When a Mormon baby is born, it is given a name and a (father’s) blessing. This is traditionally done in front of the congregation, usually on the first fast Sunday following the birth or soon thereafter, but it can be done in the home with the bishop’s awareness (to create the certificate). Other men in the congregation who are Melchizedek priesthood holders, including male family members, and the bishop are invited to participate by placing their hands under the infant and holding it up while the blessing is given. Giving the baby’s full name as it will appear on the records of the Church is done at the beginning of the blessing, following a list of attributes and life experiences that are wished for the infant.
Unlike confirmation or infant baptism in other faiths, this is not a saving ordinance, but it does make the baby a “child of record,” appearing on Church rolls until adulthood. From Wikipedia:
After the blessing has been performed, a certificate is provided that details the date of the blessing and who officiated; it is signed by the presiding officer of the ward or branch. A membership record is created for children who receive this blessing: they are counted as members of the church and described as “children of record”. They remain on the church rolls unless they reach adulthood without being baptized or a request for name removal is received from their legal guardians. Children who were blessed in the church become confirmed members of the church when they receive the ordinances of baptism and confirmation, normally soon after their eighth birthday.
Growing up, my best friend was a “child of record.” While her mom was raised LDS, she had since left the Church, and while she didn’t mind her girls attending ward activities or being friends with Church members, she did not want them to be baptized until they were adults. This creates a middle-way membership for those who were blessed as babies, but who have never been baptized, a sort of outsider-insider status. Most members would consider this better than nothing and hope that it would lead to full membership at a future date.
Similar to confirmation rites, most families dress their infant in all white, although this is not required. There has been a lot of discussion about whether the mother may hold her baby during the blessing with the majority of Church leaders refusing this request (although in my Singapore ward this was the norm). Be that as it may, why do we perform this non-saving ordinance?
To beef up membership numbers. This may sound cynical to those who don’t like it, but to those who believe that membership in the Church is necessary, the more children of record, the better. The primary president and teachers can try to get the child (or parents) to attend Church and participate, but only if that information is on the records of the Church. And let’s be honest, it’s a whole lot easier than cold-calling, door-knocking missionary work.
To provide a Mormon placebo equivalent to confirmation. We have to do something, right? This is doing something that looks a whole lot like what other religions do, but it isn’t a saving ordinance.
To honor fatherhood. I couldn’t type “honor motherhood” with a straight face given the tendency of bishops to recoil with horror at the suggestion that a woman hold her baby during the ordinance. But a case could be made that this rite gives fathers and male relatives a formal way to participate in the process of bringing a child into the world (and the Church) that already so intimately and obviously involves the mother. It’s a gendered way to formally encourage fathers to take responsibility for their children.
Circle of Life. In the beginning of the Lion King, Simba, the new infant king, is held up for all the animals to see. Likewise, this rite presents a new human to the congregation so that the group will be mindful of his needs, support her growth, and generally wish the child well. It’s a community event, designed to welcome the new person to the world and the fold.
To promote child-bearing. I have never actually heard someone in the congregation declare suddenly that the blessing process made them want to procreate, but the lifelong exposure to this ritual creates a sense of purpose and journey that can make couples feel like it’s time to get on the bus. Maybe.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I voted to get them on the church rolls. Like you wrote, the baby blessing is the ritual associated with, or which initiates, the creation of a membership record. A membership record can be created for a child without performing a baby blessing but this has become the ritual of presenting a new child before the church in compliance with D&C 20:70. It really serves no other purpose.
I am curious about your experience in Singapore. Does anyone know of other areas where mothers are allowed to hold their children during the blessing?
I put other. My recently born child was blessed by me in our home, no Bishopric even made aware. My wife held the baby, it was beautiful. I’m 100% confident that Jesus won’t punish the child or me as a result. It’s kind of like temple marriages. It would be tremendously embarrassing for a father, uncle, grandfather, etc., to be unable to participate. It gives a reason for men to be active in the Church. You dont want to literally be outside the circle within Mormonism.
I voted “Other.” Baby blessings are to fulfill the scriptural mandate laid out in D&C 20:70.
(“Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name.” )
This is why, in earlier generations, baby blessings were not done by the father, but by a member of the bishopric. (Where’s J. Stapley for context?)
Blessing babies at home fail to meet this requirement–the blessing is to be performed “before the church.”
So… Is it a baby ritual? Yes! Is it so members can be aware of a newcomer to the ward community? Yes! But it is also something more: It is an opportunity to call down the blessings of heaven upon the child, and pronounce prophetic promises for their future life. (The phrase in the OP ” list of attributes and life experiences that are wished for the infant” is, IMO, really inadequate to describe the grandeur of what actually takes place.)
“Confirmation” isn’t the right word. Maybe you meant “christening.”
Or dedication. We have relatives who are Baptists and they do dedications of infants.
Blessings of children at home without participation or knowledge of the bishop, such as described by Greggggg, are completely appropriate and can be performed however the parents wish but those blessings are not the same thing as baby blessings discussed in the OP. The blessing described by Greggggg is a father’s blessing and is described in section 20.8 of Handbook 2. The baby blessing being discussed in the OP is described in section 20.2 in Handbook 2. The differences are that a baby blessing is an officially sanctioned and recognized blessing requiring approval and participation of the bishopric, has specific instructions for how it is completed, is recorded by the church on a specific form, and is used to initiate the creation of the membership record for the child. A father’s blessing at home includes none of that. When hawkgrrrl asks, “What’s the point of baby blessings?”, what she is asking is, what’s the point of naming and blessing children as described in section 20.2 of Handbook 2? If I have misinterpreted hawkgrrrl’s intent, she is welcome to correct me.
Are blessings in the home with the bishop present legitimate then? We blessed one of my babies at home because we lived in a burgeoning ward of young families. During the month my son was born there were about a dozen other babies born and then the next month another large amount and so on. So it made blessing babies during Sacrament Meeting very difficult logistically.
yamabeth, yes the baby blessing can be performed at home with the approval of the bishop.
DB,
I agree that home blessings dont conform with handbook. Aside from that, do believe that they are spiritually inferior or invalidated as a result?
This makes kids members of record, sort of depriving them of an actual choice to be a believer in the church (I thought the Book of Mormon had a few choice words against that). It keeps families sort of tied to the church (at least in the Mormon belt). It is the expectation that the father bless a child after birth. It gives the church leaders and the members’ family members a way to do a check on activity, faithfulness, and worthiness. If the baby is blessed, then the family can check off the box that they are still active and believing. If the baby is not blessed, that signals that they are going inactive and are in need of an intervention.
“Baby blessings are to fulfill the scriptural mandate laid out in D&C 20:70.
(“Every member of the church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name.” )”
What he said. Hopefully, the first of many father’s blessings.
Second most important purpose: for the dad to hold up the baby, like in The Lion King.
“Second most important purpose: for the dad to hold up the baby, like in The Lion King.”
Is it a cultural substitute for dad passing out cigars to his friends and associates? My dad did both with his first born. Oh, wait, maybe that old American cigar custom is gone
I had a question with this. Its about the bishop “being invited” to participate. I don’t ever remember asking him. Not even with my first, when my mom was coaching me and hinting at what needed to be done (call this person, remember to call your brother, luncheon at the house after, don’t put the dress on until the very last moment, practice bouncing the baby so they don’t cry) for this ritual that apparently had expectations I was supposed to already know despite no one ever telling me about them.
I don’t remember ever inviting the bishop. I don’t remember being told I needed to. He just always invites himself. Why is that? I mean he’s a nice man and all but why is he there?
Greggggg, spiritually inferior or invalidated? Not at all, just not the same. They are two different types of blessings that serve different purposes. Apples and oranges.
Niki La– The bishop “invites himself,” as you say, because the D&C specifies that the leading elders of the church are to participate in the ordinance. Otherwise, it’s a regular father’s blessing, which is great, but doesn’t meet the scriptural purpose for which the ordinance was intended.