Currently denied by Bishop to give a Baby Blessing...

[SunbeltRed]

We had a new addition to the family about a month ago. Emailed my Bishop to inform him we were going to bless the baby and he wanted to talk first.

On the old site I had posted about being outed in a secret FB group so my Bishop has had an inkling about how I feel about things, that plus I have been pretty inactive over the last 7-8 months.

So he wanted to dig in. We went through the temple recommend questions. I answered No to a few of the ones you should answer yes to (believing in the restoration, and believing in the Prophets)

I told him I don't believe it, I don't support the prophets or apostles, the November policy is not from God and that I don't believe in a true church.
He was nice but said to do an ordinance I have to believe and that he can't let me do it.

I told him that's fine, I'm not angry about I understand his position. But now I'm a second class citizen and my wife will be and my kids are going to hear lessons that paint me in a bad light, all because I don't believe the right way.
So he said he'll pray about it and we'll meet back up next week.

He had/has such a hard time understanding my disbelief. I didn't go into details about anything, kept it to personal experiences. He thinks I need to keep "trying" to get a testimony. I told him that ship has sailed.

He sent me an email after our discussion with this quote by Ted Callister:

“I can live with some human imperfections, even among prophets of God—that is to be expected in mortal beings. I can live with some alleged scientific findings contrary to the Book of Mormon; time will correct those. And I can live with some seeming historical anomalies; they are minor in the total landscape of truth. But I cannot live without the doctrinal truths and ordinances restored by Joseph Smith, I cannot live without the priesthood of God to bless my family, and I cannot live without knowing my wife and children are sealed to me for eternity. That is the choice we face—a few unanswered questions on one hand versus a host of doctrinal certainties and the power of God on the other.”

He said a few other things as well about continuing to work on getting a testimony. It was nice heartfelt email, but full of the condescending fear mongering we hear so much here.

I sent a reply email with a few snippets of my own:

"Thank you for the kind note. I have continued to think about our conversation as well. I appreciate your feelings about the church and the joy it brings you. However, as I mentioned I do not believe that the LDS church is the arbiter of the doctrines of our creator, not do I believe in a God who claims that families are of eternal significance yet who's default position is to separate them at death. I still hold to faith in eternal families, but I don't believe that we need special ceremonies to make that happen."

I also let him know that if he really wanted to understand there are a few things he might listen to or read:

I think these might be helpful as the hosts of the show come from an evangelical background, have been through their own faith journeys and wrestled with their own beliefs, and you might be more inclined to listen as it doesn't necessarily touch on Mormonism. If you listen, my journey is probably more reflected by that of Michael Gungor, though there are parts of Mike McHargue's (the other host) journey that resonate deeply. Their journeys have been different from mine, but contain many of the same elements.

http://www.theliturgists.com/podcast/20 ... und-part-1
http://www.theliturgists.com/podcast/20 ... und-part-2

A couple of books that have also been profoundly impactful and resonate part of my journey as well and may give you some insight into understanding some of the issues someone like me might wrestle with.

Searching for Sunday by Rachel Held Evans
Grace is Not God's Backup Plan by Adam Miller (he is a Mormon writer and thinker)
Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time by Marcus Borg

Anyway, it's been an interesting discussion with him, I feel bad sometimes about it, I think many leaders are completely ill-prepared to deal with someone like me who has read outside the correlated materials, and not only about Mormonism, but about Christianity and religion in general.

I suspect he will deny me the opportunity to bless my kid, which will cause some interesting conversations with my family, but I'm ok if that's the case. It's probably about time to just come clean to my parents.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

This sucks, but at the same time you are probably ready for that shift anyway. At times I fantasize about the time my Bishop finally decides I'm out as it would allow me to move on and finally give me the excuse to stop although family relationships will surely suffer.

[SunbeltRed]

Strange as it may sound, I think he's doing me a solid. It's time to move on and him forcing my hand may be a tender mercy in the long run. I have a hard time upsetting people, mostly my parents who I love and respect.

It's also a sign that the LDS church and my ward in particular is much more interested in conformity and authority than they are in being a place for people to explore faith and belief. It's unfortunte that it has come to this, but so it is.

[Corsair]

It's also a sign that the LDS church and my ward in particular is much more interested in conformity and authority than they are in being a place for people to explore faith and belief. It's unfortunte that it has come to this, but so it is.

The LDS church might have been about exploring belief and faith when Joseph Smith was prophet. But it rapidly lost that spark starting with Brigham Young despite a few positive signs during McKay's presidency.

How would your family react if you simply told your bishop, "I will be blessing my baby. No one else will be taking my place nor will I accept any delays due to testimony or worthiness. The only choice you will get it is whether or not I do it with the ward or just with family and friends at my home." A bishop cannot physically prevent you from blessing your baby outside of the church. Admittedly, I'm so bored with church I would look forward to this level of confrontation. You might want to tone it down.

But your goal should still be to retain your place as the father in this family. Don't let the bishop or the church usurp your place as a father. If we are going to have a patriarchal church then having the father perform these ordinances is important. If some other family member or ward member does the blessing then your position as father has been supplanted pretty much from there on out. This same issue will arise when baptisms and priesthood ordinations come up in a few years. These are important community events that introduce your children to the next stage of religious advancement. If you, as father, don't perform the ordinance it will reduce your authority over them and assert that the policies of the LDS church are more important than your fatherly love for your children.

[Korihor]

Strange as it may sound, I think he's doing me a solid. It's time to move on and him forcing my hand may be a tender mercy in the long run. I have a hard time upsetting people, mostly my parents who I love and respect.

It's also a sign that the LDS church and my ward in particular is much more interested in conformity and authority than they are in being a place for people to explore faith and belief. It's unfortunte that it has come to this, but so it is.

I understand what you mean. Maybe it was the kick in the rear to finally be done once and for all.
Wishing you the best whatever path you choose.

[SunbeltRed]

Corsair -

We are blessing our baby whether church sanctioned or not. No one is doing it except for me or my wife. I haven't told the Bishop this, I don't want to get called into a disciplinary court.

But in talking with DW, if it's not church sanctioned I think we might turn the event into a little party at our house and DW and I might do the blessing together, she does part and I do part. I hope the Bishop says no cause our plan B sounds so much cooler and more meaningful.

[No Tof]

Corsair -

We are blessing our baby whether church sanctioned or not. No one is doing it except for me or my wife. I haven't told the Bishop this, I don't want to get called into a disciplinary court.

But in talking with DW, if it's not church sanctioned I think we might turn the event into a little party at our house and DW and I might do the blessing together, she does part and I do part. I hope the Bishop says no cause our plan B sounds so much cooler and more meaningful.

I think this is brilliant and will be much more meaningful to your family.

Will you invite TBM family to join you?

I will suggest this to a couple if sons who might use this approach.

[Snowdrop]

Plan B sounds beautiful! Fingers crossed that you get the opportunity to go for it.

[Linked]

We are blessing our baby whether church sanctioned or not. No one is doing it except for me or my wife. I haven't told the Bishop this, I don't want to get called into a disciplinary court.

But in talking with DW, if it's not church sanctioned I think we might turn the event into a little party at our house and DW and I might do the blessing together, she does part and I do part. I hope the Bishop says no cause our plan B sounds so much cooler and more meaningful.

I think your plan B is a great idea!

Growing up my dad always gave us blessings the night before the first day of school, a memory I cherish. My oldest started school this year and I wanted to continue the tradition, but without the priesthood. So I told my son we would be saying a special prayer instead, and my wife and I each took a turn holding our son while we prayed for him to have a good school year; basically all the blessing stuff. It was really nice and my son loved it.

[DPRoberts]

Corsair -

We are blessing our baby whether church sanctioned or not. No one is doing it except for me or my wife. I haven't told the Bishop this, I don't want to get called into a disciplinary court.

But in talking with DW, if it's not church sanctioned I think we might turn the event into a little party at our house and DW and I might do the blessing together, she does part and I do part. I hope the Bishop says no cause our plan B sounds so much cooler and more meaningful.

I am definitely behind your plan B. It takes control away from the church and brings your wife into rebel territory as well.

If this is what you want to happen, I suggest you play it carefully. If your bishop gets wind of plan B he will most likely capitulate because in the end he and the church are the ones who most want your child's blessing on the church records. So the game plan is to get him to deny you based on what you have told him already.

[Mormorrisey]

This one honestly has got me wondering. From the old board, many of us know the story of how you were outed, but it's still all ridiculous the reaction of your leaders for posting what was essentially YOUR THOUGHTS. To me, it wasn't in public because it was a closed group, so how can you be "punished" for simply thinking differently? Has it really come to this? I always told Sister M I would be done with all things church related once they started to worry about what I was thinking, and stuff like this has convinced me that day is really, really close. I'm so sorry this is happening to you.

I would just reiterate the advice Corsair gave you, that you seem to be leaning toward, and that is to simply have the baby blessed at home. Nothing they can do about that, and hopefully that will limit the family strife. Families, isn't it about time?

Good luck!

[azflyer]

Based on where you are and where things are heading, you may not want to go here, but the handbook clearly gives you bishop discretion here.

20.1.2

Worthiness to Participate in an Ordinance or Blessing

Only a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend may act as voice in confirming a person a member of the Church, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood, ordaining a person to an office in that priesthood, or setting apart a person to serve in a Church calling.

As guided by the Spirit and the instructions in the next paragraph, bishops and stake presidents have discretion to allow priesthood holders who are not fully temple worthy to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings. However, presiding officers should not allow such participation if a priesthood holder has unresolved serious sins.

A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice.

[StarbucksMom]

Corsair -

We are blessing our baby whether church sanctioned or not. No one is doing it except for me or my wife. I haven't told the Bishop this, I don't want to get called into a disciplinary court.

But in talking with DW, if it's not church sanctioned I think we might turn the event into a little party at our house and DW and I might do the blessing together, she does part and I do part. I hope the Bishop says no cause our plan B sounds so much cooler and more meaningful.

This is a HUGE middle finger to the church. It is so completely awesome. Best thing I read today. This is YOUR baby, they have NO RIGHT to tell you that some random home teacher is going to hold your baby in a public meeting and bless it.

[SunbeltRed]

Corsair -

We are blessing our baby whether church sanctioned or not. No one is doing it except for me or my wife. I haven't told the Bishop this, I don't want to get called into a disciplinary court.

But in talking with DW, if it's not church sanctioned I think we might turn the event into a little party at our house and DW and I might do the blessing together, she does part and I do part. I hope the Bishop says no cause our plan B sounds so much cooler and more meaningful.

I think this is brilliant and will be much more meaningful to your family.

Will you invite TBM family to join you?

I will suggest this to a couple if sons who might use this approach.

We will probably invite my parents, they are really the only TBM family I have. However, if we go with Plan B I will have to have the talk with them. They are going to be sad, and I'm not sure they will want to attend or how rocky our relationship will be once I drop the bomb on them. Thinking about this makes me sad...

[SunbeltRed]

This one honestly has got me wondering. From the old board, many of us know the story of how you were outed, but it's still all ridiculous the reaction of your leaders for posting what was essentially YOUR THOUGHTS. To me, it wasn't in public because it was a closed group, so how can you be "punished" for simply thinking differently? Has it really come to this? I always told Sister M I would be done with all things church related once they started to worry about what I was thinking, and stuff like this has convinced me that day is really, really close. I'm so sorry this is happening to you.

I would just reiterate the advice Corsair gave you, that you seem to be leaning toward, and that is to simply have the baby blessed at home. Nothing they can do about that, and hopefully that will limit the family strife. Families, isn't it about time?

Good luck!

Mormorrisey (Have I ever told you how much I love your Avatar name? DW and I tried to see him in concert, he canceled twice, and I got fed up so got a refund),

The reason it has come to this is because I told him straight up two Sunday's ago that I do not believe in a true church, that I don't believe in the restoration, that I don't support the Prophets and Apostles and that there is now way I believe the policy from Nov. 2015 has anything remotely to do with any god that I would believe in...so yeah that's probably why things are the way they are .

I mean I was nice about it, I didn't say I hated them or that they are evil. I said I support them in that I hope they do a good job, but I don't believe they are, you know, the TRUE prophet and apostles.

Then we have exchanged emails, and I reiterated my unbelief. So I'm not terribly surprised.

[SunbeltRed]

Based on where you are and where things are heading, you may not want to go here, but the handbook clearly gives you bishop discretion here.

20.1.2

Worthiness to Participate in an Ordinance or Blessing

Only a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend may act as voice in confirming a person a member of the Church, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood, ordaining a person to an office in that priesthood, or setting apart a person to serve in a Church calling.

As guided by the Spirit and the instructions in the next paragraph, bishops and stake presidents have discretion to allow priesthood holders who are not fully temple worthy to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings. However, presiding officers should not allow such participation if a priesthood holder has unresolved serious sins.

A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice.

AZ Flyer - Here is what I wrote in my last email to him:

I guess one last thought: The handbook says the following: handbook link, look at section 20.1.2

"Bishops and stake presidents have discretion to allow priesthood holders who are not fully temple worthy to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings. However, presiding officers should not allow such participation if a priesthood holder has unresolved serious sins.
A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood."

Notice the handbook doesn't say which questions exactly would take away one's ability to participate in ordinances. The handbook does't specify that it would be lack of belief or lack of paying tithing. It is left to your discretion, but I wonder if "right" or "correct" belief is more of a cultural perception than an administrative one.

This quote by Joseph Smith comes to mind:
“I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:340)"

Thanks again for the note,

[Mormorrisey]

Mormorrisey (Have I ever told you how much I love your Avatar name? DW and I tried to see him in concert, he canceled twice, and I got fed up so got a refund),

The reason it has come to this is because I told him straight up two Sunday's ago that I do not believe in a true church, that I don't believe in the restoration, that I don't support the Prophets and Apostles and that there is now way I believe the policy from Nov. 2015 has anything remotely to do with any god that I would believe in...so yeah that's probably why things are the way they are .

I mean I was nice about it, I didn't say I hated them or that they are evil. I said I support them in that I hope they do a good job, but I don't believe they are, you know, the TRUE prophet and apostles.

Then we have exchanged emails, and I reiterated my unbelief. So I'm not terribly surprised.

Thanks for the clarification. (And yeah, His Holy Mopeness won't play concerts in Canada because of the seal hunt, so my opportunities have been limited. Almost saw him in Detroit a couple of years ago, though!)

Even then, I guess I'm just projecting in that I wouldn't have handled it this way, it seems so heavy handed, as in the quote you shared from JS about not trammelling people. That's what this seems like, and I wouldn't have done it. Just because you don't support a policy, does not mean you have ill will towards the brethren, as you state here; clearly you only have a trouble with the one true church/prophets concept. Having been in a bishop's shoes, I still would have went ahead. To me, that just means you have rather an extended view of what prietshood/authority/keys are, it's just not limited to the LDS church. Does that make one an apostate? To some, sure, but it's still all ridiculous in my mind. Leadership roulette at its finest.

There was a guy who got behind on his tithing some years ago when I was a bishop, I told him to make sure he tried to pay his tithing beginning in the new year (this was October, I think?) and not only did I let him baptize his daughter, but confirm her as well, which under the old policy wasn't supposed to happen. But I figured if Jesus could extend mercy, so could I. This dude is currently on the high council listening to stories of my apostasy, so he's probably really sad for me right now.

In any event, I still think that sucks, for whatever it's worth!

[azflyer]

...some years ago when I was a bishop...

How did I miss this before! You were a bishop!?!?!?!

[Mormorrisey]

...some years ago when I was a bishop...

How did I miss this before! You were a bishop!?!?!?!

Sigh. For over seven years.

Not to thread jack, but anyone remember on the old NOM board the thread that discussed what callings ya'll had? As a newbie on that board, it was so helpful for me to see the RS/Primary presidents, YM/YW presidents, bishops and the like who were having some church challenges - I wasn't the one taking the crazy pills! Don't know if we need that now, but it sure was helpful for me at the time.

[Enoch Witty]

Corsair -

We are blessing our baby whether church sanctioned or not. No one is doing it except for me or my wife. I haven't told the Bishop this, I don't want to get called into a disciplinary court.

But in talking with DW, if it's not church sanctioned I think we might turn the event into a little party at our house and DW and I might do the blessing together, she does part and I do part. I hope the Bishop says no cause our plan B sounds so much cooler and more meaningful.

This really is wonderful. I hope you get to do this.

I'm at a point where the church is 99% of the reason I don't want additional kids, which really means I do want additional kids but not if they're to be raised in the church. If I felt like my wife might be amenable to these types of things, I'd be all for it, but after I came to realize what the church really was, I can't bring any more children into the world only to be indoctrinated and filled with guilt and shame. I wish I could break the cycle of indoctrination by simply not indoctrinating my kids, but short of that, I can break it by refusing to have any more.