A blessing of 'release'

[Fether]

My wife rotates between 5 Latter-day Saint films every Sunday. Today it was time for our 30th run throw of “Love Kennedy”. At the end *SPOILER* the father gives Kennedy a blessing if release. My uncle also “released” my grandmother and often talks about doing so when she comes up in conversation (my uncle is a bit of a strange person and often misinterprets culture and official teachings)

Where does this come from? And what is the purpose?

I didn’t find anything from official sources. I found one persons description that it was a way for a family to release an individual from this life as if it being released from a calling… but that seemed inappropriate.

Is there any backing in this? Or was it just done once by someone of note and everyone was like “that’s cool, I’ll do that!” And it became a cultural thing.

Edited July 5, 2021 by Fether

[The Nehor]

It was probably said as part of a blessing as a comfort to someone who was dying.

Then some saints did what many always seem to do and started generalizing.

I have noticed that fewer General Authorities are sharing details of religious family traditions. I suspect this tendency is why.

[bluebell]

I always just thought of it as a blessing for the person to die (given when death was certain but the body was still doing everything it could to keep going) so they could stop suffering.  On one hand it's a bit of the opposite of a blessing of healing, so can seem weird if that's as far as someone contemplates it.

But if you think about it, it's actually the same thing as a healing blessing, in that both kinds of blessings are a request (or a command) that the body do something it wasn't (yet) going to do on its own, for the benefit of the person being blessed.

So I don't personally know that there needs to be backing specifically about blessings to die, as I don't see them as unique.  But, if there is a teaching on it hopefully someone will share as I'm sure it would be very interesting to learn more about.

[JLHPROF]

This may be a remnant of an old Church practice and ordinance that is not part of our current beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_19th-century_Mormonism

Really interesting article.  I recommend reading it all.  Some pertinent quotes:

Quote

The dying were either blessed to be healed or to be received into heaven, depending on the person's wishes. A phenomenon is known as the "beautiful death" set forth traditions such as family and friends gathering around a person's deathbed to witness their transition into the next life. 

Quote

In the midst of opposition, Joseph Smith told his followers not to fear, for mobs "[could] only kill the body," not the soul.[17] This belief led to the practice of "dedicating" the dying to speed up the process of death once it was obvious that a person was beyond saving. A prayer would be said aloud, pleading with God to accept the dying man or woman into heaven, and the actual event of death was expected to occur moments later.[3]:36–37 The person was also anointed with consecrated oil and blessed in preparation for their burial. This ceremony was seen as an important extension of the holy ordinances performed in temples; it was the last rite of passage, of sorts, for Mormons. Those who yearned to pass on to the next life and thus be relieved of pain and suffering often asked for this ritual to be performed for them. Once the Mormon pioneers reached Utah, more instances of dedicatory prayers for the dead were documented.

Just another part of our Church past that has gone into obscurity but left traces behind.

ETA - big article by Stapely I now plan on devouring.  https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/last-rites-and-the-dynamics-of-mormon-liturgy/

 

Edited July 5, 2021 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I always just thought of it as a blessing for the person to die (given when death was certain but the body was still doing everything it could to keep going) so they could stop suffering.  On one hand it's a bit of the opposite of a blessing of healing, so can seem weird if that's as far as someone contemplates it.

But if you think about it, it's actually the same thing as a healing blessing, in that both kinds of blessings are a request (or a command) that the body do something it wasn't (yet) going to do on its own, for the benefit of the person being blessed.

So I don't personally know that there needs to be backing specifically about blessings to die, as I don't see them as unique.  But, if there is a teaching on it hopefully someone will share as I'm sure it would be very interesting to learn more about.

It does make you wonder how many of those people who have blessed people to die are morally opposed to compassionate euthanasia, which is precisely what they are acting as an agent in.

FYI, I am in favor of compassionate euthanasia after my experiences from working as a hospice nurse. 

[Peacefully]

My second husband was in hospice at our home and was in a coma for about two weeks. One night the bishop came by and gave him a blessing and let him know that he could finally let go. I believe it was a blessing of release. He passed 4 hrs later, deep in the night. One of the most powerful experiences I have ever had. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

It does make you wonder how many of those people who have blessed people to die are morally opposed to compassionate euthanasia, which is precisely what they are acting as an agent in.

FYI, I am in favor of compassionate euthanasia after my experiences from working as a hospice nurse. 

I don't believe that asking God to end someone's life is the same as a person choosing to end someone's life.  So I don't see praying that God will use His authority over life and death to end someone's life is the same as someone usurping that authority and using it themselves. 

God's ways are not my ways.

[The Nehor]

How does one get one of these blessings? Asking for a friend.

[InCognitus]

There's a big difference between a person praying for someone to be released from life, and giving someone a blessing and being told by the Spirit to release them from life.  The first is someone trying to impose their will upon God, and the second is someone pronouncing God's will upon another person.  Obviously prayers on the behalf of others have a purpose, but I'm trying to make the distinction.

I have personally never had the experience in a blessing where someone was released from life, but in one case, when blessing my grandfather after a heart attack, there were specific promises given for his comfort and care, but only for a period of time.  (My grandfather was a Stake Patriarch, so it was a very humbling experience for me to give the blessing).  And I knew, without any doubt, that those promises didn't come from my own desires, and that my grandfather had a only short time with us after that.  But it was a productive time for my grandfather, and it made a big impression on me.

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

It does make you wonder how many of those people who have blessed people to die are morally opposed to compassionate euthanasia, which is precisely what they are acting as an agent in.

FYI, I am in favor of compassionate euthanasia after my experiences from working as a hospice nurse. 

Yep me too!

[pogi]

On 7/4/2021 at 9:20 PM, bluebell said:

I don't believe that asking God to end someone's life is the same as a person choosing to end someone's life.  So I don't see praying that God will use His authority over life and death to end someone's life is the same as someone usurping that authority and using it themselves. 

God's ways are not my ways.

I see the distinction, but it is still euthanasia.  Why should this blessing (is there anyone who doesn't agree that it is indeed a blessing?) be limited to be performed by members of the church only, when the capacity for greater compassion could be extended to anyone who might meet specific requirements?  Does God really look down on compassionate euthanasia, or is that just our faulty understanding of his law which is taken out of context.  Do we really need his "authority" to serve others in this way?  I remain unconvinced. 

Edited July 6, 2021 by pogi

[Rain]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I see the distinction, but it is still euthanasia.  Why should this blessing (is there anyone who doesn't agree that it is indeed a blessing?) be limited to be performed by members of the church only when the capacity for greater compassion could be extended to anyone who might meet specific requirements?  Does God really look down on compassionate euthanasia, or is that just our faulty understanding of his law which is taken out of context.  Do we really need his "authority" to serve others in this way?  I remain unconvinced. 

I know someone close to me "released" a family member. The way he described it was not a "go", but a "you can go" kind of idea.  That it was giving them the choice still and letting it be up to God.  I'm pretty sure he would not be ok with euthanasia.  For him that would be taking God out of the equation.

I could be wrong. He has surprised me a lot the last couple of years with his thinking, but since this happened about 40 years I think I am pretty sure about how he felt about it then.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Rain

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, Rain said:

I know someone close to me "released" a family member. The way he described it was not a "go", but a "you can go" kind of idea.  That it was giving them the choice still and letting it be up to God.  I'm pretty sure he would not be ok with euthanasia.  For him that would be taking God out of the equation.

I could be wrong. He has surprised me a lot the last couple of years with his thinking, but since this happened about 40 years I think I am probably about how he felt about it then.

I would suspect most would agree with him and are against euthanasia.  I also suspect that if they had first hand experience as a hospice nurse, most would be much more open to the idea.   My question is why should the blessing of death be limited to Mormons only, when the blessing of life is given to all - without the need to invoke his authority?  Just something to think about.  

[Rain]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I would suspect most would agree with him and are against euthanasia.  I also suspect that if they had first hand experience as a hospice nurse, most would be much more open to the idea.   My question is why should the blessing of death be limited to Mormons only, when the blessing of life is given to all - without the need to invoke his authority?  Just something to think about.  

His sister was a hospice nurse and pretty open about her experiences.  I know not first hand like you said.  But I do think he has heard enough that it wouldn't change his mind.  Experiences like often do change minds, but not all the time, especially when one has strong feelings.

But if we are going with the idea of limiting this to Mormon experience couldn't we go with that to pretty much everything?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

I see the distinction, but it is still euthanasia.  Why should this blessing (is there anyone who doesn't agree that it is indeed a blessing?) be limited to be performed by members of the church only, when the capacity for greater compassion could be extended to anyone who might meet specific requirements?  Does God really look down on compassionate euthanasia, or is that just our faulty understanding of his law which is taken out of context.  Do we really need his "authority" to serve others in this way?  I remain unconvinced. 

Euthanasia is painlessly killing someone who is dying.  Are you suggesting that if someone prays that God will allow someone to die that's the same as killing the person?  Because if you are then I can't disagree more.

And that's why blessings of release are not the same thing as euthanasia.  

Yes, I believe that God does look down on anyone who usurps His authority over life and death, regardless of their justifications.  

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

His sister was a hospice nurse and pretty open about her experiences.  I know not first hand like you said.  But I do think he has heard enough that it wouldn't change his mind.  Experiences like often do change minds, but not all the time, especially when one has strong feelings.

You are right, experience wont convince everyone.  In most cases, it would require a drastic new understanding of scripture or the church's approval before they would ever consider it.  I respect that.  My own personal experience has led me to take a different position on this particular issue.  We all know that there are exceptions to the law "thou shalt not kill", so I am not confident that there has been a revelation one way or the other on this one.   

[Tacenda]

During my mom's hard times of living with Alzheimer's toward the end especially my dad once said, "They put down animals that suffer why not humans?". And I agree with him. I am wondering how I'm going to off myself humanely and do it in a way that my children/grandchildren will be supportive of it as well. My husband is totally on board probably because he has it drilled into his head that I don't want to live 10 years with Alzheimer's like my mother. 

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Euthanasia is painlessly killing someone who is dying.  Are you suggesting that if someone prays that God will allow someone to die that's the same as killing the person?  Because if you are then I can't disagree more.

If the person would have lived longer without divine intervention, then the intervention is what terminated their life.  The only difference is that it was a divine intervention instead of a medical intervention.

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 Yes, I believe that God does look down on anyone who usurps His authority over life and death, regardless of their justifications.  

God gave us agency to create life.  No authority (permission) required beyond what is already given.  I agree that agency can be abused but there is absolutely no authority usurped in such cases - God already gave us the authority and power to use within his limits.  I feel the same is true with death.  There are several examples I could use. 

Edited July 6, 2021 by pogi

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

If the person would have lived longer without divine intervention, then the intervention is what terminated their life.  The only difference is that it was a divine intervention instead of a medical intervention.

God gave us agency to create life.  No authority (permission) required beyond what is already given.  I agree that agency can be abused but there is absolutely no authority usurped in such cases - God already gave us the authority and power to use within his limits.  I feel the same is true with death.  There are several examples I could use. 

I would love to hear the "several examples", I can't tell you how much this has consumed my brain. On Sunday my sisters visited with their families and my oldest is 67. She wasn't the sister I remember and I hate to say it, and only saying it here, wasn't grasping well some things. Or not her talkative self, just showing slight changes. So it's been compounded with the recent visit with her. She's 8 years older than me. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I see the distinction, but it is still euthanasia.  Why should this blessing (is there anyone who doesn't agree that it is indeed a blessing?) be limited to be performed by members of the church only, when the capacity for greater compassion could be extended to anyone who might meet specific requirements?  Does God really look down on compassionate euthanasia, or is that just our faulty understanding of his law which is taken out of context.  Do we really need his "authority" to serve others in this way?  I remain unconvinced. 

I am very pro euthanasia (never, ever forced) in an ideal world, but seen so many things get taken too far I worry that maybe benefits will cost too much. We as a society neglect the medically vulnerable as it is, imo.  If we were pushing to do anything and everything before we considered this as an option, I would feel differently as imo we rarely actually leave our deaths up to God alone given our choices to care or not care for ourselves and others.  But I can see it instead leading to more neglect as society sees there is a ‘no suffering’ option that demands little from others and could be much cheaper (depending how many legal and medical hurdles are created around it to prevent misuse) and therefore starts painting it as a noble and loving act one can do for others.

Arguments for the slippery slope usually have me glazing over, but this one feels like it could too easily happen. It could go a long way to solving the Social Security problem (only somewhat tongue in cheek comment).

When my dad got sick, medical intervention had a very high likelihood of keeping him alive, but it would be bed for 6 months and then wheelchair bound and dependent on machines for the rest of his life…likely ten years given family history.  He was in an induced coma. We didn’t wake him up as we knew already what he would choose as he hated any physical limitation, needed to be able to get out and do things to not go bonkers…he couldn’t even stay for three days for a visit as he needed to have stuff to occupy his mind and hands except when asleep.  Plus the death of his father was rather horrific for him…though that was a result of giving Grandpa the worst drugs for his actual condition…antidepressants and anti anxiety drugs because Restless Legs was practically unknown then…they were tying him down to prevent him from struggling to move…my version of hell, I start to cry whenever I think of it.  So wrong, if only we had known.  Dad had RLS as well and already was taking too much drugs to control it (uneducated doctor and Dad’s refusal to actually deal with weakness, rotten patient…the kind that ends up either getting kicked out of the hospital as quick as possible or ends up doubling his stay because he injured himself because he won’t wait for a nurse to come help him).

I don’t see much difference between withdrawing the machines to prevent Dad’s future suffering and giving a shot to end it since the option to live was available in either case.  I also believe I had a strong spiritual witness it was the right decision, but that might have been rationalization as it was exactly what I thought should happen as soon as I heard “organ failure” and “dialysis”.

Edited July 6, 2021 by Calm

[CV75]

On 7/4/2021 at 8:39 PM, Fether said:

My wife rotates between 5 Latter-day Saint films every Sunday. Today it was time for our 30th run throw of “Love Kennedy”. At the end *SPOILER* the father gives Kennedy a blessing if release. My uncle also “released” my grandmother and often talks about doing so when she comes up in conversation (my uncle is a bit of a strange person and often misinterprets culture and official teachings)

Where does this come from? And what is the purpose?

I didn’t find anything from official sources. I found one persons description that it was a way for a family to release an individual from this life as if it being released from a calling… but that seemed inappropriate.

Is there any backing in this? Or was it just done once by someone of note and everyone was like “that’s cool, I’ll do that!” And it became a cultural thing.

I think you have to say what the Holy Ghost prompts you to say, otherwise I think you are wasting everyone's time and good faith. That may sound harsh, but keep in mind that a lot of people really don't mind platitudes, tradition, the ostensible and "faith", and these bring comfort to them.

[JAHS]

After my mission I was working as an orderly in an Ogden hospital (they liked to hire RMs for some reason). I found myself giving several blessings for patients. One day a grandmother came to me and said "my daughter just had a baby born with a rare skin condition that caused the skin to break open and bleed profusely at several places on her body and it was not expected to live." The grandmother asked us to bless the baby that she would die soon so she would not have to suffer so much.
My coworker and I went in to the newborn ICU and prepared to bless the baby as the grandmother asked. The baby was crying in great pain and bleeding from several cuts and abrasions on her body.   As I began the blessing I got the impression that I should not do what the grandmother asked. So I blessed her that she would be healed, but also said if she is meant to die then to let it happen soon and sort of left it in God's hands. 
A few weeks later a nurse came up to me excited and told me that the baby we prayed over was sent somewhere for some special treatments and the skin was healing up and she is going to live. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I would love to hear the "several examples", I can't tell you how much this has consumed my brain. 

A few exceptions to the law "thou shalt not kill" where divine authority is not required off the top of my head - Capital punishment.  Interesting how the church strictly states that euthanasia violates the law of God, but in regards to capital punishment it says that it leaves it up to "the prescribed process of civil law" (aka not by divine authority) and they "neither promote nor oppose capital punishment", we do know that previous Presidents were in favor of it, including Brigham Young.    Another one is self-defense. Another example is war (in the same line as self-defense).  Whether or not the war is justified by God, the church considers us sin-free for killing in the name of our country (not our God) if sent to war.  These are all exceptions to "thou shalt not kill" that does not require God's intervention or authority. 

When I compare and contrast capital punishment and compassionate euthanasia, I am saddened that one is seen as acceptable and the other isn't.   I don't see any moral justification for that.  One is against the will and agency of the individual, while the other respects their will and is according to their agency.  One is much more likely to get it wrong (as in killing innocent people).  One is physically healthy, while the other is terminal and suffering.   

Edited July 6, 2021 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

I've witnessed these kinds of "release" blessings. I even gave one once. In almost every case the individual was on death's door so I don't know what kind of impact the "release" had. In one instance the person was unconscious so who knows if they even heard the blessing to be comforted and relieved by the release. In one situation the person's demise seemed moments away. The blessing was given with great passion and authority to release them to the other side. Everyone was quite taken with the power of the blessing. That individual lived another year+   

[Tacenda]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

A few exceptions to the law "thou shalt not kill" where divine authority is not required off the top of my head - Capital punishment.  Interesting how the church strictly states that euthanasia violates the law of God, but in regards to capital punishment it says that it leaves it up to "the prescribed process of civil law" (aka not by divine authority) and they "neither promote nor oppose capital punishment", we do know that previous Presidents were in favor of it, including Brigham Young.    Another one is self-defense. Another example is war (in the same line as self-defense).  Whether or not the war is justified by God, the church considers us sin-free for killing in the name of our country (not our God) if sent to war.  These are all exceptions to "thou shalt not kill" that does not require God's intervention or authority. 

When I compare and contrast capital punishment and compassionate euthanasia, I am saddened that one is seen as acceptable and the other isn't.   I don't see any moral justification for that.  One is against the will and agency of the individual, while the other respects their will and is according to their agency.  One is much more likely to get it wrong (as in killing innocent people).  One is physically healthy, while the other is terminal and suffering.   

I never thought of this before, thanks Pogi!!