Teen Suicide, licked cupcakes, adoption & the Mormon Tal

[_Pokatator]

I don’t start threads very often but a couple of combined threads have got me cranked up. Those threads being the teen suicide thread and the licked cupcake thread.

What I don’t get is the pressure that the church puts on youth to be perfect. Everything is thing is taught Families are Forever, genealogy has to be perfect and traced back to the beginning. This is all so important that everyone needs to have it completed. The Mormon God can’t save you, you have to save your self with all this family stuff.

Yet when someone becomes a “licked cupcake” or raped and this situation produces a child all this importance of families, tracing genealogy, accurate blood lines all become unimportant and mute. Then the focus is on adoptiing the child into the church.

I have a friend that works in our county court house. She works with pregnant young women everyday. The stories she tells about judges, court staff and adopting families putting pressure on these young women to adopt the child into LDS church services, makes her and me sick. Where is the importance of Families are Forever now? Where is the importance of tracking a blood line now? This seems like such a double standard and misdirection and it is all at the expense of the young people involved. I see this as going against what the church has preached to all of these kids’ for all of their lives. No wonder they fight to keep their babies they have been taught all this stuff their whole life. The court system is like a Mormon Taliban.

I have seen the system and the kids’ own families kick them in the teeth. At a time when they are down and need more love and support than they probably have ever needed I see the system take advantage of them and their own families abandon them. No wonder teen suicide is up.

All is not well in Zion but the Mormon Taliban is alive a well, they just wear their burkas underneath their street clothes.

[_Seven]

All is not well in Zion but the Mormon Taliban is alive a well, they just wear their burkas underneath their street clothes.

I have an LDS friend who overheard some non Mormons talking about garments and how weird Mormons are to wear these funny underwear. She stepped in to inform them she was LDS and could explain garments. Her answer was "You know how Muslims wear burkas? Well, that's kind of like us, except we keep ours covered. "

[_Seven]

I have a friend that works in our county court house. She works with pregnant young women everyday. The stories she tells about judges, court staff and adopting families putting pressure on these young women to adopt the child into LDS church services, makes her and me sick. Where is the importance of Families are Forever now? Where is the importance of tracking a blood line now? This seems like such a double standard and misdirection and it is all at the expense of the young people involved. I see this as going against what the church has preached to all of these kids’ for all of their lives. No wonder they fight to keep their babies they have been taught all this stuff their whole life. The court system is like a Mormon Taliban.
quote]

Do you recall maybe 5 years ago or so, the church was showing a video to all the Wards encouraging adoption into LDS services. I was very upset by the presentation. As a mother, that should be the very last option. Where is the support from the girl's parents? Don't they want to see their grandchild? I was horrified that the church was promoting that.
I didn't hesitate to give my opinion, but all the LDS in the room seemed taken in by it. I have a cousin who became pregnant at 16. She married the father, had great support from her parents and went to college, has a degree and raised the child herself. Except in the case of abuse, it is in the child's best interest to stay with blood.

[_Sethbag]

I have to disagree somewhat. I think 15 or 16 year old single girls trying to raise babies on their own is a recipe for disaster, and I agree that it's probably, in general, a better idea to give the kid up for adoption so that the kid has the greatest chance of growing up in a functional family. For heaven's sake, let the 15 or 16 year old kid finish up high school, go on to college and finish preparing for a real life. They're only 15 or 16, there's plenty of time to make it real and be ready to do the family thing when they're in a better position to do so and make it fair for the kids.

Of course, they'll be a licked cupcake and all that that entails, but it's still probably better off dealing with that later on in life, than to put the kids through the ringer of living in poverty with a single mom who isn't ready to be a functional parent and family leader at this point in her life. If anything, a "licked cupcake" who's 24 years old with an 8 year old kid will have it a hell of a lot worse in the LDS meat market than a licked cupcake with no kid, but an adopted child 8 years in her past.

[_Runtu]

I have to disagree somewhat. I think 15 or 16 year old single girls trying to raise babies on their own is a recipe for disaster, and I agree that it's probably, in general, a better idea to give the kid up for adoption so that the kid has the greatest chance of growing up in a functional family. For heaven's sake, let the 15 or 16 year old kid finish up high school, go on to college and finish preparing for a real life. They're only 15 or 16, there's plenty of time to make it real and be ready to do the family thing when they're in a better position to do so and make it fair for the kids.

Of course, they'll be a licked cupcake and all that that entails, but it's still probably better off dealing with that later on in life, than to put the kids through the ringer of living in poverty with a single mom who isn't ready to be a functional parent and family leader at this point in her life. If anything, a "licked cupcake" who's 24 years old with an 8 year old kid will have it a hell of a lot worse in the LDS meat market than a licked cupcake with no kid, but an adopted child 8 years in her past.

I agree. I don't care so much about blood as I do about the child being raised in a stable family. That's unlikely to happen when the parents are teenagers.

[_Seven]

I have to disagree somewhat. I think 15 or 16 year old single girls trying to raise babies on their own is a recipe for disaster, and I agree that it's probably, in general, a better idea to give the kid up for adoption so that the kid has the greatest chance of growing up in a functional family. For heaven's sake, let the 15 or 16 year old kid finish up high school, go on to college and finish preparing for a real life. They're only 15 or 16, there's plenty of time to make it real and be ready to do the family thing when they're in a better position to do so and make it fair for the kids.

Of course, they'll be a licked cupcake and all that that entails, but it's still probably better off dealing with that later on in life, than to put the kids through the ringer of living in poverty with a single mom who isn't ready to be a functional parent and family leader at this point in her life. If anything, a "licked cupcake" who's 24 years old with an 8 year old kid will have it a hell of a lot worse in the LDS meat market than a licked cupcake with no kid, but an adopted child 8 years in her past.

I agree. I don't care so much about blood as I do about the child being raised in a stable family. That's unlikely to happen when the parents are teenagers.

Not if the Grandparents or other family members help support the mother and father in some way.

I have a few friends who were adopted by LDS families and they would disagree with you. Blood is more important to the child than you may realize. There is also no guarantee the adoptive parents are more stable or better parents than the teenage mother. I could have raised a child as a teen and sacrificed my social life, still gone to College and made someting of myself. I have a few friends who did just that. They had no support from the father, but received government help and family help. The church could help support the mother and father make rather than taking the child away. in my opinion, that is in the child's best interest as well. (unless there is abuse)

[_Runtu]

Not if the Grandparents or other family members help support the mother and father in some way.

I have a few friends who were adopted by LDS families and they would disagree with you. Blood is more important to the child than you may realize. There is also no guarantee the adoptive parents are better than the teenage mother. I could have raised a child as a teen and sacrificed my social life, still gone to College and made someting of myself. I have a few friends who did just that. They had no support from the father, but received government help and family help. The

I'm not sure there's an answer that fits every time. You may be right that supportive parents and grandparents may help a child raise a child successfully. I'm not sure that's the case the majority of the time.

[_Pokatator]

I did not mean to make my OP seem as if I am against adoption. In lots of cases I agree that adoption is the best option for all involved. I am trying to show the hypocrisy of the church teaching all this family stuff and instilling the value of genealogy and bloodlines to every member until that member becomes a young licked cupcake. That one licking event wipes out all the value of the prior teaching. And then the kid becomes the victim and lots of time so does the family that approaches the illegitimate child as blood and wants to care for the baby. The church seems to plead innocence in why the mother and immediate family have a strong attachment to the baby.

To me it understandable why the young mother and her family have those strong attachments even if the church doesn't. For me I probably would side with Dr. Laura on adoption.

[_Gazelam]

I have to disagree somewhat. I think 15 or 16 year old single girls trying to raise babies on their own is a recipe for disaster, and I agree that it's probably, in general, a better idea to give the kid up for adoption so that the kid has the greatest chance of growing up in a functional family. For heaven's sake, let the 15 or 16 year old kid finish up high school, go on to college and finish preparing for a real life. They're only 15 or 16, there's plenty of time to make it real and be ready to do the family thing when they're in a better position to do so and make it fair for the kids.

Of course, they'll be a licked cupcake and all that that entails, but it's still probably better off dealing with that later on in life, than to put the kids through the ringer of living in poverty with a single mom who isn't ready to be a functional parent and family leader at this point in her life. If anything, a "licked cupcake" who's 24 years old with an 8 year old kid will have it a hell of a lot worse in the LDS meat market than a licked cupcake with no kid, but an adopted child 8 years in her past.

Excellent post seth, well said.

The importance of the law of chastity is that a child wil br brought up in the faith with two parents who love each other and will raise the child to believe in and follow Christ. An adopted child is stil sealed in the church through the temple and has all the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant through the adopted parents.

[_Seven]

[

quote="Sethbag"]I have to disagree somewhat. I think 15 or 16 year old single girls trying to raise babies on their own is a recipe for disaster, and I agree that it's probably, in general, a better idea to give the kid up for adoption so that the kid has the greatest chance of growing up in a functional family. [b] For heaven's sake, let the 15 or 16 year old kid finish up high school, go on to college and finish preparing for a real life.

Who is stopping them from getting this education? I know several women who made it work. It takes sacrifice, but parenting is a sacrifice.

[/b]They're only 15 or 16, there's plenty of time to make it real and be ready to do the family thing when they're in a better position to do so and make it fair for the kids.

Why is it unfair to the child if the mother keeps her baby and sacrifices for it? That's a great act of love and example to the child. I am not advocating children stay in homes of neglect or abuse, (you can find that in any age group of parents) but saying that adoption should be the LAST option, not the first option as the church has promoted. I think there are situations where adoption is the best situation for the child.

Of course, they'll be a licked cupcake and all that that entails, but it's still probably better off dealing with that later on in life, than to put the kids through the ringer of living in poverty with a single mom who isn't ready to be a functional parent and family leader at this point in her life.

That's assuming a teenager isn't functional as a parent, but that is mostly cultural thinking. If you treat a teenager like a child, then they will act like one. Give them responsibilites for their actions and they mature. I know women in their thirties who are not functional as mothers and really struggled with the huge life changes of becoming a parent. Sacrifices for the child are hard for any age.

If anything, a "licked cupcake" who's 24 years old with an 8 year old kid will have it a hell of a lot worse in the LDS meat market than a licked cupcake with no kid, but an adopted child 8 years in her past.

I know a few licked cupcakes with a child who went on to marry in the temple to great guys. It's more difficult, but that's not a reason to give up your baby.

I don't know how many people you know who were adopted but I know several. Most of them had parents who became pregnant in high school, were encouraged by their parents to adopt out the child, and were able to finish high school, go to college etc. So many of them found their parents later on and discovered they had entire families, some were pure blood siblings. I think you can imagine the pain of finding out you could have been with your biological parents and siblings, but were born at the wrong time. I am very proud of my friends and family members who sacrificed by keeping their babies, despite the church and their parents telling them to give it away. They all went on to receive an education and marry. They can't imagine choosing a different path.

The pain these children go through from being given away by their parents is something only the adopted child can know, and many have explained it to me. It caused great harm to find out they could have been raised in a good home by their biological parents. I could go into more detail later about a friend of mine who told me of the connection you feel to your own blood and how important that was for her to find them.

Do you think as a parent you would regret giving your baby away for an easier education?

My point is, the church should think about the consequences of giving a child away for the pain it causes the child and parents for a lifetime over the short term benefits of attending college childless. They want these babies farmed out to active LDS homes so the kid has a better chance of being a faithful LDS. Why not support the parents as a church and help them raise the child as LDS too?