After clicking the link of the BOM musical hater, I thought this article advertised at the bottom of the page looked interesting. It was. It's about the reunion of a mother with the son she gave up for adoption. Should have been a great heartwarming tale, but oh the mormon twist. Take a gander:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/21206/Bryan-Kehls-big-family-and-the-blessings-of-adoption?s_cid=queue_title&utm_source=dm_title

I don't even know what point to begin with. Here's some highlights:

First, the article needs to point out that the child is biracial, because of course that makes a difference in how his family should view him. Despite the fact his bio dad wanted to raise him along with dad's family, dad wasn't good enough.

The Birth: "In the predawn hours of Saturday, June 16, 1984, a baby was born, wrapped in a white blanket and purposely kept from the young woman on the hospital bed. The infant male with bits of black hair was fed a bottle by his grandmother before he received a priesthood blessing at the hands of his grandfather. As the women looked on, the grandfather gently kissed the little one's forehead and handed him to the nurse.Then he was gone."

The article points out that he was purposely kept from her. I'm going to guess he was purprosely kept from her so she wouldn't be tempted to change to her mind. Her parents could not handle the shame of not only an out of wedlock baby, but gasp, a biracial one.

After baby comes the husband: "Brian admits he was tempted to judge her" How nice that the guy she is dating can forgive her and not judge her for something she did BEFORE she even knew him. What a great priesthood leader. He's really compassionate. On meeting his wife's son: "Brian wanted to protect his wife" Of course it's HIS decision if his wife meets the son she gave up for adoption. She has no say because it's all about protecting her, the fragile tender mormon woman.

On meeting her son:"First, Amy googled Bryan and learned all she could about him. Chills ran through her body as she discovered he served an LDS mission and married a beautiful woman in an LDS temple. Among the many things she learned, that was all she needed to know. "It appeared he was an amazing person. I really couldn't wait to meet him," she said"

That was what she needed to know!?! She only agreed to meet him after finding out he served a mission and was married in the temple!?! This of course is the only qualification to being, "an amazing person" and worthy of meeting.

On her and her husband's children: "Amy and Brian had counseled together and prayed about what to do, and telling the kids felt right. The children were astonished but accepting of their mother and excited to meet their half brother. They were told he served a mission and was married" How good of her children to forgive and accept their mother for something that happened to her long before they were even thought of. What an example of mormon family forgiveness! Such a wonderful mormon family!

Adoption is a hard and serious decision and I don't mean to make light of this woman's journey, but has she even read her own judgemental and condescending words?

"On meeting her son:"First, Amy googled Bryan and learned all she could about him. Chills ran through her body as she discovered he served an LDS mission and married a beautiful woman in an LDS temple. Among the many things she learned, that was all she needed to know. "It appeared he was an amazing person. I really couldn't wait to meet him," she said""

^ This is shallow in so many ways. If he's your child, you should just give him a mother's love whether or not he's an "amazing person". She could only not wait to meet him after feeling that he was amazing... double thumbs down. >:-p

And who cares if the girl he married was beautiful or ugly? That part kind of irritates me. How is the girl's appearance a value judgement on the worth of the marriage? Why did they add it to his list of LDS accomplishments? Why doesn't it say he married a nice girl, or a smart girl? Is beauty really her most important asset? Because it's the only one they bothered to mention...

"and he married a beautiful girl in the Temple in spite of Brigham Young's statements that Blacks would not get the Priesthood in this lifetime and that the law of God for interracial coupling was 'death on the spot--this will always be so.'"

Lie upon lie,
defect upon defect.

This is outrageous and why the mormon cult should not be left alone to spread its insidious lies.

Uh, while the article is really Mormony and saccharine, I think you guys are reading a lot into it that wasn't intended. Lots of unwed mothers give up babies and no one said the family was ashamed because the baby was bi racial. They welcomed him as an adult after all. The husband being protective of his wife doesn't mean he got to make the final decision.A husband should be protective as should a wife.Lots of people in that situation would try to find out about the child and would be happy that he turned out the way they would like. That doesn't mean they would reject him if headn't served a mission. Like I said, you seem to be reading a lot of stuff into it, IMO



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2011 03:23AM by bona dea.

I think the fact that the race of the baby was brought up at all is VERY VERY VERY telling. Why does it need to be brought up unless it was significant to some one in the story. Of course a husband should try to protect his wife but that does not include having a say on who she meets with.

I was disgusted by the article too.

bingoe4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the fact that the race of the baby was
> brought up at all is VERY VERY VERY telling. Why
> does it need to be brought up unless it was
> significant to some one in the story. Of course
> a husband should try to protect his wife but that
> does not include having a say on who she meets
> with.
>
> I was disgusted by the article too.

Since they named the father who was a locally well known Utah State football player, it was kind of obvious the kid was bi racial. It didn't say the husband had a say in whether she would meet her child. It said he was worried.There is a difference. Methinks you are trying awfully hard to find fault that isn't there.I didn't find the article particularly inspiring and it was sugary sweet and bland in a typical Mormon way, but really? It was hardly deeply offensive.

I often think that people get a little touchy on the board. They look for things that aren't there. I understand where you are coming from but don't think it is happening in this case at all.

Race should not have been mentioned.

If his father was well known, it would be known that the kid was bi-racial and there is even more of a reason not to mention it. They made it an issue. Mormons have a very distinct history of racism (sexism etc.) and so when it's mentioned there is cause for concern. The hand book still suggests that people marry within their race.

Plus, if I want to be disgusted by a member of the church even if it was "un-righteously" why do you care?

The article is disgusting.... but the mother - well, I'd rather give her the benefit of the doubt.


If, like me, you start out assuming that all newspaper journalists, editors, and owners are scum who would sell their grandmothers for a by-line on page 94, then you tend to assume that not every word that is reported was actually spoken.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2011 11:45AM by EssexExMo.

> but has she even read her own judgemental and condescending words?

She's being judgmental?

Pot, Kettle.

Some Young Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > but has she even read her own judgemental and
> condescending words?
>
> She's being judgmental?
>
> Pot, Kettle.

WHatever.

"Not prepared to raise a child on her own, Evans opted for adoption. Turner asked her not to give the baby up, that he and his family could raise the child, but Evans didn't think so. She felt strongly that having the child placed in an LDS home where he could be sealed to a family was the right thing to do. Turner objected but didn't stop the adoption."

Having the child in "an LDS home where he could be sealed" trumps the wishes of the biological parent? The astounding arrogance of that statement makes my blood boil!

No one has mentioned the line "she discovered she was pregnant"--gee, I wonder how that happened; I say it was the Holy Ghost--Brigham Young would not have liked that.

And by the way, it's cool that these people adopted a bunch of kids...

This was only 6 years before Amy got pregnant. There was, and still is with the older generation, a lot of prejudice against blacks. She had a double whammy back in 1984, being pregnant out of wedlock and having a bi-racial child. Adoptions back then were really different than now. (Although I wonder if LDS adoption services are still the same.) Babies were whisked away from their mothers when they were born. not even getting a chance to be held by them. It does bother me that the article treats the birthmother as really a secondary character with the grandfather and her husband in their patriarch roles. Also, I'm sure the article's author took a lot of license with who said what and how. It's MormonTimes after all.