In part 1 and part 2 we have examined the scriptures and the research data cited by LDS Family Services in support of the church's policy on unwed mothers and adoption. We've also looked for evidence that unwed mothers have received a confirming revelation regarding the policy. Finally, we began the process of examining the policy in light of the life and teachings of Jesus. So far there hasn't been a lot to recommend the policy. This post will continue the examination of the policy in light of Jesus' earthly ministry.
I just know that someone is going to argue that encouraging the mother to give the baby up protects her from the stigma and shame of being an unwed mother. It would be fairly easy to dispose of this argument by pointing out that more than a third of the babies born in the United States are to unwed mothers. The social mores of the general society assigns no stigma or shame to being an unwed mother, or to being a single mother. In a bygone era perhaps there was stigma and shame, and perhaps there will be again, but today this argument is specious.
There is, however, a sense of stigma and shame among church members and leaders. righteous family members feel ashamed and want to hide the pregnancy in the closet and not talk about it. Church leaders council giving the baby up so that the mother can have a fresh start and still be able to marry a returned missionary. The pregnancy becomes the gossip of the ward if word gets out. It is here that we can learn from Jesus' example. In Matthew 9:9-13 Jesus sits at meat with "publicans and sinners." Mary of Magdala, whom we meet in Luke 8:2, is often thought to have been a prostitute, yet he became one of Jesus closest disciples after the 12, and it was to her he first appeared after the resurection. Jesus would not be ashamed of an unwed mother; he would treat her with honor and respect as he did all he touched. The shame that we are dealing with here is not of Jesus, but of self righteousness and of the world. It is love of social position and prestige. Jesus lifts up the fallen, he does not hide them in leper colonies. His crucifixion was atonement for the sins of all; he paid the price for the sins of the unwed teenaged mother. She need be no more ashamed than the lame or halt. As Jesus said in Matthew 9:1-8 after forgiving the sins of the lame man, "Which is easier, to say 'thy sins be forgiven thee,' or 'arise, take up thy bed and walk?'" The argument that adoption protects the young mother from shame is the argument of the Pharisees and to be more concerned about the mother's or family's social position is one of the Saducees. Either argument is hypocritical in the professed Christian.
Another argument that I expect will be proposed is that the adoptive parents can better provide for the baby than the young single mother. This may be true in the majority of cases when the individual resources of the mother are concerned, but it fails to consider any other options. Can the mother's family help? What about the church's vaunted welfare system? Can other mothers in the ward tend her baby while she works? It also only considers a portion of the baby's needs. The adoptive mother won't be able to nurse the baby, so the child will miss the benefits of breast feeding. The adoptive mother won't have the same bond, emotional and spiritual, that forms between mother and child in the womb. The adoptive mother is a surrogate; she is not the real thing, as is the adoptive father. While it is vital that the basic survival needs of the child -- as well as the mother -- be met, the notion that having the ability to buy more toys or designer clothing runs counter to LDS doctrine in every other case but that of the unwed mother. If the ability to provide material "stuff" is the driving concern, shouldn't divorcees and widows in similar situations be encouraged to give up their children? Shouldn't poor married couples? The only real difference between an unwed mother and a divorcee whose husband has run off is that the latter has a piece of paper or two filed at the courthouse. To treat the one differently than the other is hypocritical.
What about the mother's education and career? First, we've already seen that the "research" presented to support this argument is inconclusive and heavily biased, and that the population group that relinquishes in the general population is already predisposed to attain higher education and seek better employment/careers and social position. But what does this argument say about values? Does this not say that the education, career and social status of the mother is more important than the bond between her and her child? Again, this is contrary to doctrine in every other situation except the unwed mother, and in none of the other situations would a mother be asked to relinquish a child to persue education, career or social goals.
These two arguments both place the value of material wealth and social position above that of the bond between mother and child. What is Jesus' position on this? Lets start with Matthew 19:16-26. rich man wants to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. He has kept all of the commandments, but asks "what lack I yet?" and Jesus tells him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shall have great treasure in heaven; and come follow me." Jesus goes on to say to his disciples, "And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingom of Heaven."
Now consider Mark 12:38-44. This is actually two passages. The first admonishes the disciples to "beware of the scribes which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the market places, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost seats at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer; these shall receive the greater damnation." So much for seeking social position... The second passage is the story of the widow's mites.
In Luke 1:48-55, the unwed mother Mary speaks to her cousin Elizabeth about the child she carries:
Seeking after material wealth and social position: Bad.
The fact that these two arguments derrive from different treatment of the unwed mother compared to the treatment of the divorcee and the widow again raises the issue of judgment being passed on the mother for the sin of premarital sex. There is one additional concept in Jesus' teaching that I think applies here: Matthew 7:1-29. this chapter starts out, "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Joseph Smith has this a little different, but it applies nonetheless.) "For with what judgment ye judge,ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. and why beholdest thou the more that is in thy brother's eye but considereth not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to they brother, 'let me pull the mote out of thine eye;' and behod, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrit. first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thow see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." He goes on to admonish us to keep holy things. (are not our children sacred?) He promises that all that seek shall find, and all that ask shall receive. He warns of false prophets, and tells us we shall know them by their fruits. (What kind of fruit is an adoption that severs the bond between mother and child unneccessarily and shames and denigrates the mother and sells the child for money?) Verses 21-23 are of particular interest to church leaders who would claim this policy as propheticly revealed. This policy is built upon the sand.
Final thoughts
Are there situations where adoptions are warranted? Sure there are. When the mother is not physically or mentally able to care for the child and no other family support is available, then adoption may be the only choice that will permit the child's survival. There may be mothers that really do want to give up their children. This would be sad, but it would be inappropriate to preclude this choice. Though in both of these cases, it seems that to completely sever the bond is overmuch. But adoption is not the correct choice in all unwed pregnancies. It is my view that it is not the correct choice in most. This view apparently is shared by 99% of the unwed birthmothers out there, and at least 60% of the clientele at LDS Family Services. Adoption should be available, and should be promoted as an alternative to abortion, but it should not be encouraged in general. I personally believe that both babies and mothers will be better off if the babies stay with their natural mothers in most cases.
There are four to six times as many couples wanting to adopt as there are adoptable infants. The adoption agencies, including LDS Family Services, charges a "fee" for "services" in an adoption. However you euphemise this, it still boils down to a purchase. The adopting couple is buying a baby. Adoption placement agencies are in the business of selling human infants. Social workers and others in the adoption industry will run smack into a wall of cognitive dissonance when confronted with the fact, and will deny it, but it is still true nonetheless. They will attempt to argue all of the points I've addressed in these last three posts, and they will reject any discomfiting information because they would not be able to cope with the moral ramifications of what they are doing otherwise. They have to beleive that what they are doing is right and good because if they didn't, they'd have to stop doing it. But this is the nature of evil; even Hitler thought he was doing things that were right and good. He did not see himself or his actions as evil. But they were. The same was true of the southern slave owners prior to the civil war. But slavery is evil nevertheless.
Actively encouraging mothers, unwed or otherwise, to relinquish their babies so they can be sold is morally wrong. When the demand for these babies so outstrips the supply, there is a temptation to justify such encouragement. This may be merely to satisfy clients, or it may be to bolster profits. The justification can create twisted reasoning, just like the reasoning that created and then perpetuated slavery, or the reasoning that brought on the second world war. as the prophecy says, "good shall be called evil, and evil good."
For a church such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which teaches and practices blind obedience to the prophet, engages in a practice like this, it is not just the teaching of the Pharisees or simple hypocricy. It is the plan of Satan. For the mothers who blindly follow this plan and relinquish their babies in blind unquestioning obedience to church leaders, the void and shame that will be left will create a living hell that will probably last the rest of their lives. If the doctrines of eternal families are true, then sealing the child to the adoptive parents will perpetuate that hell into eternity.
Church leaders who follow this policy have betrayed their priesthood, betrayed the flock, and have betrayed the Lord. This is the answer I received to the prayer at the end of my searching and pondering.
I just know that someone is going to argue that encouraging the mother to give the baby up protects her from the stigma and shame of being an unwed mother. It would be fairly easy to dispose of this argument by pointing out that more than a third of the babies born in the United States are to unwed mothers. The social mores of the general society assigns no stigma or shame to being an unwed mother, or to being a single mother. In a bygone era perhaps there was stigma and shame, and perhaps there will be again, but today this argument is specious.
There is, however, a sense of stigma and shame among church members and leaders. righteous family members feel ashamed and want to hide the pregnancy in the closet and not talk about it. Church leaders council giving the baby up so that the mother can have a fresh start and still be able to marry a returned missionary. The pregnancy becomes the gossip of the ward if word gets out. It is here that we can learn from Jesus' example. In Matthew 9:9-13 Jesus sits at meat with "publicans and sinners." Mary of Magdala, whom we meet in Luke 8:2, is often thought to have been a prostitute, yet he became one of Jesus closest disciples after the 12, and it was to her he first appeared after the resurection. Jesus would not be ashamed of an unwed mother; he would treat her with honor and respect as he did all he touched. The shame that we are dealing with here is not of Jesus, but of self righteousness and of the world. It is love of social position and prestige. Jesus lifts up the fallen, he does not hide them in leper colonies. His crucifixion was atonement for the sins of all; he paid the price for the sins of the unwed teenaged mother. She need be no more ashamed than the lame or halt. As Jesus said in Matthew 9:1-8 after forgiving the sins of the lame man, "Which is easier, to say 'thy sins be forgiven thee,' or 'arise, take up thy bed and walk?'" The argument that adoption protects the young mother from shame is the argument of the Pharisees and to be more concerned about the mother's or family's social position is one of the Saducees. Either argument is hypocritical in the professed Christian.
Another argument that I expect will be proposed is that the adoptive parents can better provide for the baby than the young single mother. This may be true in the majority of cases when the individual resources of the mother are concerned, but it fails to consider any other options. Can the mother's family help? What about the church's vaunted welfare system? Can other mothers in the ward tend her baby while she works? It also only considers a portion of the baby's needs. The adoptive mother won't be able to nurse the baby, so the child will miss the benefits of breast feeding. The adoptive mother won't have the same bond, emotional and spiritual, that forms between mother and child in the womb. The adoptive mother is a surrogate; she is not the real thing, as is the adoptive father. While it is vital that the basic survival needs of the child -- as well as the mother -- be met, the notion that having the ability to buy more toys or designer clothing runs counter to LDS doctrine in every other case but that of the unwed mother. If the ability to provide material "stuff" is the driving concern, shouldn't divorcees and widows in similar situations be encouraged to give up their children? Shouldn't poor married couples? The only real difference between an unwed mother and a divorcee whose husband has run off is that the latter has a piece of paper or two filed at the courthouse. To treat the one differently than the other is hypocritical.
What about the mother's education and career? First, we've already seen that the "research" presented to support this argument is inconclusive and heavily biased, and that the population group that relinquishes in the general population is already predisposed to attain higher education and seek better employment/careers and social position. But what does this argument say about values? Does this not say that the education, career and social status of the mother is more important than the bond between her and her child? Again, this is contrary to doctrine in every other situation except the unwed mother, and in none of the other situations would a mother be asked to relinquish a child to persue education, career or social goals.
These two arguments both place the value of material wealth and social position above that of the bond between mother and child. What is Jesus' position on this? Lets start with Matthew 19:16-26. rich man wants to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. He has kept all of the commandments, but asks "what lack I yet?" and Jesus tells him, "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shall have great treasure in heaven; and come follow me." Jesus goes on to say to his disciples, "And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingom of Heaven."
Now consider Mark 12:38-44. This is actually two passages. The first admonishes the disciples to "beware of the scribes which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the market places, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost seats at feasts; Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayer; these shall receive the greater damnation." So much for seeking social position... The second passage is the story of the widow's mites.
In Luke 1:48-55, the unwed mother Mary speaks to her cousin Elizabeth about the child she carries:
And Mary asaid, My soul doth bmagnify the Lord,For he hath regarded the low estate of his ahandmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me bblessed.He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the aproud in the imagination of their hearts.He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of alow degree.He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.He hath aholpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
The fact that these two arguments derrive from different treatment of the unwed mother compared to the treatment of the divorcee and the widow again raises the issue of judgment being passed on the mother for the sin of premarital sex. There is one additional concept in Jesus' teaching that I think applies here: Matthew 7:1-29. this chapter starts out, "Judge not that ye be not judged" (Joseph Smith has this a little different, but it applies nonetheless.) "For with what judgment ye judge,ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. and why beholdest thou the more that is in thy brother's eye but considereth not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to they brother, 'let me pull the mote out of thine eye;' and behod, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrit. first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thow see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." He goes on to admonish us to keep holy things. (are not our children sacred?) He promises that all that seek shall find, and all that ask shall receive. He warns of false prophets, and tells us we shall know them by their fruits. (What kind of fruit is an adoption that severs the bond between mother and child unneccessarily and shames and denigrates the mother and sells the child for money?) Verses 21-23 are of particular interest to church leaders who would claim this policy as propheticly revealed. This policy is built upon the sand.
Final thoughts
Are there situations where adoptions are warranted? Sure there are. When the mother is not physically or mentally able to care for the child and no other family support is available, then adoption may be the only choice that will permit the child's survival. There may be mothers that really do want to give up their children. This would be sad, but it would be inappropriate to preclude this choice. Though in both of these cases, it seems that to completely sever the bond is overmuch. But adoption is not the correct choice in all unwed pregnancies. It is my view that it is not the correct choice in most. This view apparently is shared by 99% of the unwed birthmothers out there, and at least 60% of the clientele at LDS Family Services. Adoption should be available, and should be promoted as an alternative to abortion, but it should not be encouraged in general. I personally believe that both babies and mothers will be better off if the babies stay with their natural mothers in most cases.
There are four to six times as many couples wanting to adopt as there are adoptable infants. The adoption agencies, including LDS Family Services, charges a "fee" for "services" in an adoption. However you euphemise this, it still boils down to a purchase. The adopting couple is buying a baby. Adoption placement agencies are in the business of selling human infants. Social workers and others in the adoption industry will run smack into a wall of cognitive dissonance when confronted with the fact, and will deny it, but it is still true nonetheless. They will attempt to argue all of the points I've addressed in these last three posts, and they will reject any discomfiting information because they would not be able to cope with the moral ramifications of what they are doing otherwise. They have to beleive that what they are doing is right and good because if they didn't, they'd have to stop doing it. But this is the nature of evil; even Hitler thought he was doing things that were right and good. He did not see himself or his actions as evil. But they were. The same was true of the southern slave owners prior to the civil war. But slavery is evil nevertheless.
Actively encouraging mothers, unwed or otherwise, to relinquish their babies so they can be sold is morally wrong. When the demand for these babies so outstrips the supply, there is a temptation to justify such encouragement. This may be merely to satisfy clients, or it may be to bolster profits. The justification can create twisted reasoning, just like the reasoning that created and then perpetuated slavery, or the reasoning that brought on the second world war. as the prophecy says, "good shall be called evil, and evil good."
For a church such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which teaches and practices blind obedience to the prophet, engages in a practice like this, it is not just the teaching of the Pharisees or simple hypocricy. It is the plan of Satan. For the mothers who blindly follow this plan and relinquish their babies in blind unquestioning obedience to church leaders, the void and shame that will be left will create a living hell that will probably last the rest of their lives. If the doctrines of eternal families are true, then sealing the child to the adoptive parents will perpetuate that hell into eternity.
Church leaders who follow this policy have betrayed their priesthood, betrayed the flock, and have betrayed the Lord. This is the answer I received to the prayer at the end of my searching and pondering.
Comments