Honoring parents, leave and cleave, and single folk


Backroads
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Traveler said:

It looks like to me that you are saying all plan "A" children (that live with their biological parents) are a mistake.  I am trying to make sure the horse is before the cart with the concept that every biological parent has a responsibility before G-d.  I know for a fact that it does occur that many unprepared parents place a child in a better circumstance - then repent and become wonderful parents.  It would not be good to remove any child from a loving compassionate home where repentant parents are good examples.  I believe it is possible that putting a child up for adoption can be part of a repentance process.

I have attempted to put forth the idea that when biological parents fail at their greatest responsibility (president McKay said, "There is no success that can compensate for failure in the home." - When failure is sufficient enough - adoption is the better option - I do not understand calling such the BEST option.  I do not believe that I ever inferred that the fault is with the child.  What I am trying to say is that when we say "WHAT IS BEST" that such should be what happens in all cases.  Saying what is best for a particular circumstance is different that what is best.  For example it is best not to sin - but once a sin is committed then because of that circumstance the best option is to repent (which includes confession and forsaking the sin).

OK.  Traveler, I'm going to try to translate for the benefit of others reading this thread.  I think I understand now why you started this trail down the rabbit hole.  I may not have it 100% correct.  But I think what I'm saying will cast the best light on what you're trying to say.

The reason an "emphasis" or "priority" should be placed on biological parents is that they are the first ones to make a decision for the child they're bringing into the world.  They have the responsibility before God to raise them.  If society diminishes this role of the biological parents, it becomes too easy, too simple to simply give them up for adoption (or worse, abandon or abort). 

While there are certainly circumstances where adoption is a "better" option, the role of biological parents should first feel the responsibility to take care of their children.  As others have said, when the failure of that option is great enough, then adoption is certainly a noble (and often better) option.

It seems to have less to do with the link of biology somehow creating a greater bond.  It is ONLY about emphasizing the responsibility of the biological parents.

And considering how many bastard children are completely ignored (emotionally, spiritually, financially) by either or both parents, we understand that such emphasis is waning these days.  I don't think this says anything bad about adoption.  But when we diminish the role of the biological parents, we diminish the role of all types of parents.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

considering how many bastard children are completely ignored (emotionally, spiritually,

And, considering that adopted kids and kids born “out of wedlock” have to deal with this stigma in the religious world (yes, it happened to me at a Catholic school in the 90’s. No one cared about it in public school, first week of a Catholic school my sister and I were made fun of. I don’t care now, but I still remember)  it goes to show that in this scenario, the secular world is miles ahead of the religious one here. This conversation sort of proves it. Labeling out of wedlock kids in any way accomplishes nothing. 
 

 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

OK.  Traveler, I'm going to try to translate for the benefit of others reading this thread.  I think I understand now why you started this trail down the rabbit hole.  I may not have it 100% correct.  But I think what I'm saying will cast the best light on what you're trying to say.

The reason an "emphasis" or "priority" should be placed on biological parents is that they are the first ones to make a decision for the child they're bringing into the world.  They have the responsibility before God to raise them.  If society diminishes this role of the biological parents, it becomes too easy, too simple to simply give them up for adoption (or worse, abandon or abort). 

While there are certainly circumstances where adoption is a "better" option, the role of biological parents should first feel the responsibility to take care of their children.  As others have said, when the failure of that option is great enough, then adoption is certainly a noble (and often better) option.

It seems to have less to do with the link of biology somehow creating a greater bond.  It is ONLY about emphasizing the responsibility of the biological parents.

And considering how many bastard children are completely ignored (emotionally, spiritually, financially) by either or both parents, we understand that such emphasis is waning these days.  I don't think this says anything bad about adoption.  But when we diminish the role of the biological parents, we diminish the role of all types of parents.

Exactly the biological parents are the first chronologically... That is not a value judgement on worth of biological  vs adoptive... it is just a simple fact.  Thus the biological parents have the first responsibility to do the right thing.  As society, as Christians charged with caring for our fellow men when they struggle to do the right thing, no matter if the circumstances are biological or adoptive...  That means the biological comes first...  and again not a value judgement but a factual one based on chronology.  And Just because biological comes first chronologically doesn't mean when/if it fails that we give up thinking we are done.  The adoptive deserve just as much support when/if their time comes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Labeling out of wedlock kids in any way accomplishes nothing. 

Again, you're worried more about the language we're using rather than the core of the message being offered.  That is the technical word that I was raised using.  

It was the secular world that made it a shameful thing for the children.  It is the religious world that makes it shameful for the parents.

My brother (also adopted) was a "bastard" (in the vernacular of my days of childhood).  This in no way meant that he was considered less of a person because of it.  It did, however, make us not look too favorably on his father who refused to claim him or take responsibility for him.

The fact is that this particular brother was probably the best example of a man I've ever known.  Even as a youth, he was the one kid that all the adults trusted and felt could handle responsibility well. (Both church and school).

I do feel sorry for how you were treated in Catholic school.  But that simply isn't how my brother was treated in our church, even though many people knew of his history.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Again, you're worried more about the language we're using rather than the core of the message being offered.  That is the technical word that I was raised using.  

 

Right, because it’s destructive. No apologies on that one. 
 

And thank you. I’ve heard mixed feelings from other adoptees. Some have had the same experiences, some have not. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Right, because it’s destructive. No apologies on that one. 

Well, growing up it was not considered "destructive."  If you have another word that explains the same circumstance, I'd be happy to use it.  I recognize that other slang terms have integrated it to mean something less than desirable. But when, I myself, was not raised with it being considered "destructive", just technically correct, I would tend to keep using it as an effective & efficient method of communication.

I don't think many people can talk about "testicals" without using that word that makes many people feel uncomfortable.  But it is the technically correct word.  What else do you want me to call them?  Balls?

I remember giving a presentation where I had to describe machine parts that were "male and female" to a bunch of college students.  They were not familiar with the language and you can imagine the reactions I got.  I finally had to put my foot down and say, "That's what they're called, folks. Get used to it."

I still feel weird hearing the term "Asian."  I grew up as "Oriental."  I still consider it more accurate than "Asian."  But if it's just as efficient, and understood in today's vernacular, I'm making an effort to use it.  

So, if you can tell me another word that is not "destructive" that is just as efficient and accurate, I'd be happy to use it.

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

And thank you. I’ve heard mixed feelings from other adoptees. Some have had the same experiences, some have not. 

Yes, certainly, different people have different experiences.  So what's new?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, growing up it was not considered "destructive."  If you have another word that explains the same circumstance, I'd be happy to use it.  I recognize that other slang terms have integrated it to mean something less than desirable. But when, I myself, was not raised with it being considered "destructive", just technically correct, I would tend to keep using it as an effective & efficient method of communication.

Fair enough. It’s a generational thing, I guess. Thankfully that stigma is just about gone from society, even in the church it would seem antiquated, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

Thankfully that stigma is just about gone from society, even in the church it would seem antiquated, I think.

Quote

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

I used to think this simply referred to those whose fathers have died (since it was coupled with "widows").  But I would think that those whose fathers abandoned them would also be included.

Churches have historically been there to provide father figures for families where there was none.  How well they did at that job has a varied history.  Just another indication that having a father in the home is probably more desirable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I used to think this simply referred to those whose fathers have died (since it was coupled with "widows").  But I would think that those whose fathers abandoned them would also be included.

Churches have historically been there to provide father figures for families where there was none.  How well they did at that job has a varied history.  Just another indication that having a father in the home is probably more desirable.

Ironically, a huge reason I love adoption is because it gives the kids chances to be with a two parent, stable family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share