In yesterday's post we examined the scriptures (all four of the LDS Standard Works) for guidance supporting giving a child born to an unwed mother up for adoption, and found none. We also looked at the "policy" of the LDS Church and the research support contained in articles in the Ensign. Here we found disingenuous use of biased data that by its own definition was inconclusive. Quite a bit to ponder here, but we're not finished with our search quite yet.
I could now post excerpts from studies that indicate that adoptions are harmful to the mother, the baby, or both. And like the church likes to do with Ensign articles, I can present anecdotal stories of adoptions that will bolster the position that this is a bad policy. Where the church points to LDS Family Services and other pro-adoption organizations, I can point to organizations of adopted children, relinquishing birth mothers, and even adoptive parents who have experienced failed adoptions that present an very different point of view. The problem here is that this information, like that provided by the church is not conclusive enough to base a generalized policy upon.
One thing I will note, however, is the absence of readily available research on infant adoption failure rates. I have found adoption agencies and anti-adoption organizations that throw out statistics, but these numbers are part of marketing literature designed to promote that particular organization's agenda and don't provide the background necessary to evaluate the data points. For example, Adoption Consultants, inc. a Los Angles based adoption agency says this on their website, "Statistically, the failure rate on adoption plans across the country is 50% or more due to various factors. They then go on to explain how their service beats the odds. another agency claims that, until they came along, the adoption failure in their area (California) was 25%, but they made it all better now. One anti-adoption group claims that one in three adoptions in the United Kingdom fail; another that 30,000 adopted children are relinquished by their adoptive parents each year and end up in state custody. although these numbers are dubious, they still indicate that adoption is not the smooth sailing experience LDS Family Services and the church leaders would have us believe. Not everyone lives happily ever after. "The experience of adoption exposes parents and children to a unique set of psychosocial conflicts or tasks that interact with and complicate the more universal developmental tasks of family life..." (Damid M. Brodzinsky, "Adjustment to adoption: A psychosocial perspective" Clinical Psychology Review, vol 7 no. 1, 1987)
Although President Hinckley's remarks about "experience" showing that adoptions are the better course, implying that these comments were made based on empiracle evidence rather than spiritual revelation, President Hinckley was esteemed and sustained as a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator." We must therefore assume that he at least asked the Lord for guidance before promulgating this policy. If so, then doctrinally, we are entitled to a spiritual confirmation. As the reader can guess, I have received no such confirmation, and have in fact received a very strong disconfirmation. Each reader will have to seek his or her own confirmation of disconfirmation, but perhaps we can still gain some insight here.
According to statistics LDS Family Services gave to my father-in-law, about 60% of the young mothers that seek assistance from LDS Family Services choose to keep their babies. I think we can conclude that these mothers did not receive a confirmation of the church's policy. Someone is likely to counter this argument by saying that the mothers who didn't receive confirmation were either not worthy or in some other way unable to perceive the answer to their prayer. Maybe they weren't doing it right or something?... I'm sorry, but the emperor is naked, and this is an argument that would be proposed by one of the Pharisees that Jesus didn't care so much for. One might just as easily argue that many, if not all, of the 40% failed to receive an answer (or got a disconfirming answer) but chose to follow the prophet's counsel because of pressure from family and church leaders or misplaced faith. They did it right, but thought they did it wrong? (There is a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance to deal with in this situation.) We must conclude that 60% of the girls that were entitled to confirming personal revelation did not get that revelation. This isn't conclusive evidence that church leaders aren't prophets, but it does raise questions. (Perhaps another day we can discuss the danger inherent in following a spiritual leader blindly without a strong, unambigous spiritual confirmation that he is leading in correct paths.)
We are still left with the question of whether this is prophetic counsel or the policy of a group of men.
What would Jesus do?
The only avenue of inquiry left to us is to examine the values inherent in the policy promulgated by the church and compare it with the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Since it is a matter of well established doctrine that God does not change, then the values taught by the Savior during his mortal ministry are the values that should apply to His church and his disciples today.
As I read the church's policy, I see the following "benefits" claimed for adoption:
The value that emerges here is clear as a bell. Children should be born within the bonds of holy matrimony. Or as it is stated in the Proclamation on the Family, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." I absolutely agree with this statement as an ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world. One might as well say, "chldren are entitled to be born without birth defects." It would be a great trick if we could pull it off, but the reality is we have birth defects and we have babies born to unwed mothers.
The message this policy sends to the young mother is more than "Children are entitled to be born within the bonds of matrimony," though. The message sent to the young mother is, "You have sinned, you are unworthy, you are incapable, your baby would be better off without you. You can never get a good husband with a baby. You can never make it to the temple if you don't give up your baby." This is a general sweeping policy that says "marry the dad or give the baby up" and doesn't countinance any other solutions, it is judgmental, and it is imposes a great punishment (I can't think of a worse torment than to be denied your child for time and all eternity. Even the sons of perdition get a better deal.) for a very common and very natural "sin" that occurs because of the very nature of man, as designed and built by God.
Is there anything from the teachings of Jesus Christ's mortal ministry, or his conduct when he walked the earth as a man, that we can apply to see how he would handle this situation? Two events in scripture come to mind. The first is John 8:1-11. This is the story of the woman taken in adultery and brought to Jesus by the Pharisees. Under the law of Moses, she was to be stoned to death for her sin. Jesus said then, "He that is without sin, let him first cast a stone at her." When all the rabble had departed without casting even one stone, Jesus said to the woman, "woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?" When she replied that no man accused her, Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." Given this example, would Jesus condemn an unwed mother? Or would he condemn the "Pharisees" that apply "the law" over-generally to all such women regardless of their situation?
The second story is in Luke 10:29-37. This is the parable of the Good Samaritan. In this story, a man is beset by theives on the way to Jerico and left for dead. He is first passed and ignored by a priest. Then by a Levite (these are the guys who automatically get the Aaronic priesthood because of their lineage). Neither does anything for the man. Along comes a Samaritan. Samaritans were outsiders, despised by the Jews as unclean half-breeds. The Samaritan restores the man, binds his wounds and pays for his lodging. Jesus asks, "which of these three, thinkest thou, is neighbor unto him that fell among theives?" When the obvious answer was given, Jesus replied, "Go, and do thou likewise."
The priesthood did not make either of the first two neighbor to the man, despite their offices. Compassion and care did make the Samaritan neighbor, even though he was otherwise despised. applied to the plight of an unwed mother, would Jesus counsel passing her by on the other side, shunning her as unworthy, with the high or low priesthood causing us to puff out our chests with pride and self-righteousness? Or would he counsel helping the girl to get through a very rough period of life even though she has fallen among "thieves?"
I know what I think. Comments are welcome. Stay tuned for part 3.
I could now post excerpts from studies that indicate that adoptions are harmful to the mother, the baby, or both. And like the church likes to do with Ensign articles, I can present anecdotal stories of adoptions that will bolster the position that this is a bad policy. Where the church points to LDS Family Services and other pro-adoption organizations, I can point to organizations of adopted children, relinquishing birth mothers, and even adoptive parents who have experienced failed adoptions that present an very different point of view. The problem here is that this information, like that provided by the church is not conclusive enough to base a generalized policy upon.
One thing I will note, however, is the absence of readily available research on infant adoption failure rates. I have found adoption agencies and anti-adoption organizations that throw out statistics, but these numbers are part of marketing literature designed to promote that particular organization's agenda and don't provide the background necessary to evaluate the data points. For example, Adoption Consultants, inc. a Los Angles based adoption agency says this on their website, "Statistically, the failure rate on adoption plans across the country is 50% or more due to various factors. They then go on to explain how their service beats the odds. another agency claims that, until they came along, the adoption failure in their area (California) was 25%, but they made it all better now. One anti-adoption group claims that one in three adoptions in the United Kingdom fail; another that 30,000 adopted children are relinquished by their adoptive parents each year and end up in state custody. although these numbers are dubious, they still indicate that adoption is not the smooth sailing experience LDS Family Services and the church leaders would have us believe. Not everyone lives happily ever after. "The experience of adoption exposes parents and children to a unique set of psychosocial conflicts or tasks that interact with and complicate the more universal developmental tasks of family life..." (Damid M. Brodzinsky, "Adjustment to adoption: A psychosocial perspective" Clinical Psychology Review, vol 7 no. 1, 1987)
Although President Hinckley's remarks about "experience" showing that adoptions are the better course, implying that these comments were made based on empiracle evidence rather than spiritual revelation, President Hinckley was esteemed and sustained as a "Prophet, Seer, and Revelator." We must therefore assume that he at least asked the Lord for guidance before promulgating this policy. If so, then doctrinally, we are entitled to a spiritual confirmation. As the reader can guess, I have received no such confirmation, and have in fact received a very strong disconfirmation. Each reader will have to seek his or her own confirmation of disconfirmation, but perhaps we can still gain some insight here.
According to statistics LDS Family Services gave to my father-in-law, about 60% of the young mothers that seek assistance from LDS Family Services choose to keep their babies. I think we can conclude that these mothers did not receive a confirmation of the church's policy. Someone is likely to counter this argument by saying that the mothers who didn't receive confirmation were either not worthy or in some other way unable to perceive the answer to their prayer. Maybe they weren't doing it right or something?... I'm sorry, but the emperor is naked, and this is an argument that would be proposed by one of the Pharisees that Jesus didn't care so much for. One might just as easily argue that many, if not all, of the 40% failed to receive an answer (or got a disconfirming answer) but chose to follow the prophet's counsel because of pressure from family and church leaders or misplaced faith. They did it right, but thought they did it wrong? (There is a considerable amount of cognitive dissonance to deal with in this situation.) We must conclude that 60% of the girls that were entitled to confirming personal revelation did not get that revelation. This isn't conclusive evidence that church leaders aren't prophets, but it does raise questions. (Perhaps another day we can discuss the danger inherent in following a spiritual leader blindly without a strong, unambigous spiritual confirmation that he is leading in correct paths.)
We are still left with the question of whether this is prophetic counsel or the policy of a group of men.
What would Jesus do?
The only avenue of inquiry left to us is to examine the values inherent in the policy promulgated by the church and compare it with the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Since it is a matter of well established doctrine that God does not change, then the values taught by the Savior during his mortal ministry are the values that should apply to His church and his disciples today.
As I read the church's policy, I see the following "benefits" claimed for adoption:
- The baby will have two parents instead of just the mother, and will be given a "name."
- The baby will have the blessings of the temple if the adoption is through LDS Family Services or the adoption couple is otherwise a temple worthy couple.
- The baby will have access to material resources that would otherwise be unavailable.
- The birth mother will not be burdened with the responsibility of raising the baby, and so will have opportunity for further education, career and social advancement.
- The natal bond between mother (and possibly the birth father) and child will be severed, and the child raised by a mother and father with no biological or spiritual tie. The adoptive mother will not have had the biological and spiritual preparation for motherhood provided during pregnancy, and will be unable to nurse the child, etc. The birth mother will not have the benefit of the child's assistance with after birth recovery. There are some studies that show severing this link creates a "primordal wound" in both the mother and child that the adoptive parents cannot address for the child and counseling cannot address for the mother. The natal maternal bond is a bond made in heaven. The birth mother, the child, and the adoptive parents will have psychological stressors unique to adoption.
- Sealing the child to the adoptive parents will make the birthmother's loss of the child, and any attendant emotional pain to either mother or child as a result, eternal. Even if the mother later becomes temple worthy and marries in the temple, the child she surrendered will never be sealed to her.
- The birthmother and child will be denied the joys, emotional and spiritual blessings of each other's company.
The value that emerges here is clear as a bell. Children should be born within the bonds of holy matrimony. Or as it is stated in the Proclamation on the Family, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." I absolutely agree with this statement as an ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world. One might as well say, "chldren are entitled to be born without birth defects." It would be a great trick if we could pull it off, but the reality is we have birth defects and we have babies born to unwed mothers.
The message this policy sends to the young mother is more than "Children are entitled to be born within the bonds of matrimony," though. The message sent to the young mother is, "You have sinned, you are unworthy, you are incapable, your baby would be better off without you. You can never get a good husband with a baby. You can never make it to the temple if you don't give up your baby." This is a general sweeping policy that says "marry the dad or give the baby up" and doesn't countinance any other solutions, it is judgmental, and it is imposes a great punishment (I can't think of a worse torment than to be denied your child for time and all eternity. Even the sons of perdition get a better deal.) for a very common and very natural "sin" that occurs because of the very nature of man, as designed and built by God.
Is there anything from the teachings of Jesus Christ's mortal ministry, or his conduct when he walked the earth as a man, that we can apply to see how he would handle this situation? Two events in scripture come to mind. The first is John 8:1-11. This is the story of the woman taken in adultery and brought to Jesus by the Pharisees. Under the law of Moses, she was to be stoned to death for her sin. Jesus said then, "He that is without sin, let him first cast a stone at her." When all the rabble had departed without casting even one stone, Jesus said to the woman, "woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?" When she replied that no man accused her, Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." Given this example, would Jesus condemn an unwed mother? Or would he condemn the "Pharisees" that apply "the law" over-generally to all such women regardless of their situation?
The second story is in Luke 10:29-37. This is the parable of the Good Samaritan. In this story, a man is beset by theives on the way to Jerico and left for dead. He is first passed and ignored by a priest. Then by a Levite (these are the guys who automatically get the Aaronic priesthood because of their lineage). Neither does anything for the man. Along comes a Samaritan. Samaritans were outsiders, despised by the Jews as unclean half-breeds. The Samaritan restores the man, binds his wounds and pays for his lodging. Jesus asks, "which of these three, thinkest thou, is neighbor unto him that fell among theives?" When the obvious answer was given, Jesus replied, "Go, and do thou likewise."
The priesthood did not make either of the first two neighbor to the man, despite their offices. Compassion and care did make the Samaritan neighbor, even though he was otherwise despised. applied to the plight of an unwed mother, would Jesus counsel passing her by on the other side, shunning her as unworthy, with the high or low priesthood causing us to puff out our chests with pride and self-righteousness? Or would he counsel helping the girl to get through a very rough period of life even though she has fallen among "thieves?"
I know what I think. Comments are welcome. Stay tuned for part 3.
Comments