In many societies, marriage of near relatives is uncommon, so that undeniable desire to genetically propagate seems not too hard to temper, at least down to a 50% level, not taking into account the wide-spread preference for same-race mates.

Although the grammar is ambiguous, I read the comment differently than you did, ESO — not that the desire itself is undeniable, but that the existence of the desire is undeniable.

The distinction matters, in terms of your post: As a representative of your class here: “Or what of the undeniable urge that many single Mormons do feel to have children?”, I have little trouble denying myself the bearing of children despite my desires. There are limits to the exercise of righteous desires because there are limits to righteous circumstances — means are as important as ends.

But were I in a position for honorable maternity, my primary desire would be for biological children. My desire isn’t only to love and raise children, but for what some would see as the selfish wish to have a child who might have my mother’s cheek bones or my father’s eyes or to see my own childhood fondness for reading reproduced in a child’s life (specific details unimportant; I’d have been thrilled by any evidence of inheritance.) The existence of that desire is absolutely undeniable, and is not, I think, incompatible with righteousness.

We have many biological urges, why is the urge to propagate unequivocally a righteous one? Is it righteous when cockroaches, caribou, and cantaloupes propagate, or does this only apply to humans?

“Is it righteous when cockroaches, caribou, and cantaloupes propagate, or does this only apply to humans?”

Of course it is righteous for caribou and cantaloupes. By definition, however, nothing that cockroaches do is righteous as they are the spawn of hell.

I think you misconstrued his meaning of word “undeniable”, and the subsequent clause. I took it to mean that the _existence_ of the desire is undeniable. You seem to have inferred that the fullfillment or accomplishment of the desire is not able to be denied to the person who has the desire. IE, that they will fulfill their desire no matter what.

You seem to have imputed “irrestible” to his use of “undeniable.” I think that interpretation is incorrect.

In the second sentence, the word “impossibility” implies more the biological inability (ie, the infertility of the couple), not other solvable situations such as marriage status.

OK, folks, people acting out an urge to propagate their genetic inheritance don’t just want to have children themselves. They also want their near relatives to have children. As the famous genetics joke goes, “Would you give your life for your brother?” “No, but I would give my life for four nephews or for eight cousins.”

Those who really care about propagating their genes will marry a cousin. In some societies that is very common. Consider the marriages of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Rebekah’s father Bethuel was a double first cousin to her husband Isaac.

And yet many in our society find contemplating marriages between first cousins, like that of Charles Darwin and Emma Wedgwood, or Sewell Wright’s parents, a bit repulsive. That “undeniable urge” is not so absolute.

ESO:

“Can you think of an example somewhere in between my silly ones and Steve’s? Interesting thoughts on single parenthood; I do not know of any such situations personally, but I think it might be a source of scandal in some wards.”

I think the desire to marry qualifies, or the desire to have a companion, to be loved. We have these desires, and they are difficult to control, even when they conflict with our rational selves or our spiritual commitments.

I think you’re right that it would be a bit of a scandal (perhaps more than a bit) for single persons who are church members to adopt or have children by other means (insemination, surrogacy), but I’m not sure that there is any strict church teaching against it and I’m relatively sure it has been done, though I can’t think of any examples that I know personally.

Some very fine single Latter-day Saints have adopted children in modern times as well as the turn-of-the-century days of that lesson ESO referred to in #9. Kids have homes they otherwise would miss out on, and parents have the same rewards of rearing children that married couples have.

I can think of three reasons, some stronger than others, why the church might feel it had an interest in advising singles against adoption, or at least counsel them to consider:

1. “Children are entitled … to be reared by a father and a mother …” Single parenthood isn’t ideal for children. We could temper that with the realization that many parents have raised happy, successful children after a divorce or death robbed the famly of one parents — although it still isn’t ideal. Also, isn’t the less-than-ideal circumstance of having only one loving, supportive, ever-present parent better than the alternatve so many children have of no parent?

2. Single motherhood, especially for youngish women, can interfere with the woman’s chances of marrying. The church has a legitimate interest in encouraging and promoting marriage — but it isn’t a sin, crime, or actionable offense to be single.

3. A child adopted by a single parent cannot be sealed to that single parent (assuming that single parent isn’t widowed; I think a child adopted by a widowed parent can be sealed to that parent and his or her deceased spouse, but don’t quote me). Theoretically, that leaves a child outside the network of the family of God; most of us would probably presume that this was one of those cases the Lord would eventually have to adjust, especially since the deficiency was in no way under the control of the child.

All of those concerns would exist whether a child were adopted by or borne by a single parent. Yet I think most church members could easily work past the obstacles in the case of an adopted child while feeling that it was still immoraal somehow for a single woman to have a biological child, even totally absent any unchastity. I don’t know why that should be the case, but it somehow still feels so.

Sorry, ESO, if I’m helping to pull your thread even farther away from its original intent, but somehow this seems to have become largely a discussion of single parenthood.

bbell: really? I’m kinda surprised by that. I would think it would depend on a lot of other factors, but Ardis’s number 3 above really jumped out at me. If it’s true that a child like that can’t be sealed, then I guess that’s a good reason to prohibit it. On another note, though, I’m not sure I get why it can’t be sealed. If the woman is endowed, why can’t she be sealed to her biological child? Would it be the same if the father died while the mother was pregnant and she was endowed but he was not? Would she still not be able to be sealed to the child? Anyone know?

Thanks, bbell, I did not know that; I do not know the reasoning for that decision, but it fits my instinct.

MCQ (18), a single person, even an endowed one, or a married person not yet sealed to his/her spouse, hasn’t fully accepted the new and everlasting covenant — hasn’t made the covenant promises or been offered the covenant blessings, including those of posterity and eternal increase. There is no covenant under which to seal a child until the man and woman have been sealed to each other.

(A posthumous child can be sealed to its living mother and deceased father, but only *after* the parents have been sealed to each other, with the deceased man being represented by proxy.)

Good to know.

What if they don’t ask (and are therefore not counseled)? I am not trying to be a trouble-maker, I just want to know how a single sister (or any sister) might know about this kind of guidance that they cannot read. Am I missing something, has this been addressed elsewhere? Besides Ardis’ gut ;)? I think there is a certain strata of society in which an AI might not be thought noteworthy, so they may not run it by Church leaders.

What about married sisters? AI is A-OK for them? Perhaps surrogacy always includes insemination, so I guess that is included in this officially disapproved behavior.

interesting….

MCQ, a single sister who adopts is providing a home that the child likely would not have otherwise. (At least, that’s the case if she adopts an older or disabled child in the U.S., or a child from one of a number of countries overseas where domestic adoptions are rare.) The Church discourages singles from adopting for the reasons Ardis mentions in #16–at least her #1 and #3. Single women who get pregnant because their biological clocks are running down are acting contrary to fundamental Church doctrine and, quite frankly, are putting their own (very real) desires to parent above what is best for a child. And religious reasons aside, studies consistently show that the optimal situation for a child is to be raised by both his/her biological mother and father who are united in a stable marriage. (I’m speaking as a single woman “at the tail end of her childbearing years,” by the way. So this is my own painful reality. But some things are more important than my desire to be a mom.)

I understand all that, Rivkah. Obviously, it’s not the optimal situation. But we’re talking about church discipline here. There are a lot of things that happen that are not optimal that do not warrant church discipline.

ESO,
The idea that a single sister should not be considering AI makes complete sense to me if you consider that unlike current American culture, the gospel does not completely separate sex for intimacy and sex for procreation. Yes, married people can have sex for just intimacy and it has been given for that purpose within marriage. However, sex for procreation is considered a wonderful, sacred gift and responsibility for married couples only.
To have sex outside of marriage is not treating your procreative powers in a sacred way. Finding a sperm donor and making a baby that way is also treating this sacred power lightly.
I think that the church policy on abortion, premarital sex, birth control & family planning, infidelity, masturbation, fertility treatments, pornography all focus on the higher ideals that sex is for a married couple to bring them closer and express love and to have the sacred privelege and duty of creating and bringing children to earth and raising a family.

I just disagree Rivkah.

“Finding a sperm donor and making a baby that way is also treating this sacred power lightly.”

Why? A woman who has sex with her husband is somehow more serious about procreation than someone who goes through an expensive medical procedure? That makes no logical sense whatsoever.

I don’t think the “church discipline” would be excommunication, unless there were something beyond simply doing an insemination.