Blessing in a mormon church?

[Roman_Catholic_1]

My brother and his wife just had their first baby. Neither of them are practicing Catholics, but my brother was baptized Catholic and considers in the end Catholic. Anyways I convinced them to get the baby baptized in a Catholic Churh and my sister in law even said she would look into joining the Church.

I had to give a little back ground for my question. Her father is mormon and asked to have the baby blessed in a mormon church. She asked me what I thought and I know nothing about mormons and blessing or anything else that goes on in that religion so I told her I would find out what I could. What is everyones thoughts on getting the baby blessed in a mormon church?

God bless

 

[rosarywarrior]

My answer would be NO. Mormons do not believe in the Trinity. As Catholics we are to be baptised in the Name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Spirit. If your brother is catholic, encourage him to become a practicing catholic and show him its his responsibility as a father to get his child baptised. If he is willing to take care of the childs material goods, then he should also take care of the spiritual. The catholic church will NOT recognize a Mormon blessing as a baptism.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Oh no I wasnt talking about it as taking the place of her baptism. Her dad told her he understood that she was having the baby baptized in a Catholic Church but he said he just wanted the baby blessed in the Mormon church. I did have her ask and he told her that a mormon blessing is completely different than their baptism, in fact (I dont know if this is true) they wont even baptize an infant. I am uneasy about it too, but I don’t know how to tell my sister in law that she can’t respect the wishes of her father. I was shocked to hear he was ok with the baby being baptized Catholic in the first place.

So just to clearify for everyone, she is still planning on having the baby baptized in a Catholic Church, her dad jsut wants to have it blessed in his too.

rosarywarrior thatnks for your response, it was where I was leaning towards as well. I just wouldnt know how to tell her not too.

God bless

 

[Allweather]

Similar situation with my Mormon girlfriend. Her daughter had a baby 2.5 years ago. The daugther was raised Mormon but doesn’t have any interest whatever in Mormonism now. Neither does the father, who was raised sort-of nominally Catholic. The baby hasn’t yet been baptized. This doesn’t pose much of a problem for the Mormon side, since they don’t baptize infants anyway. However, the girlfriend has mentioned to me that she’d like to encourage the daughter to have the baby blessed in the Mormon church. Nothing yet, though. Personally I wouldn’t be too concerned about it. Of course, always better to have the child baptized and raised Catholic, and this is where one should probably focus one’s energies. If the sister-in-law actually would consider going to RCIA and being baptized Catholic, why, that’d be a really great thing, for the child, and for the religious unity of the family. I’m not a fan of Mormonism, but to tell the truth, I honestly believe it’d be better for the entire family to be unifed under one religion or the other than to have a religious war going on around the child.

 

[zerinus]

My brother and his wife just had their first baby. Neither of them are practicing Catholics, but my brother was baptized Catholic and considers in the end Catholic. Anyways I convinced them to get the baby baptized in a Catholic Churh and my sister in law even said she would look into joining the Church.

I had to give a little back ground for my question. Her father is mormon and asked to have the baby blessed in a mormon church. She asked me what I thought and I know nothing about mormons and blessing or anything else that goes on in that religion so I told her I would find out what I could. What is everyones thoughts on getting the baby blessed in a mormon church?

God bless

I am LDS, and I will answer your question from an LDS perspective. The Catholics can answer your question from a Catholic point of view. Our position on that is basically as follows:

1. *]We don’t baptize infants. We believe that infants are already saved through the grace of God and the atonement of Jesus Christ. We only baptize people when they reach the age of accountability—i.e. the age when they can distinguish between good and evil, and are capable of repentance. We believe that people begin to reach that level of maturity at around the age of eight; so we baptize them at that age, at their own volition, after having had the principles of faith and repentance explained to them. I am sure some would argue that at that age children would still be baptized under parental influence rather than through their own volition; but I would disagree. That may be true in some cases, but not in every case. I have known children of eight who have expressed the desire not to be baptized, and their wish has been respected.
   
   *]We believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and lost the priesthood, and therefore there is no church on earth today (apart from the LDS Church) that has the divine authority to baptize anybody, be they infants or adults or anything else; and that includes the Catholic Church. That is why we do not acknowledge baptisms performed by any other church except our own. When you join our Church, you will have to be baptized, regardless of how many times you may have been previously baptized in any other Church. So whether someone is baptized in the Catholic Church or not is inconsequential as far as we are concerned—and that is especially true of infants, because we do not believe that infants need to be baptized at all, with or without the proper authority of the priesthood.
   
   *]The only ordinance we perform for infants and small children is that we bless them, during which process the child is also given a name, and its name is taken and enrolled in the records of the Church as “children of record”. This is the only ordinance that Jesus ever performed for little children (Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-16). He never baptized them. This is a true sacrament performed by the authority of the true priesthood that only the LDS Church has; and we believe that such children are indeed blessed of the Lord as a consequence.
   
   *]Since we believe that all little children are innocent before God and are already saved, we perform this ordinance for any child whose parents may request it, regardless of whether they are members of our Church or not. So whether your brother’s baby daughter is afterwards baptized in the Catholic Church or not is inconsequential as far as we are concerned. Such baptisms are devoid of any virtue or significance, and their occurrence is as good as their non-occurrence from our point of view. She might as well go for a swim in the sea! The effect is about the same from our perspective.
   
   *]Such blessings given to children incur no obligation from us on their parents. It is a purely gratuitous act of love that we perform for little children because we know that God loves them, and commanded us to bless them, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 9:14). Therefore my advice to you would be, if you care for the welfare of your brother’s baby daughter, to allow her to be blessed in the LDS Church. It incurs no obligation from us on her parents, and your brother’s daughter will be blessed of the Lord.
   
   zerinus

 

[kellie]

I am LDS, and I will answer your question from an LDS perspective. The Catholics can answer your question from a Catholic point of view. Our position on that is basically as follows:

1. 
   *]We don’t baptize infants. We believe that infants are already saved through the grace of God and the atonement of Jesus Christ. We only baptize people when they reach the age of accountability—i.e. the age when they can distinguish between good and evil, and are capable of repentance. We believe that people begin to reach that level of maturity at around the age of eight; so we baptize them at that age, at their own volition, after having had the principles of faith and repentance explained to them. I am sure some would argue that at that age children would still be baptized under parental influence rather than through their own volition; but I would disagree. That may be true in some cases, but not in every case. I have known children of eight who have expressed the desire not to be baptized, and their wish has been respected.
   1. 
      *]
      *]We believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and lost the priesthood, and therefore there is no church on earth today (apart from the LDS Church) that has the divine authority to baptize anybody, be they infants or adults or anything else; and that includes the Catholic Church. That is why we do not acknowledge baptisms performed by any other church except our own. When you join our Church, you will have to be baptized, regardless of how many times you may have been previously baptized in any other Church. So whether someone is baptized in the Catholic Church or not is inconsequential as far as we are concerned—and that is especially true of infants, because we do not believe that infants need to be baptized at all, with or without the proper authority of the priesthood.
      
      *]The only ordinance we perform for infants and small children is that we bless them, during which process the child is also given a name, and its name is taken and enrolled in the records of the Church as “children of record”. This is the only ordinance that Jesus ever performed for little children (Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-16). He never baptized them. This is a true sacrament performed by the authority of the true priesthood that only the LDS Church has; and we believe that such children are indeed blessed of the Lord as a consequence.
      
      *]Since we believe that all little children are innocent before God and are already saved, we perform this ordinance for any child whose parents may request it, regardless of whether they are members of our Church or not. So whether your brother’s baby daughter is afterwards baptized in the Catholic Church or not is inconsequential as far as we are concerned. Such baptisms are devoid of any virtue or significance, and their occurrence is as good as their non-occurrence from our point of view. She might as well go for a swim in the sea! The effect is about the same from our perspective.
      
      *]Such blessings given to children incur no obligation from us on their parents. It is a purely gratuitous act of love that we perform for little children because we know that God loves them, and commanded us to bless them, “for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 9:14). Therefore my advice to you would be, if you care for the welfare of your brother’s baby daughter, to allow her to be blessed in the LDS Church. It incurs no obligation from us on her parents, and your brother’s daughter will be blessed of the Lord.
      zerinus

1. 1. 
      Hi zerinus,
      Can you elaborate more on why it is necessary to bless infants in your church?
      It seems that you are saying they are already blessed and saved, up until age 8.
      And you say it does not incur any obligation on the parents, they dont even have to be members of your church.
      But you say the LDS are commanded to bless all infants.
      Why? If there is no further obligation from them or their parents, and they are already saved, why the blessing?
      Thanks

 

[zerinus]

Can you elaborate more on why it is necessary to bless infants in your church?

Because that is what God has commanded us to do:

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.

71 No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance.

72 Baptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all those who repent—

It seems that you are saying they are already blessed and saved, up until age 8. And you say it does not incur any obligation on the parents, they dont even have to be members of your church.

That is correct.

But you say the LDS are commanded to bless all infants. Why? If there is no further obligation from them or their parents, and they are already saved, why the blessing?

Firstly, because that is what God has commanded us to do, as shown in the above quote; and secondly, because that is what Jesus did. I gave you the references in my previous post. When parents brought their children to Jesus to bless them, His disciples at first drove them away; but when Jesus heard of it, He was very displeased, and commanded that they should be brought, and He blessed them; while at the same time He said, “For of such is the kingdom of God”. Jesus acknowledged that little children are already saved when He said that “of such it the kingdom of God;” and then afterwards proceeded to bless them. That is the theology which we follow for blessing little children.

zerinus

 

[eleonardo]

*]We believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and lost the priesthood, and therefore there is no church on earth today **(apart from the LDS Church) **

Could you explain the bold part a bit more please?
Where do you get the authority for claiming that?
Thank you.

 

[zerinus]

Could you explain the bold part a bit more please?
Where do you get the authority for claiming that?
Thank you.

We believe that the early Christian church apostatized and lost the priesthood. We believe that Joseph Smith was a modern day prophet of the Lord who was called of God to bring about a restoration of God’s ancient true Church. We believe that the true priesthood authority was restored through him and his associates through a string of angelic ministrations. John the Baptist appeared as an angelic ministrant and ordained them to the Aaronic priesthood. Later on Peter James and John appeared and ordained them to the higher Melchizedek priesthood and the Apostleship. Other angelic ministrants, such as Moses and Elijah, appeared and restored the keys of their own dispensations. And the LDS Church is the only church today that possesses all the keys and priesthood authority to administer the ordinances salvation for the rest of mankind. There is no other church on this planet that does.

zerinus

 

[Fidelis]

Based on Kerinus’ answer, this:

The only ordinance we perform for infants and small children is that we bless them, **during which process the child is also given a name, and its name is taken and enrolled in the records of the Church as “children of record”. **This is the only ordinance that Jesus ever performed for little children (Matthew 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-16). He never baptized them. This is a true sacrament performed by the authority of the true priesthood that only the LDS Church has; and we believe that such children are indeed blessed of the Lord as a consequence.

This is the part I would have issue with. Not that it has any effect sacramentally, but that it would seem to make them, in a more or less official capacity, a member of the LDS church. I would tend to think this might cause confusion and problems down the road. Any number of scenarios could be forseen.

 

[PaulDupre]

Zerinus:

The only ordinance we perform for infants and small children is that we bless them, during which process the child is also given a name, and **its name is taken and enrolled in the records of the Church as “children of record”. **

There’s your reason to say no. The blessing is more than a blessing - it is the first step to membership in the Mormon Church.

Once the child’s information is on file with the Mormon Church, your brother and his family will receive regular visits from Mormon Missionaries and other Mormons trying to get them to join.

Just say no.

God bless,
Paul

 

[zerinus]

Based on Kerinus’ answer, this: This is the part I would have issue with. Not that it has any effect sacramentally, but that it would seem to make them, in a more or less official capacity, a member of the LDS church. I would tend to think this might cause confusion and problems down the road. Any number of scenarios could be forseen.

That is just part of the procedure. It does not make them a member of the Church in any sense of the term, and there is no reason why it should cause any “confusion” or anything else of the kind you mentioned at all.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

There’s your reason to say no. The blessing is more than a blessing - it is the first step to membership in the Mormon Church.

Once the child’s information is on file with the Mormon Church, your brother and his family will receive regular visits from Mormon Missionaries and other Mormons trying to get them to join.

Just say no.

God bless,
Paul

That is simply not the case. That is not true. That informaton is not used for such a purpose.

zerinus

 

[Karin]

That is simply not the case. That is not true. That informaton is not used for such a purpose.

zerinus

hmm…are you sure? if they dont use it for that reason why write a name in a book for a simple blessing???

The Church membership report includes all baptized members, and also " children of record" - unbaptized children under the age of 8. (Children cannot be baptized before the age of 8.) SOURCE

 

[Fidelis]

hmm…are you sure? if they dont use it for that reason why write a name in a book for a simple blessing???

The Church membership report includes all baptized members, and also " children of record" - unbaptized children under the age of 8. (Children cannot be baptized before the age of 8.) SOURCE

Busted!

 

[PaulDupre]

That is simply not the case. That is not true. That informaton is not used for such a purpose.

zerinus

Z,
I see that you never served a mission. As a Mormon Missionary, my companions and I were often sent to track down children of record. It was seen as a good “in” to start teaching the family. My LDS nephews also tracked down children of record on their missions.

Paul

 

[zerinus]

hmm…are you sure? if they dont use it for that reason why write a name in a book for a simple blessing???

The Church membership report includes all baptized members, and also " children of record" - unbaptized children under the age of 8. (Children cannot be baptized before the age of 8.) SOURCE

Your link does not work. Children of record are NOT official members of the Church until they are baptized. Their numbers are mentioned in the statistical reports of the Church because as a rule such children belong to members of the Chruch, therefore they have the potential to become full members when they reach the age of accountability, therefore they are important from a statistical point of view. It is very rare that a non-member will ask their children to be blessed in our Church; and from their point of view it has no significance at all.

zerinus

 

[Karin]

Dear Gramps,
My niece is going to be blessed this Sunday. My question for you is this: What is the purpose of a baby blessing? I was told it was to put her name on the records of the Church, but doesn’t that happen with baptism? Is this more of a tradition rather than an ordinance? Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut!
Kristie, from Utah

Dear Kristie,
There are two purposes to the blessing of babies. One is to have their names entered on the records of the Church. When a baby is blessed, a membership record is made out for that person, who is listed as “A Child of Record,” and is counted in the Church statistics. From such records the Primary rolls are made, and children are assigned to their different classes in the Primary.
A second purpose is to give the child a blessing. This blessing, pronounced by the authority of the Holy Priesthood and undoubtedly recorded in heaven, will have an influence for good in the child’s life. The powers of heaven will be inclined in the direction of the inspired blessing, and the parents will receive information to guide them in directing the life of their infant child. The blessing of babies is one of the ordinances of the gospel.
**Gramps **
askgramps.org/why-do-mormons-bless-babies/

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

SI honestly believe it’d be better for the entire family to be unifed under one religion or the other than to have a religious war going on around the child.

Split households can work but so can single parents…neither are the best for a child’s environment.

I wouldn’t have my child blessed by mormons if I didn’t believe in their faith. Likewise, if I wasn’t Catholic, I’d have a very hard time accepting baptism of my infant child. Once I leaned why the custom was instituted and what it truly meant, I didn’t have a problem with it. The church I grew up in did not do infant baptisms. However, they did consecrate babies by praying for them, charging the parents and god parents to raise them in the Christian faith and anoint them with oil. Basically the same principle.

If I had another child someday, I’m sure for the family’s sake I’d go through with it. But, I would also ask my priest to baptize the child when they are old enough to understand and accept what it meant. My 10 year old is not baptized but will be as part of her RCIA/C. I myself wasn’t baptized until 10. I remember it well, and cherish that I made the choice willingly.

 

[zerinus]

Z,
I see that you never served a mission. As a Mormon Missionary, my companions and I were often sent to track down children of record. It was seen as a good “in” to start teaching the family. My LDS nephews also tracked down children of record on their missions.

Paul

That is not true in my experience. Our missionaries are not sent to track down children of record.

zerinus