Question for Former or Current Bishops about Baby Blessing Protocol

[bluebell]

We blessed a baby in our ward yesterday from a part member family that doesn't have any male active members. The men in the ward made up the circle with the bishop acting as voice.  Baby's dad was there and bishop had him stand in the circle, holding the baby, while the blessing was given.  

My question is about whether or not that is allowed?  I know that when some women started agitating for the priesthood that one of the sub-topics of that push was why mothers couldn't hold the baby during baby blessings.  It seemed like the church shut down that pretty quickly as not allowed, even though that didn't really make sense since mothers have been hold older kids for blessings for decades (I was blessed when I was a toddler for example, and sat on my mom's lap during it).

Anyway, bishops are non-priesthood holders allowed in the circle during baby blessings in sacrament meeting or did my bishop (who is an amazing man and who I wouldn't think had a rogue bone in his body) go rogue here?

[MustardSeed]

I’m not a bishop (shocking, I know) but can’t imagine why anyone holding the child would be a problem for anyone-

that said, I think your Bishop went rogue.  Imo.  

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m not a bishop (shocking, I know) but can’t imagine why anyone holding the child would be a problem for anyone-

that said, I think your Bishop went rogue.  Imo.  

I agree it doesn't make sense.  And I'm sure no one cared yesterday (I thought it was a cool way to include the dad). But I remember it was a big deal topic in the past and that the church didn't want the women holding the babies during blessings in sacrament meeting so yesterday stood out.

[blackstrap]

I wonder if the wording at the beginning of the blessing was adjusted to reflect the situation ?

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

I wonder if the wording at the beginning of the blessing was adjusted to reflect the situation ?

Can you clarify what wording and what situation?

[Rain]

46 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

I wonder if the wording at the beginning of the blessing was adjusted to reflect the situation ?

Shouldn't need to.  The requirements:

"The person who gives the blessing:

1. Addresses Heavenly Father.

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

3. Gives the child a name.

4. Gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs.

5. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ."

My husband says the only wording that would need to be changed may be typical, cultural wording.

However, @bluebell I found this on the same page:

"In conformity with this revelation, only worthy men who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood may participate in naming and blessing children."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/family-guidebook/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng

Edited 23 hours ago by Rain

[webbles]

In section 18.3 it says

Quote

However, as guided by the Spirit and the instructions in this chapter, bishops and stake presidents may allow fathers and husbands who hold the necessary priesthood office to perform or participate in some ordinances even if they are not fully temple worthy. A priesthood holder who has unresolved serious sins should not participate.

Is the dad an inactive member?  If he has the Melchezidek Priesthood, he can still participate in some manner.

[MrShorty]

This is probably one of those questions to throw at Johnathon Stapley or Scott Woodward/Casey Griffiths or similar church history nerd. I can recall seeing official instructions (probably in the old Melchizedek Priesthood instructions manuals) that indicated that a father could participate in the blessing of his own children even if he wasn't ordained. I can also recall seeing that instruction come and go over the years. My impression is that this is a practice that has faded in and out of official favor over the years, like women giving healing blessings. I apologize that I can't generate a reference, because I didn't keep any of those old manuals, and it didn't seem like something important enough to retain documentation for. I expect that someone who wanted to could work through some old priesthood manuals and find it, and even document when it was in and out of favor.

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, webbles said:

In section 18.3 it says

Is the dad an inactive member?  If he has the Melchezidek Priesthood, he can still participate in some manner.

He’s not a member as far as I can tell. He has no record. 

[Wilderland]

I was released some months ago, so I'll share my perspective.

Handbook 18.3: "Those who perform or participate in an ordinance must have the necessary priesthood authority and be worthy. Generally, the standard of worthiness is that associated with holding a temple recommend. However, as guided by the Spirit and the instructions in this chapter, bishops and stake presidents may allow fathers and husbands who hold the necessary priesthood office to perform or participate in some ordinances even if they are not fully temple worthy. A priesthood holder who has unresolved serious sins should not participate."

18.6.2: "Under the direction of the bishopric, Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle to name and bless a child ..."

These guidelines could be interpreted as being somewhat vague to this specific circumstance. I don't read that what happened is expressly forbidden, if a little unorthodox. One could contend that the father wasn't "participating" by just holding his baby, although I might make a more literal interpretation of the cited instructions. As the voice giving the blessing, the brother usually states, "We hold/take this infant in our arms, and by virtue/authority of the Melchizedek priesthood ... ." In this circumstance it must be amended to say, "Those of us who hold the Melchizedek priesthood ..." 

Bluebell, I don't know your Bishop's conversation with the father, and certainly don't know what his promptings were, so I won't weigh in on the appropriateness of the blessing's circumstances. I humbly submit that the weight of this calling can, at times, be much heavier than many imagine when making some decisions, and yes, at times judgements. While serving as a Bishop there was a time or two I bent a rule rather than break a heart, but these were procedural rather than doctrinal. I also experienced push back for a couple of decisions I made. A Bishop constantly prays to be guided by the spirit, but will inevitably make some mistakes. I hope this helps.

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

Shouldn't need to.  The requirements:

"The person who gives the blessing:

1. Addresses Heavenly Father.

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

3. Gives the child a name.

4. Gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs.

5. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ."

My husband says the only wording that would need to be changed may be typical, cultural wording.

However, @bluebell I found this on the same page:

"In conformity with this revelation, only worthy men who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood may participate in naming and blessing children."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/family-guidebook/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng

Define "participate."   

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

He’s not a member as far as I can tell. He has no record. 

Well, I'm glad to know he's not a member of a gang, and that he has no criminal record.  Seems like a solid guy!     (Sorry.  You know me!  Couldn't resist! )

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Wilderland said:

I was released some months ago, so I'll share my perspective.

Handbook 18.3: "Those who perform or participate in an ordinance must have the necessary priesthood authority and be worthy. Generally, the standard of worthiness is that associated with holding a temple recommend. However, as guided by the Spirit and the instructions in this chapter, bishops and stake presidents may allow fathers and husbands who hold the necessary priesthood office to perform or participate in some ordinances even if they are not fully temple worthy. A priesthood holder who has unresolved serious sins should not participate."

18.6.2: "Under the direction of the bishopric, Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle to name and bless a child ..."

These guidelines could be interpreted as being somewhat vague to this specific circumstance. I don't read that what happened is expressly forbidden, if a little unorthodox. One could contend that the father wasn't "participating" by just holding his baby, although I might make a more literal interpretation of the cited instructions. As the voice giving the blessing, the brother usually states, "We hold/take this infant in our arms, and by virtue/authority of the Melchizedek priesthood ... ." In this circumstance it must be amended to say, "Those of us who hold the Melchizedek priesthood ..." 

Bluebell, I don't know your Bishop's conversation with the father, and certainly don't know what his promptings were, so I won't weigh in on the appropriateness of the blessing's circumstances. I humbly submit that the weight of this calling can, at times, be much heavier than many imagine when making some decisions, and yes, at times judgements. While serving as a Bishop there was a time or two I bent a rule rather than break a heart, but these were procedural rather than doctrinal. I also experienced push back for a couple of decisions I made. A Bishop constantly prays to be guided by the spirit, but will inevitably make some mistakes. I hope this helps.

Rest assured, I'm sure that Bluebell's post is not so much about bending or breaking rules of this bishop, but more about whether policies have changed and if the church is ok with these experiences being open to others. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Rain

[JAHS]

I think a family can do what they want for a baby blessing with the Bishop's permission. Even if it is done "wrong" we need to remember that it is not a saving ordinance. It is essentially just a prayer to God on behalf of the baby and parents.  God will still hear and answer the prayer. 

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Wilderland said:

I was released some months ago, so I'll share my perspective.

Handbook 18.3: "Those who perform or participate in an ordinance must have the necessary priesthood authority and be worthy. Generally, the standard of worthiness is that associated with holding a temple recommend. However, as guided by the Spirit and the instructions in this chapter, bishops and stake presidents may allow fathers and husbands who hold the necessary priesthood office to perform or participate in some ordinances even if they are not fully temple worthy. A priesthood holder who has unresolved serious sins should not participate."

18.6.2: "Under the direction of the bishopric, Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle to name and bless a child ..."

These guidelines could be interpreted as being somewhat vague to this specific circumstance. I don't read that what happened is expressly forbidden, if a little unorthodox. One could contend that the father wasn't "participating" by just holding his baby, although I might make a more literal interpretation of the cited instructions. As the voice giving the blessing, the brother usually states, "We hold/take this infant in our arms, and by virtue/authority of the Melchizedek priesthood ... ." In this circumstance it must be amended to say, "Those of us who hold the Melchizedek priesthood ..." 

Bluebell, I don't know your Bishop's conversation with the father, and certainly don't know what his promptings were, so I won't weigh in on the appropriateness of the blessing's circumstances. I humbly submit that the weight of this calling can, at times, be much heavier than many imagine when making some decisions, and yes, at times judgements. While serving as a Bishop there was a time or two I bent a rule rather than break a heart, but these were procedural rather than doctrinal. I also experienced push back for a couple of decisions I made. A Bishop constantly prays to be guided by the spirit, but will inevitably make some mistakes. I hope this helps.

Thank you!

No judgement on my bishop at all for allowing the nonmember father to be a part of his baby's blessing.  Mostly I was wondering if a mother would have been allowed the same ability, in a similar situation, due to a change in church policy.  Or, if this was not policy but my Bishop's decision.  (If this was not policy but on my bishop, I would like to think that he would treat a mother the same way the he treated the father but without asking him personally there is no way to know that. Some men are weird about women being in traditional men's spaces and some aren't.)

 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think a family can do what they want for a baby blessing with the Bishop's permission. Even if it is done "wrong" we need to remember that it is not a saving ordinance. It is essentially just a prayer to God on behalf of the baby and parents.  God will still hear and answer the prayer. 

That could be now.  A few years ago it seemed like the church was fairly adamant that a mother could not hold her baby during a baby blessing in a sacrament meeting though, even if she really wanted to.

[JAHS]

In a similar situation, not a baby name/blessing but blessing a sick baby, President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

"Does a wife hold the priesthood with her husband, and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority? A wife does not hold the priesthood with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, she may do so with perfect propriety."
When this is done the wife is adding her faith to the administration of her husband. The wife would lay on hands just as would a member of the Aaronic Priesthood, or a faithful brother without the Priesthood, she in this manner giving support by faith to the ordinance performed by her husband. (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56], 3:177.)

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

In a similar situation, not a baby name/blessing but blessing a sick baby, President Joseph Fielding Smith said:

"Does a wife hold the priesthood with her husband, and may she lay hands on the sick with him, with authority? A wife does not hold the priesthood with her husband, but she enjoys the benefits thereof with him; and if she is requested to lay hands on the sick with him, she may do so with perfect propriety."
When this is done the wife is adding her faith to the administration of her husband. The wife would lay on hands just as would a member of the Aaronic Priesthood, or a faithful brother without the Priesthood, she in this manner giving support by faith to the ordinance performed by her husband. (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56], 3:177.)

These kinds of quotes do make the church's (maybe old?) policy about women not being allowed to hold their babies during the blessing seem odd.

[california boy]

I am surprised this is an issue.  I remember fathers that were not active just holding their child occasionally when a blessing is given.  Of course that was over 20 years ago.

I personally can't come up with a reason why a mother could not do a similar thing.  But hey, I grew up in California and you know ow rouge we can be.

[Wilderland]

On a semi-related topic, when the policy was changed so that sisters could be witnesses to ordinances that require them, the only complaints our Stake President received were from ... sisters. 

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, Wilderland said:

On a semi-related topic, when the policy was changed so that sisters could be witnesses to ordinances that require them, the only complaints our Stake President received were from ... sisters. 

Odd. The only complaint I had was when my daughter asked me to be a witness to her sealing, the temple told us that they don't have witnesses sit in the witness chairs anymore.  I didn't care about being in the chair. It just bothered me that the chairs were important till women could sit in them.  Especially since the chairs were still there, but now were empty.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Wilderland said:

On a semi-related topic, when the policy was changed so that sisters could be witnesses to ordinances that require them, the only complaints our Stake President received were from ... sisters. 

Can I ask what they complained about?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

Odd. The only complaint I had was when my daughter asked me to be a witness to her sealing, the temple told us that they don't have witnesses sit in the witness chairs anymore.  I didn't care about being in the chair. It just bothered me that the chairs were important till women could sit in them.  Especially since the chairs were still there, but now were empty.

They didn't have anyone sit in the chairs? That is odd.

When my son was married in 2025 the chairs were used.  One witness sat in one and then his dad sat in the other.  I was the other witness but I sat next to Thade.  Doing proxy sealings though I sat in one of those chairs when I was serving as the witness.