Yep Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Ensign - August 1975Melchizedek Priesthood Ordinances. When ordinances requiring the Melchizedek Priesthood are performed, only those who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood should stand in the circle. Prior to the performing of these ordinances, parents or individuals involved should be counseled in a kindly, thoughtful manner concerning this policy so that as invitations are extended to participate, they may be extended only to those who qualify and hold the proper priesthood.The only exception to this policy is that a father, at his request, may hold his child when a name and blessing are given.I haven't seen fathers who do not hold the priesthood do this, is this still the case or has it changed? if this is still proper, I think it would be a very good thing if the general body of the Church were aware of this. Is this still how it should be?
ksfisher Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 From Handbook 2, available online at lds.org 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.
JAHS Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 Handbook #1 doesn't say anything about the father holding the baby either, so I guess that policy has changed since 1975.
Kiviuq Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 I think they realized that if non-Melchizedek priesthood holders could stand in the circle then the baby’s mother should also not be excluded.
ksfisher Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 I think they realized that if non-Melchizedek priesthood holders could stand in the circle then the baby’s mother should also not be excluded.The revision to the policy brings in back in line with the revelation as stated in the D&C.
Ahab Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 From Handbook 2, available online at lds.org 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. It's possible to misunderstand what is meant here. Obviously, a man (and/or woman) without the Melchizedek Priesthood can name his (or her) own child, and bless his (or her) child too, but in that case we wouldn't be talking about a blessing granted by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood. It would still be a Father's (or Mother's) blessing, though, and the name would be the name the child would be known by in the world, although not necessarily a name on the records of the Church.
ksfisher Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 It's possible to misunderstand what is meant here.Obviously, a man (and/or woman) without the Melchizedek Priesthood can name his (or her) own child, and bless his (or her) child too, but in that case we wouldn't be talking about a blessing granted by the power of the Melchizedek priesthood. It would still be a Father's (or Mother's) blessing, though, and the name would be the name the child would be known by in the world, although not necessarily a name on the records of the Church.I'm not sure how it could be misunderstood. The OP was asking about Melchizedek Priesthood blessing of children, the handbook section refers to the same.
Ahab Posted February 1, 2013 Posted February 1, 2013 (edited) I'm not sure how it could be misunderstood. The OP was asking about Melchizedek Priesthood blessing of children, the handbook section refers to the same.Oh, people often misunderstand things quite easily, but keeping those points in mind should help a little bit.Do you see the difference between that and what I was talking about? Fathers without the Melchizedek priesthood can name and bless their children too, but in that event we're not talking about what we usually think of as a Melchizedek priesthood blessing, even though our Father in heaven was using his priesthood when he gave all fathers authority over their children. Edited February 1, 2013 by Ahab
Brian 2.0 Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 When I blessed my children I had my father-in-law, who is not a member, hold the microphone. It was a nice way to include him up on the stand with us while staying within the guideline.
Yep Posted February 2, 2013 Author Posted February 2, 2013 Not quoting anyone as I think that this responds to many of the comments so far.I was thinking that the father holding the baby wouldn't be participating any more than the deacon or other person holding the microphone. It would be similar to a child being held by its mother or father during a blessing. I have given a number of blessings of sick children while the mother was holding the child, this did not mean the mother was participating. I would think that the father being able to hold his child for it may be more of a fellowshipping tool by allowing him to be there while not actually participating in the blessing.
Brian 2.0 Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 Not quoting anyone as I think that this responds to many of the comments so far.I was thinking that the father holding the baby wouldn't be participating any more than the deacon or other person holding the microphone. It would be similar to a child being held by its mother or father during a blessing. I have given a number of blessings of sick children while the mother was holding the child, this did not mean the mother was participating. I would think that the father being able to hold his child for it may be more of a fellowshipping tool by allowing him to be there while not actually participating in the blessing.I see what you are saying but it gets a little sticky because the people doing the blessing are actually just "holding" the baby for the laying on of hands. The non-participating father would essentially be doing the same exact thing as the people giving a blessing. If a sick child can't calm down and the mother holds him while the father lays his hand on his head to give him a blessing there is a clear distinction as to who is doing what. No one would confuse the mother of "being in the circle". But the scenario of a non-participating father holding a baby for a blessing does look like the same thing. It's probably more of an appearance thing.
Yep Posted February 2, 2013 Author Posted February 2, 2013 I see what you are saying but it gets a little sticky because the people doing the blessing are actually just "holding" the baby for the laying on of hands. The non-participating father would essentially be doing the same exact thing as the people giving a blessing.If a sick child can't calm down and the mother holds him while the father lays his hand on his head to give him a blessing there is a clear distinction as to who is doing what. No one would confuse the mother of "being in the circle". But the scenario of a non-participating father holding a baby for a blessing does look like the same thing. It's probably more of an appearance thing.LOL, that is probably true. I'm a punk though and doing things for appearance often very much conflicts with my personal philosophy.
Calm Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) I would think that the father being able to hold his child for it may be more of a fellowshipping tool by allowing him to be there while not actually participating in the blessing.So why not let a mother do so if that was the reasoning? Edited February 2, 2013 by calmoriah 1
Stargazer Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Nvrmd Edited February 2, 2013 by Stargazer
Tacenda Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) I think Jesus would balk at the thought of a mother not being allowed to hold her child that needs soothing during a baby blessing in Sacrament meeting. Maybe this goes back to the reason women weren't allowed to give prayers in Sacrament before 1978. Legalism would be the word I think of and the word discrimination. Edited February 2, 2013 by Tacenda
Stargazer Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 I think Jesus would balk at the thought of a mother not being allowed to hold her child that needs soothing during a baby blessing in Sacrament meeting. Maybe this goes back to the reason women weren't allowed to give prayers in Sacrament before 1978. Legalism would be the word I think of and the word discrimination.Well, legalism and discrimination, why not just let women perform ordinances like baptism? Let priesthood become just another Protestant/Catholic "priesthood of all believers" thing.I do know that after Sidney Rigdon apostatized from the Church (because Brigham Young became the Church's leader), he continued an LDS-like church, and among other things he eventually introduced a female priesthood. He said he received a revelation requiring it.I suppose that if the Lord had wanted women to hold the priesthood he might have extended it to them by now.
Tacenda Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 Well, legalism and discrimination, why not just let women perform ordinances like baptism? Let priesthood become just another Protestant/Catholic "priesthood of all believers" thing.I do know that after Sidney Rigdon apostatized from the Church (because Brigham Young became the Church's leader), he continued an LDS-like church, and among other things he eventually introduced a female priesthood. He said he received a revelation requiring it.I suppose that if the Lord had wanted women to hold the priesthood he might have extended it to them by now.I didn't say for the mother to hold the priesthood I said her baby. I've no desire to hold that office!
Stargazer Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 I didn't say for the mother to hold the priesthood I said her baby. I've no desire to hold that office!Any more than I want to become pregnant, I'm sure! You said "legalism" and I did not take it the way you meant it. I simply extended your argument, and you needn't own the extension.But I propose it to you -- apart from your desire to hold the office, do you think you would do it if you were called to do it? I don't know why, other than God hasn't ever said so, that women do not exercise the priesthood (outside of the temple, I mean). In my opinion, I don't think that God thinks you can't do it, just that He hasn't chosen for you to.
Tacenda Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) Any more than I want to become pregnant, I'm sure! You said "legalism" and I did not take it the way you meant it. I simply extended your argument, and you needn't own the extension.But I propose it to you -- apart from your desire to hold the office, do you think you would do it if you were called to do it? I don't know why, other than God hasn't ever said so, that women do not exercise the priesthood (outside of the temple, I mean). In my opinion, I don't think that God thinks you can't do it, just that He hasn't chosen for you to.In my heart of hearts I don't feel I need it. And to be honest it would be difficult to give up a lot of my family time to tend the flock in a ward. I give a lot of credit to those who do. Edited February 2, 2013 by Tacenda
Stargazer Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 In my heart of hearts I don't feel I need it. And to be honest it would be difficult to give up a lot of my family time to tend the flock in a ward. I give a lot of credit to those who do.Well, you needn't be a bishop, anyway. Few of us are called to that kind of thing.The point I would like to register is that God made us ALL capable of being Added Upon, to fulfilling all which He has ordained for us to do. God didn't make no junk, as it is said. I believe that Tacenda (and calmoriah, and the other sisters on this board and all of them elsewhere) are capable of doing what the brothers are called to do. It just so happens that God hasn't called them to do it, because of the division of labor which He in His wisdom established.
Freedom Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 Oh, people often misunderstand things quite easily, but keeping those points in mind should help a little bit.Do you see the difference between that and what I was talking about? Fathers without the Melchizedek priesthood can name and bless their children too, but in that event we're not talking about what we usually think of as a Melchizedek priesthood blessing, even though our Father in heaven was using his priesthood when he gave all fathers authority over their children.A blessing is a blessing. To give a blessing, one needs the mechizedek priesthood.
Freedom Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 I think Jesus would balk at the thought of a mother not being allowed to hold her child that needs soothing during a baby blessing in Sacrament meeting. Maybe this goes back to the reason women weren't allowed to give prayers in Sacrament before 1978. Legalism would be the word I think of and the word discrimination.I think Jesus would balk at the thought that he is not directing his church by revelation and as such, being the one who has required this clarification on priesthood blessings.
Yep Posted February 2, 2013 Author Posted February 2, 2013 Is there a reference that directly contradicts the Ensign statement? It seems that depending on personal view of the term "participate" either position could be viewed as correct.
Freedom Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 I have participated in many a blessing where the parent held the child. This is generally not the case with infants because holding the child is treated the same as putting hands on the head of someone who can sit up on their own. Ultimately it is up to the discretion of the presiding officer such as the bishop.
Tacenda Posted February 2, 2013 Posted February 2, 2013 (edited) I think Jesus would balk at the thought that he is not directing his church by revelation and as such, being the one who has required this clarification on priesthood blessings.Just as Jesus healed the sick on the Sabbath, he wouldn't have a problem with a woman holding her baby, and to clarify, not hold the priesthood. Edited February 2, 2013 by Tacenda
Recommended Posts