Jump to content

Family Search now allows people to document same sex relationships


Recommended Posts

The excessively long link is one of them. I stayed up way too late reading it this morning.  It was excellent in providing details. 

Link to post
3 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I am not an expert in Family Search but I am on it most everyday.  I have seen listings of men and women that show 4 wifes or 4 husbands.  The system does not seem to care.  My research is in Quebec Canada.  Many men died young and many women died in child birth.  People would remarry.  I have never had any problem entering multiple spouses for a man or women. There does not seem to be any limit to the number.  

I'll show you  what I mean. So, let's take J. Golden Kimball, former General Authority. His mother was Christeen Golden and his father was Pres. Heber C. Kimball. They had 4 children, as it appears on FS, Cornelia, J. Golden, Elias and Mary. That's all it says about that marriage. Well, we know for a fact that Heber C.Kimball had a ton of wives and other children including Andrew Kimball , the father of Pres. Spencer W. Kimball. You'd have to know though that that was the case. So, to find the Spencer Kimball ancestry you'd have to put his name in and follow i t through back to Heber C. Kimball. What I am saying is it should show all on the same screen someone who was plurally married, rather than these individual searches and finding family.

  • Like 1
Link to post
20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

What I am saying is it should show all on the same screen someone who was plurally married, rather than these individual searches and finding family.

Yes we are in agreement on this.  What I was trying to say (perhaps I am wrong) is that if the wives do not all appear on Heber C Kimball's page in Family Search it is not the program. (I can create pages like that easily with multiple wives).  So perhaps IMO someone who entered it decided to make it different.

  • Like 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you sure brother to brother?  I remember it being reported there were sometimes arguments over who was to be the father in the relationship (that could be from critics as too long ago to remember the source) and it seems unlikely this would have happened if there was an option to be sealed Brother to brother....unless sealed to the same parents perhaps?

Found this:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/2786/download?token=8S7Adhqz

This may have been what led to the claims of arguments:

Found an article with records of adoptions.  Adopted children were sealed to husband and wife (table 1, page 66):

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=896065081123023028081006124102122026058072085007048023105100095072106126090115031102107053023122008037061117065000005067108015048008022044047067087022001090123024003058092038114016104064080110008108126119074064117067080003091126093105018109122068099119&EXT=pdf

No, I’m not sure about brother to brother. I was only going on the assumption that if two or more men were sealed as children to the same couple as parents that would make them brothers. Maybe that didn’t happen. 
 

I was reacting negatively to the assumption that men were ever sealed to men in a matrimonial way. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to post
On 12/10/2019 at 12:19 PM, Duncan said:

I wonder what will happen to kids of SSM parents when they parents pass on, who they will be sealed to

Their SSM parents.  I imagine most wouldn't want it any other way.

And sealed to their own spouse and children.

Link to post
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Their SSM parents.  I imagine most wouldn't want it any other way.

And sealed to their own spouse and children.

There is no same-sex marriage in the eternities, hence no sealing of children to “SSM parents.”

Link to post


While I think it’s clear this long-ago-announced addition to FamilySearch doesn’t herald a change in doctrine [...yet...], I am glad to see the church now openly acknowledges that same-sex couples and their children are, in fact, family relationships. Even if the current belief is that that is only the case for mortality (again.... for now.  Not sure where we are on that count-down clock.... 5 years into the 40 projected timeline, or thereabouts...). So collectively, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can finally feel free to drop the scare quotes and still sleep at night! ;)

Quote

The Family Tree provides the ability for users to document all family relationships, including same-sex marriages and same-sex adoptions.

Edited by Daniel2
  • Like 2
Link to post
On 12/10/2019 at 1:53 PM, smac97 said:

Here:

Here's a link to the Church's Newsroom statement: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/familysearch-document-same-sex-family-relationships.  It includes an FAQ that addresses some doctrinal issues (in bold):

This seemed like an inevitability given the legalization of same-sex marriage, adoptions to same-gender parents, etc.  Still, I'm glad to see the Church doing this.  The highest and best purpose of FamilySearch is to facilitate temple work.  However, there are also many other benefits, including helping individuals and families trace their geneologies.

Thanks,

-Smac

How does it assist individuals in tracing their genealogies?  Genealogy is based on progeny, which does not exist between individuals of the same sex. It may trace relationships, but not genealogies. 

Link to post
On 12/10/2019 at 5:05 PM, Duncan said:

something that gets me about Family Search is when there are polygamous families, thy only show one wife and you know they had others and you can't find certain people. 

...The one shown on the tree is the one you are connected to by blood...

Link to post
17 minutes ago, Fether said:

...The one shown on the tree is the one you are connected to by blood...

which wasn't the question but thanks😊

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

How does it assist individuals in tracing their genealogies?  Genealogy is based on progeny, which does not exist between individuals of the same sex. It may trace relationships, but not genealogies. 

Family Search has a partnership with Ancestry.com.  Both endeavors benefit from shared data.  But, if same sex couples were not allowed, you’d run the risk of losing users and thus shared data. 

Additionally, as gay couples adopt children there needs to be a way to enter those families or you would start to lose entire lines in generations to come. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Genealogy is based on progeny, which does not exist between individuals of the same sex. 

Since there is a good chance one of the parents is a biological parent in same sex parents families, there is no difference in terms of "progeny" in a family where one parent is a step parent who adopts them or if fully adopted, "lineage" is the same thing for same sex couples as mixed sex couples.

It is speculated that the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew is of his legal father, Joseph.  Are you claiming this should not be considered an actual genealogy because there is no blood tie between Joseph and Jesus?

Are you going to tell an adopted child that any work he does on his adopted family line isn't really genealogy?

You know, I don't believe same sex marriages will ever be sealed in the temple or otherwise performed by the Church either in this life or the next, but this stuff is not going to discredit same sex marriages.  More likely it will lead people reading it to believe that if you resort to such petty arguments, you must be lacking in any significant ones and therefore they will tune you and any other argument out.  This has as much value as the antimormon argument about adieu imo.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3
Link to post
5 hours ago, Daniel2 said:


While I think it’s clear this long-ago-announced addition to FamilySearch doesn’t herald a change in doctrine [...yet...], I am glad to see the church now openly acknowledges that same-sex couples and their children are, in fact, family relationships. Even if the current belief is that that is only the case for mortality (again.... for now.  Not sure where we are on that count-down clock.... 5 years into the 40 projected timeline, or thereabouts...). So collectively, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can finally feel free to drop the scare quotes and still sleep at night! ;)

 

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Family Search has a partnership with Ancestry.com.  Both endeavors benefit from shared data.  But, if same sex couples were not allowed, you’d run the risk of losing users and thus shared data. 

Additionally, as gay couples adopt children there needs to be a way to enter those families or you would start to lose entire lines in generations to come. 

I think Rockpond’s analysis is closer to the mark here. It’s a question of sheer practicality. 
 

My intuition is that non-members of the Church by far comprise the larger category of users of FamilySearch. To exclude same-sex relationships from the database would in effect cut off millions of users, and FamilySearch would soon lose its utility as a web site. Bear in mind that the contributions of all users, Church members or not, to the FamilyTree database in FamilySearch benefit everyone. 
 

At the same time, it seems to me that the Church took pains to emphasize that the doctrine pertaining to marriage being between a man and a woman has not changed. And it will not change in the future, as has been repeatedly stated. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Duncan said:

which wasn't the question but thanks😊

I guess I didn’t get the question then. I have many ancestors with multiple wives and they all show up just fine when I go look

  • Like 1
Link to post
15 minutes ago, Fether said:

I guess I didn’t get the question then. I have many ancestors with multiple wives and they all show up just fine when I go look

it's okay, but you know you have that ancestry but someone coming in cold to the situation wouldn't know that so and so was married to multiple women

Link to post
15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

How does it assist individuals in tracing their genealogies?  Genealogy is based on progeny, which does not exist between individuals of the same sex. It may trace relationships, but not genealogies. 

Should all adopted children be viewed this way?  Should I be telling my brother that his adopted children have no place on his family tree?

 

sometimes the distain for gay couples overtakes all reason.  Sad really.

  • Like 4
Link to post
15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

How does it assist individuals in tracing their genealogies? 

The same way it assists individuals in tracing their opposite-sex ancestors.

15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Genealogy is based on progeny, which does not exist between individuals of the same sex.

Genealogy is also based on familial relationships recognized by society and by law.

I have three adopted siblings.  FamilySearch lists them as the children of my parents.

FamilySearch also lists the children of same-sex parents, regardless of whether the children were adopted, or biologically related to only one of the parents, or whatever.

15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It may trace relationships, but not genealogies. 

I don't think that's right.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

The same way it assists individuals in tracing their opposite-sex ancestors.

Genealogy is also based on familial relationships recognized by society and by law.

I have three adopted siblings.  FamilySearch lists them as the children of my parents.

FamilySearch also lists the children of same-sex parents, regardless of whether the children were adopted, or biologically related to only one of the parents, or whatever.

I don't think that's right.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Okay, John and Steve get married. That is a relationship incapable of having offspring. If they adopt children an effort is made to still identify their actual parents in the same manner that a man and wife who adopt. This is not an discussion about what a "real" parent is, but a study of a family tree. Family trees are focused on actual parentage and not who parented a child. Within genealogy, there is no discussion about what really makes a parent; they either are the parent or not. It is a black and white issue, rather than a social experiment about what makes a real parent a parent. 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

If they adopt children an effort is made to still identify their actual parents in the same manner that a man and wife who adopt

CFR please.  Last I studied this, I am pretty sure it was left up to the individual if they wanted to search out the biological line as well.  And as far as I know, sealing of bioparents are not given precedence over legal parents, and pretty sure never sealed.

  • Like 2
Link to post
21 hours ago, Calm said:

Since there is a good chance one of the parents is a biological parent in same sex parents families, there is no difference in terms of "progeny" in a family where one parent is a step parent who adopts them or if fully adopted, "lineage" is the same thing for same sex couples as mixed sex couples.

It is speculated that the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew is of his legal father, Joseph.  Are you claiming this should not be considered an actual genealogy because there is no blood tie between Joseph and Jesus?

Are you going to tell an adopted child that any work he does on his adopted family line isn't really genealogy?

You know, I don't believe same sex marriages will ever be sealed in the temple or otherwise performed by the Church either in this life or the next, but this stuff is not going to discredit same sex marriages.  More likely it will lead people reading it to believe that if you resort to such petty arguments, you must be lacking in any significant ones and therefore they will tune you and any other argument out.  This has as much value as the antimormon argument about adieu imo.

This kind of conversation turns into emotional drivel.

Yes, Jesus is not the son of Joseph. Never was and never will be. Yes, that is what we teach to our children. In fact, we go so far as clearly, unambiguously defining the Father of Jesus as God the Father. 

Yes, as a genealogist I clearly teach adults and children that the family tree of their adopted parent is not their heritage. In fact, that tree has nothing to do with their own family tree. Should they still be interested in researching that tree I see no problem in the same way I see no problem with genealogists researching trees that are horizontal relationships and that have no relationship to their direct tree. There is a difference between researching an individual's actual family tree and just doing genealogy research. I don't see the issue you are trying to create. 

I don't see the need to attempt to create a whole new jargon and definitions to accommodate the society's new sacred calf. I teach genealogy in the same way to whoever is wanting to learn. What they do in their own research is their own business. 

Yeah, no the comparison to antimormon argument does not hold water. 

Link to post
11 hours ago, california boy said:

Should all adopted children be viewed this way?  Should I be telling my brother that his adopted children have no place on his family tree?

 

sometimes the distain for gay couples overtakes all reason.  Sad really.

Well of course. Why try and lie to a child. Tell the child the truth and let them choose and come to understand who their family is. Some individuals don't acknowledge their own family; they are free to acknowledge their family as something that has nothing to do with their actual family tree. While others really are focused on their family they were born into.

Look, I don't make genealogy a social experiment or attempt to make it fit into a new social paradigm. X is a family tree and Y is not. I will not argue or confuse today's social gold calf with facts. A fact is a fact and I am not going to turn facts into mush to make someone happy. This topic has zero to do with being gay, gay families, or gay marriage, etc. I understand your perceived need to be offended and to make this a gay issue, but that is your issue and not mine.

Genealogy is about parentage. If someone is a parent - i.e. they actually have their genes involved in their progeny - then we have a family tree to research regardless of their current living conditions. All other genealogy research is just that - research. My research counts some near 30,000 individuals and I am not directly related to most of them. Yet, it is my research. 

What I call sad is the ridiculous need to make everything about "you" and the gay issue. Life is not about "me"; it is about "me" in the world and I am one in a world of millions of individuals. Join the human race and leave off on the hyper focus on self. 

Edited by Storm Rider
  • Like 1
Link to post
14 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR please.  Last I studied this, I am pretty sure it was left up to the individual if they wanted to search out the biological line as well.  And as far as I know, sealing of bioparents are not given precedence over legal parents, and pretty sure never sealed.

The CFR is me as a genealogist. I have yet to meet a genealogist who has clearly stated, "I ignore all blood lines and just focus on whatever individuals identify as their family."  You are bordering on the absurd. Are you getting what you are really proposing?

Link to post

Based on the definition of the world, please tell me how I am wrong. You asked for a CFR, this is another response and matches my definition exactly. The definition that you are creating has nothing to do with pedigree, descent, lineage, line, line of descent, family tree, extraction, derivation, origin, heritage, parentage, etc. 

image.png.afd6b0d109f3cf8eb0345a5a81660093.png

Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR please.  Last I studied this, I am pretty sure it was left up to the individual if they wanted to search out the biological line as well.  And as far as I know, sealing of bioparents are not given precedence over legal parents, and pretty sure never sealed.

This has been my experience also.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...