without_you

Is getting pregnant from a sperm donor not allowed in the church?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Rereading this answer, I feel a rant coming on.

I'm surprised and maybe a little bit appalled at the lack of understanding among the Saints of what are really very basic, foundational beliefs. We are not sealed to Dear Old Dad and to Mommy Kiss-kiss. The nature of the sealing between parent and child is that the child is born in the parents' covenant. The wording of the sealing ceremony makes this blindingly obvious: One who is sealed in the temple to his parents has exactly the same status with one who was born in the [his parents'] covenant.

YOU CANNOT SEAL A CHILD TO AN INDIVIDUAL. This is, or should be, so obvious as not to need explanation, at least among the faithful Saints. Sealing a child to his/her parents means placing that child within the bonds of his/her parents' marital covenant. No parents, both mother and father? No marital covenant, which means nothing to seal the child within.

Non-members cannot be expected to understand this. Children and newly baptized members cannot be expected to know this. But if mature Saints with long practice in the Church don't know this basic thing, then somewhere along the line there has been an important failure to communicate very basic, foundational stuff. Merely going to the temple and paying attention to what is being said should be enough to fill in such knowledge gaps.

No offense intended to anyone reading this. Just venting some frustration.

/rant

I think you generated your own consternation and then resolved it just now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

There is a provision in the Handbook for when the natural parent cannot be contacted. The letter from the stake president to the First Presidency would need to detail the efforts made to find the natural parent.

The other option is for the step parent to adopt the child, in which case the issue is moot.

Temple presidents don't actually have any authority to say if the sealing may take place or not, barring some very obvious and egregious worthiness issues manifest when the family arrives. But that's a different matter than step parents and children, etc.

Hopefully the adoption does happen...all children need a father and a mother. :)

I am not disagreeing with you as I am not an expert, and I know this is getting a bit off topic, but Temple Presidents hold Keys. Do the sealers not report to them? I know that the calls of sealers are under the direction of the President of the church, but is the Temple President also not given the sealing power upon his setting apart? Someone needs to make sure that from an administrative and spiritual point of view that all of the conditions for a sealing have been met...I would assume that much if not all of this is done at the stake level, but I would think the temple would have individuals in the sealing office also double check. Wouldn't the temple presidency counsel the sealers if they had any questions...implying that the sealers report to them? Again, sorry for going off topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scottyg said:

I know that the calls of sealers are under the direction of the President of the church, but is the Temple President also not given the sealing power upon his setting apart? Someone needs to make sure that from an administrative and spiritual point of view that all of the conditions for a sealing have been met...I would assume that much if not all of this is done at the stake level, but I would think the temple would have individuals in the sealing office also double check.

This is a basic question, one I should know. But I don't. Nevertheless, I find the question interesting. Some people are authorized to set others apart to offices that they themselves do not hold. An obvious example is a bishop setting apart a Relief Society or Primary president.

But it's more than that. Consider: A stake president can ordain a stake patriarch, though the stake president himself does not hold the Priesthood office of Patriarch and (as far as I know) cannot give Church-recorded patriarchal blessings. (Any patriarch can give a patriarchal blessing; that's what a father's blessing is. But these blessings are not recorded by the Church.) This is reminiscent of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon who, though not themselves apostles, were nevertheless empowered to call and ordain the Twelve.

I find this interesting, because we normally think of Priesthood ordinations and settings apart as being done by someone with "equal or greater authority" in some sense. Perhaps that is not always the best model to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scottyg said:

Hopefully the adoption does happen...all children need a father and a mother. :)

I am not disagreeing with you as I am not an expert, and I know this is getting a bit off topic, but Temple Presidents hold Keys. Do the sealers not report to them? I know that the calls of sealers are under the direction of the President of the church, but is the Temple President also not given the sealing power upon his setting apart? Someone needs to make sure that from an administrative and spiritual point of view that all of the conditions for a sealing have been met...I would assume that much if not all of this is done at the stake level, but I would think the temple would have individuals in the sealing office also double check. Wouldn't the temple presidency counsel the sealers if they had any questions...implying that the sealers report to them? Again, sorry for going off topic.

These special cases are authorized by the First Presidency. The sealing don't happen unless those being sealed present the letter from the First Presidency. 

For the more routine sealings, authorization (technically, recommendation) comes from the bishop and stake president. I've never heard of a sealing being denied by a temple president or sealer except for lack of proper paper work. Likewise, I've never heard of a sealing being performed because the temple president declared it acceptable absent those recommendations.

But, if a couple presented to the temple with a joint tucked behind their ear, that's a situation where the temple president might put on the brakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vort said:

This is a basic question, one I should know. But I don't. Nevertheless, I find the question interesting. Some people are authorized to set others apart to offices that they themselves do not hold. An obvious example is a bishop setting apart a Relief Society or Primary president.

But it's more than that. Consider: A stake president can ordain a stake patriarch, though the stake president himself does not hold the Priesthood office of Patriarch and (as far as I know) cannot give Church-recorded patriarchal blessings. (Any patriarch can give a patriarchal blessing; that's what a father's blessing is. But these blessings are not recorded by the Church.) This is reminiscent of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon who, though not themselves apostles, were nevertheless empowered to call and ordain the Twelve.

I find this interesting, because we normally think of Priesthood ordinations and settings apart as being done by someone with "equal or greater authority" in some sense. Perhaps that is not always the best model to use.

FWIW, the three witnesses are labeled “apostles” in D&C 18:9.  

I don’t think it’s matter of the priesthood holder doing the ordaining, not having the inherent priesthood power to do those things (give patriarchal blessings, preside over the Relief Society, etc).  It’s just that their superiors in the Church hierarchy have specifically instructed them *not* to minister in those particular ways at this time; and I imagine those restrictions could hypothetically be lifted if circumstances warranted and the Lord so instructed. 

As for your “rant” about people not understanding the ramifications of parent-child “sealings”—this is what happens when we make a habit of dumbing down temple doctrine so that we talk about “being together forever” at the expense of ideas like “inheritance” and “lineage” and “kingship” and “patriarchal order”.  A single mother who is convinced that a sealing is the only way she can “be with” her son for eternity, will naturally be distraught when she is told that that ordinance is not immediately available to her.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Vort said:

This is a basic question, one I should know. But I don't. Nevertheless, I find the question interesting. Some people are authorized to set others apart to offices that they themselves do not hold. An obvious example is a bishop setting apart a Relief Society or Primary president.

But it's more than that. Consider: A stake president can ordain a stake patriarch, though the stake president himself does not hold the Priesthood office of Patriarch and (as far as I know) cannot give Church-recorded patriarchal blessings. (Any patriarch can give a patriarchal blessing; that's what a father's blessing is. But these blessings are not recorded by the Church.) This is reminiscent of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon who, though not themselves apostles, were nevertheless empowered to call and ordain the Twelve.

I find this interesting, because we normally think of Priesthood ordinations and settings apart as being done by someone with "equal or greater authority" in some sense. Perhaps that is not always the best model to use.

True, I didn't think of it that way. Something similar is the calling and setting apart of other church leaders like bishops. The stake president is a high priest, and may choose to ordain an elder a high priest when needed, but he cannot ordain a man to the office or calling of bishop of his own accord. As the handbook states, before a new bishop may be interviewed, called, ordained, or set apart, his recommendation must be approved by the First Presidency. The stake president may extend the calling after he receives written approval from the First Presidency. With this approval, the stake president may also ordain and set apart a bishop after ward members have given a sustaining vote. The approval of the First Presidency is also required before a stake president may release a bishop. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a friend who was in the same situation looks wise, very tall too I think 6' didn't like makeup either, and was a great person very strong and a good testimony, but I being a little vain didn't think she would have the opportunity to get married in this life. I was so wrong to think that, she married a lovely young man and he informed me that he liked her as soon as he met her, mostly he said he was looking to marry someone of good values and that was the most important thing to him in a wife. I was 31 at the time and after moving to another state to gett engaged to a guy who decided to treat me horribly and didn't want to go to the temple... He was a member.  I knew I couldn't marry him after one too many lies, I wallowed a little in my 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeming fate to remain single, at 33 I decided to use the healing power of the gospel, and especially the spirit of the temple, I volunteered to become a temple worker, and decided on a path to a really high paying career in the Air Force to be able to help my siblings and nephews financially. I gave up my righteous desires for Husband and children to the Lord. Right before I was to move back and start my enlistment process in earnest. I got a letter of recommendation from the temple president. I prayed one last time for a marriage and family and the next day met my husband! While maybe my story will make her a little sad/bitter, I think the answer lies in the Gospel and the Temple. She can plan however to take in foster children and such I think. But she needs to be practical there are many abused and special needs children she could help, but not with long work hours. I wish your friend will find peace. The temple is the best place for finding peace. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Circumstances do not change the commandments of God.  It's really that simple.  And I don't understand the need to create a new life under less than ideal circumstances, when there are already thousands of kids living in less than ideal circumstances who are begging for a better situation that someone could provide, whether that be volunteerism or fostering or just being a big brother/big sister.   One option just seems selfish compared to the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 8:46 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

I imagine those restrictions could hypothetically be lifted if circumstances warranted and the Lord so instructed. 

Well, are you gonna be the one to tell Him no?

 

 

Nevermind...just remembered who I'm talking to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of artificial insemination isn't the problem with your friend - it's that she doesn't understand that a child reared in a single mother home is harmful to the child's development.  At some point she'll need to tell her child why she made that choice, and viola - we have another man-hater.  If the friend has any concept of eternity and how families fit into the plan, she won't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my goodness. I can only imagine the hardship she will go through if she decides to take on a child on her own. If postpartum depression kicks in that baby is done for. I find it very hard to believe that she can't successfully be courted, YET wants to take on the responsibility of motherhood.  Maybe take one step at a time. I understand that it can be frustrating being alone but I am sure she can find a mate if she changes up whatever she is doing now. 

 

Edited by Overwatch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit to not having read all of the responses, and I understand the Church wanting a child to have a mother and father, but does this mean a single person should not adopt, especially an older child who may be hard to place otherwise? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dahlia said:

I admit to not having read all of the responses, and I understand the Church wanting a child to have a mother and father, but does this mean a single person should not adopt, especially an older child who may be hard to place otherwise? 

I haven’t seen an explicit policy to that effect.  My initial inclination is that while adoption by a married couple is always better, all other things being equal (which, in the real world, they rarely are); single parent adoption is not nearly as problematic as single-parent procreation.   In the latter case, I’m taking it upon myself to create a sub-optimal situation ex nihilio.  In the former case, I’m rescuing from a truly bad situation, a child that somebody else already created—and while as a single parent, maybe I’m not the ideal; there’s still a situation of “any port in a storm”, as it were.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although it is heartbreaking that many people do not get married or can't have kids afterward, it is important that they feel that they are of value and the opportunity will become available one day. Maybe not until heaven, but it will happen. Remember this quote from Joseph Smith.

"All your losses will be made up to you in the resurrection, provided you continue faithful. By the vision of the Almighty I have seen it.

More painful to me are the thoughts of annihilation than death. If I have no expectation of seeing my father, mother, brothers, sisters and friends again, my heart would burst in a moment, and I should go down to my grave.

The expectation of seeing my friends in the morning of the resurrection cheers my soul and makes me bear up against the evils of life. It is like their taking a long journey, and on their return we meet them with increased joy.

God has revealed His Son from the heavens and the doctrine of the resurrection also; and we have a knowledge that those we bury here God will bring up again, clothed upon and quickened by the Spirit of the great God; and what mattereth it whether we lay them down, or we lay down with them when we can keep them no longer? Let these truths sink down in our hearts, that we may even here begin to enjoy that which shall be in full hereafter." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 295.)

She should be patient and find solace in her relationship with Jesus Christ. He is the source of peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now