- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
hawkgrrrl wrote:
Also, how am I supposed to be jazzed about being lumped in yet again with children? That’s where this gender essentialist garbage leads to: women are in the same category as children. Only men are full people.
That was my first thought. A bit cack-handed, although to be honest I hate terminology like “gender essentialist”. Just making women witnesses would have been enough for me.
I like that anyone who has been baptized can be an official witness at the same type of baptism. It matches the practice in the endowment: both endowed men and women have been able to be witnesses in the endowment. I know this is from a male perspective, but I don’t see this as lumping women with children – since children still can’t be witnesses in the endowment, for example, when women can. Rather, it erases completely the sexual distinction in the entire category. If someone has gone through any ordinance, they can be a witness to it. I honestly can’t think of a better solution that deals strictly with witnesses.
It also could open the door for expanding it to the actual performance of ordinances. I have no clue about timing, but I see it as a move in that direction.
I am so thankful that this changed (dare I say it’s about time!). My family is ecstatic. For some reason all I seem to be able to feel about it is a deep emptyness. I fear that all of these baby steps in a really positive direction have come a bit too late for me. At least I’m not feeling the crazy unexpected rage that I experienced after the temple changes. I’m with Tica. I still don’t feel women are seen and taken seriously. Thanks for the crumbs and afterthoughts. It’s hard to be patient with the old attitudes about women. They are very very slow to change, and I’m in middle age already. I’ve been putting up with it for a long time. I was also reminded after this announcement that I did in fact witness baptisms on my mission, something I would never have considered I wasn’t allowed to do (and neither did the district leader who reminded me of it). So, he was “ahead of his time” in doing something that seemed common sense and logical. The idea that women couldn’t witness was a foreign concept to us in our 20s. I only became aware women couldn’t do that after I returned and as an adult saw women routinely barred from it, like we aren’t credible adults just like men are.
And children witnessing? I’m iffy on the maturity of most 8 year olds to even understand their baptismal covenants, so yeah, I’m not 100% convinced by this one.
The next logical step would be to allow women to pass the sacrament. There’s no scripture saying it’s a PH only thing. It’s pure tradition. Absolutely. I am not much of a believer in revelation on these kinds of things. I figure almost all decisions like this come from societal pressure. That said I will give them kudos for moving in the right direction. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.