as do the brethren thus ordained. But sisters bless the sick by the faith, and/or joining in faith with those ordained to that MPH.
The thought on blessing the sick by prayer is interesting. I have no doubt that G*d sometimes heals miraculously after the prayer of faith of non members, so he might as well after the prayer of faith of members. But a blessing, with oil and laying of of hands, is far more than a prayer of faith. It is actiing in the name of JC by delegated authority. Can a woman act by delegated authority. No. She should not state such an authority she has not been ordained to. But she can bless by her faith, and can invoke, through faith, the MPH authority of her husband.
I find it interesting that so many sisters have said they were taught not to give blessings. I have been taught how to give blessings many times in MPH meetings. Each time, as I recall, the ability and right of sisters to bless has been mentioned, including just what they might say (I bless [name] by my faith and throught the MPH of my husband, which he would do were he present, I bless you {name} in the name of JC, Amen] and what they should not say [By the authority of the MPH, which I bare, I bless . . . .]. The latter is priestcraft, which is strictly prohibited in scripture. Priestcraft is using, or claiming to use, priesthood authority one does not bare.
Comment by Dale Kemp — January 12, 2007 @ 10:53 am
Dale–by any chance are you a convert from Judaism? I’ve never seen anyone but my Jewish friends invoke the old practice of not spelling the name of God. Kinda cool. I’m a fan of incorporating purposeful errors into art as a nod to the fact that only God an create something perfect (then again, I make enough errors without doing it on purpose!)
Sorry for the threadjack, folks–curious curious me.
Comment by Janet — January 12, 2007 @ 11:08 am
When I mentioned to RSP in my ward about women formerly giving blessings, she got a very concerned look on her face and said “oh no, that’s in the reformed church.” She also counselled me to be wary of anything/place that would say otherwise. I’m fairly certain pretty much all in my ward, sisters and brethren would concur so I don’t mention it anymore.
Comment by Lizzilu — January 12, 2007 @ 11:46 am
Also, copying resources from ex-mo boards is lame.
Yeah, on the copying. Nay, on the ex-mo implication. If one reads only one view of anything, one becomes biased and blind to thier own…insert here: faith, political policy, cultural/social mores (of the nation and not just your area), science, view of history, and so on. Socratic discourse requires one to explore and polish all facets, even the ones that are rough, or intentionally buried in coal.
Comment by anon — January 12, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
I do not use oil when I bless my childrenand I have also not been through the temple, but I do put my hands on their head and bless them in the name of Christ. I feel that my prayers(or blessing) have just as much power as a preisthood blessing
.
Comment by purplesandel — January 12, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
Janet (55)
No, I’m a convert from agnosticism, but was raised in the Episcopalian Church. I think avoiding the name of diety needless is worth doing.
I’m new to blogging, and I find I’m misspelling and not correcting. It is embarrassing.
Comment by Dale Kemp — January 12, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
I know I am very late on this thread, but it has had me thinking about the relationship (if any) between the gifts of the spirit (like healing) and the power of the priesthood.
The scriptures do not distinguish between male and female on the gifts of the spirit. So, for example, my wife may have healing as one of her gifts and I may not. However, my not having the gift of healing does not prevent me from giving a blessing when asked to do so. I wonder whether my using the priesthood to do what someone who has a spiritual gift may also do is a way for my abilities to be enhanced. That is, my performing a healing ordinance through the power of the priesthood makes up for any weakness I may have.
Comment by CS Eric — January 12, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
My question is this, which Dale sort of referred to: If women do receive the priesthood in the temple, why it is that men had to have the preparatory or Aaronic Priesthood before the temple and not women? For those women who believe they have the priesthood to give blessings (I myself have never considered doing this though this post sure has me thinking) do you believe you’ve received the Aaronic and Melk. in the temple and that a preparatory stage is not required? There are lots of other questions I have about this and admit that I don’t know much historically about the subject. But I just thought I’d throw a question or two into the discussion.
Comment by Nutty — January 12, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
I would have to disagree with this statement: “All in all, though, the story makes me sad. Sad that she should feel so helpless and dependent on men, sad that something so precious has been lost to us.”
There is nothing wrong with depending on the men in our lives to give us blessing. It helps to strengthen them and fullfil their priesthood responsibilities.
Thank you for posting the story. I believe that us women are given the authority to do this under special circumstances.
Comment by Melissa — January 12, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
For those women who believe they have the priesthood to give blessings
61 — I think what goes on in the temple and what happens when males are ordained to the priesthood and can give blessings, etc. are two different things. Elders can participate in giving blessings with priesthood authority without being endowed, so that (and other things) make me think that whatever goes on in the temple is a separate deal with separate purposes that I suspect go way beyond what we are discussing here in terms of blessings. If I’m not mistaken (and I may be…), even in the early days, women didn’t give blessings stating priesthood authority, but were giving blessings via faith.
Dale, I have NEVER heard anything like you mentioned (that you had learned in Melchisedek Priesthood training) (and I’m certain that hubby hasn’t either) that sisters can give blessings in any way. Has anyone else heard what Dale has said in any training about sisters giving blessings tapping into a husband’s priesthood? It seems to me that if this were standard, it would be a lot more well-known. Again, I realize that people make their own choices about what to do in specific situations, but I’m interested in knowing if anyone else has been “trained’ including this at the more public, general, church-approved level as Dale has mentioned. I’ve been a member all my life and have never run into that kind of thing, and hubby and I have talked about this issue before as I have run into it in blogs and such. Anyone?
Comment by m&m — January 12, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
m&m
Rebecca (#4) links to an interesting post on the topic
and both #12 and #13 link to the article written by Linda King Newell entitled “A Gift Given: A Gift Taken…” which gives instances and examples of this. (the link to this does not bring the article up immediately, you have to scroll down through the articles to find it.)
Comment by G — January 12, 2007 @ 5:34 pm
though, all the links mentioned speak mostly of the historical aspect of it, and not current statements. I too was supprised that Dale had heard such direction in a contemporary meeting.
Comment by G — January 12, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
Yeah, G, I am familiar with the historical stuff, but I was looking for anything to corroborate Dale’s story in a contemporary setting. I’ve never heard anything like that in my lifetime, and I’ve lived in several different places, had father and hubby in leadership positions, and a feministish mom, so had that been specifically taught, I imagine she would have jumped on the chance to give me or siblings a blessing sometime in my lifetime.
(She never did, never has.)
Comment by m&m — January 12, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
I come from a Catholic, rather than LDS background and we have a similar tradition of anyone being able to bless that has slowly come down to only priests being able to bless. I was at my sister’s one day, and sick (that’s probably why I was there, actually, moral support) and her husband offered to bless me. I remember my first reaction was “this is blasphemy!” and my second was “I don’t believe this anyway”, but allowed it. During and after the blessing, I felt so whole and at peace. I don’t know if there was any spiritual interaction or healing, but it made me feel better at a time that I needed it.
Allison (#6)’s bishop indicates that blessing is on a par with prayer and I disagree. The act of blessing does more to cement a relationship between the blessor and the blessee than a prayer does. My brother and I could have prayed together, but it would not have meant the same thing. I was far from home and ill; my loneliness and sickness were both addressed by his loving act of blessing.
Comment by Reg-o-rama — January 12, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
Has anyone else heard what Dale has said in any training about sisters giving blessings tapping into a husband’s priesthood?
I have been in priesthood training sessions where this was mentioned, or where the historical practice of parents blessing sick children together was mentioned or discussed.
I have been in many more where it hasn’t been. I don’t think it is especially common, largely because most EQ presidencies or High Coucilors don’t know enough about the Church’s actual historical practices it to bring it up.
But then I’ve also been in priesthood training sessions where we were told that black Africans are the descendants of Cain, or that Mary was one of Elohim’s wives, or that Eve was, or that the way new planets like our Earth come into existence is from conjugal relations between mommy planets and daddy planets.
Priesthood training isn’t necessarily a good source of doctrinal insights.
In any event, I don’t think Dale’s experience is very common.
Comment by obi-wan — January 12, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
Oh wow, I would PAY to attend such a lesson. The sheer entertainment value of it all!
Comment by Janet — January 12, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
M&M, I’ve heard the subject discussed at church a very few times (ancillary to the general subject at hand). I heard the story that MFS blessed her ox a zillion times as a kid, but apparently there were some historical flaws in the tale :).
When I have heard the subject brought up, discussion pretty much stayed with “women don’t have the priesthood and can’t say they do, but I think maybe a blessing prayer is OK lalalalala let’s change the topic.” Usually a few women would talk about it between meetings, though. I’d be shocked if my DH has ever heard the subject raised in his meetings, though!
Comment by Janet — January 12, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
I was once in a very terrifying situation, and even though it was 1am, I called my home teachers. Before they could get there, I was given some specific wording in my mind to use if I felt I could not wait. Without being too specific, I was instructed to call upon the power of the Holy Ghost (which has its own set of gifts apart from the priesthood). As it turned out, our home teachers came and I didn’t end up doing anything (it wasn’t a blessing, btw), but I have always felt a greater sense of comfort and “power” since then.
I share the experience as an offering to the idea that God not only listens to and answers a daughter’s prayer on behalf of others, but has also given us significant power in the gifts of the spirit. Lisa, I think your friend did well.
Comment by Idahospud — January 13, 2007 @ 12:37 am
To answer Lisa’s question, what would you have done? I would have given the blessing and I’ve done so a couple of times in the past. I had no consecrated oil, so I did it with my hands on their heads and just my words. I asked HF’s forgiveness ahead of time because I felt like it might be improper on one level, but I went ahead and it felt different than a regular prayer. I got the strong impression that it was fine. I asked HF to use my physical vessel as a conduit for His priesthood to bless my son. My prayer / blessing was answered in the positive and everything felt right.
Now the only problem is that my son wants me to give him a blessing any time he feels a little sick. I don’t feel comfortable with that!!
Comment by meems — January 13, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Ok, I am very new at this but at the encouragement of my dh I am going to give this a try. Women, priesthood power, and blessings is something I have given considerable time to pondering and studying over the last 20 years–beginning with noticing that when I was set apart as a temple worker at the age of 20 years I was not “given” the priesthood but was given the authority to administer the ordinances. As such I do think there is a difference between having access to the power and having the authority to use it for different reasons. I do not separate gifts of the spirit and priesthood power (vs. authority) as to me they all come from the same source. I also think there is a significance to using oil that is different than the laying on of hands-oil is used for specific reasons even in the temple. I am still trying to sort it all out though.
Having said that, I do have an experience I would like to share. My two year old boy broke his leg in two places and was in considerable pain after it had been set. I was driving home on the freeway when he began to scream in pain and was throwing up. My first instinct was to bless him. I pulled over to the side of the road, laid my hands on him, and with confidence I stated that as a worthy mother who had kept her covenants I was calling upon the power of the priesthood and commanded that my son be free of pain and be at peace. He immediately calmed and fell asleep for the rest of the drive.
I continue to ponder on this experience as I had no thought before hand as to what to say or do. The experience was automatic and natural, and though I was shaking the whole time I was at peace and was filled with wonder.
Comment by pharmom — January 14, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
I’ve blessed my daughter. It’s been more a prayer with my hands on her head, but she has alot of faith, huge attachment issues, and fear. At the time her eyes would bug out of her head and she’d darn near pee her pants just from hearing my husband walk in the door. She was terribly mistreated before we adopted her, and I was the only person in her “new” life she felt any real connection with.
My husband has never been confident in giving blessings, and the last couple of times our kids were sick and I was with him when he blessed them, he suggested I help him. I haven’t yet, but may if I felt an urgency. I don’t think it’s all about the priesthood. It’s all about faith.
Comment by Kerri — January 15, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
I think you are right about the faith part. I did forget to mention that when I blessed by son I also said “according to my faith”. However, I am not so sure that faith and priesthood power are completely separate things. Ultimately I think they draw upon the same source, and maybe the power must be accessed differently depending upon the purpose, the time, and the person. I am still figuring it all out, and just when I think I have a solid idea something happens to change my thoughts and perceptions.
Comment by pharmom — January 15, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
I find it amazing that other LDS have received such different teachings or understandings. Surely the teachers were using the same manuals.
Anyway, I’ve been taught that the words “faith” and “power” are synonymous in the scriptures. To put it another way, faith is the power in the priesthood.
Comment by Trueheart — January 15, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
Until a couple days ago, I was not aware of the practice of women administering to the sick in the early church. I have read quite a bit about it now and would welcome if my wife had the chance to bless her children or at least join me during a priesthood blessing.
I am wondering though, how to legalize such an action. Back then it was normal and totally ok. Even in the 1950s the principle was still being taught.
The problem, I see, is the Church Handbook of Instruction, which seems to allow only men holding the MP to perform blessings and join other MP in the circle.
Am I missing anything?
Comment by Oliver — January 18, 2007 @ 2:40 am
Oliver,
search this blog for a former post exactly on the topic of women participating in baby blessings.
Comment by cchrissyy — January 18, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Oliver, there is actually nothing in the handbook about *only* men being in the blessing circle. My Bishop and I read the handbook together; it’s just not in there. Our baby - who is not a newborn - is being blessed in a few weeks’ time. My father will be giving the blessing. My Bishop asked the Stake President if either I or my husband could hold the baby; the Stake President said that it was allowable, since she’s older and likely to squirm around a lot. (This, by the way, is the exact opposite of what my parents’ Bishop told them when they asked the same question.) My Bishop is of the view that, if it’s not forbidden in the handbook and the Stake President is okay with it, he’s okay with it too - and he knows he’ll get flack for it, but he’s willing to take it since there’s technically no policy saying mothers or non-member fathers can’t hold the baby. Just another reason why I heart my bishop - he really is a good guy.
Comment by Quimby — January 18, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Quimby,
What about the Church Handbook of Instruction stating:
My comment #79 was not about “naming and blessing” children, but about blessing (and anointing) sick children, as well as giving them blessings of comfort and counsel.
Comment by Oliver — January 19, 2007 @ 4:49 am
#80 correction:
Of course I wasn’t refering to post #79 but #77
Comment by Oliver — January 19, 2007 @ 5:06 am
So few of us have access to a Handbook of Instruction.
Comment by Trueheart — January 19, 2007 @ 5:55 am
Information regarding blessings and other ordinances can also be found in the Family Guidebook.
Comment by Oliver — January 19, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Women with temple endowments do not hold the priesthood, and are not ordained. Consequently, they cannot officiate as priesthood holders. There is only one place that can be done and that is in the temples. Only duly authorized female officiators may do so, and have no other authority outside that situation.
That said, as a faithful servant to the Lord, a woman’s prayers are just as valuable to the Lord. Remember, she prays to the Lord, while a priesthood holder does not while giving blessings or annointings. He blesses the recipient directly.
Comment by Michael — January 28, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Women DO NOT hold the Priesthood. I asked the missionaries at Church about this today, and the answer is a definite NO.
I am a Mia Maid (NOT a Teacher) because boys are Priesthood Holders, not girls. We actually talked about this in YW today. Our role is that of a mother, not a father. Mothers bear and nurture, fathers bless and baptize.
I am a brand-new convert, and the first and only in my family. I have to give my feminist relatives this lecture at least once a week.
Lastly, I want to testify to you that I know the Priesthood is true, and when used properly BY THOSE AUTHORIZED TO USE IT, it is a great blessing. And I testify to you that these divine roles as mother and father truly are Heavenly Father’s plan, and that He knows what He is doing, and I leave this with all of you in the blessed name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Comment by Anna Marion — January 28, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
The question as to whether or not women hold the priesthood is separate from the question as to whether or not women can work miracles. Moroni teaches us that everyone has gifts of the Spirit.
Men and women of God can both work mighty miracles because they both have the light of Christ within them. There is no reason that this cannot include the miracle of healing. When we learn to tap into the power of Christ that is within us, then we can work miracles. I think a lot of the despair I see among members of the church could be remedied if we remember Moroni’s words and have enough faith to seek the gifts of the Spirit.
Comment by Sharon — January 28, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
Anna Marion #85 – You seem threatened by this post. I appreciate your testimony and I applaud you for being strong and true in your beliefs. But remember, please, that we are promised that no blessing or power of the priesthood will be withheld from us because of our gender.
I have a 6 month old baby. She is teething and often, she is in a great deal of discomfort. Sometimes she will scream for hours on end. But as soon as I take her in my arms and say a prayer, out loud, that she will be comforted, the screaming stops. She settles down. She is able to sleep. I’m not anointing her head with oil – but then, anointing the head with oil is generally saved for more serious things than teething pains – but I am still a vehicle through which my child is comforted. I won’t say healed since teething isn’t a sickness that needs to be healed. But she is comforted, she finds relief, through my prayers.
That isn’t a Priesthood blessing. When I was pregnant with her, I started to bleed. The nearest Priesthood was an hour away; and I had no idea how to contact anyone, since I didn’t have any phone numbers. Without even thinking about it, I laid my hands on my stomach, and I called upon the power of the priesthood to let me keep my baby. Like a previous poster, I apologised if what I was doing was wrong; but I also told Heavenly Father that I knew He’d understand, that He knew how much we wanted and longed for this baby, and that there was no other way. Several hours later, I was anointed with oil. The first words out of the Bishop’s mouth were, “Your Heavenly Father wants you to know that He loves you and that He is well pleased with you.” Do you think our Heavenly Father would be “well pleased” with me if I had sinned in calling upon the power of the priesthood to save my baby?
The priesthood is a complicated thing, and I do not understand it. I once had the privilege of receiving what I believe was a life-saving blessing from my father and a neighbour, who was not worthy of the priesthood he held for a number of reasons. Some would say that, because he was not worthy of it, he was no longer authorised to use it. But that blessing worked. (And why wouldn’t it? Would Heavenly Father really let me die simply because he wasn’t worthy?) I believe it worked in large part because of the faith of my mother. My father despaired, saying he couldn’t give me the blessing because there were no worthy priesthood holders around. My mother said, “My child needs a blessing. Heavenly Father will understand. Go get him.” She knew and understood what my father did not know or understand – that we do our best, and Heavenly Father makes up the difference, no matter the circumstance.
For what it’s worth, I also disagree with your assessment that mothers nurture and fathers bless and baptise. Mothers and fathers should both care for and nurture their children. I know many men who are very generous, caring, nurturing people. My own husband is infinitely more patient and nurturing than I am. What a sad life our little girl would have if she could only receive nurture from me! Children need as many people as possible who love them and care for them – not just mothers, but fathers, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, grandmas, grandpas, neighbours, friends. It’s a tough world out there. A child needs a lot of cheerleaders.
Comment by Quimby — January 28, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
#878 - quimby, addressing Anna Marion: “You seem threatened by this post. I appreciate your testimony and I applaud you for being strong and true in your beliefs. But remember, please, that we are promised that no blessing or power of the priesthood will be withheld from us because of our gender.”
I find it immensely interesting how differently this promise is understood by different members. Remember that there is not one priesthood ordinance (or blessing) that a priesthood holder can use upon himself. A dying high priest cannot bless himself. Men bear the priesthood so they can bless others. Thus men are blessed by the priesthood because others hold it, and women are blessed by the priesthood because others hold it.
As for “power,” I think my earlier post about power being faith is sufficient for this mortality. Though I think that the highest priesthood will overwhelm the two lesser. And women receive every order and like office of that priesthood at the same time as men. Thus, I think that power in their individual priesthood is likely something women will get in the life to come. But clearly a sister’s faith adds great power to priesthood blessings, though those blessings here on earth come through others who bear the priesthood.
Comment by Trueheart — January 29, 2007 @ 7:24 am
I’m sorry if I offended you, Quimby.
Comment by Anna Marion — January 31, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
if this has already been said, I’m sorry. i haven’t had a chance to read the whole thread ( i will) and something i read inQuimby’s post
#87 that triggered a memory.
in my patriarchal blessing in says that i will have full access to the priesthood and through my prayers the Lord will direct the content. ( i am paraphrasing).
until last year i was a single mother. when i got that blessing–i was a single mom.
now, why would that be tucked into my blessing? what did that mean? and what possible use or application could that be for?
Comment by mfranti — January 31, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Anna Marion – You certainly didn’t offend me. I merely wanted to point out that we are typically taught the “ideal” black-and-white in church, but often, there are areas of grey. The Gospel is as simple or as complicated as you want it to be. Surely you will do well if you stick strictly to the teachings of the Prophets and the Scriptures. Remember, always, that our Heavenly Father is a loving, caring parent; He wants you to be happy; He loves you. I believe that is the most powerful knowledge in the world. And I believe that our Heavenly Father isn’t going to punish us because we sometimes have a different understanding of a concept than the “ideal” we are taught in church, so long as our motivations are honest and pure.
Comment by Quimby — January 31, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Thank you Pharmom and Quimby for your unforgettable testimonies of God’s love and power.
Like Nephi, “I know that God loves his children but I do not know the meaning of all things. I do not know how much of these miracles are gifts of the spirit, or priesthood authority.
I suspect that God asks us to not speak of things we hear in the temple, because they are too sacred to be interpreted even by Melchezidek Priesthood authority. (if temple teachings were “secret,” they would not all be published in the Library of Congress for anyone to see!) If I understand correctly, God does not want husbands to interpret temple symbols for their wives. Does not want bishops, or prophets to interpret certain things for us. Probably not to interpret them for each other over the web. Only in the Celestial room can we sit together under heaven’s unveiled eye, and whisper our speculations to each other, mouth to ear.
What I’m trying to say is, I hope that if God was guiding you to do those things, that you will not accept anyone’s word if they tell you that you did wrong. Even President Hinckley, when asked about praying to heavenly mother, held back from commanding people how they should pray. He emphasized that his counsel was based on his understanding and on the scriptures. Why would one of our boldest prophets in generations speak so tentatively? Because the Book of Mormon teaches that the spirit shall guide you in your private prayers. I have kept President Hinckley’s council and I have not addressed our heavenly mother directly in prayers, but when the spirit leads otherwise, I will follow. It seems to me that if the spirit says lay on hands, then lay on hands. If the spirit says use oil, then use oil. Yes, we may be wrong and honestly mistake our own desires for the spirit, but our Heavenly Father loves us and isn’t going to punish us for honestly seeking his will. How many General Conferences have taught that the church teaches us the rules and that we must use our minds and seek the spirit to find the exceptions?
Comment by Christian — January 31, 2007 @ 7:35 pm