Surrogacy.

[Seminarysnoozer]

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?

What value does the earthly family tree have in the hereafter anyways? Will we not associate with all of our good brothers and sisters of the same kingdom? Outside the obvious, it would be nice to continue with relationships I have had here in this life, why would I necessarily care or why would Jesus care for that matter who his great great grandfather was in this world? Are we not all brothers and sisters?

[Wingnut]

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 church leaders would tell me what I already know: there is no official position on when the spirit enters the body, and that contraception is a decision to be made between myself and my husband and the Lord. They'll tell me that abortion should never be used as elective birth control, but other than that, it's a gray area that the Church doesn't get involved in.

I don't expect that either you or I will ever receive "specific revelation on exactly what point after fertilization the soul enters the developing body."

[Wingnut]

What value does the earthly family tree have in the hereafter anyways? Will we not associate with all of our good brothers and sisters of the same kingdom? Outside the obvious, it would be nice to continue with relationships I have had here in this life, why would I necessarily care or why would Jesus care for that matter who his great great grandfather was in this world? Are we not all brothers and sisters?

Jesus' mortal lineage is important because it was prophesied that he would be born a descendant of Jesse and of David. Narrating the lineage demonstrates fulfillment of the prophesies.

[TheActualLiz]

My church leaders would tell me what I already know: there is no official position on when the spirit enters the body, and that contraception is a decision to be made between myself and my husband and the Lord. They'll tell me that abortion should never be used as elective birth control, but other than that, it's a gray area that the Church doesn't get involved in.

Agreed, and I think it is good for the Church to be careful when it is making official decisions one way or another on the minutia of earthly matters. My husband and I discussed contraception at length, gathered all the data we could, and spoke with professionals about it. The reason I posted all that info is that while the methods of different hormonal contraceptives are similar they are not the same in terms of probability of different outcomes. I also think it is good to talk about this type of stuff openly so we can pool our collective perspectives in an attempt to make the best decisions possible.

The abortion issue is definitely an interesting hornets nest to stir up. I seem to remember hearing that the rule of thumb is rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. Please correct me if I am wrong as I do not have a reference on this.

I also find it interesting that the most compelling argument against abortion that I have heard came from an agnostic professional poker player. First he defined the "life" as being individual at the point where the group of developing cells could no longer be divided to create identical twins since this is the first point at which some sort of independent identity can be given to the growing fetus. This would put even such measures as the morning after pill (standard to give a rape victim at a hospital) within the category of "birth control" rather than "abortion". The second premise was that self defense was the only just reason to take a life therefore an actual abortion would be unethical even in cases of rape. The argument is that just because "A" hurts "B" does not mean that "B" has the right to harm "C". Somewhat along the lines of being assaulted on the way home from work does not give you the right to hit your child. This is clearly a bit extreme but an interesting argument that I have not heard elsewhere in the general debate. The counter argument would be that even though "B" does not have the right to harm "C", "B" cannot be compelled to support and shelter "C" even if the survival of "C" depends on support from "B". To put it another way, it's noble to volunteer but unacceptable to start a draft.

Sorry for the extended tangent, but its an ethical debate that I find interesting.

I don't expect that either you or I will ever receive "specific revelation on exactly what point after fertilization the soul enters the developing body."

True, and I will not be holding my breath waiting for an answer... but that does not mean I am going to stop asking.

[Wingnut]

The abortion issue is definitely an interesting hornets nest to stir up. I seem to remember hearing that the rule of thumb is rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger. Please correct me if I am wrong as I do not have a reference on this.

That's what it's been for years. Recently, however, a 4th condition has been added as well: when the baby is not expected to survive birth.

Source here, click on "Additional Information."

[TheActualLiz]

That fourth condition is an interesting addition. It would be horribly difficult to continue to carry a child that your doctor says will not live long enough to survive birth. I think I will have to meditate on the applications and impact that will have.

Thank you for the source material. It is good to see how this reads out in context. I find this part rather interesting as well:

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

I am sad to say that this part pricks my conscience quite a bit.

Thank you for pointing out something I need to seek higher counsel on.

[MarginOfError]

That fourth condition is an interesting addition. It would be horribly difficult to continue to carry a child that your doctor says will not live long enough to survive birth. I think I will have to meditate on the applications and impact that will have.

Thank you for the source material. It is good to see how this reads out in context. I find this part rather interesting as well:

I am sad to say that this part pricks my conscience quite a bit.

Thank you for pointing out something I need to seek higher counsel on.

Is it too personal to ask what about that statement pricks your conscience?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Jesus' mortal lineage is important because it was prophesied that he would be born a descendant of Jesse and of David. Narrating the lineage demonstrates fulfillment of the prophesies.

Okay ... outside the fact that it fulfills the prophecy, is there any other value?

[TheActualLiz]

I strongly encouraged a woman who was addicted to cocaine and alcohol (and probably other stuff as well) to get an abortion. I put it on a near zero chance she would quit using and the thought of a newborn coming into life with all that pain and withdraw... too much.... my intention was compassion but still.

I have also argued and voted pro choice from a political standpoint. I am curious about that being OK now.... but if we criminalize or require parent's approval (dumbest of the anti abortion laws IMO) then we are effectively drafting the bodies of pre-teen girls to carry children created by rape or incest to term. Since rape is so hard to prove then any legal restrictions would be worthless.

I also have never discouraged or condemned anybody who was considering abortion. I have tried to explain the risks and the possible procedures and encouraged people to get the info for themselves since many knew little more than "it costs 50 bucks and saves your life".

The question of having my own biological children is hard too. When I was younger and much less responsible and deeply caught in sin I made the best choice I could. My choice was to not decide and get the best birth control I could. When asked what I would do if birth control failed I would kinda blank out and shrug.... but one time I said I would go through with an abortion if necessary and I felt like I had just committed murder. If that is how bad I felt after just considering it as a remote possibility then I cannot imagine how hard this is for women who have had abortions.

I am still on the fence about having biological children. I want to have a baby with my husband so badly but I know I have a birth defect that the child would likely inherit. It would also be a high risk pregnancy since the medication I have to take is addictive and dangerous but going off it for 9 months is also dangerous and could put my life at risk. I think I could survive it... I hope I will have a chance to find out and will be able to survive it... but still.

I'm sorry... this is about as far as I can go on the topic.... at least in public.

[MarginOfError]

wow. I really got what I asked for.

I strongly encouraged a woman who was addicted to cocaine and alcohol (and probably other stuff as well) to get an abortion. I put it on a near zero chance she would quit using and the thought of a newborn coming into life with all that pain and withdraw... too much.... my intention was compassion but still.

I'd talk this over with your bishop. I know that's a little freaky, but the fact that your conscience has been pricked (ie, you feel some guilt now that you understand the Church's position) may give you some leniency. And he will be the one that can tell you where you stand with the Lord over this issue if you have any doubt.

While I have to say that I believe what you did was wrong. I understand why you did it, and I pass no judgment against you for doing it. I'll be honest--I can recognize times where abortion might be preferable too. But the Lord simply hasn't left that in our hands.

I have also argued and voted pro choice from a political standpoint. I am curious about that being OK now.... but if we criminalize or require parent's approval (dumbest of the anti abortion laws IMO) then we are effectively drafting the bodies of pre-teen girls to carry children created by rape or incest to term. Since rape is so hard to prove then any legal restrictions would be worthless.

While I adamantly oppose abortion for any individual (with reasonable exceptions), I am adamantly pro-choice politically. I'd rather persuade individuals to not have abortions than to categorically say they can't. I feel no guilt over my position, although it is often misunderstood by others.

I also have never discouraged or condemned anybody who was considering abortion. I have tried to explain the risks and the possible procedures and encouraged people to get the info for themselves since many knew little more than "it costs 50 bucks and saves your life".

I would discourage most people, but I would also stand by them when they made their decision. I'm convinced that the majority of people who have an abortion have an enormous amount cognitive and moral stress. It's a very conflicting decision for most, and the last thing they need is any sort of condemnation. I feel it is important that they understand my objection (if I'm in a position to voice it) but understand I will do everything I can to encourage them toward self-improvement regardless of what they do.

The question of having my own biological children is hard too. When I was younger and much less responsible and deeply caught in sin I made the best choice I could. My choice was to not decide and get the best birth control I could. When asked what I would do if birth control failed I would kinda blank out and shrug.... but one time I said I would go through with an abortion if necessary and I felt like I had just committed murder. If that is how bad I felt after just considering it as a remote possibility then I cannot imagine how hard this is for women who have had abortions.

I am still on the fence about having biological children. I want to have a baby with my husband so badly but I know I have a birth defect that the child would likely inherit. It would also be a high risk pregnancy since the medication I have to take is addictive and dangerous but going off it for 9 months is also dangerous and could put my life at risk. I think I could survive it... I hope I will have a chance to find out and will be able to survive it... but still.

I'm sorry... this is about as far as I can go on the topic.... at least in public.

I can't relate to what you're feeling, but I do feel a bit of emotion (I'm not sure what the right word for it is). I'm sorry you have these trials. If comforting words existed, I'd offer them. Instead, I'll just offer a hug and my best wishes for finding answer you seek when you need them.

(wow, that was a really lame response)

[Traveler]

I have not read all the posts on this thread but there are some things that seem to be missing in what I have read. First I would like to point out that abortion among the covenant children of G-d is not uncommon. There are times when “nature” will abort a developing child. Very few of us do not know someone that has lost a child during pregnancy or during birth. There is no reason to assume some sin of the parents because of a “miscarriage” or “still birth”. There are also times, such as the endangering of the life of the mother when abortion becomes an important and viable option. Under such consideration it is up to the parents to make a prayerful decision with some input – perhaps from their doctor and priesthood leaders.

There is one other dimension that seems to be lacking and that is complete and full forgiveness for those that have chosen incorrectly during their mortal probation. If anyone is to be held to account for misdeeds that is for the L-rd to decide – for the rest of us it is our obligation and covenant to remove from our hearts any condemnation of others or wish for their condemnation. Even if others have not repented we can display our love and concern in encouraging repentance in a manner that is not accusatory. You all know the drill – the old; “you will burn in hell for that” attitude.

The Traveler

[Justice]

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.

This is a big assumption. This is the idea that is leading you down the wrong path.

The physical properties of the fruit had nothing to do with Adam and Eve falling to a motral state. All men fall because of disobedience, not because of what they eat.

The Savior said that what comes out of a man's mouth is what defiles him, not what goes in. What we say and do is what makes us live or die in God's eyes.

If it was the properties of the fruit that made them fall then God could have accomplished it without the need for Adam to choose it. Also, if that were the case, that meant that all living things would have needed to partake of the fruit because all life fell.

I think you should consider that it was the choice they made that caused them to fall. Choosing to separate themselves from the Giver of Life is what caused them to die.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Justice

[mikbone]

This is a big assumption. This is the idea that is leading you down the wrong path.

You been on vacation Justice? Haven't seen you post in a few days.

My belief that the Tree of KoG&E can change immortal bodies to mortals is really insignificant in the whole scheme of things.

Yeah, Ive been running down that path for quite some time now.

The physical properties of the fruit had nothing to do with Adam and Eve falling to a motral state. All men fall because of disobedience, not because of what they eat.

I disagree. I'm not even sure the Fall was a sin. Adam and Eve were forbidden to partake of the Tree of KoG&E but you and I both know that is was a necessary step for our progression. I'm sure everyone in the pre-mortal existence cheered with joy when Adam and Eve Fell. Job 38:7

The Savior said that what comes out of a man's mouth is what defiles him, not what goes in. What we say and do is what makes us live or die in God's eyes.

Yeah this is the best argument for it being ok to drink alcohol and smoke dope. I don't see it applying to the fall though...

If it was the properties of the fruit that made them fall then God could have accomplished it without the need for Adam to choose it. Also, if that were the case, that meant that all living things would have needed to partake of the fruit because all life fell.

I disagree. Adam had to make a conscious decision and then act on that decision in order to enter into mortality against God's recommendation. That way no one could complain that it was unfair that we had to come to Earth and be tested. Cleon Skousen gives an excellent explantation of this in his book The First 2,000 years. Yes it could have been any other item (Blue Pill or Red Pill as in the Matrix movie) that was used as the physical representation of Adam's choice of free will. But I'll stick with the scriptures. Yes Adam and Eve could have changed from immortals to mortals via another miracle and the Fruit of the ToKoG&E could have just been a symbolic representation. I choose to believe that the Tree does have an active ingredient that causes a physical change to immortal bodies. I also believe that the Tree of Life exists. You don't have to though. My beliefs do not require that you believe them. The scriptures also clearly state that Adam was changed because He partook of the Fruit and that the animals and the rest of the Garden were changed or cursed for Adam's sake.

Curiously in Moses 4:9 Eve tells the serpent that not only can they not eat of the fruit, but that they are not even to touch it, "lest ye die". There is a current medication called Finasteride (trade name of Propecia) that so toxic to the developing fetus that women are not only warned not to take the medication but the insert goes as far to state that women shouldn't even handle broken or crushed tablets.

Perhaps my medical background has colored my perception, but to me the fruit is a drug.

I think you should consider that it was the choice they made that caused them to fall. Choosing to separate themselves from the Giver of Life is what caused them to die.

Choice is a decision. God made it clear that He wanted Adam to fall by an action. You may think that Adam's Fall is what causes death. I believe that the Fall is what allows Eternal Life.

Guess I'm a glass is half full kinda of a guy...

Edited October 16, 2010 by mikbone

[TheActualLiz]

There is one other dimension that seems to be lacking and that is complete and full forgiveness for those that have chosen incorrectly during their mortal probation. If anyone is to be held to account for misdeeds that is for the L-rd to decide – for the rest of us it is our obligation and covenant to remove from our hearts any condemnation of others or wish for their condemnation. Even if others have not repented we can display our love and concern in encouraging repentance in a manner that is not accusatory. You all know the drill – the old; “you will burn in hell for that” attitude.

The Traveler

Could not agree more! I think this is at least a big part of the foundation for developing a life that reminds others of Christ (my definition of Christian). Each of us and the world as a whole becomes much better every time this precept is applied. Thank you for the reminder of it's importance.

[Just_A_Guy]

Joining this discussion late, but . . .

The physical properties of the fruit had nothing to do with Adam and Eve falling to a motral state. All men fall because of disobedience, not because of what they eat.

I can see them falling spiritually because of disobedience, but physically--there are substances that, through a series of physical reactions, can cause me to feel pain, not to feel pain, sleep, stay awake, not get pregnant, make me more likely to get pregnant, feel happy, feel sad, switch different components of my autoimmune system on or off, and change me from a state of legal sanity to a state of legal insanity (or vice versa).

Is it so hard to believe that God might create a fruit that could wreak an even more palpable physical change? (Maybe there are scriptures that shoot me down--if so, will enjoy seeing them; and apologies if you've already presented them. I'm just reacting initially to the first post I read.) And, in this age where mankind has created bombs with sufficient force to end life as we know it on this earth--is it that hard to believe that God might set up some kind of means that might allow Adam to, through a single simple action, effect an almost-as-dramatic change over all life as he knew it?

[TheActualLiz]

Joining this discussion late, but . . .

I can see them falling spiritually because of disobedience, but physically--there are substances that, through a series of physical reactions, can cause me to feel pain, not to feel pain, sleep, stay awake, not get pregnant, make me more likely to get pregnant, feel happy, feel sad, switch different components of my autoimmune system on or off, and change me from a state of legal sanity to a state of legal insanity (or vice versa).

Is it so hard to believe that God might create a fruit that could wreak an even more palpable physical change? (Maybe there are scriptures that shoot me down--if so, will enjoy seeing them; and apologies if you've already presented them. I'm just reacting initially to the first post I read.) And, in this age where mankind has created bombs with sufficient force to end life as we know it on this earth--is it that hard to believe that God might set up some kind of means that might allow Adam to, through a single simple action, effect an almost-as-dramatic change over all life as he knew it?

Interesting argument! I don't know why, but this reminds me of a comparison of Buddhist and Janeist (sp?) differences in Karma and the law of causality. From the Jane perspective karmic actions cause very refined particles of... what I will call "spiritual matter" to stick to the soul (physically) and change it so that that soul is more closely bound to the temporal realms. The Buddhist counter argument would be that a karmic action and its repercussions are more like the laws of physics... for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction... but physical particles of spiritual matter are not involved and the makeup of the soul is less clear and less permanent. If I am wrong about these perspectives I would welcome correction as I am relying on "Toward a True Kinship of Faith" by the Dali Lama as my only source material here.

Then again there is the counter argument that while these types of things are excellent "mind candy" they should not be confused with the "spiritual food" that is necessary for our spiritual growth.

Heavenly Father has methods and plans that are so far over my head it's ridiculous. I am a huge fan of asking the details of who, what, when, and why... but I seem to mostly get "just trust Me" as a response most of the time. For some reason that advice always ends up working out.

That being said I am still going to keep asking for all the details until either I know everything or Heavenly Father tells me to quit.

[Just_A_Guy]

Another reason to read those surrogacy contracts . . .

[Intrigued]

Thank you for the source material. It is good to see how this reads out in context. I find this part rather interesting as well:

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

I just hope the Church isn't punishing members for refusing to vote against the right to choose.

On topic.. surrogacy is a fantastic thing if one is mentally equipped to deal with the stress that comes along with it. I'm around quite a bit of IVF and the like.. and it changes lives for the better. To deny this to joy to LDS members who want it seems cruel.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Intrigued

[MarginOfError]

I just hope the Church isn't punishing members for refusing to vote against the right to choose.

On topic.. surrogacy is a fantastic thing if one is mentally equipped to deal with the stress that comes along with it. I'm around quite a bit of IVF and the like.. and it changes lives for the better. To deny this to joy to LDS members who want it seems cruel.

Well, IVF and surrogacy are two different animals, although not mutually exclusive. Surrogacy is discouraged by the church, and, as JAG has pointed out, is full of legal pitfalls.

The Church only discourages IVF or other means of assisted reproductive technology when the sperm and the egg do not come from the husband and wife.

[Intrigued]

Well, IVF and surrogacy are two different animals, although not mutually exclusive. Surrogacy is discouraged by the church, and, as JAG has pointed out, is full of legal pitfalls.

The Church only discourages IVF or other means of assisted reproductive technology when the sperm and the egg do not come from the husband and wife.

They are two different animals but are largely intertwined. On the topic of the sperm and egg not coming from the husband and wife.. does the church have the same stance when it comes to adoption? I've never really looked.

[MarginOfError]

They are two different animals but are largely intertwined. On the topic of the sperm and egg not coming from the husband and wife.. does the church have the same stance when it comes to adoption? I've never really looked.

I'm afraid I don't really understand the question. Are you asking if the Church opposes adoption of babies born from artificial reproductive technology where the sperm and egg are not from a husband and wife?