Surrogacy.

[JThimm88]

I'm wondering what the Church's position is on surrogacy? From what I understand, it's frowned upon for a female of the Church to be a surrogate mother, but I'm rather wondering what the stance is on LDS couples who can't have children of their own using a surrogate mother to carry their child?

[mikbone]

I personally believe that the Virgin Mary was a surrogate mother...

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

I'm unsure if there is an official stance on the matter.

[JThimm88]

Oh, wow. I suppose I'd never thought of it that way.

[captmoroniRM]

Not sure. I'd ask your Bishop on that. There might be something in the Handbook of Instruction regarding it. That book seriously has everything.

[JThimm88]

True. Though for me it's most just a curiosity thing (my husband and I are currently expecting our own kiddo), I just wondered and perhaps there are others out there who wonder about this subject as well for one reason or another (and I didn't find too much about it here already in previous threads).

[Dravin]

Based on past threads on the subject my understanding is that the Church discourages surrogacy as a matter of policy. We'll have to wait for MoE to finish reading the newest version of the Handbook to give us the official most up to date scoop on the Church's policy.

One past thread on the subject and the source of my current understanding: http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/10687-surrogate-mothers.html

[MarginOfError]

I personally believe that the Virgin Mary was a surrogate mother...

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

I'm unsure if there is an official stance on the matter.

Not quite. Mary was the literal and biological mother of Jesus. Being His biological mother would, by definition, disqualify her from surrogacy (the carrying of a child that is not the biological descendant of the host).

[Blackmarch]

I'm wondering what the Church's position is on surrogacy? From what I understand, it's frowned upon for a female of the Church to be a surrogate mother, but I'm rather wondering what the stance is on LDS couples who can't have children of their own using a surrogate mother to carry their child?

Good question. Don't know... would like to know myself, so bumpage here.

For MOE: Hurry up

[MarginOfError]

Good question. Don't know... would like to know myself, so bumpage here.

For MOE: Hurry up

Well, the 2006 edition states that surrogacy is strongly discouraged. That's pretty much all it says on the matter. I can't comment on what the 2010 edition will or won't say.

[mikbone]

Not quite. Mary was the literal and biological mother of Jesus. Being His biological mother would, by definition, disqualify her from surrogacy (the carrying of a child that is not the biological descendant of the host).

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I happen to believe that He is also the Son of Heavenly Mother. I think that the Virgin Mary is a gestational surrogate.

To whom do you suppose Jesus Christ is Sealed to? To the paternal Elohim and to the Virgin Mary? I doubt it.

The above scripture states that the Virgin is a vessel (to me clearly stating that she is a surrogate). The scripture also states that the Child was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. This does not mean that the Holy Ghost donated sperm and is the Father of Christ. No, absolutely not! It means that the Holy Ghost delivered the seed that was to become Jesus Christ into the womb of the Virgin.

You may believe that the sperm of the male counterpart of Elohim and the egg of the mortal virgin mary combined to create the seed that was to become Jesus. But I don't. I think that the seed that was to become Jesus Christ was from Heavenly Parentage (Elohim in the plural).

Jesus did inherit mortality from Mary though. Without her assistance Christ would not have been born.

I find it interesting that Christ's genology is recorded twice in scripture, Matthew 1:1-17 & Luke 3:23-38. Matthew recorded Joseph's lineage, while Luke gave the family tree of Mary. I believe that both of those lineages are adoptive.

His real family tree is much more impressive in my opinion.

But back to the question of surrogacy...

If an endowed and Temple Married couple were to use a gestational surrogate to produce their genetic offspring, would that child be sealed under the covenant or would he have to be sealed in the temple under a seperate ceremony?

Edited October 14, 2010 by mikbone

[Just_A_Guy]

I would add that, from a legal standpoint, there are about a million and one things that can go wrong with a surrogacy agreement.

It may work out splendidly for any given couple. But when things go wrong, they go horribly--horribly--wrong.

[MarginOfError]

Alma 7:10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I happen to believe that He is also the Son of Heavenly Mother. I think that the Virgin Mary is a gestational surrogate.

To whom do you suppose Jesus Christ is Sealed to? To the paternal Elohim and to the Virgin Mary? I doubt it.

The above scripture states that the Virgin is a vessel (to me clearly stating that she is a surrogate). The scripture also states that the Child was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. This does not mean that the Holy Ghost donated sperm and is the Father of Christ. No, absolutely not! It means that the Holy Ghost delivered the seed that was to become Jesus Christ into the womb of the Virgin.

You may believe that the sperm of the male counterpart of Elohim and the egg of the mortal virgin mary combined to create the seed that was to become Jesus. But I don't. I think that the seed that was to become Jesus Christ was from Heavenly Parentage (Elohim in the plural).

Jesus did inherit mortality from Mary though. Without her assistance Christ would not have been born.

I find it interesting that Christ's genology is recorded twice in scripture, Matthew 1:1-17 & Luke 3:23-38. Matthew recorded Joseph's lineage, while Luke gave the family tree of Mary. I believe that both of those lineages are adoptive.

His real family tree is much more impressive in my opinion.

Robert J. Matthews would disagree

It is fundamental to know that Mary is the earthly mother of Jesus...

The significance of this mortal birth was more critical than we often realize. It was not an experimental thing, nor an event that was optional in the plan of salvation. The coming of a part-divine part-mortal Jesus into the world, Son of Mary and Only Begotten of the Father, was an absolute necessity. The human family could be saved in no other way....

There is another factor inherent in the selection of the Lord’s mortal parentage. He was to be born of the family of David, and be the heir to the throne of David. Hence he would literally be the king of the Jews by their own law. [which wouldn't have been possible if he weren't a literal descendant of David]

Also, when I child is carried by a surrogate mother, he or she inherits the genetic traits of the biological parents, not of the surrogate. We are frequently taught that Christ had to be born of a mortal in order to inherit immortality. If such is true, the surrogacy you suggest would have produced immortal offspring carried by a mortal being.

Also, Heavenly Father using a surrogate mother would have been contrary to the policies of His Son's Church

But back to the question of surrogacy...

If an endowed and Temple Married couple were to use a gestational surrogate to produce their genetic offspring, would that child be sealed under the covenant or would he have to be sealed in the temple under a seperate ceremony?

Questions of sealing of a child born of a surrogate mother are referred to the First Presidency.

[TheActualLiz]

I guess I need to add this to the ever growing list of things I do not understand.

I could possibly see putting some sort of "warning this situation may be more complicated than you anticipate" label on it but "strongly discouraged" seems a little harsh. I guess the motivation would be the distinguishing factor between these two responses? If done for reasons of compassion then good, if done for reason of money then bad? That would make sense. I guess "let your conscience be your guide" would be a good answer to surrogacy.

The spin off topics mentioned in the linked thread also leave me with lots of stuff to investigate and pray about.... but maybe you guys can help me a little on these....

1. IV fertilization and all those unused eggs good or bad?

2. Birth control and the potential for a fertilized egg to be lost... umm.... I had actually considered this one for a while and learned that Depo prevents the eggs from ever being released so there would be lower risk of an accidental fertilization. There are some downsides like dramatically increased risk of osteoporosis but at least then I am only harming me.

3. The whole "who gets sealed to who" question.... umm.... yeah.... God made this plan, God has the answers, God knows more than me.

4. Egg and sperm donation and use... I don't see how this can possibly be wrong... but that does not necessarily make it right. Still.... I don't get it... if Heavenly Father can direct which souls are born inside or outside the covenant then can't he also make any necessary adjustments to that soul's destination regardless of who's DNA is used?

This whole thing is so complicated I feel like my head is going to explode.

[JThimm88]

Well, the 2006 edition states that surrogacy is strongly discouraged. That's pretty much all it says on the matter. I can't comment on what the 2010 edition will or won't say.

But you'll be able to after Nov. 14th, right?

[MarginOfError]

I guess I need to add this to the ever growing list of things I do not understand.

I could possibly see putting some sort of "warning this situation may be more complicated than you anticipate" label on it but "strongly discouraged" seems a little harsh. I guess the motivation would be the distinguishing factor between these two responses? If done for reasons of compassion then good, if done for reason of money then bad? That would make sense. I guess "let your conscience be your guide" would be a good answer to surrogacy.

The spin off topics mentioned in the linked thread also leave me with lots of stuff to investigate and pray about.... but maybe you guys can help me a little on these....

1. IV fertilization and all those unused eggs good or bad?

The Church has no position

2. Birth control and the potential for a fertilized egg to be lost... umm.... I had actually considered this one for a while and learned that Depo prevents the eggs from ever being released so there would be lower risk of an accidental fertilization. There are some downsides like dramatically increased risk of osteoporosis but at least then I am only harming me.

This is to be determined by each individual couple. They may seek guidance from priesthood leaders, but he should not make decisions for them.

3. The whole "who gets sealed to who" question.... umm.... yeah.... God made this plan, God has the answers, God knows more than me.

4. Egg and sperm donation and use... I don't see how this can possibly be wrong... but that does not necessarily make it right. Still.... I don't get it... if Heavenly Father can direct which souls are born inside or outside the covenant then can't he also make any necessary adjustments to that soul's destination regardless of who's DNA is used?

This whole thing is so complicated I feel like my head is going to explode.

This is where, I'm assuming, the Church finds reason to discourage. Suppose a man and a woman are sealed and want to have a child. Unfortunately, the man is impotent, and so conception is near impossible. If they obtain donor sperm, the child is biologically the child of the donor and the mother. The sealing status of this child is now up in the air. Is the child born in the covenant, or does he or she need to be sealed to the recognized parents? Not such an easy question.

In short, the Church discourages practices that are doctrinally unclear and legally perilous. The position on these issues may change over time as we learn more about and become more comfortable with them (for instance, birth control). But these issues haven't been around long enough for us to reach good questions and answers to take to the Lord for approval.

[Tarnished]

From my research on the matter, which I did before my husband and I went through artificial insemination and in vetro to get pregnant, I found that the church strongly discourages use of a surrogate mother and strongly discourages being a surrogate mother. They also strongly discourage use of donor eggs or donor sperm. They are ok with artificial insemination as long as the egg and sperm are from the married couple, they are also ok with in vetro as long as the egg and sperm are from the married couple. They currently have no standing on use, destruction, or donation of remaining embryos, except when it comes to donation of embryos to another couple, donation to science though I don't think they currently have a stance on. Because of their standing on use of donor eggs and sperm I would guess that they would advise on destruction of remaining frozen sperm and eggs.

[mikbone]

Also, when I child is carried by a surrogate mother, he or she inherits the genetic traits of the biological parents, not of the surrogate. We are frequently taught that Christ had to be born of a mortal in order to inherit immortality. If such is true, the surrogacy you suggest would have produced immortal offspring carried by a mortal being.

Not necessairly. I've thought this through a time or two believe me...

Let us assume that two celestial beings for some reason wish to have a mortal offspring. This could be accomplished a number of ways.

If this celestial couple were to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they would then change their bodies from immortal into mortal. In this mortal state of flesh and blood, they could produce a mortal embryo the normal manner and then harvest the seed. After the seed is harvested they could then partake of the tree of life and be re-transformed into celestial bodies of flesh and bone. Then the Holy Ghost could transport the mortal seed anywhere he desired... But the mortal seed would most easily be nutrured within a chosen vessel such as the virgin mary.

This scenario would produce a mortal who is the Son of God. This child would be 100% mortal, with a perfect genetic makeup. His spirit, knowledge, honor and obedience would be the factors that gives him Godliness though. Not his mortal tabernacle.

The above scenario makes much more sense to me than the alternative of a celestial sperm combining with a mortal egg.

[MarginOfError]

Not necessairly. I've thought this through a time or two believe me...

Let us assume that two celestial beings for some reason wish to have a mortal offspring. This could be accomplished a number of ways.

If this celestial couple were to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they would then change their bodies from immortal into mortal. In this mortal state of flesh and blood, they could produce a mortal embryo the normal manner and then harvest the seed. After the seed is harvested they could then partake of the tree of life and be re-transformed into celestial bodies of flesh and bone. Then the Holy Ghost could transport the mortal seed anywhere he desired... But the mortal seed would most easily be nutrured within a chosen vessel such as the virgin mary.

This scenario would produce a mortal who is the Son of God. This child would be 100% mortal, with a perfect genetic makeup. His spirit, knowledge, honor and obedience would be the factors that gives him Godliness though. Not his mortal tabernacle.

The above scenario makes much more sense to me than the alternative of a celestial sperm combining with a mortal egg.

Well, if Matthews doesn't do it for you, how about Robert D. Hales?

"Jesus Christ is the Redeemer, our Savior; only he with a mortal mother and an immortal Father could fulfill the Atonement and die to save all mankind. He did so of his own free will and choice " (Robert D. Hales)

Robert D. Hales isn't enough? How about the Church Correlation Department?

"Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father. That is why He is called the Only Begotten Son. He inherited divine powers from His Father. From His mother He inherited mortality and was subject to hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, and death. No one could take the Savior’s life from Him unless He willed it. He had power to lay it down and power to take up His body again after dying." Gospel Principles, ch. 11.

[mikbone]

Well, if Matthews doesn't do it for you, how about Robert D. Hales?

"Jesus Christ is the Redeemer, our Savior; only he with a mortal mother and an immortal Father could fulfill the Atonement and die to save all mankind. He did so of his own free will and choice " (Robert D. Hales)

Robert D. Hales isn't enough? How about the Church Correlation Department?

"Jesus is the only person on earth to be born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father. That is why He is called the Only Begotten Son. He inherited divine powers from His Father. From His mother He inherited mortality and was subject to hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain, and death. No one could take the Savior’s life from Him unless He willed it. He had power to lay it down and power to take up His body again after dying." Gospel Principles, ch. 11.

The scenario I described is compatible with the above statements.

The title 'Only Begotten Son' has much more meaning than what the above quote suggests though...

Moses 2:26 And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so. And I, God, said: Let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Jehovah was the Only Begotten from the beginning. You can argue that the tittle refers to Jehovah's future state, but I think that it suggests much more.

[Wingnut]

2. Birth control and the potential for a fertilized egg to be lost... umm.... I had actually considered this one for a while and learned that Depo prevents the eggs from ever being released so there would be lower risk of an accidental fertilization. There are some downsides like dramatically increased risk of osteoporosis but at least then I am only harming me.

How much do you know about birth control? Most modern hormonal contraceptives work the same way -- the Pill, Depo, and IUD, etc. all suppress ovulation.

Not necessairly. I've thought this through a time or two believe me...

Let us assume that two celestial beings for some reason wish to have a mortal offspring. This could be accomplished a number of ways.

If this celestial couple were to partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they would then change their bodies from immortal into mortal. In this mortal state of flesh and blood, they could produce a mortal embryo the normal manner and then harvest the seed. After the seed is harvested they could then partake of the tree of life and be re-transformed into celestial bodies of flesh and bone. Then the Holy Ghost could transport the mortal seed anywhere he desired... But the mortal seed would most easily be nutrured within a chosen vessel such as the virgin mary.

This scenario would produce a mortal who is the Son of God. This child would be 100% mortal, with a perfect genetic makeup. His spirit, knowledge, honor and obedience would be the factors that gives him Godliness though. Not his mortal tabernacle.

The above scenario makes much more sense to me than the alternative of a celestial sperm combining with a mortal egg.

Oh man, where's the laugh button? Seriously, if you want to believe all this, that's fine. I'm just glad that you're qualifying each of your statements as being your own opinion and nothing more, seeing as how, you know, it's actual doctrine that Mary is Christ's literal mother.

[TheActualLiz]

In short, the Church discourages practices that are doctrinally unclear and legally perilous. The position on these issues may change over time as we learn more about and become more comfortable with them (for instance, birth control). But these issues haven't been around long enough for us to reach good questions and answers to take to the Lord for approval.

Thanks! This actually makes a lot of sense to me and enplanes a few things. I guess I did not understand what was meant by "strongly discouraged" by the church. :)

[TheActualLiz]

How much do you know about birth control? Most modern hormonal contraceptives work the same way -- the Pill, Depo, and IUD, etc. all suppress ovulation.

I do not know nearly as much as I would like to.

All I have to go by is the internet, the pharmacy's explanation, my doctors, and the customer service reps from the manufacturers. That's still light years away from even the minimum knowledge required to get a decent score on the MCAT... much less have an accurate and detailed understanding of all the biological and chemical possibilities and the %chance of each outcome.

Depo: (between 3% and 0.3% chance of failure)

The mechanism of action of progestogen-only contraceptives depends on the progestogen activity and dose. High-dose progestogen-only contraceptives, such as injectable DMPA, inhibit follicular development and prevent ovulation as their primary mechanism of action.[2][3] The progestogen decreases the pulse frequency of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) release by the hypothalamus, which decreases the release of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) by the anterior pituitary. Decreased levels of FSH inhibit follicular development, preventing an increase in estradiol levels. Progestogen negative feedback and the lack of estrogen positive feedback on LH release prevent a LH surge. Inhibition of follicular development and the absence of a LH surge prevent ovulation.[4][5]

A secondary mechanism of action of all progestogen-containing contraceptives is inhibition of sperm penetration by changes in the cervical mucus.[6]

Inhibition of ovarian function during DMPA use causes the endometrium to become thin and atrophic. These changes in the endometrium could, theoretically, prevent implantation. However, because DMPA is highly effective in inhibiting ovulation and sperm penetration, the possibility of fertilization is negligible. No available data support prevention of implantation as a mechanism of action of DMPA.[6]

IUD: (about 0.2% chance of failure)

The Mirena is intended to initially release a daily dose of 20 micrograms levonorgestrel (a progestin). No single mechanism accounts for the effectiveness of the IUS in preventing pregnancy; it has several effects on the reproductive system:

* Frequency of ovulation is reduced.[8]

* Cervical mucus is changed to obstruct passage of sperm through the cervix.[9]

* The presence of a foreign body in the uterus prompts the release of leukocytes and prostaglandins by the endometrium, substances that are hostile to both sperm and eggs.[10] Some physicians believe these substances are also hostile to very early embryos.[11]

* The endometrium is thinned.[9]

* The embryo is destroyed through a postfertilization effect: "with the progestin IUDs it may result more from inhibition of transport through the Fallopian tube, along with prevention of implantation, preventing long-term viability of the embryo."[12] Thus, the IUS has been called an abortifacient.

The Pill: (between 8% and 0.3% chance of failure)

Combined oral contraceptive pills were developed to prevent ovulation by suppressing the release of gonadotropins. Combined hormonal contraceptives, including COCPs, inhibit follicular development and prevent ovulation as their primary mechanism of action.[5][23][62][63][64]

Progestagen negative feedback decreases the pulse frequency of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) release by the hypothalamus, which decreases the release of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and greatly decreases the release of luteinizing hormone (LH) by the anterior pituitary. Decreased levels of FSH inhibit follicular development, preventing an increase in estradiol levels. Progestagen negative feedback and the lack of estrogen positive feedback on LH release prevent a mid-cycle LH surge. Inhibition of follicular development and the absence of a LH surge prevent ovulation.[5][23][62]

Estrogen was originally included in oral contraceptives for better cycle control (to stabilize the endometrium and thereby reduce the incidence of breakthrough bleeding), but was also found to inhibit follicular development and help prevent ovulation. Estrogen negative feedback on the anterior pituitary greatly decreases the release of FSH, which inhibits follicular development and helps prevent ovulation.[5][23][62]

A secondary mechanism of action of all progestagen-containing contraceptives is inhibition of sperm penetration through the cervix into the upper genital tract (uterus and fallopian tubes) by decreasing the amount of and increasing the viscosity of the cervical mucus.[64]

Other possible secondary mechanisms have been hypothesized. One example is endometrial effects that prevent implantation of an embryo in the uterus. Some pro-life groups consider such a mechanism to be abortifacient, and the existence of postfertilization mechanisms is a controversial topic. Some scientists point out that the possibility of fertilization during COCP use is very small. From this, they conclude that endometrial changes are unlikely to play an important role, if any, in the observed effectiveness of COCPs.[64] Others make more complex arguments against the existence of these mechanisms,[65] while yet other scientists argue the existing data supports such mechanisms.[66] The controversy is currently unresolved

Any remaining ethical or health concerns could be even further reduced by using these as a backup to a traditional latex condom which has between a 2% and 15% chance of failure. For example if you were using the pill and condoms and you counted in the chance of human error (which is the difference in the failure rates given) then you would have to hit a 15% and and 8% at the same time... so 0.15*0.08=0.012... you would wind up with a 1.2% chance of having to make a difficult decision.

This can be a very big deal if you are taking a medicine that is extremely likely to cause serious irreversible harm to a developing fetus or is pregnancy is unusually physically dangerous for you.

Then again I am not a doctor or a pharmacist so I cannot be completely sure, you might want to check with them.

I am also not Heavenly Father and I have not received specific revelation on exactly what point after fertilization the soul enters the developing body so you might want to check with your church leaders and pray about it.

**My source on this was a quick look at wikipedia to refresh my memory but I am pretty sure last time I got paranoid and double checked the data it was at least very close to accurate**

Comparison of birth control methods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[confuzzled]

Sarrogacy is strongly discouraged, as well as using donor eggs and donor sperm. The church doesn't go into much detail other then that.

A good source of information is 2ofus4now (Two of Us For Now) - LDS Infertility, Adoption and Pregnancy Loss Support Network

[MarginOfError]

The scenario I described is compatible with the above statements.

The title 'Only Begotten Son' has much more meaning than what the above quote suggests though...

Moses 2:26 And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so. And I, God, said: Let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Jehovah was the Only Begotten from the beginning. You can argue that the tittle refers to Jehovah's future state, but I think that it suggests much more.

Your scenario actually is not compatible with the teaching "From His mother He inherited mortality." Recall, your scenario posited that Christ was conceived through copulation between a mortal Heavenly Father and a mortal Heavenly Mother. Hence, you are claiming that Christ inherited mortality from those two and was merely carried to term by Mary.

But I'm afraid that it's quite clear in LDS doctrine, that mortality was inherited from Mary. Any objective comparison of your scenario to established LDS teachings would conclude that Mary was more than a surrogate.

[Tarnished]

Most modern hormonal contraceptives work the same way -- the Pill, Depo, and IUD, etc. all suppress ovulation.

This is very true, when I was going through In Vetro Fertilization they put me on the pill at the beginning so that I would not ovulate. I did not take the menstration pills because they did not want me to ovulate until they told me to. After I got off the pill they had me take other drugs to cause me to ovulate and ovulate with increased production of eggs. I found it very interesting how the medical society uses different drugs to get the results they want out of the human body.