bluebell Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 43 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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). That would be a tough decision to make.
Ginger Snaps Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 6 hours ago, Storm Rider said: 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. The article said someone from the office of the 12, not the entire q15. Chances are it was some well-meaning person in the office who checked the handbook and kicked it back. We don't even know that the unnamed member of the 12 even saw the email. I don't know, but I would venture a guess that many (if not all) of them have secretaries and assistants that screen. I think it's a huge leap to assume that this is official and final word from HQ. 3
Johnnie Cake Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 9 hours 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. Seriouly, what would it hurt?
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 9 hours 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. How does a circle lay hands on a baby if the mother is holding her? I would think all those hands would be uncomfortable for the mother unless she was holding the baby out as if standing in the circle Just trying to figure out how the logistics could even work 1
thesometimesaint Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 8 hours ago, Jeanne said: 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. When my oldest was a baby I was the only one who could comfort him. I'd come home from a long day's work and my wife would hand him to me because she couldn't take any more of his crying. With about one minute he was asleep in my arms. The other two weren't as hard, but I developed a certain knack with them. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said: The article said someone from the office of the 12, not the entire q15. Chances are it was some well-meaning person in the office who checked the handbook and kicked it back. We don't even know that the unnamed member of the 12 even saw the email. I don't know, but I would venture a guess that many (if not all) of them have secretaries and assistants that screen. I think it's a huge leap to assume that this is official and final word from HQ. Agree- that is how it usually works On the other hand, I am sure they get hundreds of these requests and have a policy Edited August 11, 2016 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 7 hours ago, juliann said: 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. Just trying to visualize it- a newborn in the mother's lap and priesthood surrounding the mother and touching the baby? Or just the dad laying on hands- on the baby?
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 8 hours 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. Which usually just wakes them up and start to cry anyway. The baby can be perfectly asleep and then they start the bouncing. Everytime. It's like it starts all by itself! A miracle!!
juliann Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Just trying to visualize it- a newborn in the mother's lap and priesthood surrounding the mother and touching the baby? Or just the dad laying on hands- on the baby? That was figurative. I am sure, if they can manage a gaggle of men holding a baby they can find a way to include the mother. Unless the problem really is that she isn't allowed to touch a man's hand. 2
juliann Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Just trying to visualize it- a newborn in the mother's lap and priesthood surrounding the mother and touching the baby? Or just the dad laying on hands- on the baby? Why does anyone have to touch the baby aside from the one giving the blessing? Is there some belief that priesthood doesn't work without physical contact?
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, juliann said: That was figurative. I am sure, if they can manage a gaggle of men holding a baby they can find a way to include the mother. Unless the problem really is that she isn't allowed to touch a man's hand. Well that seems silly of course I always ask my wife to participate in blessings, but this is so traditional that I thought that honestly something stupid like the logistics could prevent it from catching on. Usually official blessings require two priesthood holders- maybe it could just be the two plus mom
rockpond Posted August 11, 2016 Author Posted August 11, 2016 45 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said: The article said someone from the office of the 12, not the entire q15. Chances are it was some well-meaning person in the office who checked the handbook and kicked it back. We don't even know that the unnamed member of the 12 even saw the email. I don't know, but I would venture a guess that many (if not all) of them have secretaries and assistants that screen. I think it's a huge leap to assume that this is official and final word from HQ. I think you're right. Not too long ago there was a member of my ward who had an issue that the bishop couldn't resolve, it went to the SP who ended up (at the insistence of the member) sending it to the 15 for an answer. Someone there replied with an answer that the member didn't like. A few weeks passed and the member asked the SP to again, send it up to the 15. That time a different response came back. 1
rockpond Posted August 11, 2016 Author Posted August 11, 2016 42 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Seriouly, what would it hurt? It wouldn't hurt at all.
salgare Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 9 hours 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. I grinned large seeing this. I'm so glad that you had that experience. I hope that if there are other children to following, regardless of this thread, that experience also follows.
thesometimesaint Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 Women/mothers can give a blessing anytime anywhere they want. What they can not do is invoke the Priesthood which they do not hold.
juliann Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Well that seems silly of course I always ask my wife to participate in blessings, but this is so traditional that I thought that honestly something stupid like the logistics could prevent it from catching on. Usually official blessings require two priesthood holders- maybe it could just be the two plus mom I understand the appeal of having a large group of men involved. There is something precious about seeing an infant in the hands of men, I have always enjoyed that visual. But I also never thought about what the mother was missing sitting so far away. I don't see the problem with the invited men simply standing around the baby, they can still crowd in and do the hand on shoulder thing which is kind of cool but the circle could start at the mother's side rather than encircle her. The two priesthood holders and the mom could support the baby. It would certainly be easier on her to stand but if that makes her look like an official participant then I guess she could deferentially sit with the two standing men providing most of the support as she had to raise her arms higher. The problem isn't becoming the exclusion as much as the rationale for the exclusion because women aren't ever denied proximity to their own children in any other blessing situation. So it really has the potential of presenting the idea that the woman is unclean in some way since the only thing that seems to be at issue here is how close she can be to men engaging in a priesthood function. 1
salgare Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: How does a circle lay hands on a baby if the mother is holding her? I would think all those hands would be uncomfortable for the mother unless she was holding the baby out as if standing in the circle Just trying to figure out how the logistics could even work First, after reading the whole thread, it appears no one read the linked blog where strict and rapid instruction from the top was given that women are not to hold their child at church or at home. Now to mfb's post. [deleted per being asked by a poster here, it was an example of how to solve MFB's question] Here in Heber city Prayer Circles were held regularly by the members of the SP and the High Council members, I believe once a month. Before the seminary building was constructed at the old high school they held these circles in the Tabernacle. They were moved to the seminary building and continued there into the 1970's if I remember correctly. When they had an even number of members available the circle was somewhat broken by one member placing their hand on the member that was praying. is that ok? Edited August 11, 2016 by salgare
rockpond Posted August 11, 2016 Author Posted August 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, salgare said: First, after reading the whole thread, it appears no one read the linked blog where strict and rapid instruction from the top was given that women are not to hold their child at church or at home. Now to mfb's post. In the Temple, Salgare -- I think it is a violation of board rules to discuss things that happen in the temple. Would you please delete this?
bluebell Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 8 hours ago, salgare said: I grinned large seeing this. I'm so glad that you had that experience. I hope that if there are other children to following, regardless of this thread, that experience also follows. I appreciate that, but honestly it wasn't really an "experience". I didn't attach any meaning to it. As a mother you hold your babies all the time and this wasn't really any more significant to me than holding one of them so the dr can check their heartbeat or something. I wasn't a part of the blessing in any meaningful way. I understand that some women find great meaning in holding a baby while it's being blessed but I personally don't. I enjoy allowing my husband to have that time and moment, since fathers have very few significant moments with their newborns compared to the mother. I don't have a problem with women who feel differently though. 1
salgare Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 16 minutes ago, bluebell said: I appreciate that, but honestly it wasn't really an "experience". I didn't attach any meaning to it. As a mother you hold your babies all the time and this wasn't really any more significant to me than holding one of them so the dr can check their heartbeat or something. I wasn't a part of the blessing in any meaningful way. I understand that some women find great meaning in holding a baby while it's being blessed but I personally don't. I enjoy allowing my husband to have that time and moment, since fathers have very few significant moments with their newborns compared to the mother. I don't have a problem with women who feel differently though. I understand, it's just part of motherhood and being a good wife. Unfortunately, per the linked blog, you violated Apostolic instruction.
Gray Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, ksfisher said: But he didn't say she could either. I think we need to be careful in contemplating changes. We have no record of anyone claiming that God gave any directions on the matter at all, other than the laying on of hands part., Edited August 11, 2016 by Gray
Gray Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 16 hours ago, ALarson said: 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? . Babies are put on the records as church members, which means a significant portion of the membership of the church is unbaptized.
Jeanne Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: When my oldest was a baby I was the only one who could comfort him. I'd come home from a long day's work and my wife would hand him to me because she couldn't take any more of his crying. With about one minute he was asleep in my arms. The other two weren't as hard, but I developed a certain knack with them. This is so cool..funny how that works..my husband was like this with daughter. With my son..it was so different especially when Dad shaved his beard..Oh my..that took a long time to get used to!!!
thesometimesaint Posted August 11, 2016 Posted August 11, 2016 59 minutes ago, Gray said: Babies are put on the records as church members, which means a significant portion of the membership of the church is unbaptized. No! it just means they are a child of record. They are not considered members until after their baptism.
rockpond Posted August 11, 2016 Author Posted August 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: No! it just means they are a child of record. They are not considered members until after their baptism. I'm not sure that's the case... when I look in the Leader & Clerk Resources data it counts all children of record in our membership numbers.
Recommended Posts