Usurping Patriarchal Blessings

[Walter Sobchak]

{ redacted }

[RobinFinderson]

I disagree. If you are going to believe in these sorts of things, the idea that a child's own father might have divine insight into things, or that God might honor righteous desires expressed in a father's blessing to his son/daughter, is every bit as appropriate as some old stranger doing the same thing later on in life.

[JohnnyLingo]

Doesn't do any harm. I'd classify this as a pet peeve... not sure it's worth an entire thread.

But what do I know?

[RobinFinderson]

Doesn't do any harm. I'd classify this as a pet peeve... not sure it's worth an entire thread.

But what do I know?

LOL! You are incredibly gifted at this.

[RobinFinderson]

Well, I guess that depends on how much you believe that "some old stranger" can be inspired by God. Yes?

And I should note, most of the current LDS leadership hierarchy is comprised of old men that I've never met in person, e.g. strangers. Yet, I still place a great deal of confidence in them.

cheers.

I think the appropriateness of a father offering a full blessing has a lot to do with one's view of the priesthood. Does holding the priesthood give one authority to perform blessings or doesn't it? If one has the authority to bless, then does one view the blesser as a conduit that speaks the words that God would speak, or does one believe the blesser has been trusted with authority, and is therefore in a position to use his own righteous desires and hopes and creativity to bless the life of the child.

I think most Mormons view giving blessings as something almost like a form of righteous possession, where the blesser is possessed in such a way that he is speaking the words that God would speak, and not his own words. Even when I had faith, I came to view such an attitude to blessings as pretty enfeebling. IMO, if one believes they have priesthood authority, then one should also believe that they have the right to say, "I bless you to walk," or "I bless you to..." whatever the righteous heart desires. It is priesthood authority. Not priesthood possession. And the whole idea that the priesthood holder is still beholden to the will of God can only take you so far, because God generally wants his followers to man up, and stop giving wimpy blessings.

[doctorcoug]

Define patriarch, you may use a root language of origin.

[Solon]

In a recent post, somkeymoutainrain disclosed that while he was blessing his son (during a confirmation) a couple of weeks ago, he considered blessing him with "the desire to serve mission or something along those lines", but instead blessed him with "the desire to serve others, act out of compassion and learn to be Christlike".

I wanted to start this new thread to 1) state how admirable I thought this action was (well done smokeymountainrain!), and 2) discuss the appropriateness of content in children's blessings with respect to a Patriarchal Blessing that the child would likely receive in the future.

On more than one occasion, I have felt that baby blessings and confirmations were being given in such a way as to usurp (or supplant if you'd rather use a milder term) Patriarchal Blessings. Some Fathers will go on and on about how a child will graduate from seminary, attend college, serve a mission, find the worthy [man|woman] of their choosing, get married in the temple, have a righteous posterity, etc. At some point I have to wonder... what does that dude think a Patriarchal Blessing is for?!

Fathers blessing their newborn babies are (in general) the worst offenders. Just bless the kid that [he|she] will have a healthy body, develop faith, be humble, love [his|her] neighbor... and then let the chips fall where they may. Any baby blessing that diverges from these simple things or goes on longer than 3 or 4 minutes is - I'm afraid to say - Pharisaical and pretentious.

Agree? Disagree?

BTW... I practice what I preach. I'm just looking over the three ¾-page blessings I prepared for my children. Each are concise, asked for simple things (health, faith, humility, sound judgment, etc), and were short enough to be memorized.

cheers.

No flippancy intended, but a father's blessing is a "patriarchal blessing" in its most literal sense. I see no problem with a father blessing his child in whatever way he feels inspired. In my opinion, it's a much older, more personal, and more scripturally based practice than having the stake patriarch offer a personalized prophecy and declaration of lineage. In fact, when the practice of LDS patriarchal blessings developed around 1834, LDS patriarchs offered blessings only to the "fatherless." A Times and Seasons editorial from June 1845 (scroll down to page 921) explained:

Every father, after he has received his patriarchal blessing, is a Patriarch to his own family; and has the right to confer patriarchal blessings upon his family; which blessing will be just as legal as those conferred by any Patriarch of the church: in fact it is his right; and a Patriarch in blessing his children, can only bless as his mouth-piece.

A Patriarch to the church is appointed to bless those who are orphans, or have no father in the church to bless them.

(See Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (1994), pp. 51-53.).

If anything, the stake patriarchs are usurping from fathers.

[TripletDaddy]

For the most part, those "blessings" in a Father's Blessing are superfluous. Baby blessings are a neat tradition but really have zero relevance in terms of salvation, Church membership, etc. They are in no way required by anyone.

A father has no special ability (over any other priesthood holder) to "bless" someone to be able to do something. A father may be privy to revelation for his family, but most of the general pronouncements made during blessings tend to be grand proclamations of future events, as opposed to simple words of love, encouragement, or comfort.

Most of the things that are listed in the average Father's Blessing are already things that are available to everyone, thus what is the point of "blessing" someone with them? For example, why would you bless your baby to be able to study the scriptures or go on a mission? The child will be able to go on a mission with or without that blessing and it is the child's decision to serve the mission. Blessing the baby that they will serve a mission does basically nothing. If taken literally, you could argue that it violates the individual's agency.

I also am not really sure why we bless a baby to give him or her a name. For what? They already have a name and if you didn't want to bless the baby in Church, all you really have to do is tell the Ward Clerk and he will enter the name into the computer. Pretty simple. All these things seem to be holdover practices from either the Anglican church or our Latter-day protestant and/or Catholic roots.

On its face, how much relevance does your baby blessing have if you are totally incapable of remembering any of it, let alone understanding any of it? It is a nice tradition, but since it ultimate has no true relevance to our salvation, I say let people do or say whatever. I think this is why the ordinance is barely regulated. You don't have to say anything particular during the blessing portion of the blessing, it is up to you who participates, it can be done anywhere, and it isn't even required.

We blessed our 3 babies and it was a nice time. I should have blessed my children that they would become wealthy child actors by the age of 6.

[RobinFinderson]

On its face, how much relevance does your baby blessing have if you are totally incapable of remembering any of it, let alone understanding any of it?

I guess the answer to this question would depend on whether one felt that priesthood's power is the power to inspire, or whether there was something more to it than inspiration.

[TripletDaddy]

I guess the answer to this question would depend on whether one felt that priesthood's power is the power to inspire, or whether there was something more to it than inspiration.

But this is exactly my point. What you are suggesting seems to violate the individual's agency. In the case of a father saying, "I am blessing you that you can grow up and go on a mission..."....I don't see the point in that.

1. The baby doesnt understand it
2. You can't force someone through the Priesthood to go on a mission
3. That baby already has the opportunity to grow up and serve a mission. There is no need to make such a pronouncement.

[Solon]

But this is exactly my point. What you are suggesting seems to violate the individual's agency. .

While I don't disagree with this, I think Robin's point has merit. Some people I've met consider priesthood blessings to have a more binding power that comes close to "destiny" or similar.

While that's a discussion for another thread, most blessings qualify the "destiny" component of a blessing [if I can describe it so crudely] by adding something like "through your faithfulness" or "according to the will of the Lord."

[RobinFinderson]

But this is exactly my point. What you are suggesting seems to violate the individual's agency. In the case of a father saying, "I am blessing you that you can grow up and go on a mission..."....I don't see the point in that.

1. The baby doesnt understand it
2. You can't force someone through the Priesthood to go on a mission
3. That baby already has the opportunity to grow up and serve a mission. There is no need to make such a pronouncement.

I see. So it isn't technically right to bless the baby that he will go on a mission for the reasons that you list. But those same reasons, for the most part, carry over to the blessing offered by the patriarch, especially in those cases (as is common these days) when the mother writes down the blessings presented in the baby blessing to give to the child when s/he gets older. In that case the father's blessing is just like a Patriarchal blessing, and if it would be appropriate for the Patriarch, then it would also be appropriate for the father.

I didn't address the mission thing directly. In the blessing that I gave to Little Robin I blessed him that he would have great intelligence and a kind heart. I blessed him that he would be able to recognize the needs of others, and that such a gift would make him powerful in rendering service to others. In other words, I was specific, yet these were the righteous desires of my own heart. I didn't bless him to go on a mission, but I blessed him that he would be able to read books, and understand their content with ease, and that through the exercise of that blessing he would grow intelligent and wise. Specific, but no limiting. These were my hopes for him, my righteous desires. I think priesthood holders should bless their children with conviction.

[TripletDaddy]

I see. So it isn't technically right to bless the baby that he will go on a mission for the reasons that you list. But those same reasons, for the most part, carry over to the blessing offered by the patriarch, especially in those cases (as is common these days) when the mother writes down the blessings presented in the baby blessing to give to the child when s/he gets older. In that case the father's blessing is just like a Patriarchal blessing, and if it would be appropriate for the Patriarch, then it would also be appropriate for the father.

I didn't address the mission thing directly. In the blessing that I gave to Little Robin I blessed him that he would have great intelligence and a kind heart. I blessed him that he would be able to recognize the needs of others, and that such a gift would make him powerful in rendering service to others. In other words, I was specific, yet these were the righteous desires of my own heart. I didn't bless him to go on a mission, but I blessed him that he would be able to read books, and understand their content with ease, and that through the exercise of that blessing he would grow intelligent and wise. Specific, but no limiting. These were my hopes for him, my righteous desires. I think priesthood holders should bless their children with conviction.

A Patriarch has been conferred keys to do this. A father has been given no keys directly to do such. He is entitled as a patriarch of his home to receive inspiration (see Solon's post), but can a dad pronounce lineage? The Church would shut down that practice pretty quickly.

Also, one goes to a Patriarch willingly and when ready. There is a reason we don't give infants Patriarchal Blessings. Stake Patriarchs are callings that are usually vetted and bestowed upon faithful men. Basically, any dad can get up in the circle and bless his baby, even guys that were recently inactive. Again, I think this is why the Church doesn't even bother regulating Baby Blessings. Who cares? Let them have at it.

As far as your pronouncements, I think those are nice things. Mine were probably similar with my kids. But what I am saying is that I think they are more ceremonial as opposed to literal. Again, Little Robin will read books with or without your "blessing" him to do so.

Blessing a baby to come to learn of the love of the Savior, to understand that his or her family loves them, etc....those things make more sense to me. Blessing a baby to get a bachelor's degree....not so much.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I have always thought of a baby blessing as an expression of a father's hopes and dreams for his new infant. An outpouring of love. That's good enough for me.

[RobinFinderson]

It is strange, talking about things like the priesthood, which I don't believe in anymore. But when I believed, I felt like the priesthood was a sort of invitation to be more proactive in my service to others. It was a kind of sacred trust. I had authority, and as such I could act upon that authority. It was a kind of sacred trust that I could do things and say things, and that according to my faithfulness and righteous desires, God would honor these statements in meaningful ways.

Fathers used to give Patriarchal blessing to their children, or so Solon's Times and Seasons quote would have me believe. I'm not sure when the church adopted the 'keys' metaphor as a way to limit the exercise of priesthood authority. These days having the priesthood doesn't seem like such a big deal. They call kids 'elders.' It all seems like spiritual grade inflation, where folks have increasingly lofty titles, but less actual trust to do anything on their own.