Ahab

Don't you think the child's opinion matters?  Have you ever met adopted children who know their messed-up birth mothers?  I know some adopted children that would strongly disagree with you.

Children are often wrong, too.  What we need more of is people willing to do the right thing and other people helping them do it.

And if the reality that help is not enough?  What if rehab for the alcoholic doesn't work?  What if the parent, though loving, is also know to be abusive?  What if the parent isn't capable of love, no matter how much she wants to be?

I refuse to believe you can't come up with the right answers to all of those issues, cal... and without resorting to the idea that a person should get rid of their own child.

There is enough help available to anybody for any reason, and every person is capable of loving someone else if they want to.

You think it is healthy for a young child to know that they are the product of an affair in all cases?

Yes.   Each person should know who their own parents are and as much about their own parents as they can possibly learn.

We've all done things we're not particularly proud of, and some of us have had other people do some things to us that we're not proud of either, but we should never want to get rid of a child of our own, for any reason, regardless of who the other parent is or what they have done.

I find it sad that you view differences as "something to argue about".

Some differences are some things to argue about, and some aren't.  I'm fine with me being a man and her being a woman, with both of us having our differences in that way, but in pretty much every other way I don't want there to be any differences between us.  I like to like what she likes and I like it when she likes what I like just as well.

Some people do not have the resources or family support to raise a child on their own.  Other people simply do not have the "devotion and desire" to raise their own child.  You cannot guilt that devotion and desire into a young mother, and without it, the child and the mother will be much worse off.  It is not ALWAYS a better choice to keep a child. 

Yes, it is always the best choice, even when parents do not have their own resources and need help from other people, and no, the parents shouldn't be guilted into loving their own children as they should.  It's still the way it should be, though.  All children should be kept and loved and nurtured by their own parents, even if they need help from others to be able to make it through this dark dreary world.

Are you comfortable with being foursquare on the exact opposite of the brethren's side of this issue?

IF some of the brethren are saying it's a good thing when a parent chooses to give up their own child, then yes, I'll accept being on the opposite side of this issue than those brethren who are saying that.  I'm sure there are some other brethren that are on the same side of the issue as I am, though, and I prefer it when others agree with me.

One would submit that both the leadership of the church and LDS Social Services has a lot more experience witnessing the aftermath of each of these decisions than each one of us.

This is one of those kinds of things that someone doesn't need to experience to know the different between what is right and wrong.  I've never had a parent give me up as their child, and I'd rather have it this way.

I do note that the church counsels that the best option, where practical, is for the expectant parents to wed and thus form a nuclear family for the child to be born into.

About the only time it's not practical is when one of the parents is already married to another person, but even then it's still good for both parents to be involved in raising their own children rather than totally give them up.

I cannot imagine an enjoyable existence in which all things will be "right". That sounds like playing a game knowing beforehand the outcome.

But to call a birth mother who choses a path they truly believe will lead to the child's greater success a 'bad parent' completely does not have any grasp of the extremely sensitive topic at hand.

There's a lot more meaning behind the words "bad parent" than you seem to be realizing.  Like not realizing the value of love, thinking money or status or some other "married" couple can somehow add more meaning to that child's life than the love of their own parent.

Sure, we in the Church can do a lot of good for the children their parents have chosen to give up, but it's always, always, always a better choice for that child's own parents to raise that child with the love and devotion and desire each person should have to raise their own child, rather than give that child.

Argue on if you wish, though.  If you don't agree with me on this issue I'll still know that I'm on the right side of this issue.

Uhm, no its more like cognitive dissonance, on one hand they are preaching the wonders of eternal families, and on the other want absolutely nothing to do with their siblings -- it is normally coupled with a belief that the siblings aren't going to make it to the Celestial Kingdom so they really don't have to worry about it -- course they tend to forget about the beam in the eye thing.

I think it means it's not that they want "nothing to do with" their siblings.  Just that they don't want to spend very much time with them, maybe like I don't want to spend very much time with some of my brothers and sisters, either.  I mean, as it is now, I only have so much time on this Earth, and I'd rather spend my time with the people I want to be with the most.  And we're all brothers and sisters, you know, in our one big eternal famliy.

No I wouldn't, but I would try to support her decision.  I have a step-daughter in the situation and she kept the child.  I supported her in that decision, as did her mother, and we would accept responsibilty for raising the child in a heartbeat if asked -- he is a wonderful child, and though she isn't dazzlingly great in her decision-making abilities -- she is an excellent mother, and has done a great job with the kid who is sweet and kind, and for his age well behaved.  He is on a much better track to become a good adult than many being raised by dual parent families, and certainly better than what I have seen of children being raised by divorced parents.

If I were in your situation I would let her know that I would in no way support her decision (or anyone else's decision) to give up her own child, and that I would do all that I could to help her raise her child, which would also be my own grandchild.  And in that way that child would have both a mother and a father (even if the father is the grandfather).

And if she still chose to give up her child for adoption, anyway, even though I had tried to talk her out of it and flat out told her that I would not support that decision, I would still love her, of course, but I would still not be supportive of that decision, because it would still be and always would be a very bad decision her her to make.  And yes I would be able to forgive her for making that bad decision, but I still would not be in support of that decision, and if she ever had to make a decision involving whether or not to give up her own child, which would also be my own grandchild, I would hope she would have learned from her past mistake and then choose to keep her own child.

And I'd also try to keep track of the child she gave up, so I could still be involved in raising that child, which would still be her child, and my grandchild.

You hear kids joke about whether Eternal Families would be like an eternal sentence without parole -- although most are joking, there is a kernal of truth in that joke,  I don't know exactly how many active Mormons I know who cannot stand their siblings, don't get along that well with their children, and hold grudges against their parents -- and then stand up there and promote Temple work.  I kind of just sigh and shake my head.

Even people with poor relations with their relatives not wnating to give up their family connections???

That sounds very encouraging, to me.

I think some grandfathers as well, are uneasy about the idea of having someone with their lineage raised by a complete stranger, I know I would be uncomfortable about it -- but would be reluctant to do anything but support a daughter's decision either way.

Seriously?  You would actually encourage or support your own daughter's decision to give up her child, if she chose to do that?

Why on Earth would you encourage a decision like that???   Why not instead help her to raise her child, and your grandchild?

From time to time you will hear some woman explode verbally about the pressure put on her unwed daughter, niece or friend to give up her child for adoption. I believe something about this may have erupted during the Romney campaign. Am not sure of my own feelings, although if believe I would lean away from it for a daughter and would offer to raise the child myself instead. I can understand the policy and the reasoning, it just slightly makes me uncomfortable. Thoughts anyone?

Many people give some very bad advice, including many people who are members of the Church.

Instead of people encouraging someone else to give up their child... and that's what we're talking about here, which is pathetic... they should instead be trying to help that person take care of their child including helping that person learn what it means to be a good parent.  And as far as I know, good parents do not give up their own children, or encourage anyone else to give up their own child.

Eating meat "sparingly" means, to me, making most of my meals about 75-100% vegetables and fruits and grains with only about 0-25% meat while trying to have as much fresh vegetables and fruits as I can while they are in season.   Not much vegetation grows in  my area in the winter time, so that's why I usually eat more meat in the winter, although I still try to have vegetables and fruits in the winter time too.

In Joseph's day they didn't have grocery stores like we do with so many vegetables and fruits shipped in from other parts of the world where they were still growing, and I think what the Lord revealed to him was in consideration of his living conditions back then.

I was recently talking to a friend about the church and the promise of being sealed to one's spouse for time and eternity. My friend looked at me puzzled and asked, "Are you trying to talk in or OUT of the church?" Having met his wife on several occasions, I could immediately see his point and we both laughed.

He then seriously asked me, "Have you Mormons really thought out this eternal marriage thing? Are you that deliriously happy in your earthly marriage that you want to re-up for an ETERNITY? And even if so, how do you know that you wouldn't be even happier with one of the 100 BILLION people who have lived on this earth before, not mention the billions who might come after?"

As a recent convert, I didn't have good answers to any of these questions. I had never even thought of them before. Why would I? I happen to be married to a woman who possesses incomparable beauty, infinite understanding and most importantly, access to this board ("Hey, Baby!").

And while you might be able to say the same about your spouse, that isn't the case for most people. In many societies, half of all marriages in end failure; and the other half in end divorce. And while we can quibble about percentages, a substantial number of prospective members will be in less than ideal marriages. From their standpoint, eternal marriage will sound much more like a threat than a curse.

What is it that they need to know to be able to understand what a blessing this can be?

Serious answer:  That the person you pick as your eternal companion should be someone you would want to spend eternity with as you both become perfected.

I also think it helps to realize that you'll both be able to get a few nips and tucks with your resurrected bodies, as well as being in tip top physical condition.  We can do a lot of things now with modern surgery and physical exercise so I don't see why we wouldn't be able to do things like that with your bodies later, as well, and probably with better techniques.  But that's just the wrappings, and what's most important is the personal spirit in the body.

This has gotten a bit confusing.  Who is winning the argument so far?

OK - I'll concede that the light of Christ can be deadened through misuse, can be  ill-informed or ill-trained - but just as a person understands murder is wrong without knowing why, we also know that God is real without knowing why. 

Atheists say believers are liars - they call the prophets liars, and the apostles liars, and the scriptures a lie, and every spiritual experience that anyone has ever had a lie... They think they know what we believe, and what we have experienced, and what is inside our head...  so they get to call us liars, and we can't call them liars?  Sorry, but someone here is not telling the truth. I know what I know, I have experienced what I have experienced - I am not insane, I have no health issues, I am well educated, gainfully employed (I'm an engineering professor).  I'm tired of being called a liar, of being called uneducated by people who are themselves uneducated, I'm tired of having the religious things I say purposefully twisted and called evil ... and then what, all the Christians are supposed to "turn the other cheek", smile, nod, return love for railing ... I know, Christians are stronger, we are more polite, we don't lose our temper, we're not "easily offended" throwing temper tantrums at ever little insult, we take it all with a smile -  we're expected to help those who are ignorant but what is the best way to really help others? ... when is it appropriate to turn over the tables in the temple so to speak? 

The parents who spoil their children and are nice to them all the time and give their kids everything they want - who never scold, who never punish, who never tell their kids they are wrong - are these good parents?  The Christians who spoil everyone around them, and tell them what they want, are they good Christians?

Before I joined the church, I needed someone to be loving and nice to me - but I also needed someone to slap me in the face so-to-speak.  I would have made progress much more quickly if those around me were a little less "nice". 

You go, bro!  It's nice for me to know my frankness is helpful and would be appreciated by someone like you.  But, yes, we should still be nice, until we're at the point where we are fed up, and even though at that point we should still try to be patient and loving and forgiving, we can still call a spade a spade when we see one.

So, should we stone them, or throw them in jail and confiscate their property? Perhaps hanging?

Or should we preach to them instead and allow them to repent?

And if the don't repent, should we then stone/hang/throw in jail and confiscate their property?

I trust Him. I don't trust anyone who thinks it is ok to take from someone else simply because they happen to have more.

So, you don't like the way the Lord is distributing stuff now?

The main idea I would like you to understand is that everything here on this planet was meant for all of us to use, collectively, with none of us having any more right to it than any other of us.

The 2nd most important idea I have on this issue is that a government, or at least our government, is composed of elected representatives who speak for all of us as if all of us were making the deicions they make so that what they are doing is what we are doing, ourselves.   Not that you agree with every government representative, but that there is someone in government who respresents your point of view and advocates for your position as if you were there advocating, yourself. 

And the point of all of this advocating?   The point of the whole argument?  To do what we believe should be done, based on majority rule.

Now, at this point, if you think what should be done regarding the rich and the poor is exactly what should be going on, fine, your voice has been heard and we're already doing what you believe we should be doing.  I'm not satisfied with the current state of affairs, though, and I am advocating that the rich give everything in excess of a middle class income to some other people who don't have as much, so that other people who don't have as much will have more.  None of it actually belongs to any of us, and all we're doing is acting as stewards of what we have to work with and can get our hands on.

It's kinda like going to a buffet that has enough food for everyone, if everyone will be considerate of other people, except that some people are eating like pigs and taking all of the food for themselves.  Greedy, selfish, inconsiderate children who need to change their behavior real quick.

I think an anology might help with this.

Person A has 100 bucks. Person B has none. Person C comes along and takes the money through complusoury means from person A and gives part of it to person B so he can buy food. Is it theft that person C took it from person A? How is that different from our current set up?

 

The funny part is that in our system money is taken out of my check before I even get it. I don't even have a choice in the matter. If I don't pay it I am fined and I could go to jail.

You're not saying anything to explain why one person has $100 and the other person has none.  Or who person C is.

Let's try this analogy.

Person A has 10,000 acres of land and person B doesn't have any land. 

As background, person A inherited the land he has from his father who inherited it from his father who inherited it from his father, etc, tracing back to a man who got the land from one of the kings of England who gave it to him as a gift for his service to the king.   The king got it from a succession of kings before him, one of whom fought a war with some other country over that land, England won, so they seized the land as their own as if belonged to them, as a spoil of war.  And the same kind of thing happened previous to that time, with some other nations being involved, with the land passing from one nation to another with each leader of an army claiming the land as their personal property which the leader believed to be his to do with however he wanted.  And before any of that got started the land was as a part of this planet created by God for all of us to live on together.  Person B never had any land given to him, personally, with none of his ancestors having any land to pass on to him as an inheritance, and he never got paid enough money to save up to buy land from someone who had a deed declaring some piece of land as his personal property.

Now person C comes along and sees that it's not right that person A has so much land and person B doesn't have any at all, so person C takes some of the land person A believes is his land and gives it to person B as his own.  Person C is the Lord, and he can do that because he actually owns all of the land here.

And the church should have lead in anti racism, that is the way a church led by God should behave, out in front not behind or late to the party.

Some people feel the same way about America.  That out of all countries in the world, America would be at the forefront of establishing the idea that all people should be treated as equals, regardless of race or religion or sex.  But look at how long it took after England had already abolished slavery, and after America had a war about slavery.  I agree that the Church should have seen the light on this issue a lot earlier than it did, and so should have America, but that's not what the record shows, is it, and we're still not as intellectually advanced as we should be otherwise there wouldn't be such a disparity between the rich and the poor.  That's not right either, and yet as a Church and in the world, generally, we're still not treating everyone as equals while sharing all that we have with each other.

A progressive tax rate with steep rates at the high income end coupled with charitable deductions allows and encourages the rich to be charitable and gives them a wider range of choices in targeting their charity.  When we drop the high end rates as we have basically been doing for he last 30 years we reduce the incentive to give large charitable donations.  Study after study has come out indicating that those in high income brackets are not as charitable on a pro-rata basis as their poor and middle-class fellow citizens.  That is possibly not true for the Mormon community.  What the government can do, however, is infrastructure spending which is not taking from the rich and giving to the poor, but is taking from the rich and investing in public works projects domestically -- like transportation networks, communication networks, environmental clean-up, education, healh-care infrastructure, etc.  The money thus invested eventually winds back in the hands of the rich, but in the mean time it has to wind its way back up through the hands of the poor and middle-class.  But, we also have to plug the counterproductive deductions and loopholes which primarily benefit the ultra wealthy like offshoring and capital gains treatment of non IPO stock value increases.

Saying it "winds its way down" sounds an awful lot like "trickling down" and poor workers deserve a lot more than a trickle.

I say just give enough help to someone who is poor and does some kind of good work, enough so the poor person isn't poor anymore, and at that point is then middle class.  And yes, a middle class person can give to the poor too, just not as much as a r

rich person can give, because the middle class person doesn't have as much to give as a rich person.

Spending is what helps an economy, and poor people would spend more money than rich people who already have everything they need to buy, so we just need some way to get more money in the hands of poor people who will use it to improve their lifestyle.

Given some of the comments being made with reference to the essays about the Priesthood ban and Polygamy, I think it is a fair question to ask whether we still believe The Lord directs His Church or is it just men doing the best they can? My personal belief is that He does, or I wouldn't still be a member. But some of the arguments and spins triggered by the recent essays, seem to be suggesting that He took a leave of absence with regards to certain important policies for decades at a time. So shouldn't we be taking serious what so many stand up and testify to every month? Shouldn't we be acknowledging that for better or worse, The Lord had a hand in instituting and keeping in place the ban, and in instituting polygamy?

The Lord still directs his Church and most in the Church accept most of his direction most of the time, but still there are things we don't do or think about as well as we could.  He won't override our agency, you know, and we're not always ready and willing to accept everything he tries to teach us, so "the errors of men" can still creep in.  And sometimes we err by not realizing the Lord knows exactly what he is doing when he directs us to do something many people do not agree with.

The ban, for example, was at least partly due to the fact that not everyone would have been okay seeing blacks exercising the same power and authority of God as white people.  The majority in the Church would have been okay with it, I think, but many outside of the Church would have objected, and that could have caused problems for the Church just as the issue of polygamy would have caused the Church many problems that could have been avoided. I mean, let's not forget to mention the fact that blacks didn't receive authority to act in the name of God in other churches, either, other than those that were exclusively for blacks, so if the Church had ordained blacks way back in 1830 as a routine just as whites were ordained, it would have been the first church on the Earth to do so.

 

I wrote a novel. I dare someone to quote this.

 

Dude, you should write longer posts more often.  You made a lot of really good points and I accept the correction you offered about what I said.  The problem, though, is that if you tell everyone God wants all of us to be rich then the rich people might get the idea it's okay for them to keep all of their money, instead of spreading it around so everyone can have some of their money, which is why I think it's better to say the rich should live a middle class lifestyle while giving everything in excess of that to other people.  It's even better when the rich freely share everything they have with all other people, but we need to start somewhere to get that ball rolling.

Well, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Franklin D. Richards, Heber C. Kimball, and many other prophets and apostles would disagree.

Whether they are right or other prophets and apostles like Spencer W. Kimball, Bruce R. McConkie and many others are right is simply a matter of personal testimony.  I was simply quoting the first group.  Others will quote the second group.

There really is no way to know without getting on our knees and asking (or waiting till we get there I suppose).

That's just it.  What do you expect to see when you "get there"?  If you can manage to go from father to father, beginnng with your mortal father, you'll eventually get to Adam (the usual Adam we think of as the Adam with Eve), but then what?  Will you stop there thinking you've found the father of the whole human race for this planet?  He is that, don't cha know, but he also has a father, too. So then what?  Will you go to his father and figure he is the father of all of us?  He is too, don't cha know.  So then what?  How far will you go looking for fathers of fathers before you figure out there is no end to the number of our Fathers in heaven?

Knowing there is a God is a matter of knowing there is a supreme kind of being among all kinds of beings that exist.

Knowing which kind of being is the supreme kind of being is a matter of knowing which kind among all is that one.

I think we all know there is one, but some of us are still trying to figure out which kind is really it.