When I was 28, my then girlfriend who was unmarried and a member of the church at the time, got pregnant. Before I met her, I was a virgin still, and in good standing with the church. When she met me, she was a member in good standing after working her way back from a second excommunication. She even told me at the time that my uncle was the Stake President who authorised her second re-baptism. Shortly after we got involved, she basically went off the deep end and had lots of sex with several different guys (several of them returned missionaries), over a short period of time. At that point, she got pregnant and was excommunicated for her third time. To complicate things, she then married one of these guys who was a church member and who was soon disfellowshipped for having sex with her also. I was also disfellowshipped after turning myself and everyone else I knew about, in to my bishop and the bishops of everyone else involved. She and I had been known amongst all of her friends and my friends as a couple. It took a long time for me to figure out what had happened and I still have unanswered questions.

The church leaders who were involved promptly held the church courts for everyone involved with her that they knew about. Then everything went quiet. By the time I found out from friends that she had a new baby (child conceived while she was with me), the church leaders had slapped together their marriage and the baby had been born. The church leaders did everything in their power to hide information from me (even lieing about some things), and to try to get me to just pretend that nothing had happened. Even in a Stake where my uncle had been a well-liked Stake president and was also a personal friend of the current Stake President, and he was willing to help me open doors, everything was cold and angry towards me from all of the other church leaders. Finally, I filed a paternity suit. The kid wasn't mine, nor was he biologically related to the guy she had married (at least that is what my attorney reported to me after the blood test results all came back).

So here is my question. Amongst grown adults, how is the church supposed to deal with these kinds of situations? Out of fairness, civil laws give the man legal rights. It seems that in the church, the church leaders just do what they want to do, and to hell with the rights of those who they choose to side against. I wonder if there are church policies that dictate their actions, or if they just make it up as they go. If the kid would have been mine, I had fully planned to sue the church for interfering and leaving me out of the process, having known well in advance (they even held a church court for me over the matter months earlier). Does anyone know the church's formula for handling these situations? What surprised me the most was that to the church leaders, I had no standing at all (quite the opposite in a court of law). The church leaders unanimously attributed to me and voiced to me, the lowest of motives (jealousy, anger, revenge, obsession) to me and against me without listening to or considering anything I said.

The last contact I had with her before the paternity suit was to defend myself against a restraining order filing. The Superior court judge refused to grant it because he said that he saw no pattern of harassment by me, and then he lectured her on her doing things that she knew or should know might provoke me. It tore me up to file the paternity suit because I really wanted her to be happy (without me). I went to the church leaders first (before the courts of law) to lighten any way they might be impacted, and to keep the situation more private for them. But my concience said it had to be done. Nothing the church leaders said or did was the right way to handle things. So is there a policy or methodology, or is it all just based on the whims of those church leaders who are involved in the moment?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2017 09:21AM by azsteve.

What a bad situation.

From what I know, there are some "general guidelines" -- if the parents-to-be are old enough, encourage them to marry, and work towards "repenting" so they can later be temple-married. If they're not old enough, or one of the two refuses marriage, get the mother to put the kid up for LDS adoption. Beyond those general guidelines, it is indeed all about the whims of the local leaders, and very often about "saving face" for them.

I certainly agree that the church leaders should have cooperated more with your attempt to determine parentage, but have to offer a counterpoint, too: they may very well have heard from both the mother and father enough to be sure who the father was, and to be sure it wasn't you. Which, in their minds anyway, makes you not involved. I'm not excusing their conduct (I mean, at the very least, they could have told you they knew who the father was, and that it wasn't you), but just offering something to think about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2017 12:24PM by ificouldhietokolob.

A young relative of mine who lived outside Mordor became pregnant. As soon as she told her parents, she was shipped off to Utah, as was recommended by LDSSS. Part of this was because Utah's laws favored the single mother and made the father essentially irrelevant. The father even tried suing to get custody with no avail. The "chosen" adoptive parents bailed because of all the legal wrangling of the father. It wasn't until the baby was born that another couple took custody and their names kept secret. Since it was handled by LDSSS, the father basically could do nothing. This incident was mentioned years later in a case that helped change the laws in Utah to better support the father.

I don't know all what the morg did to punish her but she eventually did get sealed to husband so she is obviously in good standing.

of these children--your own children--and they can be taken away from you in the next life if you didn't succeed. I guess my daughter will get the mother she wants after all.

BUT when we went inactive, the primary presidency came by and told our kids that we were not being good parents and so someone in the presidency would stop by on Sundays and take them to church. We were too shocked to say anything. My son told me later it was that day that he KNEW the church was bullshit and he was only 8 or 9 years old. Of course, I never allowed anyone to take my kids to church.

The attitude came across loud and clear that we were not being good guardians of the children God had put in our care and so they had to step in. The true attitude is our children are not our own. They belong to the church. Missions? Temple marriage without parents allowed to come?

So what you're saying is that "good" LDS parents allow TSCC to handle te indoctrination(s), because the parents are second or third-rate amateurs at it.

Your situation was complicated. If you are looking for an answer, there is one:

The Number One Goal of TSCC is to get new members.

The child is perceived by these (men) as a future tithe-payer.
Newborn babies are the cult's primary source of new members.
Those (men) wanted that baby to be a BIC Mormon.

This is the reason why TSCC used to hyjack babies born out of wedlock, born to mothers who rebelled against the cult, born into non-Mormon families. "LDS Social Services" would adopt these babies out to strong Mormon families.

KBYU used to run TV commercials for LDS Social Services. The Madison-Avenue-inspired tag line was spoken by the unwed mother:

"I didn't give my baby up; I gave my baby MORE--a mother AND A FATHER."

Zoom in on a happy new Mormon-stereotype mother-and-father with their newly adopted baby. Yes, they were trolling for babies!!! So many humanitarians objected and threatened lawsuits (mostly paternity suits), that TSCC finally stopped advertising, and got out of the adoption business altogether.

(How did you think that made me feel, when I was trying to raise children on my own, without a father, because my Mormon husband had totally abandoned us.)

TSCC is right, you know. Statistics show that if one of the parents is not a Mormon, the child is very likely going to leave the cult, later on. The same stats apply if the child grows up without a father. I'm so lucky--all of my children resigned with me!

Anyway--no one was considering you, or your rights. No one was considering your pregnant girlfriend or her rights. Their ONLY goal was to have that baby BIC, under the lifetime control their evil cult.

Thank you, AZ Steve, for being one of those who did fight back, and cause trouble, and threaten a lawsuit. Collectively, you all worked together to stop this horrible LDS practice!

(((hugs to you)))

Thanks, after being emotionally beat on for over a year every time I tried to resolve the issue cooperatively and failing, the last time I ever contacted their Bishop was very empowering. I had previously had difficulty getting the paternity suit served.

Steve: hello bishop (bishop's name)?

Bishop: yes

Steve: this is Steve (last name). I just called to tell you that I will be bringing a police officer to your sacrament meeting this coming Sunday. If we have to, we'll serve the papers right in the chapel, right before your sacrament meeting starts.

bishop: (dead silence for close to a minute)

Steve: well okay (in a you-asked-for-it tone of voice)
Then when the landline handset was about an inch from being hung up

bishop: (little voice coming from the earpiece from a few feet away) "WAIT"., Let me see what I can do.

Steve: I'll give you a second week. Do you have something to write with? I'll give you the process server's name and phone number.

bishop: okay .....
(They were served the following Sunday morning. Their asshole bishop made it happen.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2017 12:21AM by azsteve.

I am glad I was not BIC and I am very happy that I do not live in the Mormon states either.

You know what's funny? She got disfellowshiped and excommunicated so many times, they still allow her to work her way back into good standing which reinforces the idea that LD$ Inc just wants money and they have to brainwash their members to do it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2017 07:57PM by helenm.

Yeah, after the third time of being excommunicated, you have to wonder how long a person should have to wait until the church lets them be baptised for yet a fourth time.

One thing I thought was odd too was that of the two men who were involved with her that were also endowed church members, neither were excommunicated. But the woman who had never been through the temple was excommunicated. That seems to be very suspicious, given the church's position that sexual sins are much more of a sin if you violate your temple covenants. Maybe it was because she had also had sex with several non-members also that made the difference. At least one or more endowed church members basically fucked her as soon as the opportunity first became available to him (as opposed to having sex at some point over the course of a long-term relationship where the couple had an opportunity to know each other better, and had discussed marriage over a periid of several months). The church sees no differences between the two different circumstances whether you've possibly fallen in love over a period of several months of daily life together, or whether you're just secretly fucking your friend's girlfriend while you know that she is involved with someone else. It's all the same to the church. Any discussions about personal integrity are off the table.

I also noticed another odd thing. I never suggested to any church leaders that any person be either disfellowshipped or excommunicated. I wasn't trying to prosecute anyone. All I did was present specific facts that I knew in efforts to bring the whole truth out (much of which I didn't know). And yet I heard repeatedly from each church leader that I spoke with that church courts work differently than courts of law. I knew that and nothing I said was inconsistant with that, which is why I never suggested that anyone receive any specific punishments. The church leaders grew angry as things that they didn't want to deal with came out and the persons they sought to protect from the truth became more obviously responsible for having lied to them. Whether or not that information was true or not didn't matter to these church leaders. 'To hell with protecting the innocent, we've got people's reputations to protect here' was the attitude. These church leaders wanted to believe the lies they were told and leave it at that.

Despite this circumstance, every church leader I spoke with seemed to be very loyal to what can only be described as a Bishop-client or Stake President-client (very similar to an Attorney-client) relationship between themselves and their respective ward or stake members. Theoretically, all of the church leaders should have been loyal only to finding and acting on the truth, and on the churches stated purposes of having church courts. Collaborating on lies and being loyal to specific individuals seemed to be more important than saving the transgressors, protecting the innocent, or even of protecting the image of the church. The church is the real whore and the church leaders are all panderers for the church.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/14/2017 07:49AM by azsteve.

The daughter of some TBM friends saw her long-time boyfriend off at the MTC and then went to Hawaii to nanny for a TBM family there while BF was gone.

She was back less than a year later and pregnant. They called the BF back from his mission to marry the girl - even though he could not have been the father.

Baby was born a few months after the wedding and it was obvious to everyone that the child had Polynesian parentage. Parents went on to have 3 more children together. but eventually divorced.

In the real world consenting adults are having sex. No bishop or stake president needs to know. It's between the 2 consenting adults. She gets pregnant the man has the right for a paternity test to see if he is the dad. Basically that the church has to mingle in everything is sick! My aunt got kicked out of BYU for getting pregnant out of wedlock and the man was allowed to stay! They did they same thing! Yet one was allowed the continue and one was was excommunicated and kicked out of school!
My aunt was 19 pregnant kicked out of school she moved back into her parents place and changed universities.

When I was 15 I was date raped which resulted in pregnancy. The bishop first considered the option of me marrying the rapist, but when in shock I was able to utter an objection he sent me to church social services. They were intent on sending me away to Utah so I could "protect my reputation" while I was pregnant and then the child would be adopted to a nice LDS family and sealed to them. It was a very high pressure process. When I showed doubt that this was the correct course they sent me to "counseling" which was just another high pressure sales technique to get me to go to Utah.
Through the process there wasn't any discussion, instead it was always this is what we are going to do and of course you will obey.

Nothing was done about the rape and it was very clear that once they ruled out marriage the only option that would be discussed was me being sent to Utah and high pressure to adopt to a LDS family.

That is awful! I am sorry!

I feel like I heard this story before, quite a while ago. I also thought this story ended with your finding out that you were not the father. I could be confusing your story with someone else, but if you are not the father, none of the rest of this really matters.

He's posted this story several times. I assume it's because it was very traumatic for the OP.

Also, per the OP above: "The kid wasn't mine, nor was he biologically related to the guy she had married (at least that is what my attorney reported to me after the blood test results all came back)."

You are correct in one respect. Once the attorneys receive the blood test results back and then close the case, it no longer matters in context of what the man should do, or did. I no longer question that and would take the same actions again, minus involving any church leaders. But for a believer at the time, between the time that the church holds a church court and that time when the legal case is closed, it matters. Whether the church acts on random feelings of its leaders in the moment, or on policy, does matter when years later you're sizing up the church as an enemy and want to know what makes them do what they do.

When I was young, church leaders in General Conference would encourage people to go to their church leaders for help in these kinds of situations, and are told they'll receive help/guidance. What you really get when you take them up on it is condemnation and a lack of respect for your legal rights. They do not even acknowledge a need to deal with issues involving parental instincts. To this day, that still shocks me.

The question of the original post has more to do with finding out if the church has a play book for how they handle these kinds of situations, and if so, to learn as much as possible about that playbook. The first time you heard this story, it may have been in relation to emotional healing, or for some other purpose. These days, I am more interested on what I tell people, and what I may publish about the church some day. I am trying to find a valid and virtuous human motivation to the church's side of the issue and all I get is stone cold manipulation to meet the goals of the church. They may use the words "best interests of the child" somewhere in their dialogue. But ultimately, they'll destroy the psyche of anyone (man or woman) who has or expresses a parental instinct and tries to be honest with themselves about that, and to reconsile things the way an honest person would do. The people doing this all have children of their own in most cases. They're not ignorant. Yet they violate the most basic of human rights that should go with membership in any social organization of any kind, even if I did dodge the bullet and the actual question of paternity eventually proved the issue in my specific case, to be a moot point. None the less, that's some hell of a playbook they go by. I would like to get my hands on it some day.

The other posters here are right about the trauma that was involved. There was a lot of trauma of different kinds over a short period of time. I think I've got past all of it except for the way the church leaders dealt with this one issue. We all know that the church is a fraud (relatively easy to adjust to). I have difficulty even putting a human face to some of theose church leaders and whatever drove them, and as an empathetic person in all other areas and past episodes of my life, that freightens me still. At this point, I can forgive everyone else involved at that time. That doesn't mean I ever want to see or interact with any of them again (I don't), but I am no longer bothered by what they did or how it affected me. But I can't say the same with regard to the church.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/17/2017 09:32AM by azsteve.

I don't think the church has any kind of a directive on how to deal with this type of a situation because it was so convoluted. I doubt it happens enough to warrant a policy.

So I'd guess that the local leaders were winging it and doing whatever they thought best.

Hi, google wiki leaks they have the church handbooks online and you can read it straight from the horses mouth. I tried posting the link here but it is not allowed.

Handbook of instructions.

While I was on my mission in the early 80's I had access to that handbook and read it. I don't recall anything from that time that would address this. That handbook could have been updated to address these issues the way the church thinks they should be handled, since that time.

Shortly before General conference at each session, I suspect that Bishops and Stake Presidents probably take part in a special session, or perhaps just training, that teaches them things that perhaps the church doesn't want to put in to writing. Anyone out there know if this is the case?