dad's girlfriend

[Portia]

Oh, and I know I've told this story before, but it still astounds me. I went to a YSA retreat two years ago. The speaker was a maniac. He bullied our bishopric members, telling them they had to buy their wives flowers every week, even when the wives insisted they'd really rather not. Then he starts going on about how we women should only marry returned missionaries.

He points at this guy on the front row, and says, "WHERE DID YOU SERVE YOUR MISSION?" And the guy, completely taken aback, stammers that he was just baptized within the previous year. The speaker gave him this look like it was a personal affront.

So I wouldn't call "inappropriately prying questions about your Church history" exactly rare, at least where I grew up.

[Portia]

So, you're equating being illegitimate with not being born under the covenant?

I can understand not wanting to talk about your complex family dynamic and feeling awkward when it gets brought up.

But there are a *lot* of reasons for being sealed to your parents without being BIC. There's adoption. Joining the church later in life. Cleaning up lifestyles later in life. Some are complex and some are not. I was thinking you were incorporating all of these into second-class citizen status. Are you? Or are you talking more about your situation and other complicated ones like it?

Maybe what I'm asking is, does it annoy you when the topic of sealings arise in general? Or specifically born in the covenant vs. sealed later?

Yes, the topic annoys me in general. But there are others with "unconventional" families who seem pretty okay with it. (Marguerite St. Just comes to mind.)

But I think my concern for egalitarianism and privacy are very "liberal" or whatever. I think it's ("it" being rhetoric about how blessed a certain group is) even more damaging to racial minorities, for instance, than illegitimate children. I don't like anything that smacks of predestinationism.

[Dragon Lady]

So... do I need to be careful using the phrase "Born in the Covenant" for genealogical purposes? Or when specifically talking about when/if a person needs to be sealed to their parents? Because... that's the only time I can fathom using it (except in conversations like this).

Because I think being careful about talking about people's personal histories should already be a given. (To my don't-want-to-offend mind, anyway. I can't speak for others.)

[Portia]

So... do I need to be careful using the phrase "Born in the Covenant" for genealogical purposes? Or when specifically talking about when/if a person needs to be sealed to their parents? Because... that's the only time I can fathom using it (except in conversations like this).

If you're doing genealogy, they're dead, so if they're as thin-skinned as me, guess they have to get over it. ;-)

[Portia]

Semi-related, go read this article on posthumous marriage traditions around the world. It's awesome.

[Dragon Lady]

And what about discussions about if a living person needs to be sealed to their parents or not?

[Eirene]

For what it's worth, I've also been asked to raise my hand if I was BIC a few times in various wards. I suspect that it's happened to everyone here, but I don't think it's as memorable if it makes you one of the "good guys."

As another person who was not "BIC," I will second the fact that that phrase is often used (intentionally or not) in ways that make others feel second-class, although I'm not sure that's it's anything about the phrase in particular. For me, it was that at Church, there were constant reminders that *my* family didn't get to be a "forever family," and was thus obviously worse than the eternal families (this always made me angry, especially since it was clear to me that my parents were much more loving and involved and better at parenting than most sealed parents I knew at church). It was impossible to ignore the way that lots of people thought that my mom had messed up by marrying a non-member--and not just that she had messed up her own life, but that she had also doomed her children to being part of an unsealed family. It always stung when people bore their testimonies about how grateful they were to be BIC and to have an eternal family.

I'll be honest, though; I don't think it's the specific BIC phrase. I think it's the doctrine that it is good to marry another member in the temple and bad to do anything else. Even beautiful doctrines like eternal families can have a painful, exclusionary side, and I think being aware of that is more important than the particular phrase you use in genealogy.

[Dragon Lady]

Eirene, having taught Primary and YW, I find myself often confronted that. My lesson topic is on Eternal Families and I know several of the students are not currently sealed as a family. How would you suggest approaching a situation like that? I try to be conscious of what I say, but I also don't want to side step the doctrine or downplay it, either.

[Katya]

Like Eirene said, I don't think it's really about the term, but the concept behind it, and more specifically using that concept as a way to divide people into graded categories.

But maybe I just feel entitled to be a first class citizen and don't realize it?

No, not exactly. What you're hitting on is the concept of social privilege, and one of the more insidious aspects of social privilege is that it's often invisible to the people who have it.

So, suppose you have two groups of people, X and Not X. And some aspect of life is harder for the people in one of those groups. But for some reason, the people who are in the easier group don't recognize that their membership in that group is making their life easier, and if the people in the harder group try to bring up the disparity, the people in the easier group may dismiss their concerns as being imaginary or overblown.

In this case, take the groups as BIC/Sealed vs. Not.

Do these groups constitute graded categories?

Yes, we hear a lot of Church rhetoric about how it's important to be sealed to your family, as well as scary stories about people who weren't sealed to their families (for some reason) and therefore don't get to see them in heaven or be with them forever.

Apparently, there are also some people who privilege BIC over being sealed later in life. From one perspective, sealed is sealed, and there are certainly many prominent Church members (especially early members) who weren't BIC. However, there are other people who prize multigenerational Mormon families, or who want to point out that their parents were married the "right" way or were generally righteous. So, basically, even if there shouldn't be a functional difference between being BIC and sealed, it's certainly something that some members could use to puff themselves up, and the non-BIC people don't really have much of a defense.

Are some aspects of (Church) life harder for one category than for the other?

Yes. Whenever you hear or read about positive examples of families in the Church, you're almost certainly reading about families that have been sealed. Whenever you read about a family that isn't sealed, it's more likely to be in a negative context (either highlighting that family as a bad example, or as deserving of pity). So, basically, in a church that strongly emphasizes family, the families of Group Not X are consistently portrayed as being lesser.

Another example is that Church leaders are, demographically speaking, far more likely to belong to the BIC/sealed category that the Not BIC/Sealed category. It could go either way with being sealed to parents, I suppose, but it seems unlikely to me that someone would be made a bishop or higher if they weren't sealed to their wife and children (so long as travel expenses weren't the only obstacle), and this scenario gets increasingly unlikely the higher you go up the chain. (Of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, for instance, I'm aware of Elder Bednar being raised by a mixed-member marriage, but his father still joined the Church when he was in his 20s. I don't know what the demographics are, churchwide, but I highly doubt that 14/15 members are sealed to their parents, spouses, and children.) The effect of this is that not only are non-sealed families not held up as a positive example, leaders of Mormon congregations aren't likely to understand firsthand what it's like to be in this situation, which leads to less support and advocacy.

Also, from a more practical perspecitve, if one or more people in your family aren't members or aren't members in good standing (which is a common co-occurrence of not being sealed), then they can't come to your wedding if you decide to have it in the temple. (And if you decide to have a civil wedding so that they can attend, then you're propagating the non-seal-age!)

Are the people in the easier group unaware that their life is easier by virtue of belonging to that group?

You and I are both BIC and neither of us can think of a time when this has come up in a public setting. Portia and Eirene could both think of examples off the top of their heads. It's possible that this has simply never come up for you and me, but I think it's more likely that it came up and we just forgot about it (as Eirene suggested).

Also, once you start to be aware of some aspect of privilege, you'll start to see more examples. For instance, I saw a picture frame in the BYU Bookstore the other day that said something like "My Forever Family" on it. Personally, I thought it was a little cheesy, but I didn't take it as putdown of my family, because I do have the "forever family" they're talking about. But if you don't, how is that supposed to make you feel?

I occasionally read the blog of a woman who isn't sealed to anyone because she's a convert (so, not sealed to parents) and she's divorced (so, not sealed to husband and can't be sealed to children on her own). She's been in some very kind, supportive wards since her divorce, but her kids (who are elementary school to middle school-aged) come home from church almost every week asking or crying about not being sealed to anyone and scared that they will be alone in Heaven. Do your kids do that? Do you think they'll ever be subjected to that pain? If not, can you see how that is a kind of privilege that you may not have been aware of?

Do people in the easier group dismiss the concerns of people in the harder group?

Yes. You suggested that they should perhaps work on "not being offended by people instead of making people walk on eggshells." (I'll acknowledge, though, that you may have been referring specifically to ever using the word BIC, but this is certainly an attitude that others have had, more generally.)

Why do we, in the Church, tend to put the blame on the offended and not on the offender? If one of your kids started using a racial slur against a neighbor, would you just figure that there was nothing to be done about it and the neighbor should just work on not being offended? Or would you correct your child's behavior? Why? And if you think that an entire culture can't be changed, try looking at media that's 50 or 100 years old for racist messages that would be absolutely unacceptable, today. Did our culture change because we told people to quit being offended or because even those of us who weren't affected by those statements acknowledged their pain and started holding offenders accountable?

[Marduk]

God is able of these stones to raise up children into Abraham.

[NerdGirl]

My experiences with the "BIC" dichotomy:

My dad joined the church in between when I was born and when my brother was born, which means that I was not "born in the covenant" but my brother was. I have been in more than a few Sunday school classes (both growing up in Southern Alberta and in BYU wards) where someone speculated that maybe the difference between going to the highest degree of the celestial kingdom and going to one of the lower ones was whether or not you were BIC. And then they ask, "Oh, wait, was anyone in here not BIC?" And then me and a few others raise their hands and they're like, "Oh, well, I could be wrong about that!" Gag.

And then there are all the YW lessons about how if you marry a non-LDS guy chances are he'll never join the church and people pointedly telling me, "I know your dad did end up joining the church, but your mom just got very lucky, and you need to not use that as an excuse to date non-member guys, because it WILL NOT work out that way for you." And I dated a non-LDS guy for 2 years in high school, so that was fun to hear all the time.

And I think the one that bothers me the most is this. My brother has left the church. Several people in my home ward have said to me over the years, "It's so weird that your brother would be the one to end up leaving rather than you since he was BIC and you weren't." The underlying (and sometimes explicitly stated, depending on how the conversation goes) assumption being that people who were BIC are either more righteous than those who weren't or have some kind of special protection that the rest of us don't that would make them more likely to stay.

[Portia]

And I think the one that bothers me the most is this. My brother has left the church. Several people in my home ward have said to me over the years, "It's so weird that your brother would be the one to end up leaving rather than you since he was BIC and you weren't." The underlying (and sometimes explicitly stated, depending on how the conversation goes) assumption being that people who were BIC are either more righteous than those who weren't or have some kind of special protection that the rest of us don't that would make them more likely to stay.

O_O

Haven't heard that gem before. But I guess in my family, it's true thus far. (Therefore it's true for everyone in all places at all times, right?)

[Marduk]

I'd probably start saying something like, "yeah, I wasn't born in the covenant. Me and Joseph Smith."

[NerdGirl]

^I have said that, actually.

And I've also pointed out that there would be no reason to do missionary work if being born in the covenant was so vitally important for exhaltation.

[thatonemom]

Eirene, having taught Primary and YW, I find myself often confronted that. My lesson topic is on Eternal Families and I know several of the students are not currently sealed as a family. How would you suggest approaching a situation like that? I try to be conscious of what I say, but I also don't want to side step the doctrine or downplay it, either.

I'm not Eirene, but I've got a couple thoughts. (Just for background, my mom joined the church after my parents had been married for 7 or 8 years. My dad had no interest. His disinterest turned to dislike over the years. My parents divorced when I was 13 and it was incredibly ugly. To this day my mom pretty much hates my dad. My dad is still not a fan of my Mormon-ness. I'm in infrequent contact with him - he's met my husband once, and only one of my two sons. It's more complicated than all that, but that's the bare bones version.)

Lessons on eternal families used to be really difficult for me because it was never presented in a way that made it seem like those blessings would be possible for me in my family. What I wish I had seen was a focus on individual agency and worthiness to receive the ordinances of the temple, instead of a focus on family circumstance.

Maybe something like this would work:
*Discussion of how having an eternal family is a great blessing that Heavenly Father wants for all of his children.
*Focus on agency (desire and preparation), worthiness (repentance), and temple ordinances as the way to receive that blessing.
*Explanation that the ordinances of the temple are available to everyone who uses their agency and is worthy to get them.
*Every worthy person who wants to be sealed to their parents will have that opportunity, either from having their parents sealed before they were born, being sealed to their parents after their birth, or doing their parents' temple work after the parents have died and being sealed to them at that point. But the focus being that every person can have that blessing if they are worthy.
*Like being sealed to parents, every worthy person who wants it will have the opportunity to be sealed to a spouse. Just like sealing to parents, that opportunity may come at different points in a person's life, or may come after their death.
*The timing of the ordinances may be different for each person, but the blessings of these ordinances are for everyone who uses their agency and is worthy to get them.

I don't think that excludes anyone, and doesn't water down the doctrine, either. Of course, that kind of discussion would lead to questions about individual circumstances. But it's a good ground work to have the idea that these blessings are for everyone, and that Heavenly Father wants those blessing for everyone regardless of their family circumstance, or family member choices.

[Dragon Lady]

Yes. You suggested that they should perhaps work on "not being offended by people instead of making people walk on eggshells." (I'll acknowledge, though, that you may have been referring specifically to ever using the word BIC, but this is certainly an attitude that others have had, more generally.)

I was specifically referring to using "BIC". In fact, at the time, I was under the impression that we were talking about sealed families only and BIC vs. sealed later. Which is why I couldn't wrap my head around it. Y'all have pointed out instances where people think that BIC is better than just sealed, but to me, those people are idiots. Really. And in that situation, yes, I think that we should work on not being offended. Because there is no doctrine At All behind what they're saying. Yes, I also think we should correct them. I like Marduk's response. If anyone told me that the difference between the degrees of the Celestial kingdom was BIC or not, I'd ask if they believed in the 2nd Article of Faith.

If my child used a racial slur, you'd better believe I'd correct her. And if anyone used a racial slur or any other sort of bullying against my child, I would help her work hard to not be offended. Where I can give correction, I will. But in general, the only person's attitude I can control is my own. (And I can teach my children to do the same.) So yes, in general, I think we should *all* work harder to not take offense. I like the quote attributed to Brigham Young, "He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.” You can only control yourself. You can help others see your perspective (in conversations like this), but taking offense solves zero problems. And you can give correction without being offended. In fact, your correction is much more likely to be accepted if you're approaching it rationally instead of in a offended tone/state of mind.

So, I said I started this discussion thinking that we were discussing BIC vs. sealed to parents after birth. Now I realize that there's also a third aspect that we were all talking about without my realization: LDS families who aren't sealed. Yes, I absolutely agree that we need to be kind and accepting and careful not to ostracize. Which is why I asked Eirene (and thanks thatonemom for your answer!) how she would suggest approaching it.

And yes, Katya, in this instance I'm definitely in the easier group. And even trying my best to not offend, I still make mistakes. Big ones at times. Because it's not something I personally have dealt with, so it's not something on the forefront of my mind. For example, in my calling, I'm occasionally asked to speak with a high councilman. Last time I did, I was talking about my choice of friends in high school and how changing my group of friends completely changed where I ended up being. The group I ended up with were all married in the temple, living righteously, etc. The group I started with were now single moms and not making gospel-appropriate choices. After the meeting a lady pulled me aside and started by saying, "I'm not offended, but I wanted to point something out to you." Oh goodness. Talk about a moment of panic. What did I say that could have offended? She told me that she had several children and was divorced, and thus was a single mom. It was not by her choice that she was divorced and was and always has been temple worthy. After I used the term "single mom" in a bad light, her kids all turned to her and whispered, "Mom, did you make bad choices?" I was heartbroken for her. I couldn't believe my stupidity. That wasn't at all what I had meant. Heck, I'm tearing up talking about it. I felt horrible. She said it was ok and that she was able to explain what I had meant and that they'd talk about it more in future, but she wanted me to be aware, especially as I hold a stake calling. I was so grateful to her for pointing that out, and you'd better believe that when I gave my talk in stake conference that I went through it with a fine tooth comb. In that case, I was the idiot that said something stupid and doctrinally unfounded. Because I'm in the easy group. So I don't have to think about those things. I am so grateful that she approached me, though, and offered correction. Had she been offended and rude about it (as she had every right to be), I would have felt awful, but I also would have been defensive. Because she knew that's not what I had meant to come across. But the way she approached it left me feeling nothing but pain for her children and a determination to never do that again.

[S.A.M.]

Y'all have pointed out instances where people think that BIC is better than just sealed, but to me, those people are idiots. Really.

+1

[Portia]

Maybe it's an "easier" group within your very sheltered in-group, but I don't think my life was easier or harder, it was just life. And maybe you could have been a good influence on those friends, who knows?

[Dragon Lady]

I hope I was a good influence on those friends. I didn't just abandon them. I grew up in a very small school. I graduated with 63 people. I still interacted with them all. I just changed who I spent the majority of my time with.

[Marduk]

There's also something here that's been bothering me. It seems like those who object to the use of this term aren't necessarily objecting to the term itself, more the connotation in certain individuals' minds about it. This is an important difference for deciding in what way to modify behavior. If there is something inherently offensive about the term, then we should seek an alternative. If people are using the idea as a way to be isolationary and condescending, then the term itself is not the problem.

Perhaps an analogy might serve. If I say something like "Hispanics tend to have darker skin" or "Blacks sunburn less easily" then I haven't actually said something problematic. However, someone could easily say something racist, like, I don't know, "Black people were fence sitters in the war in heaven." And then ask which members of the audience had any black ancestry. The problem isn't the definition, it is in the ideation of the individual expressing the definition.

Those who are bothered by the term "born in covenant" is it the term itself (which to me seems a fairly descriptive term for a relevant concept) or the way people might use the idea to attack another person?