Question about Father's Blessings

[NorthwestUteFan]

Just do it. It is better for the kids. To hell with her manipulation!

[Sullyute]

If a father wants to bless his kids, I think he has that right. Even if all it does is reassure a child of a father's care, it's more than done its job. Regardless of religious convictions, a father's love is authority enough, IMO.

I love this! And just to add my two cents, DNW you should definitely give your children a father's blessing, and I think you should invoke the priesthood too. You hold it, so use it. Personally I think worthiness has little to do with calling down the blessings of heaven.

[Tex]

I love this! And just to add my two cents, DNW you should definitely give your children a father's blessing, and I think you should invoke the priesthood too. You hold it, so use it. Personally I think worthiness has little to do with calling down the blessings of heaven.

Fortunately, that isn't true.

[jay santos]

Fortunately, that isn't true.

First of all...fortunately? lol

Second, you read the scriptures and believe that unworthy human beings are unable to fulfill God's will by following or speaking the words of the Holy Ghost?

[Tex]

First of all...fortunately? lol

Yep. It's a good thing that God has stipulations for honoring acts performed in his name by his power.

Second, you read the scriptures and believe that unworthy human beings are unable to fulfill God's will by following or speaking the words of the Holy Ghost?

Nope. I was speaking specifically of priesthood ordinances.

[jay santos]

Yep. It's a good thing that God has stipulations for honoring acts performed in his name by his power.



Nope. I was speaking specifically of priesthood ordinances.

Personally I think worthiness has little to do with calling down the blessings of heaven.

Tex, this is what you responded "fortunately" to. In a thread where a father wants to bless his children.

[Sullyute]

Fortunately, that isn't true.

Yep. It's a good thing that God has stipulations for honoring acts performed in his name by his power.

Nope. I was speaking specifically of priesthood ordinances.

So how do you explain leaders like Apostle Richard Lyman living in adultery (or polygamy) for 20 years yet gave blessings, set people apart, called people on missions, organized stakes all while using the priesthood. What about John D,. Lee and Stake President Haight, killing women and children in cold blood, but still being high church learders exercising their priesthood. John D Lee was known for his healing abilities via the preisthood, even after the massacre. What about the countless bishops and stake priesidents that have molested children and teenagers, but then use their priesthood to set apart, bless and help others? Are all of these priesthood ordinances void? Do they go and re-ordain re-set apart people after a church leader has been released for transgression?

I never said that an unrighteous person could bring down blessings on themselves, but I believe that they can still be an instrument in the hands of God to bless others. You can believe what you want.

[SeattleUte]

FWIW: here's the official party line.I'm with you, though, DNW! If a father wants to bless his kids, I think he has that right. Even if all it does is reassure a child of a father's care, it's more than done its job. Regardless of religious convictions, a father's love is authority enough, IMO.

Speaking for myself, there are better ways to show a father's love. The thing about kids is it's like being in a jury trial, every word counts (yes, I don't always live like I realize this, by any means). I've never been exed and I guess I am technically a "priesthood holder". But I think it would be a stressful and confusing experience for my kids if I gave them a priesthood blessing and invoked priesthood and Jesus' name and such.

The LDS Church is only one means of developing a value system. But (I believe) it's most important that you make your values clearly known to your children and try to live by them. (I'm not saying one value system is as good as anther; it's just not so.)

[SeattleUte]

I guess what I'm saying is as usual (as to LDS practice issues) I agree with Tex and disagree with progressive Mormons.

[Solon]

Yep. It's a good thing that God has stipulations for honoring acts performed in his name by his power.

Tex is weighing in on a 1700 year-old tradition of whether rituals & ordinances performed by "unworthy" priesthood holders are valid in the eyes of God.

The Donatists (who took essentially the same position that Tex mentions here, that the ordinances were invalid), were not forgiving of priesthood holders who had lapsed and refused to ever readmit them into the fold. They were eventually declared schismatic by the Catholic church.

As the nephew of one of these Donatists noted, "What is it to you what they have done? Each must give his account to God."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05121a.htm

[wuapinmon]

Fortunately, that isn't true.

[Portland Ute]

Fortunately, that isn't true.

Fortunately for you, it is true or a guy like Joseph Smith probably isn't able to restore the true and everlasting gospel to the world.

[Tex]

Tex, this is what you responded "fortunately" to. In a thread where a father wants to bless his children.

No. I explained my comment plainly to you. I'm not going to do it again.

Are all of these priesthood ordinances void? Do they go and re-ordain re-set apart people after a church leader has been released for transgression?

No. I don't have citations handy, but I believe the doctrine is that God will still honor the validity of ordinances performed by unworthy persons, predicated on the faith of the recipient. The person performing them, on the other hand ...

The Donatists (who took essentially the same position that Tex mentions here, that the ordinances were invalid)

Nope. See above.

[Tex]

Fortunately for you, it is true or a guy like Joseph Smith probably isn't able to restore the true and everlasting gospel to the world.

This doesn't even make any sense. Joseph Smith did not unworthily exercise the priesthood in restoring the gospel.

[Solon]

No. I don't have citations handy, but I believe the doctrine is that God will still honor the validity of ordinances performed by unworthy persons, predicated on the faith of the recipient. The person performing them, on the other hand ...

Nope. See above.

Sorry Tex. Didn't mean to mis-represent you.