Honoring parents, leave and cleave, and single folk

[LDSGator]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Whoa!!!  Can you post that on Third Hour?

Bro, just wait till @mirkwood starts posting around Halloween! 

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Bro, just wait till @mirkwood starts posting around Halloween! 

 

Why wait?

 

 

 

[Vort]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Whoa!!!  Can you post that on Third Hour?

They're married, so it's okay.

[NeuroTypical]

10 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Without fail she immediately prepositions me.

Joke: 

Fred the weatherman: And now we turn to Gloria, our attractive and single weatherlady.  Gloria, tell us - will it rain tomorrow?

Gloria the weatherlady: Not enough to come in out of!

Fred: Did you just end a sentence with three prepositions?

Gloria: Gee - I sure wish I could end a Saturday night that way!

[Traveler]

On 5/28/2021 at 8:43 PM, Backroads said:

Random question floating into my head:

We are commanded to honor our parents and then to leave and cleave when we meet that special someone who we then would, generally speaking, place in greater priority.

What about single adults who don't marry? Do they continue making parents a high priority?

Also answering @Suzie's question.  The way to honor our parents is to honor parenthood.  There is no conflict to honoring your parents and to cleave unto your spouse in the "divine" covenant of marriage.   And so we are commanded to uphold the status of marriage to be sacred and honor all those that keep and support this divine covenant.  I also believe that the concept of cleaving to none else also means that we do not cleave (support) new definitions of marriage.

The promise in honoring our parents is that our days will be long upon the land that G-d has given us.  Without the honor of parenthood and marriage no society can sustain itself for more than a few dwindling generations and will die out.  For individuals that do not marry and for any society that refuses to honor and sustain the concept of loving and caring biological parents - eventually there will be no children that uphold parenthood (marriage) as a divine covenant worthy of honor.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

hat refuses to honor and sustain the concept of loving and caring biological

Biology has nothing to do with it, especially for those of us who were adopted. 

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Biology has nothing to do with it, especially for those of us who were adopted. 

I disagree - adoption is only a temporary fix that can only benefit a single generation.  If it ever becomes for honorable for all biological parents to leave all the children for adoption - such a society will be doomed.  I will predict that a society that places all its children up for adoption and teaches children not to honor marriage will be short lived in history.  I understand that there are circumstances where children need adoption in order to become responsible parents - but I do not understand any notion that would teach children to dishonor parenthood and not be responsible parents.

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

25 minutes ago, Traveler said:

disagree - adoption is only a temporary fix that can only benefit a single generation

So I guess my niece and nephew-whose mother was adopted, like me, have no benefit to my parents? 

Edited June 4, 2021 by LDSGator

[mirkwood]

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I disagree - adoption is only a temporary fix that can only benefit a single generation.  If it ever becomes for honorable for all biological parents to leave all the children for adoption - such a society will be doomed.  I will predict that a society that places all its children up for adoption and teaches children not to honor marriage will be short lived in history.  I understand that there are circumstances where children need adoption in order to become responsible parents - but I do not understand any notion that would teach children to dishonor parenthood and not be responsible parents.

 

The Traveler

Huh?

[Traveler]

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

So I guess my niece and nephew-whose mother was adopted, like me, have no benefit to my parents. 

Are you saying you and their mother are teaching them that the only possible lasting honor and benefit in being a parent is for them to put their offspring up for adoption? 

I personally believe that it is "BEST" for children to be raised by intelligent, loving, compassionate and caring biological parents.  I did concede that sometimes circumstances prevent such from occurring.  I am suggesting when such circumstances occur that adoption will only remain worthwhile if the children are taught (as G-d commands) to honor and respect the notion of intelligent, loving, compassionate and caring biological parents as being the best option for children.  Are you suggesting a better option?

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Are you saying you and their mother are teaching them that the only possible lasting honor and benefit in being a parent is for them to put their offspring up for adoption? 

I personally believe that it is "BEST" for children to be raised by intelligent, loving, compassionate and caring biological parents.  I did concede that sometimes circumstances prevent such from occurring.  I am suggesting when such circumstances occur that adoption will only remain worthwhile if the children are taught (as G-d commands) to honor and respect the notion of intelligent, loving, compassionate and caring biological parents as being the best option for children.  Are you suggesting a better option?

 

The Traveler

Dude, I honestly have no clue what you are saying. 

Adoption is the greatest blessing in the world. It provides parents with children and children with stable parents. If you think otherwise, fine.
 

I know older religious people can sometimes struggle with the concept of adoption. I think this is the case here, but I’m clueless as to what you really mean my friend. 

Edited June 4, 2021 by LDSGator

[estradling75]

26 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Dude, I honestly have no clue what you are saying. 

Adoption is the greatest blessing in the world. It provides parents with children and children with stable parents. If you think otherwise, fine.
 

I know older religious people can sometimes struggle with the concept of adoption. I think this is the case here, but I’m clueless as to what you really mean my friend. 

It is hard to tell with @Traveler but I think he is trying to point out that adoption is a plan B, a contingency, a backup plan... That should only be used when Plan A, has disastrously failed.

That making adoption the Main Plan, aka Plan A will destroy us.  If this is the case.. I have no idea why he even felt the need to go there... (assuming he did)

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

It is hard to tell with @Traveler but I think he is trying to point out that adoption is a plan B, a contingency, a backup plan... That should only be used when Plan A, has disastrously failed.

That making adoption the Main Plan, aka Plan A will destroy us.  If this is the case.. I have no idea why he even felt the need to go there... (assuming he did)

Understand. Thanks. 

Thank God (literally. I thank Him every day that I was adopted) that “plan A” didn't work in my case. 
 

And no child, biological or not, should EVER be told they were a “plan B”. Or even an “accident”. That always bothered me too. 

Edited June 4, 2021 by LDSGator

[NeuroTypical]

Back in 2008, the church was doing worldwide leadership training, and one of the talks was called "teach the pattern".  It asked the question "Why does the church place such a high emphasis on teaching the ideal situation of temple sealing to spouses and children, with intact 2 parent multigenerational families who all are active and sealed to each other, when so many individuals and families, often through no fault of their own, may never have such an ideal state?"

For a long time, this talk was available online, and I referred to it often, because it was a good answer.  I can't for the life of me, find it anywhere any more. So I'll have to paraphrase the answer.

The speaker relayed a story about how his mother used to sew all the family's clothes.  She relied heavily on patterns to measure and cut.  The dress pattern had been handed down to her by her mom.  If that pattern did not exist, she would have to use existing clothing to measure new shirts and dresses and whatnot.  Eventually, a copy of a copy of a copy would make a pretty lousy pair of pants.   But with the pattern, she could always do her best to measure and cut to size, and it usually turned out ok.

God has given us the plan of happiness, and the best way to achieve it is to be born into an intact family with two righteous parents, who raise us in righteousness, and we find an eternal spouse and have children born in the covenant, and raise them in righteousness, and the cycle repeats itself.  Hardly nobody fits that bill fully.  There's always a divorce, or a falling away from the church, or an adoption, or an alcohol-fueled shootout that takes 30 federal marshals to bring down one Uncle, or something.  But it's important to understand the pattern and do our best. 

Dang.  I wish I could find that talk.  It did a much better job than I'm able to remember and report.

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Back in 2008, the church was doing worldwide leadership training, and one of the talks was called "teach the pattern".  It asked the question "Why does the church place such a high emphasis on teaching the ideal situation of temple sealing to spouses and children, with intact 2 parent multigenerational families who all are active and sealed to each other, when so many individuals and families, often through no fault of their own, may never have such an ideal state?"

For a long time, this talk was available online, and I referred to it often, because it was a good answer.  I can't for the life of me, find it anywhere any more. So I'll have to paraphrase the answer.

The speaker relayed a story about how his mother used to sew all the family's clothes.  She relied heavily on patterns to measure and cut.  The dress pattern had been handed down to her by her mom.  If that pattern did not exist, she would have to use existing clothing to measure new shirts and dresses and whatnot.  Eventually, a copy of a copy of a copy would make a pretty lousy pair of pants.   But with the pattern, she could always do her best to measure and cut to size, and it usually turned out ok.

God has given us the plan of happiness, and the best way to achieve it is to be born into an intact family with two righteous parents, who raise us in righteousness, and we find an eternal spouse and have children born in the covenant, and raise them in righteousness, and the cycle repeats itself.  Hardly nobody fits that bill fully.  There's always a divorce, or a falling away from the church, or an adoption, or an alcohol-fueled shootout that takes 30 federal marshals to bring down one Uncle, or something.  But it's important to understand the pattern and do our best. 

Dang.  I wish I could find that talk.  It did a much better job than I'm able to remember and report.

Sadly, as long as we have "Saints" who freak out at children singing "Daddy's Homecoming", this sort of thing will always be an issue.

[Carborendum]

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Understand. Thanks. 
Thank God (literally. I thank Him every day that I was adopted) that “plan A” didn't work in my case. 
And no child, biological or not, should EVER be told they were a “plan B”. Or even an “accident”. That always bothered me too. 

Regardless of what was ideal or not, the plan for my sister and me was originally to be with our biological parents.  When that didn't happen, adoption became the option.  Give that description of events to anyone, and the forensic assessment will be that adoption was "plan B" for my sister and me.  No, it is not emotionally sensitive to call it a "plan B".  But it is a fact.

I have the rare position of being aware of what it was like to live in both families.  So, consider these facts.

My Korean mother fled because my father was too abusive to her.  My father put my sister and me up for adoption because he did the math and figured that there was no way he could take care of us financially.  He could have just abandoned us.  Or he could have dropped us off at an orphanage.  Instead, he chose to put us up for adoption.  He felt it was the most responsible thing to do.  Despite his abusive tendencies, he was aware of the concept of responsibility.  He felt responsible for providing for us.  When he realized he couldn't, he at least felt enough responsibility to try to find us a decent home so that we would be provided for by others.  And in that era MANY Korean kids were being adopted by Americans.  One criterion he had was that we had to be placed in a good Christian home.  More details on that later.

Arguments could be made (they have been made to my face) that he "abandoned us" by putting us up for adoption anyway.  So, what is the difference?  All the difference in the world.

Would it have been more ideal had he kept us?  I don't know.  I recognize how difficult it is to have nothing and try to support a family.  I also know how similar my birth father was to my adoptive father.  I also know of some differences.  I won't go into details -- too personal.  In some ways my birth father was more abusive. In some ways my adoptive father was.

There are so many pros and cons between the two homes.  But living in America and having access to the blessings of this country is a benefit beyond anything I would have had in Korea.

*****

As for being "Christian"... The family that helped us with the adoption told him that my adoptive family were Mormons. He had no idea what that was.  But the family told them that Mormons were Christians.  So, he felt ok.

One of my brothers then decided to look into that faith.  He was baptized some time later.  To my knowledge, no one else in my birth family was baptized.

[Carborendum]

22 hours ago, Vort said:

They're married, so it's okay.

I don't think my wife has ever corrected my grammar.

[mordorbund]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

For a long time, this talk was available online, and I referred to it often, because it was a good answer.  I can't for the life of me, find it anywhere any more. So I'll have to paraphrase the answer.

https://broadcast.lds.org/WWLT/2008/WWLT_2008_02_00_RighteousPosterity_Complete_00383_eng_.pdf

Elder Holland is on PDF page 4 (print page 2).

[LDSGator]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, it is not emotionally sensitive to call it a "plan B".  But it is a fact.

Great. For you, it’s not a big deal. My situation is different. My parents consider my sister and I part of their “A game.” And that is “fact”. I pray all children feel the same way. 
 

Edited June 4, 2021 by LDSGator

[estradling75]

13 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Great. For you, it’s not a big deal. My situation is different. My parents consider my sister and I part of their “A game.” And that is “fact”. I pray all children feel the same way. 
 

Right  But there is a big difference between the parents that put up their children for adoption and parents that adopt.  First has had something go wrong, the second is (hopefully) in a very good place and looking to take on the challenge of kids...  The first set is in plan B.. The second set generally is not.   We need less of the first and more of the second.

Edited June 4, 2021 by estradling75

[LDSGator]

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Right  But there is a big difference between the parents that put up their children for adoption and parents that adopt.  First has had something go wrong, the second is (hopefully) in a very good place and looking to take on the challenge of kids...  The first set is in plan B.. The second set generally is not.   We need less of the first and more of the second.

Well explained. Thanks. 

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Well explained. Thanks. 

Agreed.

[NeuroTypical]

We all carry around sore spots from our personal lives.   In my experience, some of the sorest, most raw, most sensitive of spots, have to do with our relationships with our parents and our children, and experiencing criticism from folks saying we did something wrong.  People can argue their politics or religion all day, their choice of career, their preference in music and cars, and nobody bats an eye.  Insulting someone's mother is considered fighting words if you do it well enough.  Tell someone they're being a bad parent, and you'll provoke a strong reaction.  Insult a choice of career of a guy who considers it a big part of how he provides for his family, and you strike a nerve. 

Lots of people have learned how to hide this vulnerability.  But from where I'm standing, pretty much all of us carry it, even if we hide it from ourselves.

Just more reason to like Rhett and Link:

 

[Carborendum]

13 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Right  But there is a big difference between the parents that put up their children for adoption and parents that adopt.  First has had something go wrong, the second is (hopefully) in a very good place and looking to take on the challenge of kids...  The first set is in plan B.. The second set generally is not.   We need less of the first and more of the second.

Good point.  My father, even as he was, expressed multiple times to me that by being sealed it was more than a piece of paper that bound us as father and son.  It was bound by God.

He repeatedly said this because he got it into his head that somehow I felt less loved because I was adopted.  What he didn't realize was that I felt less loved because of how he treated me.  It had nothing to do with adoption.  And it wasn't just him.  The whole family thought of me a s some sort of freak.  And if I told you why, you'd think I was just arrogant.

As far back as I can remember, I never felt any special familial bond with either family.  Maybe that was due to my underlying psychology (I tended not to form bonds easily with anyone. - I only learned how to socialize properly in later adult life) or if it was a byproduct of adoption or a byproduct of familial interactions with both families.  There just didn't seem to be any reason to consider them any differently than those I know through work or school.

The family I'm raising is different because of my emotional, mental, temporal, spiritual, and financial investment into raising them.  And I've made it abundantly clear that my bond with my wife is more than special.

But the families I grew up in... To tell you the truth, I never wanted to be part of either family.

Maybe that's why... well... a lot of good and bad.

The sum total of what I can say about what I learned from them was:

1) Work.  Work hard and long.

2) Be responsible for providing for your family.

So, I give that credit where it is due.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

18 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Back in 2008, the church was doing worldwide leadership training, and one of the talks was called "teach the pattern".  It asked the question "Why does the church place such a high emphasis on teaching the ideal situation of temple sealing to spouses and children, with intact 2 parent multigenerational families who all are active and sealed to each other, when so many individuals and families, often through no fault of their own, may never have such an ideal state?"

I read that link that @mordorbund provided.  I noticed something that I'd thought of.  But he worded it so well, I have to point it out.

Quote

And while you’re planning and preparing for that opportunity, you are very much part of your own parents’ posterity now and in the future. We are praying for all such to be righteously devoted to the family principles the Church and your parents espouse.

• It seems that by being righteously engaged in a good cause is a way of honoring one's parents.
• Having and raising posterity that will do the same, is to honor our parents.