rockpond Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) Interesting blog post relating the experience of one family who asked for the mother to be able to hold her children during their baby blessing: http://flightofthethorups.blogspot.com/2016/08/elastic-heart.html?m=1 From the post: Quote Within 48 hours of that email being sent, a person from the "office of the twelve" contacted my Stake President, who then called my Bishop, who then called Matt and then me (all during a work day for all of us) to inform us that it was not acceptable for me to hold my baby at church or at home during the baby blessing. I'm curious, has anyone here had a mom in their ward/branch hold their baby during the blessing? I've heard of it being done but don't know anyone personally. Edited August 14, 2016 by Nemesis Thread bans
ksfisher Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, rockpond said: Interesting blog post relating the experience of one family who asked for the mother to be able to hold her children during their baby blessing: http://flightofthethorups.blogspot.com/2016/08/elastic-heart.html?m=1 From the post: I'm curious, has anyone here had a mom in their ward/branch hold their baby during the blessing? I've heard of it being done but don't know anyone personally. I've never seen or heard of it.
stemelbow Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 Haven't known anyone personally. Wife was about to on our last baby, but she backed out when she realized her dad was going to be there. We didn't ask. I didn't really think much of it. She just thought she could since we were doing it at home.
bluebell Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 23 minutes ago, rockpond said: Interesting blog post relating the experience of one family who asked for the mother to be able to hold her children during their baby blessing: http://flightofthethorups.blogspot.com/2016/08/elastic-heart.html?m=1 From the post: I'm curious, has anyone here had a mom in their ward/branch hold their baby during the blessing? I've heard of it being done but don't know anyone personally. I held my baby at home when he was blessed. I didn't even think about it whether or not it was acceptable. It was convenient. 3
carbon dioxide Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) Sort of unrelated but are baby blessings really that necessary? I can't recall a convert family of young children who are not old enough to be baptized but not babies requiring to be blessed. Does it happen and I just am not aware of it? I personally don't see how a mom holding a baby interferes in the priesthood blessing. Does the touch of a woman against the skin of the baby somehow short circuit the priesthood power? Edited August 10, 2016 by carbon dioxide
bluebell Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Why not? I honestly have no idea. Moms hold babies during blessings for health all the time. I've also heard of toddlers who were blessed later in life being held by mothers. This happened with me and my mom said she held me on her lap. 2
ksfisher Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Does the touch of a woman against the skin of the baby somehow short circuit the priesthood power? You've revealed the long secret reason why women don't hold the priesthood! 2
ksfisher Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Sort of unrelated but are baby blessings really that necessary? "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 We are obeying the Lord's command by blessing our children.
JLHPROF Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: "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 We are obeying the Lord's command by blessing our children. This is the ONLY scripture reference to this practice in our day, and there is no revealed methodology from God as to who holds the baby. I think it is less about priesthood and more an issue of tradition. The only possible interpretation I can see is in "bring them unto the Elders". It could be interpreted as meaning that the Elders are to take the child from the mother when they bless them. It's also interesting that there is no mention in this scripture about the bestowal of a child's name or their becoming a "child of record". 2
rockpond Posted August 10, 2016 Author Posted August 10, 2016 21 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Why not? The stated reason is that it violates the handbook guidelines. I don't think they provided any other reason.
Jeanne Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: I honestly have no idea. Moms hold babies during blessings for health all the time. I've also heard of toddlers who were blessed later in life being held by mothers. This happened with me and my mom said she held me on her lap. I love this. A child is apt to be quiet and still with the scent of a mother. And as far as a church blessing, if the mother is not giving the blessing, I see no harm. This also holds true to me for other blessings. What if I had not been able to hold my husband's hand with all the priesthood blessings he had? It is just an added comfort and a certain trust that is provided with hope and faith of any blessing. 2
rockpond Posted August 10, 2016 Author Posted August 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, bluebell said: I held my baby at home when he was blessed. I didn't even think about it whether or not it was acceptable. It was convenient. It seems like a better way to keep the baby calm then the current method we men use: bounce the baby into submission. 3
ksfisher Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: This is the ONLY scripture reference to this practice in our day, and there is no revealed methodology from God as to who holds the baby. I think it is less about priesthood and more an issue of tradition. The only possible interpretation I can see is in "bring them unto the Elders". It could be interpreted as meaning that the Elders are to take the child from the mother when they bless them. It's also interesting that there is no mention in this scripture about the bestowal of a child's name or their becoming a "child of record". I wasn't commenting on who can or cannot hold the child, only the necessity.
carbon dioxide Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, ksfisher said: "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 We are obeying the Lord's command by blessing our children. Ok but what if that does not happen and is there an age cut off. For example suppose a family of 3 is baptized. The family has a mom and dad and a 6 year old girl. Does the 6 year old need a blessing. Does that happen? I have never seen a formal blessing in sacrament meeting of a 6 year old. Perhaps I have lived a sheltered life but I don't think it happens.
Jeanne Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: The stated reason is that it violates the handbook guidelines. I don't think they provided any other reason. Huh...this handbook..is there a way to bury this darn thing?? 1
JLHPROF Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Huh...this handbook..is there a way to bury this darn thing?? And correlation along with it? No, I'm kidding. The handbook serves a valid purpose. Ordinances are to be performed with consistency and accuracy. The problem is when policy becomes scripture. 3
carbon dioxide Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Huh...this handbook..is there a way to bury this darn thing?? I guess there needs to be something that keeps things standardized in the Church or else everyone will do their own thing on a lot of different issues. Perhaps some of the things in the handbook could be modified but I do see the necessity of having something like it.
ksfisher Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 minute ago, carbon dioxide said: Ok but what if that does not happen and is there an age cut off. For example suppose a family of 3 is baptized. The family has a mom and dad and a 6 year old girl. Does the 6 year old need a blessing. Does that happen? I have never seen a formal blessing in sacrament meeting of a 6 year old. Perhaps I have lived a sheltered life but I don't think it happens. My opinion is that a child can be blessed anytime up until they are baptized. As JHLPROF has noted, when a child is blessed a membership record is created. Baptism of a non child of record individual also triggers the creation of membership record. In general, the blessing of a child introduces that person into the congregation until such time as they are baptized and become a full member of the church. 1
rockpond Posted August 10, 2016 Author Posted August 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Huh...this handbook..is there a way to bury this darn thing?? No, it's digital. 1
carbon dioxide Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: My opinion is that a child can be blessed anytime up until they are baptized. As JHLPROF has noted, when a child is blessed a membership record is created. Baptism of a non child of record individual also triggers the creation of membership record. In general, the blessing of a child introduces that person into the congregation until such time as they are baptized and become a full member of the church. Yes but does a 6 year old have to be given a name and a blessing if their parents convert.
ksfisher Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 9 minutes ago, rockpond said: It seems like a better way to keep the baby calm then the current method we men use: bounce the baby into submission. I never had to bounce any of my children. I'd put the tip of my little finger in their mouths. Worked four times with no problems. The bouncing thing really doesn't seem that effective.
carbon dioxide Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: I never had to bounce any of my children. I'd put the tip of my little finger in their mouths. Worked four times with no problems. The bouncing thing really doesn't seem that effective. When in doubt, duct tape always works. Duct tape is the greatest invention ever. 1
rockpond Posted August 10, 2016 Author Posted August 10, 2016 8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: And correlation along with it? No, I'm kidding. The handbook serves a valid purpose. Ordinances are to be performed with consistency and accuracy. The problem is when policy becomes scripture. 6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I guess there needs to be something that keeps things standardized in the Church or else everyone will do their own thing on a lot of different issues. Perhaps some of the things in the handbook could be modified but I do see the necessity of having something like it. I have to admit, that in my calling, I do appreciate having the handbooks to look to for guidance. But, I agree with JLHPROF... we have to remember that they are still policy, not scripture. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 52 minutes ago, rockpond said: Interesting blog post relating the experience of one family who asked for the mother to be able to hold her children during their baby blessing: http://flightofthethorups.blogspot.com/2016/08/elastic-heart.html?m=1 From the post: I'm curious, has anyone here had a mom in their ward/branch hold their baby during the blessing? I've heard of it being done but don't know anyone personally. Yes. But it was a small toddler, (maybe 2 years old) not a baby. Perhaps that makes a difference. I don't know. The mom sat in the chair holding the child and the priesthood holders placed their hands on the child's head. It wasn't a big deal. No one thought the mom was exercising priesthood power by holding the child. She played a functional role and held him. Refusing to allow a mother to hold a child is a silly rule at best. 4
Recommended Posts