Jump to content
bsjkki

How was two hour church?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I prefer a baby blessing at home. For example my brother was visiting my parents for Thanksgiving last year and decided to bless the baby here because a lot of the family is here but almost no one in that ward knew who my brother is beyond being my father’s son and no one he wanted to invite into the circle from the ward. It was easier for his siblings and their spouses to come because they did not have to bail on their responsibilities in their own ward.

I like parents having the option to choose. For many it makes sense. We had a baby blessing on Sunday and he requested the Bishopric and a friend in the ward to make up the circle as he did not have family in town. That made sense.

Edit: Now if people are making the “out of church” blessings into a big party/ production I could see discouraging that. I was recently introduced to the idea that some member buy special clothing for the infant and thought that was ridiculous. What will those Saints in Utah think up next? ;) 

I still see great value in sharing this as a community. I recently played in a Methodist service. At one point the minister (a woman) invited a couple up to the altar with a new born baby. It was blessed and then presented to the congregation which gave the couple a very hearty round of welcoming applause and congratulations. I envied their ability and willingness to celebrate the event in a communal fashion.

It seems that as we cut back on many things we are losing this kind of sense of community. It is certainly less so now than when I was a youngster.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A singles ward won't have one of those, either. But it doesn't matter because there is always a priests quorum president/president of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Yes, and one of them should be making the assignments to prepare, bless, and pass the sacrament.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

A singles ward won't have one of those, either. But it doesn't matter because there is always a priests quorum president/president of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Is that usually the Elder Quorum president? Because that's how they did it in all the singles wards I was in.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've literally never once seen this anywhere I've lived.

Ditto and I live in Provo. Man, and I thought I was being difficult for wanting to do it on a day other than fast Sunday.

 

Edited by clarkgoble

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Is that usually the Elder Quorum president? Because that's how they did it in all the singles wards I was in.

Nope. The EQ president functions within the Melchizedek Priesthood. The president of the Aaronic Priesthood in each ward is the bishop, and he and his counsellors are the presidency of this priesthood. Fobbing this responsibility off to an EQ president (or YM president in a normal ward) is a serious misunderstanding of priesthood keys.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, bluebell said:

It happens quite a bit in the states.  It's allowed, per the handbook.

CFR.

Here is the complete entry in Handbook 2:

Quote

20.2 Naming and Blessing Children

20.2.1

General Guidelines

“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 effort to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families.

Children are normally named and blessed during fast and testimony meeting in the ward where the parents are members of record.

20.2.2 

Instructions for Naming and Blessing a Child

When blessing a baby, Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle and place their hands under the baby. When blessing an older child, brethren place their hands lightly on the child’s head. The person who gives the blessing:

1. Addresses Heavenly Father.

2. States that the blessing is performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.

3. Gives the child a name.

4. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs.

5. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.

20.2.3

Blessing Record and Certificate

Before a child is blessed, the ward clerk prepares a Child Blessing Record. After the blessing, the clerk ensures that this form is complete, and he processes or distributes it according to instructions with the form. The clerk also prepares a blessing certificate. The bishop signs the certificate, and he or the clerk gives it to the child’s parent(s) or guardian(s).

If a baby is born out of wedlock, the name on the membership record and certificate of blessing should match the name on the birth certificate or civil birth registry. If a birth certificate or civil birth registry does not exist, the naming conventions of the local culture are used.

And here is the complete entry in Handbook 1:

Quote

16.2 Naming and Blessing Children

16.2.1

 General Guidelines

“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 effort to avoid embarrassment or offense to individuals or families.

Children are normally named and blessed during fast and testimony meeting in the ward where the parents are members of record.

The following policies apply to blessing babies in special circumstances.

16.2.2

 Babies Who Were Born out of Wedlock

Children who were born out of wedlock may be blessed during fast and testimony meeting. If a family prefers, the bishop may authorize Melchizedek Priesthood holders to bless the child in the home, with a member of the bishopric presiding.

16.2.3

 Babies Who Are Critically Ill

If a newborn infant is critically ill, a Melchizedek Priesthood holder may perform the naming and blessing in the hospital or at home without previous authorization from the bishop. A person who does this notifies the bishop promptly so necessary records can be made.

16.2.4

 Babies with a Nonmember Parent

When either of a child’s parents is not a member of the Church, the bishop should obtain verbal permission from both parents before the child is blessed. He explains that a membership record will be prepared for the child after the blessing. He should also tell them (1) that ward members will contact them periodically and (2) that when the child reaches age 8, the bishop or the ward missionaries will visit them and propose that the child be baptized.

Unless you are all having heaps of out-of-wedlock births, it would appear to me that this practice is out of step with the guidelines given above and with the clear instructions in D&D 20:70 -- 'Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church' (emphasis added). Am I missing something?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Indeed, one should find out what God thinks too.

God thinks proof texting is of the devil.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I used the words “acting under divine inspiration” deliberately. They have significance. 

In other words, it’s not just a matter of “what a modern Chutch leader thinks about scripture.”  It’s what apostles and prophets are inspired to say when moved upon by the Holy Ghost.” 

It’s a distinction without a difference from my perspective.  

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

CFR.

Here is the complete entry in Handbook 2:

And here is the complete entry in Handbook 1:

Unless you all are having heaps of out-of-wedlock births, it would appear to me that this practice is out of step with the guidelines given above and with the clear instructions in D&D 20:70 -- 'Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church' (emphasis added). Am I missing something?

Bluebell probably feels the adverb  “normally” allows for exceptions — which it does. But the context you have given here makes it seem they should be very much the exception, not just that Grandma or Uncle Will don’t want to change their Sunday plans. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

God thinks proof texting is of the devil.  

Yeah, well my God can beat up your God!

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s a distinction without a difference from my perspective.  

Then you probably don’t have very high regard for high Church leaders ability to receive divine inspiration — which is your prerogative, but it does reflect a rather sharply contrasting worldview. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

God thinks proof texting is of the devil.  

Yep, cos Jesus never quoted scripture to support his role or teachings ... :rolleyes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

CFR.

Here is the complete entry in Handbook 2:

And here is the complete entry in Handbook 1:

Unless you all are having heaps of out-of-wedlock births, it would appear to me that this practice is out of step with the guidelines given above and with the clear instructions in D&D 20:70 -- 'Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church' (emphasis added). Am I missing something?

Yes, it says “normally” and since neither me nor my family are normal there should not be a problem.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, it says “normally” and since neither me nor my family are normal there should not be a problem.

So is this a way of saying you and your family members have all been born out of wedlock and/or have been critically ill as infants ... since those are the only 'special circumstances' provided to bishops as clarifications in Handbook 1?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

CFR.

Here is the complete entry in Handbook 2:

And here is the complete entry in Handbook 1:

Unless you all are having heaps of out-of-wedlock births, it would appear to me that this practice is out of step with the guidelines given above and with the clear instructions in D&D 20:70 -- 'Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church' (emphasis added). Am I missing something?

As the handbook says “normally,” and not “must be,” the handbook allows babies to be blessed at home (which makes sense, given the hundreds if not thousands of babies that bishops are allowing to be blessed at home).

I suppose it could change at any time but the Brethren don’t seem to mind so far.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I suppose it could change at any time but the Brethren don’t seem to mind so far.

Maybe they're as unaware of this fad as I and several other posters in this thread have been?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So is this a way of saying you and your family members have all been born out of wedlock and/or have been critically ill as infants ... since those are the only 'special circumstances' provided to bishops as clarifications in Handbook 1?

No, it says normally it is in F&T meeting and I am pointing out we are not normal.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Maybe they're as unaware of this fad as I and several other posters in this thread have been?

I doubt it. Danite spies are everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, it says normally it is in F&T meeting and I am pointing out we are not normal.

Clearly.

And then in Handbook 1 it lists the two 'special circumstances' that function as approved exceptions.

I actually thought Scott was overreacting in the beginning -- sorry, Scott! -- but if one consults the handbooks, it's clear that this is a case of an unauthorised shift in practice (and possibly even doctrine).

Who presided over the ordinance in the case of your brother's child?

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've literally never once seen this anywhere I've lived.

Handbook 2, 20.2.1 states the following:

“Children are normally named and blessed during fast and testimony meeting in the ward where the parents are members of record.”

We blessed our last child at my parents house.  My mother was homebound at the time and would have otherwise been unable to attend the blessing.  We asked our bishop, who felt under the circumstances that a change in venue was appropriate.   

I don’t believe that this sentance “The following policies apply to blessing babies in special circumstances.” and the three cases listed under are the only ones that a bishop may consider when making a decision.  I think you’re limiting things in a manner that the handbook does not intend to.

Edited by ksfisher
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ksfisher said:

My mother was homebound at the time and would have otherwise been unable to attend the blessing.  

Is there an expectation where you live that family members should travels hundreds or even thousands of kilometres to attend a baby blessing?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Maybe they're as unaware of this fad as I and several other posters in this thread have been?

I have a hard time believing that, as prevelant as it is. I know so many women, in multiple states who have had their babies blessed at home. It’s not unusual at all.  

It’s hard to make an argument for so many rogue bishops and stake presidents too. 

I guess it’s possible though.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Nope. The EQ president functions within the Melchizedek Priesthood. The president of the Aaronic Priesthood in each ward is the bishop, and he and his counsellors are the presidency of this priesthood. Fobbing this responsibility off to an EQ president (or YM president in a normal ward) is a serious misunderstanding of priesthood keys.

Well yes, in terms of authority, but I was more talking of practical day to day functioning. I bet in most wards the Bishop doesn't pick who administers or passes the sacrament. Rather as in most wards he just intervenes if he sees something wrong. In most singles wards the person who does the practical work is the EQ President. At least in every singles ward I've been in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I bet in most wards the Bishop doesn't pick who administers or passes the sacrament. Rather as in most wards he just intervenes if he sees something wrong.

Exactly, but why does he intervene? Because the sacrament is his priesthood responsibility. This is inescapable. If I want to administer the sacrament to an elderly shut-in (as I did twice this past Sunday), whose permission do I need? And why?

Quote

In most singles wards the person who does the practical work is the EQ President.

And it many wards, busy bishops ask the Young Men presidents to do similar work, but as we've been repeatedly trained and reminded, this is wrong.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I have a hard time believing that, as prevelant as it is. I know so many women, in multiple states who have had their babies blessed at home.It’s not unusual at all.

It should be ... considering that the language in the handbook, as you yourself pointed out, reads 'normally' (and only provides two exceptions).

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×