Baby blessings at home.

[Rivers]

It has become somewhat common for parents in the church to have their babies blessed at home rather than at church.  But the Doctrine and Covenents says in section 20 verse 70:

 "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." (Emphasis mine.)

 

So why are babies being blessed at home?

[Duncan]

I know a family that both sides of the family are Albertan and man alive they bred like bedbugs and it was seriously too many people to jam into a church with all the rest of us so they did it at a family reunion deal, outside of course

[bluebell]

We blessed out third son at my parents' home because our ward was 8 hours away from all of our family and it didn't make sense to bless him without any family present. 

At my parents home we had 4 generations of family present. 

[ksfisher]

Our fourth child was blessed at my parents house as my mother was homebound.

I don't think that the phrase "before the church" has to mean "in sacrament meeting."  In our case our bishop, as a representative of the church and the presiding priesthood authority, was present.  

Handbook 2 states

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

(20.2.1)

I believe that this is the "norm" in the church, excepting some circumstances which are approved by the proper priesthood authority.

 

[Freedom]

It would be interesting to find other directives from the D&C that we are not practicing to the letter. 

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Freedom said:

It would be interesting to find other directives from the D&C that we are not practicing to the letter. 

Perhaps, but as much as I revere the Doctrine and Covenants as Scripture: (1) We're not bibliolaters; and (2) It doesn't necessarily contain the Lord's latest revelation intended for us today.  

It reminds me of an anecdote once related by Elder Glenn L. Pace (though he might've been in the Presiding Bishopric at the time).  Once, he told of hearing a man say, "I would have died for the Prophet Joseph Smith."  Elder Pace's response? "Wonderful!  What are you doing for President Gordon B. Hinckley today?"  Also, remember the Savior's response when the Pharisees rebuked his disciples for harvesting corn to eat on the Sabbath: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).  And don't forget King Benjamin's exhortation to his people: "And see that all these things are done in wisdom and in order" (Mosiah 2:27).   Similar principles apply here. Notwithstanding the "shall" language of the Doctrine and Covenants, naming and blessing of children is not a saving ordinance, and the sin qua non of the ordinance is the Bishop's approval, not where it is done.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Freedom]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps, but as much as I revere the Doctrine and Covenants as Scripture: (1) We're not bibliolaters; and (2) It doesn't necessarily contain the Lord's latest revelation intended for us today.  

It reminds me of an anecdote once related by Elder Glenn L. Pace (though he might've been in the Presiding Bishopric at the time).  Once, he told of hearing a man say, "I would have died for the Prophet Joseph Smith."  Elder Pace's response? "Wonderful!  What are you doing for President Gordon B. Hinckley today?"  Also, remember the Savior's response when the Pharisees rebuked his disciples for harvesting corn to eat on the Sabbath: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27).  And don't forget King Benjamin's exhortation to his people: "And see that all these things are done in wisdom and in order" (Mosiah 2:27).   Similar principles apply here. Notwithstanding the "shall" language of the Doctrine and Covenants, naming and blessing of children is not a saving ordinance, and the sin qua non of the ordinance is the Bishop's approval, not where it is done.

This is a good point and, finding other teachings in the D&C that are not practiced would give context to 20:70. Remember, it was the verse in the D&C that had the church change its policy towards converts requiring them to be confirmed in front of the congregation so it goes both ways. 

[Jeanne]

I loved the idea actually.  A child blessed at home without all extra hands.  Would love to hear that someday Mom is a part of the circle.

[rongo]

15 hours ago, Rivers said:

It has become somewhat common for parents in the church to have their babies blessed at home rather than at church.  But the Doctrine and Covenents says in section 20 verse 70:

 "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." (Emphasis mine.)

 

So why are babies being blessed at home?

The relevant phrase is "before the church." Even home baby blessings have to have a bishopric member present, and he represents "the church." Similarly, the D&C 20:37 requirement that converts "witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins" is fulfilled in our day through a baptismal interview. Not affirming repentance "before the church." 

Home baby blessings are regarded in the same vein, I think. D&C 20 requirements are met, but with modern adaptation.

[The Nehor]

My sister-in-law wanted it done that way. Did not realize it was a thing. Bishop planned to come but ended up unable to and called my brother and told him to go ahead and do it. They announced the baby's name and that the blessing was done in Sacrament Meeting. Avoids taking up time in church and you do not have the silly Lion King thing where you hold the confused baby up before the whole ward.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My sister-in-law wanted it done that way. Did not realize it was a thing. Bishop planned to come but ended up unable to and called my brother and told him to go ahead and do it.

The bishop "deemed it passed." Like how Obamacare was originally passed without an actual vote (to shield congressmen from having to justify their votes or no-votes). . .

In this case, the bishop used his authority. He had pretty good reason for believing that the ordinance took place . . .

[rpn]

Because people are doing a social thing, equivalent to a christening, all about families, and many don't even know that its purpose is to introduce the child to the congregation?   

Since it isn't a saving ordinance, and you can put your child's name on church records without a blessing, it is completely optional in any case.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

The bishop "deemed it passed." Like how Obamacare was originally passed without an actual vote (to shield congressmen from having to justify their votes or no-votes). . .

In this case, the bishop used his authority. He had pretty good reason for believing that the ordinance took place . . .

It did.

And that bit about the Affordable Care Act is a myth. Proper procedure was followed.

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My sister-in-law wanted it done that way. Did not realize it was a thing. Bishop planned to come but ended up unable to and called my brother and told him to go ahead and do it. They announced the baby's name and that the blessing was done in Sacrament Meeting. Avoids taking up time in church and you do not have the silly Lion King thing where you hold the confused baby up before the whole ward.

On the other hand, the birth of a child is something our people should celebrate. Presenting the child to the congregation is a joyous moment we can and should share. We have so few of those left. It fosters a feeling of community, love, appreciation, and unity.

Were I to be bishop again, I would have the family stand together with all the relatives who attended and the congregation applaud the parents, if not with their hands, with their hearts. 

Edited July 10, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

On July 9, 2016 at 6:15 AM, ksfisher said:

Our fourth child was blessed at my parents house as my mother was homebound.

I don't think that the phrase "before the church" has to mean "in sacrament meeting."  In our case our bishop, as a representative of the church and the presiding priesthood authority, was present.  

Handbook 2 states

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

(20.2.1)

I believe that this is the "norm" in the church, excepting some circumstances which are approved by the proper priesthood authority.

 

I interpret the word "normally" in the handbook as meaning it applies except when circumstances make it inconvenient. 

I think the policy says that "normally" two or more men holding the Melchizedek Priesthood administer blessings of healing with consecrated oil, but one may do it alone. Over the years, I have given countless priesthood blessings at home. As the only Melchizedek Priesthood holder at our house, I have almost always done it by myself, reasoning that I was allowed under policy to do so, and it would have been needlessly inconvenient to expect someone else to come to our home immediately to assist me. 

I now look forward to having our eldest son, who now holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, assist me after he returns from his mission. I view it with sweet anticipation, in fact. 

Edited July 10, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I interpret the word "normally" in the handbook as meaning it applies except when circumstances make it inconvenient. 

I think the policy says that "normally" two or more men holding the Melchizedek Priesthood administer blessings of healing with consecrated oil, but one may do it alone. Over the years, I have given countless priesthood blessings at home. As the only Melchizedek Priesthood holder at our house, I have almost always done it by myself, reasoning that I was allowed under policy to do so, and it would have been needlessly inconvenient to expect someone else to come to our home immediately to assist me. 

I now look forward to having our eldest son, who now holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, assist me after he returns from his mission. I view it with sweet anticipation, in fact. 

My husband always does blessings of health for our family on his own.  Like you said, if it's o.k., it doesn't make sense to drag someone over to the house.

[Atheist Mormon]

On 7/8/2016 at 9:00 PM, Rivers said:

So why are babies being blessed at home?

Because the baby is among the families......

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

My husband always does blessings of health for our family on his own.  Like you said, if it's o.k., it doesn't make sense to drag someone over to the house.

Well, I am thinking this would be a great thing for a home teacher to do.

[waveslider]

On 7/9/2016 at 6:57 AM, Jeanne said:

I loved the idea actually.  A child blessed at home without all extra hands.  Would love to hear that someday Mom is a part of the circle.

If women ever got the priesthood than the men would end up letting all of the women do everything in the church. Just look at how much the relief society already does, and how little the elders even do their home teaching already. If the power was delegated to the women to run everything I think you women would end up with way too much on your plate. It already seems like you have a lot to do anyway. I say be careful what you wish for. If it came true it might not be as rosy as you think. How many times does a husband not want to get up in the middle of the night to help with a small baby, and leaves it up to the wife. Now imagine getting calls to perform a priesthood blessing in the middle of the night, on top of that, if the responsibility was pawned off to you women as well. Just my two cents worth anyway.

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Because the baby is among the families......

The ward is a sort of family though, too.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, waveslider said:

If women ever got the priesthood than the men would end up letting all of the women do everything in the church. 

I don't buy the men are naturally lazy bums scenario.  Look at major companies and all the men at the top.  They didn't have to be there.  While women are starting to be a force in start ups, men are still being innovators and entrepreneurs because they are motivated just like women are to improve their own and others' lives.

Teach men what is expected of them and they are generally just as willing and eager as women to fill that role, imo.

[waveslider]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't buy the men are naturally lazy bums scenario.  Look at major companies and all the men at the top.  They didn't have to be there.  While women are starting to be a force in start ups, men are still being innovators and entrepreneurs because they are motivated just like women are to improve their own and others' lives.

Teach men what is of them and they are generally just as willing and eager as women to fill that role, imo.

I know, I wasn't being totally serious. That's why I put the smiley face to show it was meant as light hearted. Although one of the big motivators for me are because I know responsibilities fall upon me, and there are times when I feel like if someone else is going to do it, I don't have to sweat it as hard if it is too hard to do something, whereas if I know the responsibility lies more solely upon me, I'll end up bending over back wards to try and get it done. So for me, at least, there is some truth to it.

[Calm]

I feel the same way.  The vast majority of women I know well think of responsibility in much the same way.

I think that is a human characteristic.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Calm

[Rain]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I interpret the word "normally" in the handbook as meaning it applies except when circumstances make it inconvenient. 

I think the policy says that "normally" two or more men holding the Melchizedek Priesthood administer blessings of healing with consecrated oil, but one may do it alone. Over the years, I have given countless priesthood blessings at home. As the only Melchizedek Priesthood holder at our house, I have almost always done it by myself, reasoning that I was allowed under policy to do so, and it would have been needlessly inconvenient to expect someone else to come to our home immediately to assist me. 

I now look forward to having our eldest son, who now holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, assist me after he returns from his mission. I view it with sweet anticipation, in fact. 

That's basically how we feel.  In the middle of the night DH does it alone.  Normally, at any other time he calls someone else because we feel it helps us be more unified with other members.  

So I can see reasons for the blessings in homes,  though,  for us,  normally we would still do it at church to unify with the ward. 

Edited July 11, 2016 by Rain

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don't buy the men are naturally lazy bums scenario.  Look at major companies and all the men at the top.  They didn't have to be there.  While women are starting to be a force in start ups, men are still being innovators and entrepreneurs because they are motivated just like women are to improve their own and others' lives.

Teach men what is expected of them and they are generally just as willing and eager as women to fill that role, imo.

Plus as a purely historical point feminism would not have been a thing if men's natural inclination was to "lie back and think of England". They want to be involved.

For better or worse we have created a media culture where men are portrayed as lovable doofuses. While true at times I do not think it is my defining attribute. Nor do I think it applies to most men. It can just become expected and the jokes about male idiocy multiply because humor is heavily influenced by culture and media.