Episode #110 – I. Declare. Excommunication!
Have menstruating women been banned from doing baptisms in the temple? Peggy Fletcher Stack and Obama’s David Axelrod say yes.
Al gives us a beautiful reading of Leviticus 15.
Check out the infographic to your left. The Church put it out. It’s nifty!
A bishop who failed to report sexual abuse gets sentenced.
Feminism and women’s roles in the Church. What’s good? What’s bad? Joanna Brooks has some thoughts.
The Church is trying to buy a piece of 100 S. in Provo. Could this be the Main Street Plaza debacle all over again?
Assorted stuff – A new For the Strength of Youth pamphlet; the Church has loads of schools in Tonga; awesome Mormon movie; and homeless people get a job at SXSW.
Links:
- Mitt, chauvinism, and feminism
- Plea deal for LDS bishop
- No temple menstruation, please
- David Axelrod tweets temple menstruation
- Mitt goes Bubba
- Reservations for the Kansas City Temple
- For the Strength of Youth
- Closing 100 S.
- More schools in Tonga than anywhere else!
- Meetinghouse controversy in Queens
- Homeless 4G hotspots
You Might Also Dig These Episodes
Episode #167 – Cesar? Seize Her!
The FCC ponders lifting its ban on nudity and profanity. What can you do? Mormon missionaries get looser email rules. Provo gets Google Fiber. ¡Y más!...
Episode #170 – Chewed Gum, Forgotten Virtue
Do we need to change the way we discuss virtue with Young Women? Do Young Single Adults take being "childlike" way too far? Will the Church stop canning?...
Episode #156 – Gay Boy Scouts Church Blockers
Are gay Boy Scouts on the horizon? It looks so. A young gay man serves a mission. And we produce the love child of Kevin Barney and Peggy Fletcher Stack....
Episode #109 – Slate or Blade or Wesley aka Teancum Got Greedy
So much zany fun this week! The controversial City Creek mall is slated to open in a few weeks, not without some drama. A hardcore action Book of Mormon movie! The next Titanic! An LDS "priest in training" gets in some hot water by showing a wee too much skin. Jesse Stay, the Church'...
Episode #163 – Estrogenics (Cake for Everyone)
Should we ordain women to the priesthood? Women will finally pray in General Conference! Tithing will not allow you to avoid back taxes. And more! Tune in!...
Episode #105 – Bow Tie Failure
Prop 8 is struck down by another court. What is the Mormon response? Using ward lists for politics. McKay Coppins gets it mostly right, save a few fact-checking issues. The rise of Joanna Brooks continues. She receives a great profile on CNN. Why are amazing men still single? Don't ask ...
Recent articles
- Lesson 19: The Plan of Salvation – Doctrine & Covenants and Church History17 May 2013
- Episode #171 – Mormon Prom to the Max15 May 2013
- Lesson 18: “Establish … a House of God” – Doctrine & Covenants and Church History10 May 2013
- Episode #170 – Chewed Gum, Forgotten Virtue09 May 2013
- Lesson 17: The Law of Tithing and the Law of the Fast – Doctrine & Covenants and Church History03 May 2013
Al, you are so, so wrong. Seriously? Menstruation should not bar a woman or young woman from attending the temple. To be frank, tampons make it completely sanitary and safe for a woman to swim or in this case, be dunked in the baptismal font. It's messed up that you think we should stay away from the temple when we're menstruating.
Preach on, Mary! Preach on!
-Geoff
Also, Al, the Kansas City Temple PR rep is wrong as well. Brigham City is also expected to be dedicated this year. From ldschurchtemples.org:
Moving Full Steam Ahead on the Brigham City Utah Temple
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
"The team of dedicated workers at the Brigham City Utah Temple has placed the building ahead of schedule with completion anticipated this summer. Speculation of the open house and dedication dates could end as early as next month when the official announcement is expected to be made."
It's okay, Al. You still crack me up.
Boom! Just as I said. This is a great week for the Anti-Al Coalition.
Signed,
Geoff
I'm going to assume that the reason you find the notion of menstruating women doing baptisms is hygiene-based, i.e. the possibility of blood getting in the water and contaminating the font / grossing you out. Just some facts to put your minds at ease (and hopefully avoid you guys ever subjecting a teenage girl the humiliating scenario of being told to abstain from participation):
The average amount of blood lost during menstruation: 35mL – just over one ounce. This is spread out over 3-6 days. Google says there are 5-600 drops in an ounce. On average, this means that while menstruating, a woman will lose about 4-5 drops of blood per hour.
So… if a baptism session lasts about 4 or 5 minutes/proxy, there is a 1/12 chance that ONE drop of blood would be issued by a woman during that time.
But even those drops won't hit the font water – there is a $13billion+ industry build on barrier technologies (tampons, cups) that avoid letting menstrual blood exit our bodies in any uncontrolled fashion – we're spending 1/6 of our days menstruating – we're really good at managing our flows. Especially when we know we'll be wearing white. (You may be happy to know that many temples require menstruating women to use a tampon during the ordinance.)
On top of that, the water is chlorinated. So if by some tragedy a drop of blood is issued mid-baptisms, it'll be devoured by chemicals.
Honestly guys, you should be like me, and be MUCH more concerned about young mens' skidmarks grubbing up the water than the seriously tiny chance that a drop of menstrual blood escapes.
Hey now, please don't rope me in with my impish co-host.
-Geoff
(Oops. I hope the incorrect math in my comment doesn't detract from the water-tight argument I made.)
(Pun intended.)
Here's one random crazy early church history quote (probably the source of this and other "folklore"):
At a School of the Prophets meeting on 31 January 1868 where Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball were present, Daniel Wells was recorded as saying "… a woman should not go [to the temple] for a week after her menses were upon her; a man should not have intercourse with his wife for several days"
Two sources for this are listed on page 29 of "Development of LDS Temple Worship: 1846 to 2000" by Devery S. Anderson and published by Signature Books.
Not cool by modern standards. That Old Testament stuff is for the birds.
In response to the WHY DAY DO DAT segment.
First…according to the handbook the Ward Executive Secretary is required to be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend….therefore a man.
Second…in regard to the sacrament "blesser" looking at the bishop after the sacrament prayer. It isn't required by the handbook but it sure makes the bishop's job of directing the administration of the ordinance a lot easier. If there is a "mess up" in the ordinance a quick shake of the head sure diminishes the embarrassment of the priest compared to standing up and walking over to the table and telling him to start over.
With that said, I love the show. Look forward to it every week.
I'm just sad I didn't get this first, because as a former Exec Sec for 18 months, it sounded all sorts of wrong when Geoff said he's been in multiple wards when the Exec Sec was a female. So either Geoff's been in wards where some wild apostasy was being instigated by the bishops, or women were being called to improvised secretarial positions that Geoff mistook for the Exec Sec. No female hate…feminist and equality arguments aside, Handbook 1 Section 13.4.4 says this position must be filled by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder.
Agree on the sacrament blesser comment also.
Also love the show. Maybe I should've just copied/pasted the previous comment
I wonder why the Exec Sec has to be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder. I mean what is the benefit or actual priesthood need there, aside from the position technically being part of the bishopric?
I've seen women in secretarial capacities, but perhaps this was under the umbrella of the Exec Sec. I think I had a bishop who once split the duties into a "Ward secretary" and a "Bishop's secretary."
I agree that the currently employed sacrament method is efficacious, but why not let the other priests blessing do their duty and watchdog the prayer? The reason for having at least two priests isn't just to divvy up the passing out of trays to deacons. It is like any other companionship – to watch out for each other and the work.
Thanks for your comments!
One reason for the Exec Sec being a male, which was especially applicable in singles' wards, but also applies in other situations, is that it is a requirement for a 'priesthood holder' to be in the adjacent room while a Bishop is interviewing a female alone in his office. Sorry, don't have a handbook reference this time. (The reference for the Exec Sec being a Mel. Priesthood holder was Handbook 1, section 13.4.4)
Can't argue with the option of the other priest should be doing the sac. prayer checking.
Really guys? I think a much bigger concern is the residual fecal matter, not an insignificant amount of flow. As far as I understand, this post is what started the whole hoopla about menstruating in the temple. I really recommend reading it. http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/02/10/unclean-unc…
Really guys? I think a much bigger concern is the residual fecal matter, not an insignificant amount of flow. As far as I understand, this post is what started the whole hoopla about menstruating in the temple. I really recommend reading it. http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/02/10/unclean-unc…
LOL – "Citizen's Excommunication." This should funnel down to a "Relief Society Citation" for lack of a table cloth while giving a lesson, children that don't wear matching outfits at least once a year, and undelicious execution of any "Funeral Potatoes" recipe.
But really, Guys, I'm staying up late to address the issue of Mormonism and Feminism per this show and comments on Episode #106.
People! Mormonism is the most feminist "franchised" Christian church on the planet. We believe in a female deity that is equal to our male deity. So, what about The Priesthood? Remember that it is a power and not a group of men, unless you are Catholic.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but there is a difference between holding keys of the priesthood and exercising keys of the priesthood. It is a grossly overlooked fact that there are circumstances under which women formally exercise The Priesthood – temple workers, for instance. In the first Relief Society, as organized by Joseph Smith, women routinely blessed other women, esp. before childbirth.
(Sidebar: A specific race was not a prerequisite to receiving The Priesthood from J.S. either. I find it interesting that there is no extant revelation after that saying, "Only give The Priesthood to certain races." I think, “innocently”, man did that on his own.) (And because I don’t know if The Priesthood should be capitalized or not I’m going to continue to do it to be consistent. Please don’t hate on me, Geoff, if this is incorrect.)
Back to feminism. Sometimes The Priesthood and Patriarchical Order are spoken of as if they are the same thing. They are not. Obviously there is overlap. However, it seems to me Patriarchical Order makes its debut in Moses 4 as a consequence of The Fall. If that is the case, I would interpret Patriarchal Order to be a construct of mortality like blood and death. (wink) This is speculation that cannot be confirmed or denied because there is no revelation on women’s roles in “the church” in the eternities. Maybe women ARE proverbial EQP.
We DO know that gender is an eternal principal. And that families are eternal. But we don’t know how those roles play out in an exalted state. We know on Earth a father’s primary role is to “provide the necessities of life” (Family: A Proclamation to the World) “by the sweat of thy face” (Moses 4:25 – a consequence of the fall.) And that a mother’s primary role is nurturing children. Both partners help each other as “equal partners.” What about immortal states?
Seems all we’ve been told is that Heavenly Father’s work is to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” That sounds a whole lot like “nurturing children.” If men and women are equal partners on earth I think it is safe to extrapolate they are equal partners when exalted. I imagine Deity being one in purpose and power.
Wonderfully said. You should write a full op-ed on this and we'd be happy to host you as a guest contributor.
That's a very nice compliment, thank you. I'll let it brew a bit.