Family Search now allows people to document same sex relationships

[smac97]

On 12/13/2019 at 6:35 PM, Storm Rider said:

Okay, John and Steve get married.

Yes.  That happens now.  We can't really pretend that it doesn't.

I think the issue arises when we presume (correctly, in my view) that same-sex marriage is not compatible with the will of God, and we therefore conclude it is completely illegitimate in any and every sense.

I don't think that works.  The Church recognizes the legality of same-sex marriage, though not its legitimacy/recognition in the eyes of God.  The vast majority of societal conventions fall into this category.  Consider D&C 132:7, 19:

Quote

All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power ..., are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.
...
And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood ... it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world...

In the context of marriage, I think there is something wonderful about the prospect of a "civil" marriage having the potential of being perpetuated beyond the grave, and into the eternities.  This is really brought home to me each time I attend the temple with my wife and we participate in proxy sealings.  How many of these sealings will be accepted by those couples and yield an eternal bond?  I don't know.  Certainly some.  I hope many.  We'll find out some day.

That said, there is a corollary sadness I feel for those who have chosen to enter into a same-sex marriage, particularly those with a familiarity with the Restored Gospel and its blessings.  I will not dispute the strength of the feelings that likely precipitate the choice to enter into such a marriage, but I will also not pretend that I have any hope or expectation that such relationships have any chance of being perpetuated after death.  There is no such hope.  At all.  

But for now, that is neither here nor there.  As a practical matter, a same-sex couple has the legal and accepted-and-recognized-by-society ability to be the parents to a child.  That such a relationship must necessarily have its end in the hereafter does not require us to not acknowledge it in the here and now.

On 12/13/2019 at 6:35 PM, Storm Rider said:

That is a relationship incapable of having offspring.

Yes.  That is one of the reasons I find same-sex marriage inherently incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  A heterosexual couple may endure trials pertaining to the physiological inability to procreate.  But there is a promise that such things can and will eventually happen if they keep their covenants, and if their relationship is sealed.  Again, no such hope exists for a same-sex couple.  At all.  Ever.  I find that very sad.

On 12/13/2019 at 6:35 PM, 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. This is not an discussion about what a "real" parent is, but a study of a family tree.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  

On 12/13/2019 at 6:35 PM, Storm Rider said:

Family trees are focused on actual parentage and not who parented a child.

Not so.  I have three adopted siblings, all of whom are in my "family tree."  They are sealed to my parents, and my parents to them.

My parents are my siblings' parents in every sense of the word except biologically.  

On 12/13/2019 at 6:35 PM, Storm Rider said:

Within genealogy, there is no discussion about what really makes a parent; they either are the parent or not.

Well, no.  "Parent" has both biological and sociological meanings.

On 12/13/2019 at 6:35 PM, Storm Rider said:

It is a black and white issue, rather than a social experiment about what makes a real parent a parent. 

I don't know what you mean here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 12/13/2019 at 7:02 PM, Storm Rider said:

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. 

My "genealogy" includes a great-great grandfather named Charles Edmund Richardson.  His parents were Edmund Richardson and Mary Ann Darrow.  His sibling were Emma, George, Kate Aldura, William, and Sullivan.

Kate Aldura, my GGF's sister, had an interesting life (as recounted by her brother, Sullivan):

Quote

A couple of years after our parents moved to Springville, Amos Warren, our Indian interpreter who worked with the Utes, went down to the Clay-beds southwest of Springville and found that in the Indian camp in the night a squaw had died. She was the wife of a chief that had died before, and according to their rules, her girl papoose, just old enough to begin to sit alone and learn to walk, was all that stood between all the chief's property and them. No one wanted to take the child and care for her, so the easiest thing for them to do was to do away with the child. They put the baby on her dead mother's breast and got off to shoot with arrows.

One had shot an arrow through her leg quite near the body, and as Warren rode up, another shot an arrow that went through her neck where it seemed impossible that it did not cut the jugular vein. The little one screamed and caught hold of the arrow with both hands. The Indians laughed and another said, "It's my turn," as he fitted an arrow into his bow. Warren stopped it with, "Hold on here...what does this mean?" The brave replied, "Oh, it's my turn" and insisted that he be allowed to shoot. But Warren was firm, and at last got the little girl for an old buffalo robe and other things and by promising that the girl should never come back to claim the property.

He came to our mother with the little one and said, "Sister Richardson, I have looked over the town to see who would be a mother to this child and can think of no one but you. Will you take her?" He was in hard circumstances, and felt he could not give her what he had paid to get her. Mother told him she had a piece of cloth worth between seven and eight dollars, which was the amount he had put on the robe and things he had paid. She had just finished weaving the cloth, and he gladly took it. The bargain completed, he rode away and she began to nurse the arrow wounds.

My earliest childhood recollections were of following a red-headed brother and black-haired little Indian girl around, trying to do what they did, say they said, and add to the songs that they sang.

But Mother gave her a start and later life she spent many years as Matron of an Indian school. She had one beautiful daughter that would be a credit to any family.

More information here:

Quote

In the fall of 1861 or spring of 1862 an Indian interpreter, named Amos Warren, entered the Ute Camp near the clay-beds, southwest of Springville, Utah. He noticed a group of Ute tribesmen around the body of a dead woman and an 18 month old baby girl sitting on her breast. One of the tribesmen shot an arrow into the neck of the baby where it seemed impossible that it did not cut the jugular vein. The child cried and with it’s tiny hands grabbed and took hold of the arrow. Almost immediately, another tribesman shot an arrow into the baby's leg. Amos, now standing with the circle of men around the baby, caught the arm of a man who was about to shoot the next arrow and asked, "What's going on here?"

The men told him that the toddler was the daughter of the late Chief Tintic, and his wife, the baby's mother, had died. They explained that if the baby was left to live she would inherit the Chief's wealth. Amos, thinking quickly, asked the tribe members if he could take the baby and raise her. He gave the warriors nine dollars worth of robes and blankets and a solemn promise that the child would never return to claim her father’s property.

Amos removed the arrows, bound the wounds, and took the baby to Springville. He came to Mary Ann Darrow Richardson with the little one and said, "Sister Richardson, I have looked over the town to see who would be a mother to this child and can think of no one but you. Will you take her?" He was in hard circumstances, and felt he could not give her what he had paid to get her. Mary Ann told him she had a piece of cloth worth between eight and nine dollars, which was the amount he had put on the robe and things he had paid. She had just finished weaving the cloth, and he gladly took it. The bargain completed, he rode away and she began to nurse the arrow wounds.

How grateful Mary Ann was for this little daughter and every day, as she dressed her wounds, her love increased. Sullie (Mary Ann’s youngest son) says: “Kate had the care and love of a mother as we had; shared our home, wore her homespun dresses, and went to school with us. We loved her as a very dear sister.” Sullie continued, “My earliest recollections are of following a red headed brother and a black-headed sister around, trying to do what they did, to yell as they did, and do what they did. Kate was a very modest girl who, though popular at parties; fruit cutting bees, corn shucking and rag bees, held her aloof from everything that was not ideal in every way. She took her own route to school asking odds of none. She loved our mother and did all she could to show it.”

Kate feared the Indians would come and take her back and kill her so when any Indians came to Springville, Kate would run and hide. At times during her life, she would be seen feeling the scar on her neck from the arrow wound. In 1880, Kate, then 20, went to work at the home of the Lyman S. Wood family in Springville. Living next door was a boarder by the name of Charles Leroy Parrish, 30 years old and a laborer. On July 13, 1881, Kate gave birth to a baby girl named Edith Leroy Richardson in Springville. Charles had promised to marry Kate, but instead ran away and left Kate to raise her daughter alone. As was pointed out in writings of the day, Kate was betrayed by a scoundrel. That's why she did not give Edith the last name of Parrish.

Kate was known for her devotion to children, so when the government provided responsible positions for staff and their children at the reservation schools, she would accept those jobs. Thanks to her education, rare privileges came to Kate and her daughter. For a number of years she was a Matron for girls at the White Rocks Indian School, then at the Teller Institute in Grand Junction, Colorado until 1909, followed by the Hopi Reservation in Arizona until 1914, and then at Ft. Duchesne, Utah. She was refined and attractive and particular with her personal appearance. She taught the girls in the school dormitories to live on a higher plane by strictly observing decency, cleanliness and neat appearance in dress.

In 1883, Kate Richardson, in an effort to recover the thousands of acres of land owned by her natural father, Chief Tintic, made an application for the lands. But the government stated in a letter that the ownership of the land in question was settled by the Ute Treaty of 1868. Kate's birthright was sold by the tribe who tried to kill her so many years before.

Kate Aldura Richardson died January 30, 1927, at age 67, and is buried in the Randlett Cemetery near Ft. Duchesne, Utah. Edith was present at her mother's death and noted that the scars on her mother's neck and leg were still visible. She said of her mother, “She was a very wonderful person and now it really hurts me that she had so few pleasures. She was most deserving.”

Thus lived and died Kate, the princess daughter of Chief Tintic, and his wife, Copperfield, and her parents via adoption, Charles Edmund and Mary Ann Darrow Richardson.

Kate Aldura's FamilySearch profile lists her parents as Edmund and Mary Ann Darrow Richardson.

The profile for Edmund and Mary Ann lists Kate Aldura as one of their children, with no differentiation between her and the Richardsons' biological children.

The profile for Chief Tintic and his wife, Movowich, lists Kate Aldura as their daughter.

Seems like "genealogy" involves more than biology.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 12/13/2019 at 6:44 PM, Storm Rider said:

Yes, as a genealogist I clearly teach adults and children ...

A question, if you don't mind Storm Rider.  Would you be willing to give us some details on what you being a genealogist means?  Do you have a paying job doing it?  What training did you receive?  How much training and experience do you have?  In what capacity do you teach adults and children?

I'm quite interested, because you're claiming certain things to be so, that some people claim are not so.  So if you're talking more than just being called to do family history or something, I might have some more research to do.

[blueglass]

On 12/10/2019 at 1:26 PM, bluebell said:

I thought this was interesting.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/familysearch-document-same-sex-family-relationships?fbclid=IwAR2zOVgtL2DLVv8pwe6qmKWz6Ja5l9T3HPrVQnTjg9xQrRZBkggcFC1Un1Y

The church says their doctrine on same sex relationships remains the same.

 

The FAQ here has a lot of tension with our own canon of scripture.  Reminds of the heap of justifications and darkness invented to misread 2 Nephi 26:33 and Gal 3:29. 

For example if we believe the doctrine of D&Cov 130:2 is true, "2 And that same ^asociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with ^beternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy."  Then we should be at the forefront to believe that these loving relationships such as marriage between those of the same gender, polyamory, and other benevolent, holy, uplifting network structures are beautiful and good and will be glorified by god among those of age who can give consent and choose of their own free will. 

Here is the scripture in tension:

D&Cov 132:6-7, "6 And as pertaining to the ^anew and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my ^bglory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God. 7 And verily I say unto you, that the ^aconditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, ^boaths, ^cvows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and ^dsealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is ^eanointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by ^frevelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this ^gpower (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this ^hpower in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the ⁱkeys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

vs7 clearly states that unless one receives a seal by the Holy Spirit of promise on their sealing, all people below the top tier of the Celestial will have their friendships, marriages, even as far as connections, and associations destroyed. 

The question then becomes is our view of the interpersonal glorified relationships of God consistent and to be trusted? 

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by blueglass

[california boy]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

That said, there is a corollary sadness I feel for those who have chosen to enter into a same-sex marriage, particularly those with a familiarity with the Restored Gospel and its blessings.  I will not dispute the strength of the feelings that likely precipitate the choice to enter into such a marriage, but I will also not pretend that I have any hope or expectation that such relationships have any chance of being perpetuated after death.  There is no such hope.  At all.  

And if someone is celibate and single their whole life, what relationship will continue in the next for them?  

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  That is one of the reasons I find same-sex marriage inherently incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  A heterosexual couple may endure trials pertaining to the physiological inability to procreate.  But there is a promise that such things can and will eventually happen if they keep their covenants, and if their relationship is sealed.  Again, no such hope exists for a same-sex couple.  At all.  Ever.  I find that very sad.

And if someone is celibate and single their whole life, what children will be produced from that situation? 

According to your analysis, there is absolutely no difference between someone who is single their whole life and someone who enters into a SSM.  Both will not have a relationship that continues into the next life or be sealed to someone by proxy.    And in both cases, no children will be produced. So why not enter into a SSM and at least have a committed relationship with someone you love while on earth. The eternity will be the same no matter what choice you make.

 

[carbon dioxide]

42 minutes ago, california boy said:

And if someone is celibate and single their whole life, what relationship will continue in the next for them? 

 Their relationships with parents and siblings.  Making new relationships after death is not going to be a problem. Think of all young children who have died over time.  They are going to be just fine.

[carbon dioxide]

45 minutes ago, california boy said:

And in both cases, no children will be produced. So why not enter into a SSM and at least have a committed relationship with someone you love while on earth. The eternity will be the same no matter what choice you make.

Not exactly the same.  We are all going to exist forever after we die in some state.   Our actions and decisions determine the quality of our eternal existence.  The choices we make do matter.  The quality of existence between those who are exalted and those in the telestial kingdom is like the difference between the life of a multi-billionaire and someone who just lives on food stamps. 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

 Their relationships with parents and siblings.  Making new relationships after death is not going to be a problem. Think of all young children who have died over time.  They are going to be just fine.

What new relationships after death?  They go through their whole earthly life not wanting any marital relationship on earth.  Are they magically going to turn straight after they die and now all the sudden want to be with a woman?  

If that is even possible, then why doesn't God do this magical change while they are on earth? Yeah I have heard the old God wants us to suffer so we will be stronger.  But taking a gay person completely out of the whole family which is at the core of the plan of happiness seems a bit irrational. Gay people are healthy strong humans that are perfectly capable of forming relationships. Which is exactly what many of them choose to do.  That seems way closer to the Plan of Salvation than being celibate.

I get that you have a different belief, but that doesn't mean your belief is rational.  Maybe that is why so many in the Church struggle with this teaching.  It just doesn't make any rational sense.

 

[california boy]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Not exactly the same.  We are all going to exist forever after we die in some state.   Our actions and decisions determine the quality of our eternal existence.  The choices we make do matter.  The quality of existence between those who are exalted and those in the telestial kingdom is like the difference between the life of a multi-billionaire and someone who just lives on food stamps. 

Yeah, we get the whole suffer in this life and the next life will be so wonderful thing.  But the fact remains, celibate people have no children and have no marital relationships that continue in the next life. And I think Christ was pretty clear that there would be no marriage in Heaven.  So is it up to us earthlings to make a guess as to who these celibate people should be sealed too?

These are puzzle pieces that just don't fit together.  There is no rational explanation

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yeah, we get the whole suffer in this life and the next life will be so wonderful thing.  But the fact remains, celibate people have no children and have no marital relationships that continue in the next life. And I think Christ was pretty clear that there would be no marriage in Heaven.  So is it up to us earthlings to make a guess as to who these celibate people should be sealed too?

These are puzzle pieces that just don't fit together.  There is no rational explanation

I think Christ was pretty clear in the D&C and through modern prophets that marriage is eternal and that opportunities to marry will exist after this life.

Perhaps you are misinterpreting the Bible.  When you look at the words of the Lord in a holistic fashion, it helps in interpretation.

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/schindler.doesnt-matthew-contradict-eternal-marriage.pdf

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

They go through their whole earthly life not wanting any marital relationship on earth.  Are they magically going to turn straight after they die and now all the sudden want to be with a woman?  

Do you think it might be possible that if one lives for millions of years one might change in ways one couldn't in the span of a hundred?

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Do you think it might be possible that if one lives for millions of years one might change in ways one couldn't in the span of a hundred?

I get what you're saying with this, Calm, but in the Church we make a doctrinal assertion that my love for my wife can and will last for those millions of years.  I don't plan on *that* changing. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I get what you're saying with this, Calm, but in the Church we make a doctrinal assertion that my love for my wife can and will last for those millions of years.  I don't plan on *that* changing. 

That makes sense because that behaviour/relationship (assuming she is your partner in exaltation) is seen as being supported by the environment and the teachings we will be receiving about the Gospel and how we are living then.

However, for those who believe that same sex romantic/sexual relationships are not part of the eternal environment surrounding God's family, there would not be that kind of support and likely active teaching towards change (but of course in nondamaging ways since God is the wisest and most loving of teachers).  If same sex sexual behaviour is part of the natural man (which isn't inherently sinful in my view, but leaves us open to yielding to temptation), then it would be included in any behaviours that prevent us from reaching our full potential of children of God that are slowly or quickly (depending on our ability to change) modified through eternal progression, since we are to sacrifice the natural man in ourselves to allow for full flourishing of the child of God in ourselves.

My opinion is resurrection comes when we are fully ready to release anything sinful, but that doesn't mean we are all the way to our full potential.  It seems to me eternal progression likely is more than just acquiring more possession or family, but what it actually is....way too far beyond the understanding that might come with our current capability of a life no longer than 100 years.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

I think Christ was pretty clear in the D&C and through modern prophets that marriage is eternal and that opportunities to marry will exist after this life.

Perhaps you are misinterpreting the Bible.  When you look at the words of the Lord in a holistic fashion, it helps in interpretation.

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/schindler.doesnt-matthew-contradict-eternal-marriage.pdf

I get that anyone can interpret every scripture in the Bible 10 different ways.  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Do you think it might be possible that if one lives for millions of years one might change in ways one couldn't in the span of a hundred?

Of course ANYTHING is possible.  And maybe it will take millions of years to sort this out.  

It is also possible that God has no problem with same sex marriages and will have a place for them in His Kingdom 

It is all guesswork and speculation since there has never been a revelation on SSM, Church leaders have just made assumptions based on their own beliefs and prejudices.  

Edited December 17, 2019 by california boy

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

I get that anyone can interpret every scripture in the Bible 10 different ways.  

Exactly!  Hence the blessing of additional scripture and modern prophets.