Baby Naming - Father Out?

[Stargazer]

If I were in your shoes, I would do the following:

1. I would circle back to the stake president and ask him if he was serious about his counsel.

2. I would express whatever concerns you have about his counsel.

3. I would specifically ask the stake president if he expects me to follow his counsel, and what his response would be if I should decline to do so (that is, would he deem his counsel something more than mere friendly advice).

4. If the stake president responds and says he had been serious, and that he expects me to follow his counsel, I would tell him I would like to take the matter to the area presidency.

5. I would not say publicly anything disparaging about the stake president.  I think we should respect both the individual and the priesthood position he holds, even if he erred in his counsel in a particular instance. 

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I would not do any of that. I would just ignore him (if your wife agrees) and let it be. There's no point in challenging him over it, and certainly no point in bringing anyone in the stake into it.

As far as the SP is concerned, ignorance is bliss. You're not going to counsel with him over your children's names anyway (who the heck ever does that?), so the issue is moot.

Like Sir Paul said, "Let it be".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

On second thought I am not sure coming to the board is going to be all the useful. YOu should do what ever your gut tells you to do and nothing more.

[ALarson]

Perahps I should e-mail the stake president and say, "Kinda worked up over this and I don't want to misunderstand but maybe you could clarify... Oh, and, believe me, I'm making a very concerted effort to not be a domineering husband and father. But this feels a little funny."?

I'd just ignore it and would definitely not send an email to him.  You and your wife will have months to prepare and discuss the name you've chosen for your baby together (once your wife gets pregnant).  I wouldn't make it a problem between you and your Stake President.

 

Why is this an issue for you as a couple?  Are there names that she likes but you don't?  Does she have a strong opinion regarding a certain name?

 

I've actually heard of men changing the baby's name when he gets up to give the baby a name and a blessing (not giving it the name he and his wife had decided upon because he felt inspired to change it).  My first thought was how my wife would react if I'd done this.  BUT, I've never heard that it's only up to the Mother to name the baby.

Edited August 25, 2015 by ALarson

[smac97]

I would not do any of that. I would just ignore him (if your wife agrees) and let it be. There's no point in challenging him over it, and certainly no point in bringing anyone in the stake into it.

As far as the SP is concerned, ignorance is bliss. You're not going to counsel with him over your children's names anyway (who the heck ever does that?), so the issue is moot.

Like Sir Paul said, "Let it be".

 

If the "counsel" from the SP was erroneous, I don't think it should be ignored.

 

If the "counsel" from the SP was merely personal opinion, or a joke, or some such, then I think that should be clarified.

 

I'm not sure blowing off a stake president's advice altogether is a good idea.  If his counsel is sound, it should be duly considered.  If it is not sound, and if he is playing a little fast and loose with dispensing personal opinion or jokes or whatever to soon-to-be-married couples about what could be an important event, then I think the issue needs to be addressed.

 

What happens if the wife wants to be the exclusive arbiter of baby names, but the husband wants to have a say in the process?  And what if the wife invokes the counsel of the stake president to justify her position?  What if the stake president's counsel is not sound?  And what if it becomes a source of division between the husband and wife?

 

The Church teaches its members to seek out counsel from priesthood leaders.  If that counsel proves to be unsound or divisive, I think it would be better to address it rather than ignore it.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[smac97]

I'd just ignore it and would definitely not send an email to him.  You and your wife will have months to prepare and discuss the name you've chosen for your baby together (once your wife gets pregnant).  I wouldn't make it a problem between you and your Stake President.

 

Why is this an issue for you as a couple?  Are there names that she likes but you don't?  Does she have a strong opinion regarding a certain name?

If there is an issue for a couple, and if the issue may implicate controversial counsel provided by a priesthood leader, then I would address that issue with the priesthood leader.

I've actually heard of men changing the baby's name when he gets up to give the baby a name and a blessing (not giving it the name he and his wife had decided upon because he felt inspired to change it).  My first thought was how my wife would react if I'd done this.  BUT, I've never heard that it's only up to the Mother to name the baby.

The naming of a baby can be a very sensitive, important, even sacred thing to parents. If I was given way-out-of-left-field advice from a priesthood leader about such a thing, and if I was not comfortable with it, I would take it up with that leader.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

If the "counsel" from the SP was erroneous, I don't think it should be ignored.

 

If the "counsel" from the SP was merely personal opinion, or a joke, or some such, then I think that should be clarified.

 

I'm not sure blowing off a stake president's advice altogether is a good idea.  If his counsel is sound, it should be duly considered.  If it is not sound, and if he is playing a little fast and loose with dispensing personal opinion or jokes or whatever to soon-to-be-married couples about what could be an important event, then I think the issue needs to be addressed.

 

What happens if the wife wants to be the exclusive arbiter of baby names, but the husband wants to have a say in the process?  And what if the wife invokes the counsel of the stake president to justify her position?  What if the stake president's counsel is not sound?  And what if it becomes a source of division between the husband and wife?

 

The Church teaches its members to seek out counsel from priesthood leaders.  If that counsel proves to be unsound or divisive, I think it would be better to address it rather than ignore it.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

I don't think this counsel was sought and we are under no obligation to obey the personal preferences or philosophy of a bishop or Stake President. Depending on the SP, "addressing it" could cause hard feelings or even impact on the couple and their ability to serve in the church under that SP. It's unlikely, but possible.

 

Treat it just as you would any other unsolicited advice.

[The Nehor]

I would still just pray about it. If God laughs you have your answer.

[ALarson]

If there is an issue for a couple, and if the issue may implicate controversial counsel provided by a priesthood leader, then I would address that issue with the priesthood leader.

The naming of a baby can be a very sensitive, important, even sacred thing to parents. If I was given way-out-of-left-field advice from a priesthood leader about such a thing, and if I was not comfortable with it, I would take it up with that leader.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's why it should be ignored.  This isn't even an issue that needs to be discussed with a member's Priesthood leader.  I would not make a huge deal out of it and cause unnecessary drama or bad feelings with the Stake President.  Planning a wedding and getting married is enough drama and stress without adding that.

Edited August 25, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

I don't think this counsel was sought and we are under no obligation to obey the personal preferences or philosophy of a bishop or Stake President. Depending on the SP, "addressing it" could cause hard feelings or even impact on the couple and their ability to serve in the church under that SP. It's unlikely, but possible.

 

Treat it just as you would any other unsolicited advice.

This.

[Bobbieaware]

Why would your Stake President -- or any other Stake President for that matter -- bring up such an odd point in a marriage interview? And the fact that your wife-to-be jumped up and gleefully said 'I told you so' has "setup" written all over it. What are the chances this previously discussed, semi-contentious issue would come up in this specific marriage interview without your future wife tipping off the Sake President first? Pretty slim, I'd say. Hopefully, this was just some sort of practical joke that went over your head. If not, why shouldn't naming children be a mutual decision, just like all the other decisions in a good and harmonious marriage? That being said, I'll keep my mind open to the possibility this was advice based on what some leader -- or leaders -- of the Church previously said.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[smac97]

I don't think this counsel was sought and we are under no obligation to obey the personal preferences or philosophy of a bishop or Stake President.

Agreed. So if I was in this situation, and if my stake president gave me strange, off-putting, etc. counsel while acting in his specific and formal capacity as a priesthood leader, I would seek clarification to be sure the counsel was offered merely as "personal preferences or philosophy."

 

Depending on the SP, "addressing it" could cause hard feelings or even impact on the couple and their ability to serve in the church under that SP. It's unlikely, but possible.

 

Treat it just as you would any other unsolicited advice.

But the advice was not unsolicited. The meeting between the couple was formal, not by-the-way. The SP was speaking specifically in his capacity as a priesthood leader in the meeting. And the couple sought out the meeting.

Perhaps we're making a mountain out of a molehill. Then again, maybe not. I had a very unpleasant experience with a priesthood leader while serving as a full-time missionary. He said something that was utterly demoralizing and humiliating to me (and, I imagine, to many of the other missionaries who heard it) regarding our efforts as missionaries. Later that day our mission president specifically addressed the remarks which had been made to us and advised that he had been authorized by the priesthood leader to tell us that we could and should disregard the remark in all respects. It was, frankly, a great relief.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 25, 2015 by smac97

[smac97]

That's why it should be ignored.  This isn't even an issue that needs to be discussed with a member's Priesthood leader.  I would not make a huge deal out of it and cause unnecessary drama or bad feelings with the Stake President.  Planning a wedding and getting married is enough drama and stress without adding that.

Again, what if the SP's comments become a source of divisiveness between the couple? What if the husband wants to disregard the SP's advice and the wife does not?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

Again, what if the SP's comments become a source of divisiveness between the couple? What if the husband wants to disregard the SP's advice and the wife does not?

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe they should wait until they're actually having a baby and aren't just planning their wedding.  If this causes a great deal of problems for this couple right now, maybe they need to look at more than just this issue.  It's very odd how she reacted in the SP's office.  Like a "gotcha" moment.

 

I cannot imagine my wife ever wanting to decide all by herself what to name OUR child.  That's a red flag right there IMO.  So maybe there's more to this story?

Edited August 25, 2015 by ALarson

[ttribe]

Never heard of such a thing before.  That's just bizarre.

[smac97]

Maybe they should wait until they're actually having a baby and aren't just planning their wedding.  If this causes a great deal of problems for this couple right now, maybe they need to look at more than just this issue.  It's very odd how she reacted in the SP's office.  Like a "gotcha" moment.

 

I cannot imagine my wife ever wanting to decide all by herself what to name OUR child.  That's a red flag right there IMO.  So maybe there's more to this story?

Yes, that seems a bit odd. Perhaps it was intended for humorous effect. I hope not. In any event, if I were in that situation, I wouldn't wait. If my soon-to-be-wife had triumphantly declared that our priesthood leader was on her "side" of a particular issue, and if that issue is sensitive, and if reasonable minds can disagree about it, and if the priesthood leader's advice was weird and out-of-left-field, I wouldn't wait. I would address it sooner rather than later. I hope I would do so with love and patience and charity, but I would address it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[filovirus]

Just be glad Joseph Smith isn't naming your baby. I can see it now: Mohonri Moriancumer CMZ (is that your last name?)

 

Seriously, come up with a name together, and have your wife give it the OK when it arrives. Done!

[MorningStar]

About to get married for the first time at a somewhat late age and in the whole time, pre- and post-mission, leading up to this moment I have been looking forward to being a strong and compassionate father in the gospel, one who is involved with my wife and children, loves them and doesn't abuse or neglect them. You can fill in more blanks from here. But I received something of a shock a couple days ago as my fiancee and I met with our stake president for the sealing recommend interview and he said that only the wife should be involved in naming the children, that after everything the mother goes through in bearing and delivering the children that the father shouldn't be arrogant enough to assume that he has any say whatsoever in what the children will be named. Of course the mother phsyically goes through a lot ore than the father does in bringing children to the earth and I am very cognizant of that lopsided state of affairs but I had always thought it would be both partners discussing the matter until they came to mutual agreement but now I'm finding out I'm a pretty bad person for thinking I could have any say in the matter. Is there some kind of scriptural/spiritual precedent for this that I should have been enlightened enough to catch before this late stage in my life? I guess maybe it was specific direction just to me to only bow out of this one area of concern?

I would like to think he was joking.  Or did you happen to mention some name ideas and he made it up to save your wife from naming the baby something awful?   

 

This is the way my husband and I have decided on names.

 

Him:  What are we going to name the baby?

Me:  I don't know.

Him:  We have to figure out a name!

Me:  How about ____?

Him:  No.  Reminds me of ____.

Me:  This?

Him:  No.

Me:  That?

Him: No.

Me:  How about?

Him:  That's OK I guess.

 

After he's done shooting down names for various reasons and not giving me a single name that he actually really likes, we have a small list of tolerable names and then after I go through horrific, drug free labor, he's happy with whatever I'm happy with. 

 

[Duncan]

This is CRAZY!!!! I have never heard of this before! naming a baby is no one's business but you and your spouse's-it's a joint decision

[smac97]

You can ignore the SP. Trust me.

 

 

On top of that when I got married my SP said something that was directly opposing what my wife's said. Needless to say, we followed the counsel of her SP.

 

One said that we should not use birth control and let the kids come. The other said to use birth control and have kids when you are ready.

Here is the Church's position on birth control.

 

Beyond that, I will hold my peace.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Stargazer]

 

The Church teaches its members to seek out counsel from priesthood leaders.  If that counsel proves to be unsound or divisive, I think it would be better to address it rather than ignore it.

 

 

Stake Presidents are to be respected, their counsel considered, and they are to be given their due, as the anointed of the Lord.  This does not mean that after offering unsolicited advice about the naming of children -- a very odd thing to volunteer -- that the counselee is then obligated to report back as to how the counsel was obeyed.  Is there anything else the esteemed leader wants to know about and chime in on?  Whether one should have Cheerios or Kix for breakfast? 

 

If I got this counsel from a SP, I would thank him for it, and do what seems right between my wife and I.  Jeeze, he's not the arbiter of how I live my life.

 

Reynolds Cahoon once asked Joseph Smith to give his new son a name.  Joseph named the boy Mahonri Moriancumer.  Joseph did not ask if Sis. Cahoon was OK with him naming the boy, and I'd bet Br. Cahoon didn't ask her about it in advance, either.  Now, THERE'S the precedent.  The wife doesn't get a vote on the name.  I think Joseph Smith outranks a Stake President.

[Stargazer]

Just be glad Joseph Smith isn't naming your baby. I can see it now: Mohonri Moriancumer CMZ (is that your last name?)

 

Seriously, come up with a name together, and have your wife give it the OK when it arrives. Done!

 

Darn, you beat me by three minutes.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Stargazer

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here is the Church's position on birth control.

 

Beyond that, I will hold my peace.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Good. Not sure how any of this disagrees with what I did in my marriage and maybe that is not the point. But it is between a husband and wife and I thought it interesting to get conflicting advice from SPs.

 

Carry on.

Edited August 25, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[smac97]

Stake Presidents are to be respected, their counsel considered, and they are to be given their due, as the anointed of the Lord.  This does not mean that after offering unsolicited advice about the naming of children -- a very odd thing to volunteer -- that the counselee is then obligated to report back as to how the counsel was obeyed.

I was not suggesting that the couple "report back." The OP has indicated that his SP gave him and his fiancee specific counsel about what could be a very important, sacred, topic, and that he (the SP) did so in his specific capacity as a priesthood leader, that his fiancee has now seized on the SP's counsel and declared that the SP is on her "side," and that he (the groom-to-be) is uncomfortable/distressed about all of this.

If the SP was giving counsel about something that was insignificant, or if it was plainly couched as merely personal opinion, and if the couple were united in their thoughts about how to proceed in terms of accepting or not accepting the SP's counsel, then I think you would have a point.

 

If I got this counsel from a SP, I would thank him for it, and do what seems right between my wife and I.  Jeeze, he's not the arbiter of how I live my life.

But it's not that easy, is it? The OP has indicated that his soon-to-be-wife has seized upon the SP's counsel as proof that the SP - their priesthood leader - is on her side of the issue. And it's an issue that I think the vast majority of the Saints would expect to be left solely to the discretion of the couple. Instead, the SP has inserted himself into that decision. There now apparently exists a point of discord between an engaged couple about a sensitive and important topic.

So what should a couple do if the husband wants to ignore the SP's counsel, but the wife does not? Is the husband at liberty to ignore his wife's feelings on the issue? Is the wife at liberty to ignore her husband's?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 25, 2015 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

About to get married for the first time at a somewhat late age and in the whole time, pre- and post-mission, leading up to this moment I have been looking forward to being a strong and compassionate father in the gospel, one who is involved with my wife and children, loves them and doesn't abuse or neglect them. You can fill in more blanks from here. But I received something of a shock a couple days ago as my fiancee and I met with our stake president for the sealing recommend interview and he said that only the wife should be involved in naming the children, that after everything the mother goes through in bearing and delivering the children that the father shouldn't be arrogant enough to assume that he has any say whatsoever in what the children will be named. Of course the mother phsyically goes through a lot ore than the father does in bringing children to the earth and I am very cognizant of that lopsided state of affairs but I had always thought it would be both partners discussing the matter until they came to mutual agreement but now I'm finding out I'm a pretty bad person for thinking I could have any say in the matter. Is there some kind of scriptural/spiritual precedent for this that I should have been enlightened enough to catch before this late stage in my life? I guess maybe it was specific direction just to me to only bow out of this one area of concern?

This sounds awfully weird.

 

How serious was the stake president? From the way you describe it, I think he was way out of line.

Edited August 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

But I received something of a shock a couple days ago as my fiancee and I met with our stake president for the sealing recommend interview and he said that only the wife should be involved in naming the children, that after everything the mother goes through in bearing and delivering the children that the father shouldn't be arrogant enough to assume that he has any say whatsoever in what the children will be named. 

My husband informed me his first son was going to be named "_______", while we were dating iirc.   It mattered to him so I didn't argue.  Liked the first name myself and the middle wasn't dorky sounding so why not.  I called dibs on naming our second...and that was all we managed.

 

Given in the scriptures you have both the father and the mother naming the children (John the Baptist for the first and Jacob's kids for the second...but only the first two wives got to name them, not the actual mothers every time), I don't think there is any doctrinal or scriptural precedent for this and it is the case of one man's opinion.