Same sex relationships will soon be entered into Family Search database

[JAHS]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Bad idea.

Come on! you can't just say that without saying why. 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Come on! you can't just say that without saying why. 

Sure I can.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Just as an FYI as I don't find it controversial myself, but if anyone does, feel free to comment:

https://www.familysearch.org/ask/salesforce/viewArticle?urlname=Recording-data-on-same-sex-relationships-1381815034912&lang=en 

Sounds reasonable to me.  My only question would be, does this include sealings of any kind.  I suspect not marriage sealings, but maybe other sorts of sealings?  Any ideas?

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suspect not marriage sealings, but maybe other sorts of sealings?  Any ideas?

Haven't heard anything else outside JAHS' DN linked article, which says nothing about sealings, though it has a strong statement about accepting legality of SSM (at least in where declared legal by government).

Quote

The church immediately acknowledged the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized it in June 2015. Later that year, President Dallin H. Oaks, now of the First Presidency, counseled church members and people of faith to submit to the law because it had been sustained by the highest available authority.

Since then, LDS leaders repeatedly have taught that all people should be treated with kindness and respect and that Mormons should follow the law while continuing to teach that marriage between a man and a woman is a central part of Mormon doctrine and practice.

I found this to be an interesting approach to the story, a bit unexpected but makes sense.

[6EQUJ5]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Bad idea.

I 100% agree. This is a horrible idea.

[gmormon]

I hope they add both the birth lines and adoptive lines for people who are adopted. I know my birth and adoptive parents (of course), but as of now I can only do my legally adoptive lines which is fine, but knowing my birth parents I would like to add to my family group sheets...their information too.

Edited June 14, 2018 by gmormon

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, gmormon said:

I hope they add both the birth lines and adoptive lines for people who are adopted. I know my birth and adoptive parents (of course), but as of now I can only do my legally adoptive lines which is fine, but knowing my birth parents I would like to add to my family group sheets...their information too.

You should write in and request it.  If enough people do, likely will happen, imo.  Step families can be linked through marriage of parents.  Seems reasonable to allow linkage of birth and adoptive lines.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

49 minutes ago, gmormon said:

I hope they add both the birth lines and adoptive lines for people who are adopted. I know my birth and adoptive parents (of course), but as of now I can only do my legally adoptive lines which is fine, but knowing my birth parents I would like to add to my family group sheets...their information too.

I've had the same thoughts about our children. 

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Another question that just crossed my mind.  Let's say that a former polygamist converts to the Church.  And let's say his family lived somewhere like Colorado City for generations who had been FLDS or something.  Would he be able to do temple work for his family that are dead and seal people together into polygamist marriages that had been polygamists in a sect like that?

2

Yes, as long as they are direct relatives i.e. you would be able to do work for your father and mother, grands, etc. I don't think you could do work for the other wives unless it has been over the time limit since they were dead.

Edited June 14, 2018 by Storm Rider

[mapman]

2 hours ago, gmormon said:

I hope they add both the birth lines and adoptive lines for people who are adopted. I know my birth and adoptive parents (of course), but as of now I can only do my legally adoptive lines which is fine, but knowing my birth parents I would like to add to my family group sheets...their information too.

I might be misunderstanding, but I think they already have what you're talking about. An individual can have multiple sets of parents connected to them, and you can indicate whether the relationship is biological or adopted.

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, mapman said:

I might be misunderstanding, but I think they already have what you're talking about. An individual can have multiple sets of parents connected to them, and you can indicate whether the relationship is biological or adopted.

Thanks for the info.  Haven't done genealogy since my daughter was born (fulltime job when younger, enough to keep me distracted still).

not coming up with anything specific except a compatible program called Multiple Parents:

https://www.familysearch.org/apps/product/439e7f35-48b7-4a0b-b727-fcb3b8da85bc

Ah, here we go:

Quote

Selecting the Default (or Preferred) Spouse or Parents for the Pedigree

It is now easier to indicate which spouse or set of parents should show up by default on a pedigree. If a person is linked to multiple parents or spouses, the Family Members section of the details page has a check box you can click to select the one you want to show up by default on your pedigree.

https://www.familysearch.org/blog/en/updates-family-treeseptember-2013/

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ps-services-us-east-1-914248642252/s3/research-wiki-elasticsearch-prod-s3bucket/images/2/25/Family_Tree_Resource_Guide2.pdf

Quote

1. Use “+A Parent” to add an additional parents, i.e.,

   Biological, Adopted, Foster, Step or Guardianship. After adding, click on the added child’s name, select “Edit Type for each parent. Read the box and check the box for Replace or remove. Add Sources to support your changes you have made, and Add a Reason for the changes when prompted. 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Calm

[USU78]

I'd hate to have my character judged by future generations, unimpressed by political correctness and irrationality, because of what may well be an ephemeral and ill considered societal lack of care in bestowing its sympathies.

On the other hand, one's life can at least achieve usefulness as a bad example.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

I'd hate to have my character judged by future generations, unimpressed by political correctness and irrationality, because of what may well be an ephemeral and ill considered societal lack of care in bestowing its sympathies.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of this next generations (and I have to believe "future generations" will follow) have fully accepted and even embraced the legalization of SSM. 

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

On the other hand, one's life can at least achieve usefulness as a bad example.

There is no "bad example" being set when two adults who love each other enter a committed relationship and marriage and form a family.  It's quite the opposite actually.  I support what the church is doing here and think it's a great step forward.

[LittleNipper]

One can already search for one's bachelor uncle or old maid aunt. However, unless one makes public one's birth parents, mothers of children out of wedlock,  and sperm donors, I really don't see how anyone would be able to trace their pedigree through couples who live a homosexual lifestyle (unless in fact they don't really).

[EdGoble]

18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Of course. This is done already.  Deceased persons generally have all their spouses sealed to them, unless specific directions are given not to do so.  

I suppose so.  But the polygamous marriages in those sects are not legal marriages.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Yes, but what about my high school buddy who married a girl-who-now-identifies-as-a-man-and-has-had-surgery-and-everything?  

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

I suppose so.  But the polygamous marriages in those sects are not legal marriages.

Neither were the plural marriages back in the early days of the church (from Joseph Smith's on....until the practice ended in the church).   

[EdGoble]

50 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Neither were the plural marriages back in the early days of the church (from Joseph Smith's on....until the practice ended in the church).   

Good point.

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Neither were the plural marriages back in the early days of the church (from Joseph Smith's on....until the practice ended in the church).   

Joseph had a lot of authority from Illinois, much more than most ministers have to administer marriage ceremonies.  What makes you think he didn't have authority from the state as well as from God to administer marriage cermonies?

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Haven't heard anything else outside JAHS' DN linked article, which says nothing about sealings, though it has a strong statement about accepting legality of SSM (at least in where declared legal by government).

I found this to be an interesting approach to the story, a bit unexpected but makes sense.

Why unexpected? 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of this next generations (and I have to believe "future generations" will follow) have fully accepted and even embraced the legalization of SSM. 

There is no "bad example" being set when two adults who love each other enter a committed relationship and marriage and form a family.  It's quite the opposite actually.  I support what the church is doing here and think it's a great step forward.

The proverbial “love wins” mentality. Eternal laws and commandments be d—-ed. 

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The proverbial “love wins” mentality. Eternal laws and commandments be d—-ed. 

No, just opposition in all things.

There have always been those eternal laws, and likely there have always been those who oppose them and make up their own laws to suit their own purposes.

I'm preparing myself for eternity by realizing there are and are always going to be people with their own ideas about everything living on all kinds of planets.

[ALarson]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The proverbial “love wins” mentality. Eternal laws and commandments be d—-ed. 

The greatest commandments teach us the importance of love (do you believe Christ had a "proverbial 'love wins' mentality" when he gave them to us as the "greatest"?).  So no, commandments should not "be d--ed", but need to be embraced even more fully and unconditionally.  We need much less hate and judgement and much more love.....especially regarding this topic.

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by ALarson

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Joseph had a lot of authority from Illinois, much more than most ministers have to administer marriage ceremonies.  What makes you think he didn't have authority from the state as well as from God to administer marriage cermonies?

Yeah, about that. See Section 121 here:

https://archive.org/stream/revisedlawsofill00illi#page/198/mode/2up

It would probably be better to argue that he didn't have the power from the state to perform marriages (and those who performed his polygamous marriages also didn't have that power).  At least then they could only be accused of pretend breaking-the-law, and cohabitation in those cases where they cohabited.   If they actually had legal authority to perform marriages, then the people getting married polygamously were totally breaking the law (and according to the law, should have been fined $1,000 and sentenced to jail for no more than two years).

Edited June 14, 2018 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

The greatest commandments teach us the importance of love (do you believe Christ had a "proverbial 'love wins' mentality" when he gave them to us as the "greatest"?).  So no, commandments should not "be d--ed", but need to be embraced even more fully and unconditionally.  We need much less hate and judgement and much more love.....especially regarding this topic.

 

It’s not self evident that respect for and observance of law and commandments rules out love. 

I think I have a quote in my sig line to that effect, from Dallin H. Oaks (I’m writing this on a mobile, and my sig line is not visible to me at the moment.