DiscussMormonism.com

On 1 February 1994 the First Presidency wrote a general letter on this very important subject. The letter reads, in part, as follows: “Priesthood and auxiliary leaders are again encouraged to renew their efforts to teach ward and stake members the importance of living chaste and virtuous lives. We note with alarm the continued decline of moral values in society and the resultant number of children being reared by unwed parents. … Every effort should be made in helping those who conceive out of wedlock to establish an eternal family relationship. When the unwed parents are unable or unwilling to marry, they should be encouraged to place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Social Services. … Unwed parents who do not marry should not be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of an obligation to care for one’s own. … When deciding to place the baby for adoption, the best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration.”

Is this still the official position of the Church?

Drifting wrote:Is this still the official position of the Church?

Absolutely. Just search for "adoption" at LDS.org.

It was reiterated as recently as the August 2012 Ensign:

http://www.LDS.org/ensign/2012/08/how-c ... o?lang=eng

From reading the Ensign article I am assuming that a child cannot be sealed to an unwed mother (unless she marries a Temple worthy male who adopts the child). Correct? That's screwed up.

Nomomo wrote:From reading the Ensign article I am assuming that a child cannot be sealed to an unwed mother (unless she marries a Temple worthy male who adopts the child). Correct? That's f****d up.

I have a good friend who gave birth to a daughter; the daughter was born in the covenant because my friend had married her daughter's father in the temple some years earlier. But I'm reasonably certain her daughter won't end up sealed to the guy, because he abandoned her, left my friend, and left the LDS Church. My friend later married another man who, as far as I can tell, has never joined the LDS Church, so it's unlikely my friend's daughter will be sealed to him.

I have no doubt whatsoever that my friend's daughter will be sealed to my friend in the afterlife. Who the particular man will be that her daughter is also sealed to is not horribly significant.

Drifting wrote:Is this still the official position of the Church?

I believe it is, yes. I have heard it emphasized, and I have never heard it repealed.

I need to point out, though, that the Church emphasizes that it's the child's mother that needs to make the choice as to whether she will place the child for adoption or keep the child to raise. I've seen this work at the local level; my own daughter chose to keep and raise the baby she's going to give birth late this month or early next month.

At one point she got sick enough that she had to go to the hospital. I went to see her, and she asked me to give her a blessing. I asked her if she wanted anybody else to participate, and she mentioned our former bishop, who is now first counselor in our stake presidency. It was 11:00 pm so I had some misgivings about calling him, but I did, and he dropped everything and came to the hospital. Before we gave my daughter the blessing we talked a little bit about her decision to keep her baby. My former bishop pointed out that the church did counsel people in her situation to place the baby for adoption, but he emphasized that it was her choice, and indicated that he would support whatever choice she made.

That's f****d up.

How so? Are you, like most anti Mormons, under the mistaken impression that the Church doesn't believe it's own doctrine? Salvation and eternal life are of primary importance and consideration.

KevinSim wrote:my own daughter chose to keep and raise the baby she's going to give birth late this month or early next month.

Good on you, Kevin, for supporting your daughter and her decision. Good luck on the rest of the pregnancy and delivery, for what is hoped will be a healthy baby. Congratulations on becoming a grandfather, again for all I know.

I am impressed at your daughter's decision, and the support you are giving her.

sock puppet wrote:

KevinSim wrote:my own daughter chose to keep and raise the baby she's going to give birth late this month or early next month.

Good on you, Kevin, for supporting your daughter and her decision. Good luck on the rest of the pregnancy and delivery, for what is hoped will be a healthy baby. Congratulations on becoming a grandfather, again for all I know.

I am impressed at your daughter's decision, and the support you are giving her.

This.

Drifting wrote:Is this still the official position of the Church?

Here is the current policy on the matter, in Section 17.3.12 of Book 1 of the CHI (emphasis added):

When a man and woman conceive a child outside of marriage, every effort should be made to encourage them to marry. When the probability of a successful marriage is unlikely due to age or other circumstances, the unmarried parents should be counseled to work with LDS Family Services to place the child for adoption, providing an opportunity for the baby to be sealed to temple-worthy parents. Adoption is an unselfish, loving decision that blesses both the birth parents and the child in this life and in eternity.

...

Birth parents who do not marry should not be counseled to keep the infant as a condition or repentance or out of a sense of obligation to care for one's own. Additionally, grandparents and other family members should not feel obligated to facilitate parenting by unmarried parents, since the child would not generally be able to receive the blessings of the sealing covenant. Further, unmarried parents are generally unable to provide the stability and the nurturing environment that a married mother and father can provide. Unmarried parents should give prayerful consideration to the best interests of the child and the blessings that can come to an infant who is sealed to a mother and father (see First Presidency letter, June 26, 2002).

Yes, the LDS Church still strongly encourages an unwed mother to give up her baby for adoption, with the primary reason being that the child can be sealed to a temple-going married couple.

Nomomo wrote:From reading the Ensign article I am assuming that a child cannot be sealed to an unwed mother (unless she marries a Temple worthy male who adopts the child). Correct? That's f****d up.

Here's the current policy, from Section 3.6.2 of Book 1 of the CHI (emphasis added):

A living child who is born out of wedlock may be sealed to both natural parents without special approval after the parents have been sealed in the temple.

A living child who is born out of wedlock may be sealed to one natural parent and a stepparent when at least one of the following conditions applies:

1. The child marries.

2. The child reaches the age of 21.

3. The child's other natural parent is deceased.

4. The other natural parent has given signed consent for the sealing.

5. The rights of the other natural parent have been terminated by legal process, such as an adoption proceeding.

If the child's other natural parent is missing, and if reasonable efforts to find the parent have failed, no consent is required. The temple president can approve the sealing to be completed subject to further review.