ksfisher Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Yes but does a 6 year old have to be given a name and a blessing if their parents convert. They can. I've never seen it, but there's no reason they can't. The current expectation is that church members, after the birth of a child, will have the child blessed (D&C 20:70). Explanations for what to do in various situations, such as the older children of converts, have never been addressed. I don't see any compelling need for the church to do so.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 33 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: 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? It used to be that the only way to create a membership record for a child not born in the covenant, prior to baptism, was to do a blessing. I've seen it quite a bit. But I think clerks are now able to create records without doing a blessing. 1
JLHPROF Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 Just now, rockpond said: 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. It is also valid to recognize that sometimes the policies and traditions were given to the prophets by inspiration, even if no revelation was ever recorded. It makes it hard to determine God's will from their opinions, but I find it easier to follow the tradition. It's the whole "sacrament with the right hand" thing. Or the correct way to dispose of the garments or temple clothing when they wear out. I picture someone in Nauvoo asking Joseph or Brigham what they should do, Joseph or Brigham thinking/praying for a moment, and giving an inspired answer that has become our tradition today. Obviously throwing them in the trash would be wrong, but there is no recorded revelation. So, we follow the prophetic tradition. Sometimes it surprises me which of these traditions just atrophy away of their own accord. Home dedications being a priesthood ordinance would be a good example of this. 3
sunstoned Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour 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. There is no reason that it shouldn't be acceptable. You are the mother and you should be allowed to participate. 2
Popular Post juliann Posted August 10, 2016 Popular Post Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour 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. We had a family who adopted 4 siblings. After the adoption was finalized (the judge signed it Christmas morning!) they were all blessed. The very TBM mother held the youngest one, maybe 3 yrs old. She said it was an overwhelming spiritual experience for her to be included. 7
rockpond Posted August 10, 2016 Author Posted August 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, juliann said: We had a family who adopted 4 siblings. After the adoption was finalized (the judge signed it Christmas morning!) they were all blessed. The very TBM mother held the youngest one, maybe 3 yrs old. She said it was an overwhelming spiritual experience for her to be included. Awesome! What an incredible family. 1
ksfisher Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 12 minutes ago, sunstoned said: There is no reason that it shouldn't be acceptable. You are the mother and you should be allowed to participate. ...except that the ordinance/blessing does not belong to the mother (or even the father), it's God's. He has the right to say who should or should not participate. As He is the author and finisher of our faith we should always be most sensitive to His wishes. 1
sunstoned Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, juliann said: We had a family who adopted 4 siblings. After the adoption was finalized (the judge signed it Christmas morning!) they were all blessed. The very TBM mother held the youngest one, maybe 3 yrs old. She said it was an overwhelming spiritual experience for her to be included. This is excellent. Something that this family will remember for ever!
Storm Rider Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour 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". Oh, I don't know about that. If the FP and the 12 call you and tell you a woman should not hold the baby then I think that is pretty clear what is and what is not appropriate. It is possible that my tea leaves are connecting dots, but then again, it could be I am listening.
rockpond Posted August 10, 2016 Author Posted August 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, ksfisher said: ...except that the ordinance/blessing does not belong to the mother (or even the father), it's God's. He has the right to say who should or should not participate. As He is the author and finisher of our faith we should always be most sensitive to His wishes. I don't recall Him telling us that a Mom can't hold her baby for the blessing.
Storm Rider Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 21 minutes ago, sunstoned said: There is no reason that it shouldn't be acceptable. You are the mother and you should be allowed to participate. I suppose that one of the few times a father actually has a role that it should be diminished even more because gosh, a mother is not already involved in enough things. Besides, he is only the twit father and is not capable of doing it by himself. Got it.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: 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? Maybe it's like going on a mission if you're a guy: It's something you ought to do but is not fatal if you don't. While I was single, I was serving as a ward mission leader. The full-time missionaries baptized a couple -- or it may have been one or the other spouse in a part member family. Anyway, they had six very young children. They asked me as ward mission leader to bless all six at the next fast and testimony meeting. I had never even blessed one baby before, let alone six children at a time. Talk about on-the-job training! 1
carbon dioxide Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 13 minutes ago, juliann said: We had a family who adopted 4 siblings. After the adoption was finalized (the judge signed it Christmas morning!) they were all blessed. The very TBM mother held the youngest one, maybe 3 yrs old. She said it was an overwhelming spiritual experience for her to be included. Thanks for sharing. It not something I have seen.
sunstoned Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: ...except that the ordinance/blessing does not belong to the mother (or even the father), it's God's. He has the right to say who should or should not participate. As He is the author and finisher of our faith we should always be most sensitive to His wishes. I disagree. The blessing is for the family and to add the child's name to the records of the church. That's it. No other references are made in the scriptures. I don't recall God ever saying that the mother, the carried the child for nine months, the one who will be the principle in nurturing and raising the child for the next twenty years cannot be involved in this ceremony. It is time for the church to re-evaluate their traditions and start to embrace diversity. We are no longer a regional Western U.S. organization. We need to think globally and to adjust our thinking to fit into the twenty first century. 1
Popular Post juliann Posted August 10, 2016 Popular Post Posted August 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, sunstoned said: This is excellent. Something that this family will remember for ever! Indeed. And my forward thinking Bishop who knows my leanings, walked by after the meeting and whispered, "There should be no reason mothers can't hold babies, either." My view is that if they could put the baby in a basket without anyone blinking, then surely they can put the baby in the mother's lap. It is particularly silly when this isn't even an ordinance. The problem seems to be with bishops who feel a need to go get permission. Although, I'm sure there will always be the gate keepers who will rat them out anyway. 7
ksfisher Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don't recall Him telling us that a Mom can't hold her baby for the blessing. But he didn't say she could either. I think we need to be careful in contemplating changes. 1
Jeanne Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 13 minutes ago, sunstoned said: This is excellent. Something that this family will remember for ever! I agree.
ksfisher Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, sunstoned said: It is time for the church to re-evaluate their traditions and start to embrace diversity. We are no longer a regional Western U.S. organization. We need to think globally and to adjust our thinking to fit into the twenty first century. Our thoughts, first and foremost, should be directed towards pleasing God. We are not a West US organization. We are not a global organization. We are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We do as he commands. 3
Calm Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said: Yes but does a 6 year old have to be given a name and a blessing if their parents convert. It is their choice just as it is for an infant: https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings/20.2?lang=eng&_r=1#202
Calm Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: They can. I've never seen it, but there's no reason they can't. The current expectation is that church members, after the birth of a child, will have the child blessed (D&C 20:70). Explanations for what to do in various situations, such as the older children of converts, have never been addressed. I don't see any compelling need for the church to do so. I have but it was long ago. What to do is in the handbook. Edited August 10, 2016 by Calm
Popular Post Calm Posted August 10, 2016 Popular Post Posted August 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, juliann said: . It is particularly silly when this isn't even an ordinance. It is an ordinance, just not a salvific one: https://www.lds.org/manual/family-guidebook/priesthood-ordinances-and-blessings?lang=eng "Ordinances that require priesthood leader authorization are naming and blessing children, performing baptisms and confirmations, conferring the priesthood and ordaining to a priesthood office, blessing and passing thesacrament, and dedicating graves." 5
carbon dioxide Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 20 minutes ago, sunstoned said: It is time for the church to re-evaluate their traditions and start to embrace diversity. We are no longer a regional Western U.S. organization. We need to think globally and to adjust our thinking to fit into the twenty first century. I don't see a problem with changing some traditions but I don't think its wise to have our thinking fit into a 21st century view. Not everything in the 21st century is good and not everything from prior centuries is bad. 2
hope_for_things Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour 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. BoC 1833 edition: Quote Every member of this 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 the Lord, and bless them in the name of Christ. Interesting that the wording changed a little. Also interesting that the name of the church was the church of Christ. The 1829 earliest version of this revelation which was penned by Oliver Cowdery and specifically says its a revelation given to Oliver, doesn't have this message about children needing to be blessed. http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/appendix-3-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-june-1829#!/paperSummary/appendix-3-articles-of-the-church-of-christ-june-1829&p=2 I wonder what circumstances changed over the course of a few years that led to an emphasis on baby blessings? Does anyone know of outside influences that may have prompted this emphasis between 1829 and 1833?
ALarson Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 (edited) 40 minutes ago, sunstoned said: I disagree. The blessing is for the family and to add the child's name to the records of the church. That's it. I think that their name will still be added to the records. We actually had a family who opted out of blessing (and naming) their baby because the Mother couldn't hold the baby. It ended up being kind of a mess and she just said, "That's fine, then we'll just skip it." My Bishop was fine with her holding the baby, but asked the SP who said he believed that wasn't allowed (he didn't go any higher up). Anyway, this child is on the records with the other, older children in that family (from what I've seen). Is a child even officially on the records of the church until they are baptized? . Edited August 10, 2016 by ALarson 1
hope_for_things Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour 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 agree. Also, considering the early timing of this revelation we really don't have a fully developed Priesthood theology at this time, it takes a few more years for that to develop.
Recommended Posts