Richard, I'm sorry you feel I was so "LDS-biased". In accordance with Alan's initial comments, I tried as much as possible not to give my post a moral or political twist. However, the fact is that PAF *IS* the software program the Church has created and provides free for members to gather their family history and submit names for ordinance work. Other genealogy software does have a temple ready feature and that is fine; it makes other software available to those who like other features. However, ward consultants who help members gather their family history and submit names for ordinances are expected to use PAF (not that the members or consultants cannot buy and use other software, but are the consultants are not expected to teach any database program other than PAF). Although the Church does make PAF available free (to members as well as non-members) so that cost is as minimal as possible, I'm sure the Church really does not care what program is used for genealogy as long as names are submitted as correctly as possible and that the ordinance work is done. The Church will not change "its" position on same gender "marriages". Why? Because the Lord has already decreed that a family consists of a male father and a female mother, with whatever children may come to them in this life or the next. There is a difference from the black/priesthood issue. Although I'm not a scriptorian, nor do I have great knowledge or understanding of Church history, I'm fairly certain that the Blacks were always promised that denial of the priesthood was a temporary issue. A brother in my ward knew with a certainty during his mission in the south in the 50s, that he would live to see some of the black converts he knew then, obtain the priesthood. It was always promised. The gender issue is not the same. Regardless of what some scientists and researchers might proclaim, we as Church members are taught that gender is determined in our pre-mortal existence. Science has tried to maintain that we were evolved, not created, that alcoholism is a disease resulting from certain genetic factors, and that people are the victims of genetics rather than their own choices. I do not presume to maintain that people may or may not have genetic factors which might make resisting certain lifestyles difficult. But that is why we are here--to learn to train ourselves to do what the Lord has directed, rather than what some personal inclinations might be. Sometimes it does seem like some people's lives are smooth-sailing and that living the law seems to be very easy for them (although as I grow and mature, I've also realized that what we see from the outside is not really indicative of what they have to deal with.) Most of us have challenges that we have to overcome, whether it is alcohol, eating, drug use, smoking, sexual appetites whether for same or opposite gender, etc. If we listen to some scientists, they would have us believe that we don't have to put a halt to any of our inclinations, that we were just born that way and it's natural. They also would have us believe that there is no God, that everything just happened, that we humans are just a product of whatever scientific combination was being produced that day, and we can do what we want and at some point either by accident, disease (to which we are of course already genetically doomed to), or old age, we die. Period. End of existence. I'd like to add that my husband and I had a lengthy discussion about this last night. We both have issues such as this in our families (he has a gay female cousin) and I have a number of close relatives who apparently had issues with formal marriage. It is often painful or awkward to know how to handle these relationships. My husband's cousin had her partner included in family group picture. I'm only glad we were not around so we weren't included. But forever after, when friends are seeing the picture, and asking, "now who is this person", rather that getting "it's her husband" or "it's his wife", one has to awkwardly say "it's his/her same gender spouse/partner." Very awkward. I have other friends for whom this issue has cropped up, either a same gender partner, or unmarried but living as married with a person of the opposite sex. You cannot "regularize" it by forcing their names into unnatural placements on genealogical charts or family pictures. And I think that is what some patrons might be trying to do, in order to place these relationships in a niche where they fit. In today's society, everyone is trying to find an explanation for every behavior that is outside the norm, to the point of making it a normal behavior. The truth of the matter is that for most, the explanation is a case of choice. Murderers choose to murder--they go to prison or are executed; thieves choose to steal--they go to prison. Alcoholics ultimately choose to drink--yes, I know scientists also say they have some genetic tendency to crave alcohol. What are the results of their choice? At the least ill health. At the worst, they end up killing others because they go out in public and run down people. I have a craving for food--do I have a genetic tendency to consume more than my body can use? Maybe. But the fact remains that it is up to me to control my behavior if I want to maintain a healthy weight (or anything near it ;o)!) You are correct that a lot of errors have been made in ordinance work. We are an imperfect people which is why so many things will have to be sorted out in the millenium (and isn't it great that the Lord even allowed for that buffer zone?) As you say, if something such as gender is not apparent to temple workers, the ordinance work is done. [This is also an exercise of faith of temple workers that the submitter is being honest and has checked his work beforehand.] We know that many times we cannot tell from the name if a child is male or female, so to err on the side of being correct, we do all ordinances, so that they have been done if it turns out that the child was male. But making an error in innocence is different than deliberately trying to fool the system. If a woman is knowingly placed in the male position in order to have her appear to be the father, or in the alternative if a male is put into the mother's position, it seems to me to be an attempt to "fool" someone into getting the work done. But the only ones being "fooled" are the temporal ordinance workers and the proxy (which would really be offensive to me if I found I acted as proxy for a male being represented as a female). The Lord will not be fooled. As you say, these things will be sorted out in the millenium. Until that time, I think these issues will have to be placed in notes and let the Lord make the call at a later time. I realize this is a very LDS-biased issue. There is no way that can be avoided. If this list were about doing genealogy using Legacy, Family Tree Maker, or any of the other many genealogy programs, I would not have even poked in my 2 cents. But this is a PAF users list and PAF is the program developed by the LDS Church. And the question posed was "will the Church ever change the program" (or words to that effect) The Church is not ever going to turn around and say same gender marriages are great, women can have the priesthood, or that sexual relations are ever OK between anyone except a man and a woman married to each other. If anyone on this list who is a member of the LDS Church has a problem with this issue, I might suggest they discuss their concerns with their Bishop or Branch President. It seems to me that one deliberately submitting incorrect information in order to have sacred ordinances performed for a person of the wrong gender, would be doing so as an act of defiance not in support of the First Presidency. May I point out for non-member users of the PAF program, you can do whatever you feel comfortable with within the limits of the program itself, as long as you are not intending to submit this information to the Church with mis-representation of male/female roles. If you do plan to submit this information, whether to a Church repository or any other genealogical data file, I might suggest you make copious notes so that others retrieving the information are clear as to gender issues. Again, I'm sorry if this position offends members of the list. I did not feel in my earlier post that I presented such a strongly "LDS-biased" position. However, since PAF is an LDS product, my response was in answer to a question whether the Church would change the program to reflect a life style which the Church does not endorse. There is no way to separate the Church's teachings from this issue. I would hope that no one would deliberately misrepresent the gender of names in order that they end up in the Church's database. 'nuff said. Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Rands" <rrands@cfmc.com> To: <geneamarm@if.rmci.net> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF ? > Hi Linda, > Your response to Alan's question stunned me and left me uncomfortable that > your heavily LDS-biased comments were posted on a public email list. If I > were not LDS, it would have left me feeling that PAF and the Mormon Church > are not for me. You stated that PAF is the Church's software program used > to submit names for temple ordinances. In actuality, Temple Ready is the > program used for name submission and it just happens that PAF has a built > in interface with Temple Ready to make it easier. It is possible to enter > names directly into Temple Ready and never use PAF at all. And you can > take a GEDCOM into Temple Ready from other genealogy software as well. It > would be absurd for the Church to not allow users of other software > products to submit names to the temple. > > I agree with you that the current leadership is adamant about not allowing > same-sex parents to be entered into PAF, and given the Proclimation on the > Family, there is little room for change in the near future. On the other > hand, as more and more scientific evidence is beginning to show that > same-sex attraction is not a personal choice, but driven by genetic > factors, I have a very difficult time believing that a just Heavenly > Father will deny the blessings of the family to the 10 to 15% of his > children who are born that way. While it may seem strange to you, I am > not the only member of the Church who has great expectations that the > current policies toward same-sex parents will go the same way the old ban > on blacks holding the Priesthood went. > > Your claim that when the father is unknown, the grandfather is used as > "the Priesthood connection" is new to me. In all of the sealings I have > been a proxy, I have never heard of that. Yet I have done some where Mr. > so-and-so has been used to represent the unknown father. You have raised > a question that I need to investigate. I suspect that if someone were to > submit to a temple for sealing a family where one of two female partners > was listed as the "father", especially if her given name was not obviously > a female name, the temple would not have any way to dispute the situation. > There has been so much inaccurate ordinance work done over the years, that > this would just be another one "that will be taken care of during the > millenium." In spite of the fact that you say two females cannot be > sealed as parents, I'll venture to say that it has probably happened a lot > of times without anyone knowing it. And the temples are still standing. > :) > > In actuality, there is nothing sacred about the sex field in PAF that > makes it impossible to enter same-sex marriages. Plenty of inaccurate > data is entered into any of the other PAF fields for individuals, so the > fact that someone's sex is wrong (and documented in the notes as such) > doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me. The fact that the wrong > letter is sitting in my computer for the sex field isn't any different > than if I have the wrong parents connected to someone by mistake. > > I sincerely hope you don't take my comments as questioning you or your > knowledge of the Gospel. I just felt uncomfortable that you wrote so much > of what you believe as a Mormon on a public forum and made it sound so > authoritative. > > Richard > > At 12:27 AM 5/27/2005 -0600, you wrote: >>I can't imagine that the Church would ever create a version of PAF which >>would acknowledge parents of the same gender. A family as defined by the >>Church consists of a male father and female mother and their offspring. >>Obviously there are many variations on this in real life due to deaths, >>adoptions, etc., but in our eternal lives the ultimate goal is the Church >>defined family unit. PAF is the Church's software program used to submit >>names for temple ordinances, including the priesthood ordination for men >>and sealing of the families. Without a male parent, there can be no >>sealing of the family, either now or for eternity, so there would be no >>point in creating what would amount to a "false" family in PAF. Perhaps >>other genealogy programs which aren't concerned with temple ordinances >>might attempt to create some form of a parental relationship which allows >>for same gender parents, but I don't see that ever happening with PAF. >> >>I don't think the fact that some civil jurisdictions have legalized same >>gender "marriages" has any affect on whether the Church would alter its >>program to accommodate such liaisons. Although there are a variety of >>accommodations in PAF for keeping track of today's varying lifestyles, >>multiple marriages, blended families, etc. it does have to be boiled down >>finally to a child being sealed into one family only consisting of a >>mother (female) and father (male). In situations where the father is not >>known, my understanding is that the sealing is done with the grandfather >>as the priesthood connection, although I'm not quite sure how that is >>entered. But the child has to be sealed to the priesthood also, and if >>both parents were female that could not happen. >> >>My suggestion would be copious notes. Obviously nothing is going to happen >>with these types of relationships while the parties are living, as the >>"parents" could not maintain this relationship and be members of the >>Church, nor be sealed in the temple. It's unfortunate for the child. >> >>Linda >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Jones at home" >><alanjones10@cox.net> >>To: <PAF-5-USERS-L@rootsweb.com> >>Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2005 8:30 PM >>Subject: [PAF-5] Acknowledging gay marriages in PAF ? >> >> >>> >>>I am not raising the moral or political issues of gay marriage, >>>please don't address that arena. >>> >>>BUT the fact is we have people who have family members >>>who are gay. >>>AND the fact is that some jurisditions make it legal for gays to marry. >>> >>>Currently PAF 5.2.18 forces a spouse to be of the opposite gender. >>>There is no way to force it to be both men or both women. >>> >>>Are there any plans to allow for these relationships in a future >>>edition of PAF ? >>> >>>For those using PAF, who might have had this situation, >>>how do you record it? Perhaps just in the notes? >>> >>>And then, what if they both adopt a child? >>> >>>Alan >>> >>> >>>==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >>>PAF-5-USERS Mailing List >>>http://www.ausbdm.org/p5uindex.php >>> >> >> >>==== PAF-5-USERS Mailing List ==== >>RootsWeb's WorldConnect Project: >>Connecting the World One GEDCOM at a Time >>http://worldconnect.rootsweb.com/ > > >