Oh my heck! It's another Ordain Women thread! (A poll, actually . . .)

[The Folk Prophet]

Having a mother hold the baby is not orthodox (Quin, is this the only ward you've been in?), but I don't see what the problem is. She's not laying her hands on the baby's head, she's holding the baby. I've held my babies while their father blessed them when they were sick and it never occurred to me that I was interfering.

Again, it's not orthodox. I don't feel like I missed out on anything by not holding the baby. I'm glad my husband could and for us wouldn't have it any other way. I could only share the experience of birth with him to a certain degree, and I feel that the name and blessing is a special time for the father and child. But as far as following the rules goes, what rule does it break to have the mother hold the baby?

It is slightly ambiguous, I admit, but I think it clear that the holding of the baby replaces the laying on of hands in the naming and blessing ordinance. The handbook states that the Melchizedek Priesthood holders take the child in their hand, or, if older, lay their hands on the child's head. The men standing in a circle and holding the child with one hand while placing their other hand on the next man's shoulder directly correlation to the same in other blessings, but the right hand (or both if fewer are in the circle) goes on the head instead of under the child. The holding of the child is part of the ordinance. There is, certainly, a case where exceptions can be made, I believe. If a child could not, somehow, be held by the men (I would content that crying is not an acceptable reason -- but that's clearly only my opinion) then I could legitimately see a decision being made to use the laying of hands on the head method. But this is very difficult with a large group and a small baby's head, particularly with a mother in the way. 10 - 15 hands on the baby's head could literally be dangerous to the child.

So, yes, in special circumstances, I can see a mother holding the child and the men using the hands-on-head method. But it is not the standard appropriate method, should only be used in special cases of extreme need, and should not be used simply because a mother feels like she want to be a part of it. That is no different than a baptism, confirmation, blessing of the sick, etc., etc. The mother of a child being baptized doesn't get to help the husband immerse them. She doesn't get to sit and hug the child when they're being confirmed. And generally she is entirely separate in blessing the sick. However, in special need, certainly, a mother holding a very sick child to comfort them while they receive a blessing would be acceptable. But it would not be general practice, it would be exceptional.

I don't feel particularly strongly (not that my feelings matter a whit to the matter) that a woman could not hold a baby for a blessing if the policy were to change (unlike my opinion about ordination for women, which I believe impossible to change). But until the brethren change the policy, I feel it important that we as a people strictly follow the guidelines given us. These are ordinances, not church maintenance. The priesthood and it's usage, both the giving and recieving, is of the most sacred things we do in this life. We should not meddle with sacred things.

[Maureen]

...But in every Baby Blessing in our ward... The mother DOES hold the child in her arms for the blessing...

Quin, IMO, I think that's wonderful.

M.

[Maureen]

...I do have a problem with priesthood blessings and ordinances being compared to christenings and other religious rituals....

They can be compared because the LDS church is a religious organization, just like the Catholic Church and the multiple Protestant churches are. All have their own rituals that are important and sacred to each religion. You may feel that LDS rituals are far superior than non-LDS rituals, but you take up space on the same Earth and therefore the beliefs and rituals of other religions are just as important to them as yours are to you.

M.

[The Folk Prophet]

They can be compared because the LDS church is a religious organization, just like the Catholic Church and the multiple Protestant churches are. All have their own rituals that are important and sacred to each religion. You may feel that LDS rituals are far superior than non-LDS rituals, but you take up space on the same Earth and therefore the beliefs and rituals of other religions are just as important to them as yours are to you.

M.

This is the problem. You're talking about what's important to people. That is irrelevant. What matters is what is important to God. It doesn't matter if something is important to DP that isn't important to you and vice-versa. It matters what God says and what God dictates.

[Wingnut]

I held my daughter when she was blessed. She was nine months old at the time, and wouldn\'t have sat still otherwise. Placing hands under the baby is likely only because a baby\'s head tends to be too small to accommodate many hands, and the baby needs holding anyway (in my daughter\'s case, my husband, our bishop, and the two grandfathers were the only ones in the circle, and they took care to mostly use fingertips instead of whole hands on her head). But the ordinance of \"naming and blessing\" isn\'t exclusive to infants. A five-year-old who is named and blessed in Sacrament meeting isn\'t held by the Priesthood brethren in the circle. Most women who bring up the baby blessing example aren\'t looking to participate in the Priesthood circle, but rather to simply have the privilege and ability to hold the infant that they carried and gave birth to, as it receives the first Priesthood ordinance of its life. It\'s not an unreasonable request.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

I held my daughter when she was blessed. She was nine months old at the time, and wouldn\\\'t have sat still otherwise. Placing hands under the baby is likely only because a baby\\\'s head tends to be too small to accommodate many hands, and the baby needs holding anyway (in my daughter\\\'s case, my husband, our bishop, and the two grandfathers were the only ones in the circle, and they took care to mostly use fingertips instead of whole hands on her head). But the ordinance of \\\"naming and blessing\\\" isn\\\'t exclusive to infants. A five-year-old who is named and blessed in Sacrament meeting isn\\\'t held by the Priesthood brethren in the circle. Most women who bring up the baby blessing example aren\\\'t looking to participate in the Priesthood circle, but rather to simply have the privilege and ability to hold the infant that they carried and gave birth to, as it receives the first Priesthood ordinance of its life. It\\\'s not an unreasonable request.

 

If it\'s already acceptable, as some seem to believe (and they could be right, I suppose) then why does it need to be requested as a change in policy? On the other hand, if it\'s not acceptable, then it\'s not acceptable.

I suppose clarification from the top level may be in order, especially where there are clear examples of blessings being given this way. If there\'s nothing wrong with it, then women everywhere should have the choice. If there is something wrong with it, then bishops need to know and stop allowing it.

Interesting.

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, the Salt Lake Tribune website is currently headlining a story that OW claims it will have 500 supporters present at the Tabernacle, who will be coming from (among other places) Germany and South America. And they have--get this--hired the Salt Lake Police Department to accompany them on the Main Street Plaza.

One wonders, when the dust settles, how many thousands of dollars dollars these five hundred women will spend to get to and stay in Salt Lake City during this publicity stunt--er, respectful and good-faith attempt to attend a meeting they were not invited to and into which they have been told they will not be admitted. But of course, they only want the priesthood so that they can minister to the needy more effectively.

Ah, well. If they don\'t have the time or interest in changing history one life at a time, at least they can maybe merit a footnote in a history book somewhere . . .

[The Folk Prophet]

FWIW, the Salt Lake Tribune website is currently headlining a story that OW claims it will have 500 supporters present at the Tabernacle, who will be coming from (among other places) Germany and South America. And they have--get this--hired the Salt Lake Police Department to accompany them on the Main Street Plaza.

One wonders, when the dust settles, how many thousands of dollars dollars these five hundred women will spend to get to and stay in Salt Lake City during this publicity stunt--er, respectful and good-faith attempt to attend a meeting they were not invited to and into which they have been told they will not be admitted. But of course, they only want the priesthood so that they can minister to the needy more effectively.

Ah, well. If they don\\\'t have the time or interest in changing history one life at a time, at least they can maybe merit a footnote in a history book somewhere . . .

Why is there a small part of me that secretly hopes things break down to the point where tear gas is required?

[Maureen]

This is the problem. You're talking about what's important to people. That is irrelevant. What matters is what is important to God. It doesn't matter if something is important to DP that isn't important to you and vice-versa. It matters what God says and what God dictates.

 

But how do we know what God wants? No matter what anyone claims regarding religious authority, all claims are based on belief and faith. You cannot prove that God speaks only to your Prophet more than a Catholic can prove that God only speaks to the Pope. Bottom line is that all Christian religions are based on faith and beliefs.

 

M. 

[skippy740]

But how do we know what God wants? No matter what anyone claims regarding religious authority, all claims are based on belief and faith. You cannot prove that God speaks only to your Prophet more than a Catholic can prove that God only speaks to the Pope. Bottom line is that all Christian religions are based on faith and beliefs.

 

 

 

M. 

 

Sure I can.  Here we go:

 

The Pope is sitting his his quarters while a cardinal come in and said 'You're holiness I have good news and bad news. The good news is Jesus is on the phone and told me to tell you he has returned". the Pope says "That's wonderful, what could possibly be the bad news?" The cardinal says "He's calling from Salt Lake City".

 

(That's a joke.)

 

However, using the word "only" is also subjective in this context.  God can speak to all of us.  He can help us in any capacity - for our families, our work, and our religious faith stewardship (whatever it may be).

 

I don't think that any LDS person would say that God ONLY talks to His Prophet... when we clearly believe in personal revelation.  What we DO believe, is that revelation that is binding upon the whole church, will only be given to the Prophet, First Presidency, and Quorum of the Twelve.

 

I think Pope Francis is an amazing man.  I'm amazed with his personal leadership and humility as he serves.  I believe God talks to him as he has significant influence on much of the world, and I have no doubt that he does pray for that revelation and guidance.  However, I personally believe that he doesn't have the proper priesthood authority, nor called by God through the laying on of hands by those who are in authority.  That doesn't make him any less of a religious leader... just not MY leader.

[The Folk Prophet]

But how do we know what God wants? No matter what anyone claims regarding religious authority, all claims are based on belief and faith. You cannot prove that God speaks only to your Prophet more than a Catholic can prove that God only speaks to the Pope. Bottom line is that all Christian religions are based on faith and beliefs.

 

 

 

M. 

 

This sort of thought is often conveyed. But it doesn't correlate to the prime point it regards, which is that only God's will matters. People will have every opinion in existence. They will disagree. They will fight. They will hold to their positions against all rationale. None of this has any bearing on eternal truth and God's will (which are one and the same).

 

Religious authority only holds sway to those who esteem said authority as genuine. If one does not, then it is meaningless, and, frankly, meaningless to rail against that authority. In other words, me expressing that the Pope ought to do something or another is a waste of my time. I do not hold the Pope as authoritative. So if he goes off his rocker and sets up some crazy policy that I do not agree with...so be it. That's between him and those who believe in him. This is the missing logic in the OW group. If they hold the prophet to be as he purports to be (authoritative), then what are they thinking? If they do not hold the prophet to be what he purports to be, then what are they doing following his organization? Their approach is entirely irrational.

 

You ask the question, how does one know what God wants. Well...that's the big life question, now, isn't it? Does it not behoove us all to find out? I think it paramount to all other concerns. God's will is given through his servants. He teaches us that. But he does not, in any regard, expect us to follow them on their say-so alone. Not in the least. He expects us to come to Him and find out His will from Him. He will guide us as to who we should follow, who His servants are, if we sincerely ask in faith. By that means, we may trust the authority of a person -- in that God tells us to. If one has not received such instruction from God, then one would indeed be foolish to follow the say-so of another on only their word.

 

Only God can prove His will.

[Bini]

Just skimmed through a few posts and I had some thoughts on baby blessings. I think it's worth mentioning that BBs are also given to children of parents that are not active members, and it's not uncommon for the father not to have the priesthood - yet he is invited to participate by holding the mic or holding the child (if the mother isn't doing so). I have seen this done many times, and I have also seen mothers hold their children, so I'm not convinced that this is a "priesthood only" occasion. If it was, I imagine it would be addressed by leaders (to whatever degree that may be), and not a neglected issue.

 

 

For me it's pretty obvious where the priesthood lies - and that is within the circle of priesthood holders that are performing the blessing - any additional involvement (a non-priesthood holding father holding the mic, and mother holding the child, for example) are not participating as priesthood holders in any context. So, I'm not sure where the feeling of inappropriateness or even threat is coming from. This may merely be a case of Mormon culture, and for the situations where tradition is out the window, it can ruffle feathers a bit. Again, If any of this was an issue, I believe the leaders would address it (to whatever degree that may be), and not a neglected issue.

[Wingnut]

But how do we know what God wants? No matter what anyone claims regarding religious authority, all claims are based on belief and faith. You cannot prove that God speaks only to your Prophet more than a Catholic can prove that God only speaks to the Pope. Bottom line is that all Christian religions are based on faith and beliefs.

 

 

 

M. 

I just had to quote this, because the Arial font is so refreshing.  :)