Family Search- same sex marriages

[carlimac]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900021544/lds-churchs-familysearch-database-to-add-same-sex-families-to-family-tree-feature.html

[zil]

As one commenter said, facts are facts.  Given current law, the system needs to be able to document these facts.  The only negative I see is that some people will use this to (further) convince themselves and others that one day the Church will seal same-sex couples in the temple.  That won't happen, but some people will use this to turn hope into belief, or belief into surety...

[Grunt]

I'm not sure what the point is.  Why do it?

[zil]

20 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure what the point is.  Why do it?

I'm guessing, but... To have a complete record - they take legal and church (any church) records from all over the world and record them and don't seem concerned with the character of the people or relationships, just the accuracy of the data.  Also, without them, you may have children utterly detached from their biological family (e.g. through one parent), and that would likely cause all kinds of data headaches.  (E.g. I can't be linked to my grandparents unless my parents are in there to link us.)  I suspect that these practical, relational database reasons are the primary ones.

However, I also wonder if it's not in part to hopefully prevent people putting them in anyway, but calling one a gender they're not (2 men, put one in as a woman just so they can record the marriage)?  I wouldn't put it past some people to try this.  (I'm a database application developer - people will cram data where it doesn't belong no matter how you try to prevent it.)  At least this way, they can have logic in the software to prevent temple ordinances being requested.

And finally, I wonder about the fact that one day, "the books" will be opened and we will be judged by what's in the books.  Thus, someone's sin will be enshrined (or entombed or whatever you want to call it) in Granite Mountain, and there won't be any denying it...

[carlimac]

How do they or will they deal with gender changes? It has the potential to get purty confusing! 😕

[Backroads]

Gotta admit, the fussy record keeper in me loves this. Documentation!!!!

 

But it does leave me scratching my head over the inevitable next steps.

[zil]

5 hours ago, Backroads said:

inevitable next steps.

Inevitable next steps are to continue saying "no" when people want same-sex couples / families sealed.  I don't see anything inevitable except people using this to further delude themselves.

9 hours ago, carlimac said:

How do they or will they deal with gender changes? It has the potential to get purty confusing! 😕

There are already policies - such people can't receive temple ordinances (at least, that's my understanding).  I feel quite confident that if proxy work were allowed to be done, it would be done for their biological gender at birth (even surgery doesn't change that).  The only real confusion would be people born with both genders, but that's exceptionally rare, no idea if it's ever happened with someone born in the Church, and someone with a higher pay grade will be figuring that one out.  (Wouldn't surprise me if the answer were to wait for the millennium.)

[lostinwater]

56 minutes ago, zil said:

The only real confusion would be people born with both genders, but that's exceptionally rare, no idea if it's ever happened with someone born in the Church, and someone with a higher pay grade will be figuring that one out.  (Wouldn't surprise me if the answer were to wait for the millennium.)

Or perhaps biological manifestations of both genders would be more accurate.

i know a lot of people in this community.  It's way more frequent than one would think.  

Sex chromosome mosaicisms - Klinefelters (XXY) and Turner Syndrome (XYY) - are probably the ones most frequently diagnosed.  i know there's a lot of variance on just how much these affect a person's phenotype or mental state.  

But there are less common ones too.  

http://www.isna.org/faq/conditions

You can have small mutations in parts of your X or Y chromosome, which make the body, to some degree or another, resistant to androgens.  If it's mild, your hormones might be off, partial and you have genitals from both genders, or total, and you'd have an almost impossible time from the outside telling that person apart from a woman - though from a strict classification perspective, they'd be male.  The process of taking cholesterol and turning it into a viable sex hormone is incredibly complex, and there are diseases that impair or prevent the various steps from happening.  Some intersex conditions only develop at puberty when the hormones try to increase (Sex Reversal).

You can also have conditions like XX Male - where the SRY gene - which does a lot/most of the making you male heavy lifting - translocates onto the X chromosome - and you have someone genetically female but phenotypically male.

There's probably dozens of other things science doesn't know about yet.  The severe ones get caught usually at puberty, or earlier.  If it's ambiguous at birth and the doctors know it, they will sometimes make decisions with the parents about what sex the child should be, and then do a bit of surgery (a horrific practice that has thankfully been recently mostly stopped).  Many of these people don't find out about it at all, or much later in life.  The moderate ones usually get caught if the person is trying to conceive and can't.  But i think the consensus scientifically is that most don't get caught at all.  

And if you consider miscarriages to be people (i do), you will add to the list of "exceptions" by a whole lot.  My mom miscarried once in between all of her children.

Anyways, all these things are a lot more common than one would think.

She (or he, if you are talking chromosomes) does a good job of explaining it.

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by lostinwater

[NeuroTypical]

20 hours ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure what the point is.  Why do it?

Well, because FamilySearch's Vision statement says "Learning about our ancestors helps us better understand who we are—creating a family bond, linking the present to the past, and building a bridge to the future."  So, it's now the law of the land to recognize SS marriages as valid and lawful.  So that means, whether God and Mormons recognize them as good things or not, yes indeed, someone's grandpa Bill WAS married to George, and they DID adopt and raise Mom, who gave birth to them.  So, like it or not, those ARE that person's ancestors.  Might as well learn from them.

 

 

 

Edited June 15, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Well, because FamilySearch's Vision statement says "Learning about our ancestors helps us better understand who we are—creating a family bond, linking the present to the past, and building a bridge to the future."  So, it's now the law of the land to recognize SS marriages as valid and lawful.  So that means, whether God and Mormons recognize them as good things or not, yes indeed, someone's grandpa Bill WAS married to George, and they DID adopt and raise Mom, who gave birth to them.  So, like it or not, those ARE that person's ancestors.  Might as well learn from them.

 

 

 

I disagree.  We practice God's law, not man's.  A woman your mother sleeps with is neither your ancestor nor your family.   

Edited June 15, 2018 by Grunt

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

I disagree.  We practice God's law, not man's.  A woman your mother sleeps with is neither your ancestor nor your family.   

Depends on what you mean by "we".  If this was an LDS website serving only LDS goals, absolutely you are correct.  But this website is for all humans, and the human "we" is subject to man's laws and civilization custom.  The supreme court decision a few years back made stuff like this law.   And at least in the US, we crossed the 50% acceptance of SSM a while ago, making it civilization custom.  

There has never been a biological requirement to have someone be your ancestor/family.  Adoption has been a thing forever.  My FIL is sealed to a dad and mom who are not his biological parents.

It feels weird explaining this, like I somehow agree with the way things are.  I don't.  I seek the Kingdom of God, and wish the world to be filled with righteous Saints, and the laws and governments that would spring from such a righteous people.  But I don't have that, and neither does familysearch.com.

[bytebear]

It's too bad the government doesn't mandate custodial parents and biological parents. It seems like a no-brainer.  Even if one is transgendered, you could be the biological mother, but the custodial father.

[Overwatch]

Perhaps it is time to take our records into a Church run data base. I can feel my self beginning to loathe the changes happening to our country and seeping in to the church. I imagine if The Church ever seals two men together I will shave my head, rend my clothes and cover myself in ash for allowing myself to be deceived.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Overwatch

[Guest]

There are many non members who use Family Search, you would be suprised. It's not just for members. My cousin came in contact with a cousin she didn't know about who isn't LDS, she had been searching for her biological parents, my cousin had her contact me because I love family history. She was using Ancestry and Family Search for her research and building her family tree, there is a lot of information on Family Search. She has a free account but can't see ordnance work. It has helped her with her search, many other non LDS us it too as a genealogy tool.

Same sex marriage is now legal and they can legally adopt children now,  we have to have a way to record those families, whether we agree with it or not. It doesn't mean they are going to be able to be sealed together but it means we have a way to keep the records organized and available to researches and descendants for generations to come.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, miav said:

Same sex marriage is now legal and they can legally adopt children now,  we have to have a way to record those families, whether we agree with it or not. It doesn't mean they are going to be able to be sealed together but it means we have a way to keep the records organized and available to researches and descendants for generations to come.

My thoughts completely 

[NeuroTypical]

From the perspective of people raised by same-sex parents, genealogical records will either tell the truth or they won't.  

And there are people who were raised by same-sex parents.

[Overwatch]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

From the perspective of people raised by same-sex parents, genealogical records will either tell the truth or they won't.  

And there are people who were raised by same-sex parents.

Well then they can have the name of one parent and [Sperm]or [Egg] Donor in the other block. The madness is thick.

[Grunt]

22 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Depends on what you mean by "we".  If this was an LDS website serving only LDS goals, absolutely you are correct.  But this website is for all humans, and the human "we" is subject to man's laws and civilization custom.  The supreme court decision a few years back made stuff like this law.   And at least in the US, we crossed the 50% acceptance of SSM a while ago, making it civilization custom.  

There has never been a biological requirement to have someone be your ancestor/family.  Adoption has been a thing forever.  My FIL is sealed to a dad and mom who are not his biological parents.

It feels weird explaining this, like I somehow agree with the way things are.  I don't.  I seek the Kingdom of God, and wish the world to be filled with righteous Saints, and the laws and governments that would spring from such a righteous people.  But I don't have that, and neither does familysearch.com.

Is it?  I thought it was designed by LDS, for LDS, and we just let others use it because their inputs benefit us.  

Ok.  Legal in God's eyes.  I'm not sure why we as a church are spending time, money, and goodwill on endeavors that counter God and give the appearance that we as a church support that counter.  Unless, of course, it's for spreading God's word.

[Grunt]

18 hours ago, Overwatch said:

Perhaps it is time to take our records into a Church run data base. I can feel my self beginning to loathe the changes happening to our country and seeping in to the church. I imagine if The Church ever seals two men together I will shave my head, rend my clothes and cover myself in ash for allowing myself to be deceived.

Hey, when did you get baptized?!?  Congrats!

[Grunt]

17 hours ago, miav said:

 we have to have a way to record those families, whether we agree with it or not. 

 

Why?  Can we do temple work for deceased same-sex couples?  What kind of work?  As though they were single?  If that's the case, and a member does his temple work for his family and reaches his same-sex grandparents, does he just treat them like he would divorced biological parents?  That is the ONLY way I would see this makes sense.

[Grunt]

12 hours ago, Overwatch said:

Well then they can have the name of one parent and [Sperm]or [Egg] Donor in the other block. The madness is thick.

Exactly.  Can one member have two sets of parents listed?  A biological set and an adopted set?  What about divorced parents?  Can we add our step-parents?  What about my father, who has had multiple marriages?  Can I add them all?

Edited June 16, 2018 by Grunt

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Is it?  I thought it was designed by LDS, for LDS, and we just let others use it because their inputs benefit us.  

Just so.  I suppose that those who manage the database feel this is a small concession to make if it keeps the software relevant to non-LDS users for the decades (centuries?) to come.  The (for lack of a better word) “actionable” data we glean from such a measure will probably outweigh the “non actionable” data by a staggering margin; especially in markets outside the US.

[zil]

10 minutes ago, Grunt said:

What about my father, who has had multiple marriages?  Can I add them all?

Yes, you can, and it's not unusual to see this from historic records, even where marriages ended in divorce.

I know the guy who designed the database (it's not relational, but hierarchical).  As far as I can tell, there would be nothing stopping them from linking a child to umpteen parents (though I suspect there are procedural and business rules (not data structure) in place to prevent or at least control this).

Looking at this strictly through the eyes of a database developer, better to record it than not - it will save time and reduce errors.

23 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure why we as a church are spending time, money, and goodwill on endeavors that counter God and give the appearance that we as a church support that counter.  Unless, of course, it's for spreading God's word.

I personally don't see where the Church is giving said appearance.  While I can understand why some people choose to believe the Church is, I think they're reading things which aren't there (and yes, the Church appears content to let them).  I think your last sentence explains the why.

[Fether]

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

Why?  Can we do temple work for deceased same-sex couples?  What kind of work?  As though they were single?  If that's the case, and a member does his temple work for his family and reaches his same-sex grandparents, does he just treat them like he would divorced biological parents?  That is the ONLY way I would see this makes sense.

He would be treated as if he were never married and his “children” couldn’t be sealed to him

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Grunt said:

Why?  Can we do temple work for deceased same-sex couples?  What kind of work?  As though they were single?  If that's the case, and a member does his temple work for his family and reaches his same-sex grandparents, does he just treat them like he would divorced biological parents?  That is the ONLY way I would see this makes sense.

Because you now have children who have parents that are same sex couples and the children and their grandchildren and grear grandchildren will view both of the parents line as their genealogy. The church indexes millions of records each year. No doubt theybwill start indexing same sex marriage certificates, birth certificates of children born to same sex parents and eventually census records that include same sex households.

Family history isn't all about doing temple work. It's about turning th hearts to the father's and the father's to the children, and that goes beyond just temple work. Genealogy is expanding to every culture, every nation. The interest in genealogy is getting bigger and bigger. And it's just not for church members. Here is a link to the Mormon Newsroom ( https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/familysearch ) that talks about Family Search, it's not just for members it's for EVERYONE. And if you don't see that or understand that, then you haven't caught the whole meaning of Family Search. Read the article attached to the link and start working on Family Search, you'll soon see it's a much bigger picture than you realize.

And yes you can add two sets of parents to Family Search. You can add adoptive and biological if you want to. You can and step parents, you can have your divorced parents listed as your parents, you can have their other spouses in too. And you can add multiple wivea to one man. You can even add people that were your gaurdians as parents, if you choose. So making  to add same sex couple is not a big deal.

 

You will not be able to seal the same sex couple together, but I am assuming that their other work can be done. As in all complicated scenarios God will figure it out in the end.