I only recently (in the last few years) became aware that the church handbook prohibits women from holding their babies while babies are being blessed unless the bishop wants to make a case-by-case exception. In our Singapore ward, all women held their babies while the babies were blessed. That’s the last time I was in a ward with multiple baby blessings. Our present ward does not do this. From a poll done in 2014, the following finding indicated that women holding their babies while the babies are being blessed was not only uncommon, but discouraged in many cases:
Most wards do not invite women to hold their babies during blessings, and 15% specifically told women who asked that their request was inappropriate! Only 2% reported being in wards in which women have held their babies during blessings
A favorite children’s book is “If You Give a Mouse a Cookie.” The book takes the reader through a series of increasingly far-fetched consequences of giving a mouse a cookie. It got me wondering what kind of mouse-cookie thinking is at play with this strange policy. Let’s see where it leads.
If you let a woman hold her baby,
She’ll want a comfortable chair to sit on.
If you give her a comfortable chair to sit on,
She’ll relax while she’s on the stand. Maybe she’ll never want to leave.
If she never leaves, you might have to ask her to leave.
If you have to ask her to leave, people might wonder why more women aren’t sitting on the stand.
If you explain that only men can lead and give blessings, your arguments might sound ridiculous and flat to people who are used to egalitarianism.
If your arguments sound weak to others, eventually they might sound weak to you and you might start doubting their validity.
If you start doubting that, you might start doubting everything, your very reason for being at church.
If you doubt your reason for being at church, you might decide life is short and so you might as well live it up.
If you decide you might as well live it up, you’ll probably go out, get drunk and have an extramarital affair.
If you go out, get drunk and have an affair, you’ll probably figure a woman would do a better job leading the congregation.
So you’ll have to invite her up to the stand. And if she comes up to the stand, she’s going to want a soft chair.
And she might even want to bring her baby.
_________________________________________________
Any other examples of mouse-cookie thinking you’ve seen? Provide your examples in the comments.
Wheat & Tares 
This post actually made me feel a little sad. I realized I was so used to seeing men be totally dominant in every important official function of the church that I never before questioned this. And then, even as a member who accepts men alone being priesthood holders, it made me feel sad that a woman can’t even be in the circle, not as a participant in the blessing, per se, but to hold and comfort her own child.
My own children howled throughout, and if a wonderful friend had not made notes I would have heard nothing.
However whilst I appreciate the irony of the post, I do think there is a place for fathers to step up to the plate and grow into being fathers, and this involves both literally and figuratively being required to hold the baby.It’s important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I see this ordinance as symbolic rather than magical, much as I see priesthood power. It’s a construct rather than a literal power, and brethren are currently the ordained conduit-a temporary state, I believe. I think we often confuse it with magic.
I have no doubt that as a woman I have priesthood power. It’s just not appropriate for me to use it if there is a male conduit available.
I think the argument that men need baby blessings and baptisms in order to be part of their children’s lives is extremely unconvincing. I actually believe it can have the opposite effect. When we teach men that their role in the family is priesthood holder, they can make less effort to be involved in nurturing ways (that’s their wives’ job!) Personally, the ordinances that my father performed for me have absolutely zero positive effect on our relationship. If it were only those that were supposed to make us close, I would have the same relationship to him as I do to my Bishop (practically none). It is the times where he taught me, played games with me, encouraged me, and nurtured me that have given us a good relationship. Those things have zero to do with the priesthood and everything to do with fatherhood.
Also, this post made me laugh. I have heard the argument many times that if women have the priesthood, extramarital affairs will run rampant across the land! Women having power = affairs.
I got one…
If you let a guy read the scriptures, he’ll learn about Abraham.
If you let him learn about Abraham, he’ll find out about polygamy.
If he finds out about polygamy, he might decide to practice it, too.
If he practices it, he’ll tell others they need to practice it.
If others start practicing, they’ll think everyone needs to.
If everyone needs to practice it, then clearly it must be necessary in the afterlife.
If it’s necessary in the afterlife, then we should still accept the principle of polygamy, even when the laws tell us not to practice it anymore.
Because, you know, it’s in the scriptures.
Oh wait, this one actually happened? Darn mouse-cookie things….
I think it is tempting to scoff at slippery slope arguments. They are used to stifle incremental and modest changes to guard against extreme, highly unlikely outcomes on the basis of dubious logic. If women get to hold their babies in sacrament meeting, it will lead to an outbreak in extramarital affairs!
That said, I think the slippery slope is real where gender roles are concerned. For instance, a policy change could lead to a slippery slope by changing general membership attitudes. For instance, if women were permitted to hold their babies, that could change attitudes about how permanent other policies are. It could affect attitudes about what other roles might be exercised by women during priesthood ordinances (passing the sacrament?). There could be increased experimentation in local units, which would put upward pressure to change or relax additional policies. Also, if more members saw policy as changeable, more might be open to the future possibility of female ordination.
Another slippery slope would be a change in power dynamics. When you add women to church councils, you increase the likelihood that subsequent decisions of those councils are going to favor increased female participation. Many feminists saw the lowered missionary age, which increased the number of Sister missionaries, as a slippery slope to greater participation by women in church administrations. As more women enter church leadership positions who have served as missionaries (giving them greater credibility), they will speak with a stronger voice and demand greater insight. Similarly, the Elders who served alongside these Sisters will be more inclined to view them as equals in church administration.
Of course, there are strong forces operating in the opposite direction. The church bureaucracy and conservative nature pushes against any change to the status quo. Also, there is resistance to any change being the result of outside or bottom-up pressure. The people most animated by the changes are also expelled through excommunication and correlated voices.
The institutional decision-making structure at the top (built on seniority and consensus) makes any large-scale change extremely unlikely. Instead, the slippery slope may be nothing more than minor incremental changes without ever leading to meaningful structural ones. So we go from female portraits to re-positioning where women sit during conference to adding a couple female prayers to adding one female member to an all-male council and so on.
Joel, I think you are using the term “slippery slope” to mean any change at all when the slippery slope fallacy only refers to changes that are considered disastrous. Increased participation in councils from women isn’t even viewed as disastrous by the church leaders who seem to be suddenly noticing the absence of input from women (which leads us to the real slippery slope – priesthood oversight that was brought in by the correlation movement had the possibly unintended consequence of eliminating female input in the first place).
Love this post!
I really enjoyed this post! I talked with my husband for a while about holding our baby. He was fine with it. I knew my bishop would say no, and ended up not asking him. I wish i would have even if he said no.
Baby blessings can be done in the home in a way the parents choose and at a time the parents choose. (Bonus: non-LDS visitors are less likely to be exposed to possible unfortunate testimony fails.) If every family that wants the mother of the baby to hold it arranges a name and blessing ceremony somewhere other than church, maybe leaders will get the message that this is important and there is no reason to forbid it.
Hawkgrrl,
I don’t mean to be daft but I’m really trying to understand. Here is my example to help explain. Last week I talked in Sacrament meeting. Prior to talking I did my research, asked for input from my wife and children, prayed for help and then started to put the talk together. When I had a reasonable rough draft I gave it to my wife for further comments and suggestions. With the draft I gave her a five page list of other quotes which I thought were good but didn’t follow the flow. After several long discussions with her I rewrote the talk using most but not all of her suggestions. I gave the final talk to my family Saturday morning and again solicited their input. Sunday morning I again asked in my prayers if there was anything else which should be done to the talk and felt an impression to add one of the quotes which was left out. The short of it is my wife knew exactly what I was going to say and had time to help shape what was said.
Here is the point. The preparation I go through before giving any of our children a blessing follows the same pattern as presented above. My wife has free access to critic, encourage, give me insights by sharing her feelings or tell me that is not her impressions and I need to go back and pray about it more. In the end what is said is what we mutually have understood together. For most of the blessings given in our family I think we are united enough that there are no surprises. The only difference is I happen to be the voice.
To me the important part is the dialogue which happens between us and in understanding what the Lord wants and being united. This may be kind of personal but isn’t this how most couples work? That there is significant dialog and they are united in what is said.
When I lived on a Native American reservation and attended a branch there I learned some of the matriarchal functions in the Tribal traditions, such as that the clans are connected by the maternal line and that marrying within a clan is discouraged. I also saw how alcoholism plagued both men and women frequently and often a grandmother become matriarch by default as the children’s parents were not in the place in life they needed to be to parent.
There was once a primary-aged boy who was diagnosed with a terminal cancer. His father (with the support of his active LDS wife) was able to overcome alcoholism and other demons and receive his endowments. His family was able to be sealed together before the son passed. I will never forget congregating with the family and their close friends when the son died and one of the sisters in the branch complimenting the father on all he had achieved in being the son’s father and the stepping up he had done.
Likewise, I appreciate my wife’s support in acknowledging there is a unique fatherly role that I can step up to fill. I appreciated her giving me space to hold and bless my child. While I do not envy the suffering to the body and the pain of labor that she had with expecting our children, I can’t say that I haven’t wondered what it would be like to feel a child kick me from the inside. I have wished that my infants would take breastmilk from a bottle with the same bonding that happens as that sustenance passes directly from mother to child. I certainly wished that my voice was recognized as well as and was as soothing to their ears as was their mothers voice that they heard so frequently inside the womb. I wished they would have reliably gone back to sleep on my chest, not missing the feeling of their mother’s breast.
I had cut many, many umbilical cords in my profession, so that didn’t excite me highly as finding some connection to my child. Holding my children and giving them a blessing did have meaningful ritual in my life. Thank you dear wife.
Mark A Marsh,
You sounds like a stand up guy. If only more men had your outlook, the church would be a better place. The problem is that men are not required to seek input or consent from their wives. Encouraged, at times, yes, but not required.
I’m reminded of the line from the Smoot hearings about the consent of the wife to an additional wife.
It also reminds me of hearing of how the latest apostle callings happened. The call was made and accepted without any input or involvement by the wife, whose life would be significantly impacted by a calling of such magnitude.
We preach equal partnership, but we don’t model it very well in our church structures. Elder Ballad’s admonition to counsel with our councils is great, but we see very little, if any, inclusion of women in the highest councils of the church. This is changing, but that change is painfully slow in coming.
New book shows what’s lost when men dominate conversation
Recently, women have been encouraged to speak up but not too much, and be careful to not assume a role that’s not theirs. How are women supposed to interpret that?
You mentioned Singapore… I attended church at the stake center there while on a business trip. Two wards meet simultaneously, the native ward and the gringo ward. I am a gringo, but chose to attend the native ward, which is English-speaking anyway. The bishop, stake president and area seventy, all natives, were in attendance. Each wore a shirt and tie with no suit coat. Well Singapore is a hot, humid country near the equator, so I can’t blame them. And I appreciate that they did not feel compelled to wear a coat despite CHI policies, “unwritten order of things,” or whatever. So yes, I can readily believe that your Singapore ward allowed mothers to hold the baby during blessings. I am a “spirit of the law” person anyway.
“Likewise, I appreciate my wife’s support in acknowledging there is a unique fatherly role that I can step up to fill. I appreciated her giving me space to hold and bless my child. . . Holding my children and giving them a blessing did have meaningful ritual in my life. Thank you dear wife.”
You are thanking your wife for giving you something she is not capable of giving. I think what you really mean here is “Thank you dear patriarchal order.” Your wife had absolutely no say in whether or not she held and blessed your child or you did. She may not have made a fuss and she may have gladly let you have the spotlight, but it was not her decision to allow you to bless the child. Wouldn’t it be more meaningful if she also had the power to bless your child, yet she still let you have the honor?
Why do people assume that letting women have the opportunity to bless their child automatically means that father’s will no longer be able to bless their child? Also, see my comment above for regarding fatherhood (hint: developing a good relationship with your child has nothing to do with priesthood ordinances.)
Hawkgrrrl, I don’t think slippery slope arguments are necessarily fallacious. The label is a pejorative one, so people advocating for a change usually want to argue that the change does not present a slippery slope (while perhaps secretly hoping it is), while the opponents claim that it is.
While the particular incremental changes that have been made by church leaders have been welcomed and defended by the traditionalist crowd, that doesn’t mean that similar proposals are not regularly attacked by the same people as possibly leading to a slippery slope that will weaken the church, drive men out, and lead to rampant gender confusion.
So when someone says that women should not be able to hold their babies during blessings because it will lead to marital infidelity, they are making a slippery slope argument. I am merely stating that these changes have the potential to increase the pressure on the leaders to further reduce gender differences and be less patriarchal. So saying they are a slippery slope to something much bigger (female ordination?) is not fallacious. Which is why you see many feminists in the church state up front that they do not support female ordination and that is not their goal, but they would like some other movement towards equality. It’s a way to signal that those policy changes are not a slippery slope to ordination. And the traditionalist opposition has a lot to do with accusing these feminists of using these policy changes to move towards female ordination.
Tom Irvine: Interesting observation. I found that local wards in Singapore were generally pretty eager to toe the line on policies as soon as they became aware of them, but even that had some interesting consequences. For example, when the kids were doing a Youth Conference at a resort in Malaysia, the guidelines said that boys and girls had to wear a tee shirt over their swimsuits. In essence, they were overcomplying with the Utah-based rule because they didn’t really understand why there would be a distinction. Telling indeed. Of course, the resort would not allow tee shirts in the pool because tee shirts aren’t swimwear, so the stupid rule had to be ditched.
Speaking of swimsuits, I once saw a visitor wearing a pair of swim trunks (with a polo shirt) to church in our ward in Singapore. We had people dressed in all sorts of things on a weekly basis thanks to the number of visitors who simply didn’t plan to go to church until they got there and saw how convenient it would be to attend.
I was in the expat ward (the one on Bukit Timah), and the women holding their babies during blessings was just the rule of thumb in that ward. I doubt it was anything other than a nice cool thing to do. Someone probably asked if she could, and there was no apparent reason why not. Not every bishop consults the handbook on routine common sense issues.
Last summer the Church made a policy change that Ward Councils are supposed to be more involved in planning Sacrament meetings. Has anyone seen that happening? Effectively?
I see no reason why Rigel and other men think the mother -holding- the baby means they can’t bless and bond with said baby?!
Count me in the camp that priesthood ordinances don’t bond you to a child, actual bonding with a child does that (spending time, creating traditions, etc.).
I blessed my last child nearly 40 years ago. I was different then and the culture was too. I wish I had consulted with my wife re the blessing, I wish she had been in the circle.
One of my blessings I decided to only say what I was inspired to say, so that child got a name and no blessing, but no damage seemed to result.
I also had a policy of blessing till the next blessing so naming blessing only covers to baptism.
I only hear slippery slope arguments at church, not in the community. Is it an American thing, or perhapps an ultra conservative thing?
So I just thought of a good one. I’m in Rexburg and there are quite a few excellent not only church historians, but women’s church historians in the area because of BYUI. Some of them have noticed the tendency for Rexburgians to avoid the subject of LDS women’s history. In other areas of the states they were regularly called to speak and give classes on LDS women’s history. I’ve been bringing it up for over a year in my ward in an attempt to get a ward/stake activity with one of the church’s best women’s historians. Yet we can’t get anyone in Rexburg to touch it with a ten foot pole.
So
If you teach mormon women their history,
they’re going to learn that all of their foremothers were feminists
and they’re going to learn they were social justice advocates
and they’re going to learn we have less authority and power than they used to
And they just might not trust patriarchy how you want them to
and that just scares the crap out of everyone
It is true that holding our children during the naming and blessing of our children was not something my wife felt to be at issue. She does have other issues related to church and patriarchy, but that is not one of them. She hoped and prayed that the Bishop would be inspired to release her from being a nursing leader when she was nursing a child. When that child later tragically died and she had regrets that the time she could have spent with him was spent ‘juggling’ her church calling, she asked the Bishop why other women were being released right and left when they had children and she was not. He said that it was his practice only to release women from callings when they had recently given birth to childen when they ASK to be released. So, taking that lesson of priesthood administration, she ended a lifetime of ‘always saying yes’ to callings and giving the ‘No’ answer that gives the priesthood leaders the black and white message they need to hear.
She asked to no longer receive visiting teachers, and is irked that she still gets monthly mailings and, from time to time, phone calls from ‘new visiting teachers’ calling to ask when they can come visit her.
She has never been a relief society goer.
She harbors a hope, within her heart, to have the sealing to her physically and emotionally abusive father cancelled. She would prefer being sealed to my father who exemplified righteous priesthood leadership. She regrets having not ‘run away’ and taken her chances with the foster care system.
So, I do thank her for the space (I said space) for me to hold and bless my child, a sustaining which was freely given. And yes, I do thank her for allowing me to ‘have the limelight without making a fuss’, as it was so crassly stated. It ended up being one of two priesthood ordinances I performed for my late son–the other being a dedication of his grave, and that is something I NEVER hope to do again. My wife says she didn’t know how I was able to do that. I was not emotionally able to go with her to dress his body in his burial clothing, and I do not understand how she was able to do that.
Also, every priesthood ordinance my father gave me is a memorable bonding experience–even the naming and blessing, though I only know about it from reading journals. My mother created a photo record of my baptism day that is in my Book of Remembrance. She helped me make a photographic priesthood line of authority. Hearing my father’s voice in blessings was a bonding experience of the senses. So when you say that receiving priesthood ordinances from your father had zero effect on your relationship, that’s just not true for me. Every time I give a blessing, that bond to my father is palpable.
And, if my wife did have the option of giving our children their naming and blessing ordinance, I wouldn’t want her to have to make the choice to take it herself or give it to me. The only reasonable option would be to provide the ordinance jointly, each saying the authority and each offering blessings as guided by the spirit. My wife doesn’t seek that–it’s not high on her list of issues. I’m sure we are the products of our childhood socialization and culture in those experiences and priorities, and it will be different for our children and grandchildren.
Just to clarify, I have not suggested that the only contact a father should have with his child take place through ordinances. I am suggesting the opposite-that by standing before witnesses holding his child in concert with a community of men symbolically leaning on one another, and pronouncing a blessing, may act as a symbolic moment of contact and responsibility. We can only hope. I have no problem with a woman holding her child, just that it may be a missed opportunity. I am suggesting that this moment can be the beginning of a process of taking responsibility for fatherthood, and further that if we as woman do not hand over the baby symbolically at some point then it becomes difficult for that to happen.
Correction–nursery leader, not nursing leader.
I haven’t found any such prohibition in either handbook. HB 2 states that only MP holders can participate, but holding the microphone or baby does not necessarily mean “participation” in the blessing. Where do you see a prohibition against mothers holding their babies during the blessing?
Rigel,
I am truly sorry for the loss of your child. I am glad you were able to have that bonding experience with him.
I think it is highly likely that the difference in our opinions hinges on the fact that the priesthood ordinances my father performed on me had no effect on our relationship, while yours did. Other factors of my childhood that could possibly contribute to this is that both of my parents worked (a lot). I don’t feel any closer to my mom than to my dad. In fact, my mom went to medical school when I was 5, so for about 7 years I saw much more of my dad. They both shared fairly equally in all of the tasks required for raising children. This is how I try to run my family as well. I want my children to feel equally close to both me and my husband. I don’t think priesthood even factors into that equation.
Lastly, this quote is what gets me:
“And, if my wife did have the option of giving our children their naming and blessing ordinance, I wouldn’t want her to have to make the choice to take it herself or give it to me.”
This implies that no choice is better than a difficult choice. I disagree with that.
Sam:
” 20.2.2 Instructions for Naming and Blessing a Child
When blessing a baby, Melchizedek Priesthood holders gather in a circle and place their hands under the baby. When blessing an older child, brethren place their hands lightly on the child’s head. The person who gives the blessing:
1. Addresses Heavenly Father.
2. States that the blessing is performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
3. Gives the child a name.
4. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs.
5. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.”
Appears to be the current wording, which is not what I remember previously. Certainly there is no scope in these instructions for the mother to hold the baby.
Previously, as I recall, there was something about mothers not being permitted to be in the circle, and it was a toss up whether this was interpreted as part of the circle only, or included being inside the circle (holding the baby). Mothers held babies all the time in my ward when I was growing up. This putting hands underneath the baby seems to me to be a very new thing.
EBK, since you are not your father, how can you know what effect the priesthood blessings had ON HIM in perhaps, as others have suggested, helping him to step up and take responsibility as a dad? Which you may have only seen later through his involvement.
Also, while you are entitled to your opinion, there is a huge body of literature in other churches about the Disappearing Male, Why Men Hate Church, and various male ministries of which Promise Keepers is perhaps most publicized. I don’t want to list a bibliography (again), but that body of research does exist.
In the most recent Pew Religious Landscape Study (Nov 2015), the percent who said religion was very important to them was 47% for all men, 59% for all women. Among Mormons, the gap was much smaller: 82% for Mormon men, 85% for Mormon women.
This positive effect is why some MoFeminists are not particularly in favor of women being ordained.
And yes, it is a gift from a wife, not the church, when she offers her support in acknowledging there is a unique fatherly role that her husband can step up to fill. Not every LDS women feels that way, so please don’t dismiss and denigrate when one does. It may not be how you choose to operate in your family, but it seems to work for them, so let’s please respect their choice.
Okay I don’t think this should be a place for personal attacking each other’s perspective.
For example, I personally am not someone who wanted to hold her baby, I didn’t care and if I did have another one I don’t think I’d care again.
But for women who DO care, I get it. Just holding the baby doesn’t and shouldn’t take anything away from the man who is actually still giving the baby a blessing on their own.
If you frame that woman as being selfish for wanting to participate and making it hers it’s just as easy to frame the guy who doesn’t want a woman there so that moment will only be theirs as selfish as well. How about neither are selfish? But because different opinions exist we should make room for what works for each individual couple–however they want to do it.
Maybe if the practice of women blessing and healing was restored, this would be less of an issue? Not that women shouldn’t be able to hold their children during a father’s blessing, but why must that preclude a woman from offering a mother’s blessing in a congregational setting? It’s sad that a women exercising spiritual gifts, authority and power in a tangible and visible way makes people so squeamish.
Naismith,
I have talked to my father about this very issue. He feels the same way I do. I acknowledge that not everyone feels this way. The point of my comment was to show that it is harmful for men to be taught that priesthood blessings are the way they get close to their children, while mother’s get close by nurturing. I think that damages relationships. If priesthood blessings aid some fathers in having a desire to nurture, then that’s a great thing!
I agree with you that it is an important gift for a wife to support her husband in his fatherly role. I definitely think father’s should be just as involved in their children’s lives as mothers. I also think there is nothing wrong with a father giving all of the priesthood blessings and holding all of the baby’s in baby blessings for families who decide that it works for them. My only issue is not letting those families decide. I don’t expect every LDS woman to feel the same way I do, but I do expect people who very much appreciate the status quo to realize that there are people who feel differently than they do and that those opinions do not amount to apostasy.
I’m not sure what I said in my comments that makes you think I’m denigrating women who do not agree with me, but that was not my intention. I am not saying that every woman should want to bless her baby or want to hold that baby during the blessing. I’m saying that just because it works for some women in the church doesn’t mean it works for all women in the church. I brought up my personal story to illustrate things in my past that inform my decisions and to acknowledge that others may have different experiences and different opinions. I’m sorry if that came across as denigrating.
I have been in wards where women held babies, and I don’t have a particular objection. I especially liked the ward where following the blessing the bishop invited the entire family to stand up together so that the congregation could make a connection of who is attached to who. As a newcomer to the ward, that was particularly helpful.
We blessed one of our babies in private, because it was in an era when blessings could only happen in fast and testimony meeting, but family members traveling thousands of miles could not make it. Nowadays they seem to be more accommodating if family cannot make it on that particular Sunday.
I also agree that dads should be as involved as moms in childrearing. I just don’t think they have to do the same things. Sometimes a quest for egalitarianism can be taken to an unhealthy extreme. I know couples where the mom gave up breastfeeding because the dad resented the special bond between the mom and nursling.
EBK, the statement I found denigrating was, “You are thanking your wife for giving you something she is not capable of giving.” Yes, she is entirely capable of giving her support if she so chooses.
This discussion makes it sound like the church is entirely responsible for differences between the genders. Not so. It is the stupid-ass creator who made us so different, and disadvantaged women (if males are normative, as is so often the assumption). I have studied enough biology and read enough science fiction to appreciate that it doesn’t have to be this way. So why were we made this way? To me, the church’s teachings of complementing seem to actually provide some balance, given the crap hand dealt by the creator.
The thing his wife was not capable of giving was allowing him to bless the child. I acknowledged in more than one comment that she can give her support.
I tend to think that this isn’t just about a woman holding her baby. It’s a practice happening in a larger context. And until we deal with gender issues in the temple, in our doctrine and history, we won’t have much success in unraveling everything downstream of them.
Maybe it’ll go, “If you give a woman equal standing before God in the temple….”
I like to think that would lead to good things.
“And, if my wife did have the option of giving our children their naming and blessing ordinance, I wouldn’t want her to have to make the choice to take it herself or give it to me.”
This implies that no choice is better than a difficult choice. I disagree with that.
I’m trying to visualize how such a conversation would go, and how a couple with equal ambitions would made a decision without one quietly harboring emotional hurt. Maybe you can roleplay that in your mind to an easier conclusion than I can.
“it is harmful for men to be taught that priesthood blessings are the way they get close to their children, while mother’s get close by nurturing”
I don’t want that to be the message either.
“If you give a woman equal standing before God in the temple….”
I like to think that would lead to good things.
Amen to that.
my mom went to medical school when I was 5, so for about 7 years I saw much more of my dad
I didn’t get married until after medical school and residency, so I was a ‘menace to society’ all those years. I’m glad in some ways that it worked out that way. Was able to be more involved with my children.
“I’m trying to visualize how such a conversation would go, and how a couple with equal ambitions would made a decision without one quietly harboring emotional hurt. Maybe you can roleplay that in your mind to an easier conclusion than I can.”
This seems to me to among a number of other difficult decisions that couples will face in their life. I think compromise has to be involved and each couple needs to do what works best for them. I haven’t had a time in my marriage where my husband and I haven’t been able to come to an agreement that we’re both at least somewhat satisfied with. Again, maybe I struggle visualizing what you worry about because I come from a family where no one ever QUIETLY harbors emotional hurt.
“I didn’t get married until after medical school and residency, so I was a ‘menace to society’ all those years. I’m glad in some ways that it worked out that way. Was able to be more involved with my children.”
I definitely think our lives would have been simpler had my mom done this, but I learned so many lessons I’m not sure I would have otherwise. The most important of which is that no matter how old you are or how invested you are in something else (she already had a PhD in a completely different field and was teaching at the University) you shouldn’t be afraid to change and do what you believe is right for your life. Totally off topic I know, but my mom is my hero!
I really enjoyed this post! I was someone who specifically asked the Bishop if I could hold my baby, and was told “no”.
The way I see this issue (and did at the time as well) is that parenthood is a partnership… I wanted to hold my baby not because I was jealous of my husband ‘getting’ to give the blessing, or because I wanted that ‘power’, but because WE brought this child into the world – it would not have been possible without the other. I always viewed parenting as a partnership and I felt the church was taking away my right to this part of the partnership. It was very hurtful and made me very sad, not only to not hold my baby, but to not be in partnership with my husband in that moment.
They constantly preach about ‘the family’ and the nuclear unit, etc, but when it comes to baby blessings, I don’t SEE their actions promoting ‘the family’, but rather ‘the priesthood’.
kt, for several years it has seemed to me that the way priesthood currently functions serves to divide a family in favour of inserting church control of the family. I certainly agree with you that it creates a barrier to parents functioning as a partnership. I find it’s something I greatly resent.
Dr. Hawthorne wrote:
“I didn’t get married until after medical school and residency, so I was a ‘menace to society’ all those years. I’m glad in some ways that it worked out that way. Was able to be more involved with my children.”
Me too. I didn’t have my children until in my mid 30’s. I love your comments. One minor thing that young married men don’t realize:
You don’t realize that a 15 year old son with your similar genetic capacity (or more) will want to take you backpacking 20 miles a day for 10 days somewhere like the high Uintahs (or some other similar strenuous activity) when you are past 50 years old. Just speaking from experience…
Many teenage boys go through a stage of development when the only thing they respect is physical strength and it is nice for their dads to gently but firmly remind them at times who is the alpha male, at least for a couple more years.
When you lose a son in his childhood you probably say, I would gladly take the lost son backpacking as a 15 year old, even if I was 80 years old, if that would bring him back.
We do our best and I believe all things work together for good to them that love the Lord.
All four of my children –spanning 3 wards, 3 cities, and 4 Bishops, have been blessed while in their mother’s arms. Nobody even suggested we couldn’t, or stopped us, or “talked to us” afterwards. Nada.
During my mission to South America, it was not a noticeable occurrence to have women hold their children for blessings. It happened and it didn’t and no one noticed.
I guess I should be really grateful I’ve only lived in places where people don’t read the Handbook.