13 Articles of Healthy Chastity

[RC Vikings]

I'm assuming that would make you a strapless bra to DDD's sports bra?

I've rather be one of those VS bras. It would be cool to be on TV.

[Mrs. Funk]

I've rather be one of those VS bras. It would be cool to be on TV.

VS makes both strapless bras and convertible bras. You have options, bro!

[The_Tick]

Honestly, I've never heard of a correlated teaching that a single mother's responsibility is to give her child up for adoption. Is it only in the RS and YW manuals, or have I just not paid attention?

I have never had a CHOI, nor will I, but someone that does can verify.

If a YW comes up pregnant, the recommended SOP is for the child to be given up for adoption. It is the Churchs' stance that they child should be raised by a mother and a father together.

Now that sounds all fine and dandy...but imagine that everyone on this board had their first child out of wedlock and had to give that one up. Now...not so practicle.

And I speak as a person that spend 14 years trying to get, and not recieving, permission to adopt a child.

[LA Ute]

Nothing. For someone from your generation.

You continue to demonstrate that you do not grasp the concept.

Utter nonsense, indeed.

Oh, I grasp it. I just see it differently than you do. Apparently my different view of the matter is not based on any real thinking, but is due to my extremely advanced age and my recent conversion to Sharia law (or was it my adoption of the despicable theory that women who are raped probably asked for it?). No, no nonsense in those ideas. Certainly not utter nonsense.

Now that I think about it, it looks like you are seeing unicorns in my posts again. This appears to be something that happens in the fall.

[TripletDaddy]

Oh, I grasp it. I just see it differently than you do. Apparently my different view of the matter is not based on any real thinking, but is due to my extremely advanced age and my recent conversion to Sharia law (or was it my adoption of the despicable theory that women who are raped probably asked for it?). No, no nonsense in those ideas. Certainly not utter nonsense.

Now that I think about it, it looks like you are seeing unicorns in my posts again. This appears to be something that happens in the fall.

Of course you see it differently than me...unfortunately, you also see it differently than every woman that has posted in this thread.

Happy 80th next year, btw.

[UtahDan]

Honestly, I've never heard of a correlated teaching that a single mother's responsibility is to give her child up for adoption. Is it only in the RS and YW manuals, or have I just not paid attention?

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by parents who
provide love, support, and all the blessings of the gospel.
"Every effort should be made in helping those who conceive out of wedlock to establish an
eternal family relationship. When the possibility of a successful marriage is unlikely, unwed
parents should be encouraged to place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Social
Services....
"Unwed parents who do not marry should not be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of
repentance or out of an obligation to care for one's own. Generally, unwed parents are not able
to provide the stable, nurturing environment so essential for the baby's well-being.
"When deciding to place the baby for adoption, the best interests of the child should be the
paramount consideration. Placing the infant for adoption enables unwed parents to do what is
best for the child and enhances the prospect for the blessings of the gospel in the lives of all
concerned" (First Presidency letter, 15 June 1998; see also "Adoption and Foster Care," page
147).

Here you go.

[TheBYUGuy]

I have never had a CHOI, nor will I, but someone that does can verify.

If a YW comes up pregnant, the recommended SOP is for the child to be given up for adoption. It is the Churchs' stance that they child should be raised by a mother and a father together.

Now that sounds all fine and dandy...but imagine that everyone on this board had their first child out of wedlock and had to give that one up. Now...not so practicle.

And I speak as a person that spend 14 years trying to get, and not recieving, permission to adopt a child.

It sounds like the stuff that individuals in the Church put forth as policy or doctrine, or in other words, cultural beliefs that are off the mark. It is sound advice in many cases that unwed teenage pregnancies should be put up for adoption, but I don't think it should be preached or pushed as a rule. Every case is different.

In other words, it sounds like the crap I heard in a recent stake conference where a member of the SP told everyone that they shouldn't ever date a non-member and shared some obscure quote from Spencer W. Kimball--again, the kind of garbage that some people push, but shouldn't ever be considered official guidance.

[Pheidippides]

It sounds like the stuff that individuals in the Church put forth as policy or doctrine, or in other words, cultural beliefs that are off the mark. It is sound advice in many cases that unwed teenage pregnancies should be put up for adoption, but I don't think it should be preached or pushed as a rule. Every case is different.

In other words, it sounds like the crap I heard in a recent stake conference where a member of the SP told everyone that they shouldn't ever date a non-member and shared some obscure quote from Spencer W. Kimball--again, the kind of garbage that some people push, but shouldn't ever be considered official guidance.

Which member was that? PM if needed.

That SP is a good guy but too fundamental for my tastes. Not a few people were openly critical of him.

[TripletDaddy]

[quote=UtahDan;463052]

Unwed parents who do not marry should not be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of an obligation to care for one's own.

This portion seems to be the only mandatory language in the clause, but I agree with it as written. I read this as the Church communicating directly to overly-enthusiastic or hard-liner Bishops that want to impose their own brand of repentance upon members of the congregation.

The entire section would read a little better if it contained a simple sentence along the lines of, "if the woman says, 'I've made up my mind, I'm keeping my baby," then the Church is supportive and wishes well to all parties involved. Something to that effect. As currently constructed, there is only an indirect acknowledgment that sometimes, single parenting works out.

[LA Ute]

Of course you see it differently than me...unfortunately, you also see it differently than every woman that has posted in this thread.

Happy 80th next year, btw.

Why is that unfortunate, young feller? Disagreement is a bad thing?

[wally]

Of course you see it differently than me...unfortunately, you also see it differently than every woman that has posted in this thread.

Happy 80th next year, btw.

Even at 80 LA will need less viagra than you, you swash-buckling buffoon!

[The_Tick]

It sounds like the stuff that individuals in the Church put forth as policy or doctrine, or in other words, cultural beliefs that are off the mark. It is sound advice in many cases that unwed teenage pregnancies should be put up for adoption, but I don't think it should be preached or pushed as a rule. Every case is different.

In other words, it sounds like the crap I heard in a recent stake conference where a member of the SP told everyone that they shouldn't ever date a non-member and shared some obscure quote from Spencer W. Kimball--again, the kind of garbage that some people push, but shouldn't ever be considered official guidance.

Look at UD's Post #216. Something I am not making up my friend.

[DrumNFeather]

Sounds like we could've all saved ourselves a lot of time and energy here by just pulling up the "I hate garments" thread, which appears to be at least in part at the route of this discussion for some.

[UtahDan]

Sounds like we could've all saved ourselves a lot of time and energy here by just pulling up the "I hate garments" thread, which appears to be at least in part at the route of this discussion for some.

I must have missed that part.

[SuperGabers]

Very mean.

Awww...

Sounds like we could've all saved ourselves a lot of time and energy here by just pulling up the "I hate garments" thread, which appears to be at least in part at the route of this discussion for some.

What would the fun of that be? I think this thread is rad. There are many, different, views which are very insightful and interesting. I see the value in a thread like this in being able to bounce off ideas and draw new conclusions.