While preparing to bless our baby, I had wanted to participate by holding her since that would be the only church ordinance for our children that I would be able to be a (small) part of. But I was worried about making a fuss, I was worried that my Bishop would say no, and I was worried people would judge me. I also wanted to let my husband have this special moment with our child.
We chose only close family, one friend, and the Bishop to join in the blessing. I wanted it to be men who love my baby and who would be there for her through all of life’s ups and downs. So imagine my surprise when everyone invited to participate joins in a circle around my baby, and a complete stranger from the Stake steps in beside my husband. Sitting in the pews, there was nothing I could do. So I watched as a stranger participated in this sacred moment with my child because he held the priesthood, while I sat beneath them, powerless because I am a woman.
– Anonymous
The missionaries in our branch baptized a very sweet family with a newborn baby. Very quickly the husband was ordained with the priesthood so he could bless the baby. On the day of the blessing, the wife proudly carried the baby up to the front with her husband by her side. The branch president took the baby from her arms, handed it to the husband, and directed her to a seat in the congregation. The look of utter confusion on her face was heartbreaking.
– ST
This same thing happened in my ward with a single mother. Only add that the mother and baby were black and all but one of the men in the circle were white. She never came back to church.
– LP
This reminded me one recent baby blessing in our branch. Baby’s mother is an inactive member, father is non-member, therefore the baby was blessed by a leader who is a complete stranger to the baby. The baby was crying. But still the non-member father was the one who took the baby to the stand and stood beside the circle, not his mother who is a member. The mother sat silently in a back row!
– ES
When I told my Bishop I wanted to hold my baby during his blessing, I was accused of being a attention-seeking and shamed. I actually wanted to help bless my baby but was trying to stay faithful. When I spoke with a member of the Stake Presidency about this, he instantly said he didn’t see why holding my baby would be an issue. He said he would check for me but left me feeling hopeful. The next week in church, the Stake Presidency member cited the handbook apologetically and backed up the Bishop. I was devastated. I had prayed for guidance for my family and a handbook trumped my personal revelation.
– Anonymous
I felt very invisible when I wasn’t allowed to hold my baby during his baby blessing, not even inside my own home. This was actually the best bishop I’ve ever had. But this was very painful.
– Kristen
Pro Tip: When a woman under your stewardship makes a request that goes against the norm, perform a thought exercise where you ask yourself, what is the harm? And, what would Jesus do? And, am I putting policies before people?
Click here to read all of the stories in our #hearLDSwomen series. Has anything like this happened to you? Please share in the comments or submit your experience(s) to participate in the series.
“If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mark 4:23)
21 Responses
There is no legitimate reason moms can’t hold their babies in blessings. It’s just a (heartless) way to hold the line against women wanting more, and it makes me sick.
I hope my comments are note interpreted to distract from the raw feelings that many women feel in being left out of ordinances. But I want to take the conversation further. Why in Mormonism does it even matter who participates in the ordinances? Why do we internalize these feelings and make it about the participants as much as about the person receiving the ordinance? Is this good or bad? In many other churches the ordinances are performed by a priest who may or may not have a personal relationship with the family. The priest, minister, rabbi, or other person performs the ordinance, often alone, and the focus is on the ordinance. However, in Mormonism there is a huge focus on the participants. Baby blessings are a perfect example. Why does it matter if the father blesses the baby with just the bishop participating, or if 12 other men, usually brothers, uncles, grandfathers, etc. participate? Sometimes this gets a little out of hand and sensitive feelings are hurt if brother-in-law Joe is not invited to join in the circle. Why? It also seems a trend now to have a teenage brother baptize his little brother or sister instead of the traditional father performing the baptism. Some families claim this enhances the family experience and strengthens the bond between siblings. Why? Shouldn’t the fact that the child is being baptized matter most, and it should not matter at all who actually performs the baptism? Also, some people get real particular about who performs their temple sealing. Somehow if a grandfather is a sealer, or you are related to an apostle and ask him to perform the sealing, does it make the ordinance better or more special? Now, I am not naïve here and I recognize for many people, if not most, the participants do matter. That is why traditional weddings have bridesmaids and groomsmen. Inviting our loved ones to participate can enhance the experience. But does this participatory tradition and the associated feelings that go along with it get amplified because generally speaking in Mormonism we don’t have a paid clergy and most all men can perform the ordinances? Does the fact that most male members can participate put a focus on participation where say in other churches this is not an issue? Does a focus on participation enhance the ordinance or distract from it? Personally, I think a woman should be able to hold her baby during a blessing, but my questions about participation in blessings go beyond that question. Thoughts?
Funny when you can tell that a poster is male because he just doesn’t get it.
I think in most other religions, the professional clergy does the ordinance and family participates on an equal footing. For a wedding, there is the preacher (male or female) and there are grooms men and brides maids. Not grooms men and women sitting watching. If it a baptism, the priest does the baptism and every ne else watches. It isn’t men do the baptism, men are official witnesses, men do the confirmation and all the women do nothing but make refreshments for the party after.
I think it is the lay ministry that allows SOME family to participate that makes it so who does the ordinance matters because it is not predetermined. The unequal participation that makes it so only half of the family can participate then hurts that half that is always left out and causes hurt feelings if a man who expects to be included is left out, such as when uncle Joe gets left out of the circle. If all the family watches the professional clergy do it, then it is fair and equal. But when Dad or brother is given the “honor” of doing it, then it begins to matter. I know of men who were terribly hurt when a child asked grandpa to confirm them a member. It matters because it is an honor given to some but not all.
So, the problem of “it matters who performs the ordinance” started when most male lay members become lay clergy. Since many people could do it, it does matter who gets to do it. Then, because only half of lay members get to be lay clergy, then women are going to feel left out.
It is an honor to be allowed to perform an ordinance for someone you love, so, especially when the woman has just gone through 9 months of miserable pregnancy, then hours of labor and delivery, then the only public honor of blessing the baby goes to the father. Talk about a slap in the face. Not so much that the father says the words, but that the mother who deserves to be honored is made invisible. If our culture really valued children, then we would give some honor to the people who do all the work of getting them here. But, no, giving birth is just seen as “what women do” as if it is magic and not particularly deserving of any honor or attention. So, we hand the honor and attention to a man and make the mother invisible. Who would not have hurt feelings being made invisible while all the honor and attention goes to the support person rather than the one who does the actual work.
Thank you. Whether I get it or not is not the point; why do you think I posed the questions? I’m trying to understand different points of view and expand my understanding of the Mormon cultural issues. I have heard women share their pain for many many years now over feeling excluded from these ordinances. I don’t deny that pain or the source of it. I am trying to understand further why Mormonism has such an emphasis on participation in the ordinances and how that affects all people (mom, hurt uncle, etc.) So perhaps one answer to my question is that it is due to a lay clergy, where many can participate, but not all, or where there is choice and discretion in participation (on the male part). That then in turn puts a focus on the participation where with a Catholic priest or Jewish rabbi that focus is not a concern. Would it make a difference if a father was not allowed to bless the child, but only the bishop? I see your point about grandpa being asked to do the confirmation and dad getting his feelings hurt. I think men could look at that example, and if they are honest with themselves, feel some empathy for a mother who would like to participate but can’t
Anon2, what a wonderful thought experiment for you – someone who will never be excluded from performing ordinances by virtue of their gender.
Why does it matter? Why shouldn’t it matter? When more than half of every member in a given congregation is kept out of participating in sacred ordinances by virtue of their perceived gender, it matters.
I think the main answer to your questions lies in the LDS emphasis on the family. Ordinances are as much about joining the sealed family as they are about coming unto Christ–baby blessings in particular have little to do with discipleship and everything about taking the first step toward binding an individual into the human family. With this family emphasis, family involvement follows, especially since (nearly) all the men of our faith have been given power to perform these ordinances and blessings. Performing an ordinance becomes a reward for “living right.” But this “reward” is doled out unevenly, by systemic design. Men are essentially told, “You have the power to bring people into salvation,” and women are excluded from that power, and this is demonstrated publicly whenever an ordinance is performed.
I don’t know that I’ve explained myself very well. It’s a very complicated issue. And from the start, your questions are a bit off the mark because baby blessings are not ordinances. They are a matter of community and family, so to deliberately exclude anyone will of course bring hurt feelings.
Most of your questions could be reframed as “why does participating in something seem more important than just watching something happen?” to which the answer is fairly obvious.
Thank you. Good point about baby blessings not being ordinances. Even better point about the focus on the family. I guess since the ordinances aren’t seen solely as a commitment to God, but also a joining with the family and community that makes sense. Perhaps if it was only a commitment to God then all that would matter is the person making the commitment, and nobody else. But if we wrap it into the community then the participation matters more.
“because baby blessings are not ordinances.”
This is news to me. Care to give a reason why you state this as if it is true, and everyone knows it?
Andrew R., I believe they mean that it’s not a SAVING ordinance.
Indeed, after going through something similar, I find out YEARS LATER that baby blessings aren’t even “recorded” at all. I thought there was a check mark or date on a person’s church record if they’ve had a baby blessing, but there’s not (I imagine you probably knew this, but as a woman who has/will never be privy to the back end of church records, I had no idea).
When I told my bishop I’d hold my baby during his blessing and if he wasn’t okay with that, we’d just do it “off the record,” he still acted like it was a huge deal. Of course, that’s because ALL baby blessings are “off the record,” but he didn’t tell me that. They just maintain a veneer of “officialness” for control purposes, apparently.
The naming and blessing of a baby is actually what initiates the creation of the child’s church membership record. So yes, it is official because it has to be authorized by the bishop and there is an official form that is used to record the baby blessing. That form is given to the ward membership clerk who uses the information on the form to create the child’s membership record. This is, in fact, the main purpose of a baby naming and blessing. It is the ritual associated with the creation of the official membership record for the child. Of course, many membership records are created without the naming and blessing, and the naming and blessing is certainly not required for a membership record to be created, but that is the main purpose of the blessing. Parents can certainly give their baby a blessing “off the record” and do it anyway they want, but that’s exactly how it will remain, “off the record”, as no membership record will be created from that blessing.
I don’t think this is totally accurate. My hubs was the ward clerk for years and created new records for babies just after they were born, some of whom were blessed weeks later, others were never blessed at all. The purpose of the baby blessing isn’t to officially recognize them on the church rolls, in spite of many fathers invoking this purpose in their prayers. The purpose is stated here 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.”
I think for a clerk or a bishop to believe that they can’t create a record for an infant who wasn’t officially blessed is an error.
Like I wrote in my last comment, “many membership records are created without the naming and blessing, and the naming and blessing is certainly not required for a membership record to be created”. So, no, there is no reason for a bishop or clerk to believe that a membership record cannot be created without a naming and blessing. To clarify, what I wrote was in accordance with policies in place when I was a ward membership clerk, but that was some years ago. If I remember correctly, a membership record could be created simply at the request of the parents if no baby blessing was performed but the policy was to not create a record during the child’s first year until the naming and blessing was performed. I don’t know what current membership record policies are but the sole purpose of the form that is completed for the baby blessing is or was to create the membership record.
And as far as how many fathers pronounce that this is the name the child shall be known as on the records of the church or something like that when naming their child, that is a tradition I would love to see die off and is in no way part of how the blessing is supposed to be performed. Of all the ordinances and blessings that are performed in the church, the naming and blessing of children is the one that is, by far, butchered the worst.
I’ve been semi-frequently attending a nondenominational Christian church for a couple years now and they do baby dedications there. What happens is everyone in the family is brought up on stage, the parents choose a Scripture they have decided to dedicate to their child, the children’s pastor (a woman in this congregation) reads it aloud, and then after every baby’s Scripture is read, the pastor leads a prayer for all the babies. No one is left out and the mother is not excluded. It’s so much more edifying and inspiring that what I’ve experienced, especially as a mother of four who never got to participate in her children’s baby blessings.
In one meeting I attended, a new member was getting the Holy Ghost. He had his emotional support dog on his lap the whole time inside the circle. If a dog can be inside the circle, why can’t the mother?!
A new thought I’ve never had before, why not ALSO bless the mother? If we believe motherhood is the pinnacle of female human experience, why not take the opportunity there to elevate and bless her as well? Noted that it would make baby blessings even worse to endure for women who want children and haven’t had them, but it would at least be consistent logic with taught doctrine.
These stories are sad and infuriating. I’m sure the people involved have stronger and more complicated responses, but I’m struck over and over by men who haven’t even considered how awful it can make a woman feel to be excluded from even a low level of participation in blessing her own child, when even random men are allowed to participate.
I have been to baby christenings at other churches and the mother always holds her child!
I think there is another aspect to women wanting to hold their newborn during the baby blessing that I have never heard mentioned. Let’s call it the mama bear reaction. I know that it was very hard for me to let my infants out of my sight until they were about 4 months old. I didn’t have a baby sitter or even let my mother watch them. We simply did not go out unless I took my nursing infant with me. I remember a couple of times when we had some military function that my active duty husband had to attend and I had to be with him, the mandatory kind of “social” events, and it was so hard to leave my baby at three or four months old. We always cut the evening short, so that I could relieve the terrible anxiety being away from my baby. So, now consider taking a baby bear away from its mama and forming a circle of men around that baby bear. Mama is going to claw her way through those men to get to her cub. And yet men expect mama human to reasonably had over a baby only a few weeks old and then form a circle of men that shut mama out, and expect her to have no emotional reaction to that. Men have been killed for getting between a mama and baby, and men can’t imagine why mothers have a problem with wanting to hold their baby during the blessing.
Julie Ogden. The dog knows its place. That’s why.
I am 100% holding my own baby during its blessing one day, since you know I carried it for NINE MONTHS. And I want it outside somewhere in nature, not in a stuffy church building. I’m a stubborn person so I’ll move heaven and earth to make this happen
Back in the day (late 1970s) non-member fathers were allowed to stand in the circle for blessing babies. I suggested to a NM friend that he ask to stand in when their first born was blessed. Of course, his member wife was excluded. I suspect that one reason NM men are no longer allowed to stand in, was to get rid of pesky questions about non-member males being allowed, while active, tithe-paying females were excluded.