Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Katya wrote:

Rifka wrote:Current church doctrine does not allow a single parent to be sealed to their child. Like I said, I don't know how God works with sticky situations like the one we're discussing, but I personally wouldn't take the chance.

This strikes me as an odd argument to make in a religious context, because isn't religious faith all about taking chances? Isn't faith "not to have a perfect knowledge of things"? Which is not to say that faith is a justification for general recklessness—I suppose I'd say that the difference between the two is that faith has to be driven by some sort of divine guidance. I would hope that krebscout's friend is making this choice prayerfully, but if she feels guided to adopt as a single person (since artificial insemination is apparently off the table), I would hope that not knowing for sure what would happen to her and her child in the eternities wouldn't stop her from doing what she feels is right.

I think you answered your own question in that you pointed out that faith has to be driven by some sort of divine guidance. Usually faith to take a risk is preceded by careful study of the scripures/words of the prophets, prayer, fasting, listening carefully for the spirit, etc. In other words, it's not blindly or stupidly taking a risk, but it's taking a calculated risk based on spiritual feelings after lots of study, pondering, and prayer. I agree that I would hope that krebscout's friend would make this choice prayerfully as well, and that she would follow promptings to adopt as a single person if she strongly feels that it is right. As I said above, if it were me, I'd be extremely hesitant to take the risk of adopting as a single person, but I should have added that if I had prayed and studied and strongly felt that I should adopt as a single person, I would. I just think it's highly unlikely (but not impossible) that the Lord would ask that of a single person at this time when there are so many wonderful married couples that are unable to bear children and would love to adopt.

Rifka, I'd just like to emphasize the change you made after you were quoted, and that is to say that it is current church policy, not current church doctrine. There are many things done in a way that seems counter-intuitive to our understanding of precisely what the purpose of the sealing ordinance is; it seems like the overriding ideology is one of making sure that individuals get and stay sealed, regardless of to who. Perhaps the idea is that sealings will be sorted out, but easier to fix a broken one than create a new one? Even as I'm suggesting that, it doesn't really make sense to me, yet policy is policy.

Katya, I do hope you get to that argument. As I've said before (and been vehemently disagreed with, so clearly it isn't as settled an issue as I once thought it to be) I believe that two loving, caring parents are superior to one caring, loving parent. In many instances we can be satisfied with what is good, but in raising children, we ought to strive for what is best.

I apologize for not getting back to this topic sooner. I had a death in the family a couple of weeks ago, and I spent last week sorting out the aftermath of that and this week flying out to the funeral and back. Even when I haven't been busy, I haven't had the emotional energy to deal with this sort of charged topic.

Rifka wrote:

krebscout wrote:And I don't see how getting artificially inseminated is a trade-off: "giving up what you want most, for what you want now-- choosing to have a child for life only, instead of waiting to have a child, with a spouse, for eternity." She could be married and sealed later on, then have the child sealed to the two of them, or she could have her work done by proxy after her death and still have the child sealed to her. Is that incorrect?

That's still taking a gamble-- a gamble that she will actually meet someone, marry him, and be sealed to him in this life. Although, as I'm reading through everyone's responses to my statement, it occurs to me that I wrote it under the assumption that if a mother is artificially inseminated and raises a child, because she cannot be sealed to the child in this life, she will never be sealed to the child. That may not be true. Some of you pointed out that if the woman lived a faithful life, she will be blessed with a husband and children in the next life. I suppose it's entirely possible that she could receive that blessing and then be sealed to the child she bore during her mortal lifetime. I suppose my biggest problem with that line of thought is that we've been taught that this life is the time to receive ordinances. We would be concerned if a couple chose not to be sealed in this life because they could always receive the sealing in the next life. I think most members would view that scenario as "procrastinating the day of their repentance." How, then, does intentionally chosing to have a child in a way that prevents them from being sealed to you fit in? I'm not sure. All I know is it makes me uncomfortable in the same way it does to think about someone chosing not to be sealed in this life because they can always do it later? Why take the chance?

I don't see how adopting a child as a single person is delaying receiving an ordinance. If the woman didn't adopt a child at all, then she wouldn't have any children to be sealed to, anyway, so there would still be no sealing. (I suppose you could argue that having a child might make it less likely for a man to marry her and thus less likely for a sealing to take place. I allow that that could be true, but I think that would be more of an issue with men not wanting to be stepfathers and not of the woman having done something terrible.)

I also take issue with using the word "uncomfortable" to mean morally wrong. There are many good choices that take us out of our comfort zones. Jesus made people uncomfortable. Joseph Smith preached things that were uncomfortable to hear. It's uncomfortable to join the Church and leave behind your old life. Conversely, the Pharisees were pretty comfortable in their way of thinking and we're likewise warned against wrongly saying "all is well." For Mormons who have grown up in the Church or who are very familiar with its prevailing culture and attitudes, I worry that we will lose the ability to objectively question what is right and wrong in favor of rejecting out of hand those who do not fit in (because they make us uncomfortable) and mindlessly accepting the flaws of Mormon society (simply because we find them comfortable). It's true that there are many good choices which are also comfortable ones, and many uncomfortable situations which are bad, but I wouldn't suggest relying on feeling comfortable, alone, as a moral compass.

Katya wrote:I don't see how adopting a child as a single person is delaying receiving an ordinance. If the woman didn't adopt a child at all, then she wouldn't have any children to be sealed to, anyway, so there would still be no sealing. (I suppose you could argue that having a child might make it less likely for a man to marry her and thus less likely for a sealing to take place. I allow that that could be true, but I think that would be more of an issue with men not wanting to be stepfathers and not of the woman having done something terrible.)

It's delaying the ordinance for the child, who might otherwise have a chance to be adopted by a temple-worthy couple to whom he/she could be sealed.

Katya wrote:I also take issue with using the word "uncomfortable" to mean morally wrong. There are many good choices that take us out of our comfort zones. Jesus made people uncomfortable. Joseph Smith preached things that were uncomfortable to hear. It's uncomfortable to join the Church and leave behind your old life. Conversely, the Pharisees were pretty comfortable in their way of thinking and we're likewise warned against wrongly saying "all is well." For Mormons who have grown up in the Church or who are very familiar with its prevailing culture and attitudes, I worry that we will lose the ability to objectively question what is right and wrong in favor of rejecting out of hand those who do not fit in (because they make us uncomfortable) and mindlessly accepting the flaws of Mormon society (simply because we find them comfortable). It's true that there are many good choices which are also comfortable ones, and many uncomfortable situations which are bad, but I wouldn't suggest relying on feeling comfortable, alone, as a moral compass.

In that case, how do you distinguish when the Spirit is warning you against something? Couldn't that feeling be described as "uncomfortable?" I think you're being a little presumptous in assuming that I am merely prejudiced against the unknown. Shouldn't it make me uncomfortable to think about flouting the counsel of the prophets that whenever possible children should be raised in a family with two loving parents? That doesn't mean it would be wrong in every single case-- there are times when the Spirit might prompt us to go against the counsel of the prophets, like Nephi killing Laban-- but they are few and far between. I think feeling uncomfortable about going against the prophet's counsel is definitely a way the Spirit warns us-- puts up a red flag, so to speak-- that we should tread very carefully. There is a big difference between feeling uncomfortable about flouting the prophets' words than there is about feeling uncomfortable because we don't want to make sacrifices, try something new, etc.

Personally, I think there would be a lot more reason to be concerned about my judgment if I didn't feel uncomfortable with the idea of going against the prophet. The fact that I am uncomfortable with the idea shows that I want to consider the matter carefully and prayerfully before jumping in with two feet, not that I am simply sticking with what feels "comfortable" to me. If I only cared about doing what felt "comfortable," I wouldn't be thinking about and discussing the matter in the first place. I'd be avoiding it like the plague.

Just a quick point of order to say I'm completely with you Rifka, except on the Nephi/Laban bit. As far as I know there was no counsel against Nephi's actions. The commandment is לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח literally "do no murder".

/end tangent

Tao wrote:Just a quick point of order to say I'm completely with you Rifka, except on the Nephi/Laban bit. As far as I know there was no counsel against Nephi's actions. The commandment is לֹ֥֖א תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח literally "do no murder".

/end tangent

Wouldn't a commandment against something also be counsel against it? I see your point, though-- I should have chosen my wording/example more carefully.

Actually, this whole tangent you guys are on about uncomfortable vs the spirit telling you something is wrong or whatever is something I would be really interested in starting a new thread to talk about, if anyone wants to keep talking about it. That whole concept is something that I'm really having some issues with lately.

Rifka wrote:I think you're being a little presumptous in assuming that I am merely prejudiced against the unknown.

I think you're being a little presumptuous in assuming that I am assuming anything of the sort. I simply meant that I found it to be a poor choice of words because it can refer to feelings which are superficial and it's important to be able to distinguish between those feelings and genuine promptings of the spirit.

To be honest, I'm coming to doubt that you and I can have a productive debate on this topic, so I think I'll bow out, now.