Surrogate Mothers

[ruthiechan]

Sister, anything that is spoken by the Holy Spirit is scripture. Yes, you can use your free agency but again, choose wisely.

Your friend

I disagree.

If the Bishop is directed by the Spirit to say to one whose house is foreclosing "Go find a two bedroom apartment, and have the married couple living with you find a job and move out" that is not scripture, but direction because it only applies to that one person's situation.

Scripture applies to EVERYONE.

[KateBateBoBate]

I agree. Not everything prompted by the holy spirit is "scripture". But we are told that anything spoken by the Brethren from the pulpit is scripture and not everyone knows that, which is why I mentioned it, Hemidakota. Scripture is for everyone.

[NeuroTypical]

conference talks ARE scripture. Okay, not canon, but they are considered the most recent scripture we have. Learned that in Institute Class on The Living Prophets.

I wonder how your institute teacher reacted when Pres. Hinckley said this in a General Conference talk in November 1998:

Now, brethren, I want to make it very clear that I am not prophesying, that I am not predicting years of famine in the future. But I am suggesting that...

Or when he talked about the April '07 General Conference like this:

What has been said by each of the speakers represents his or her prayerful attempt to impart knowledge ...

Or when he characterized the October '07 Conference talks like this:

They are the products of much prayer and meditation and are well worthy of careful consideration.

How can someone who claims to not be prophecying be speaking scripture? Surely scripture is something more than "a prayerful attempt to impart knowledge".

I'm of the opinion that no, not all conference talks are scripture.

LM

[Hemidakota]

I disagree.

If the Bishop is directed by the Spirit to say to one whose house is foreclosing "Go find a two bedroom apartment, and have the married couple living with you find a job and move out" that is not scripture, but direction because it only applies to that one person's situation.

Scripture applies to EVERYONE.

So what would a conference talk constitutes?

[KateBateBoBate]

I wonder how your institute teacher reacted when Pres. Hinckley said this in a General Conference talk in November 1998:

Or when he talked about the April '07 General Conference like this:

Or when he characterized the October '07 Conference talks like this:

How can someone who claims to not be prophecying be speaking scripture? Surely scripture is something more than "a prayerful attempt to impart knowledge".

I'm of the opinion that no, not all conference talks are scripture.

LM

Not all scripture is a prophesy!

And it wasn't the TEACHER who said this, it was the church produced institute material. That anything spoken from the pulpit by the the brethren is scripture. Not stories about when they were kids, OBVIOUSLY. The counsel they give and anything they DO prophesy-- most recent scripture we can have. Because they are all prophets, seers and revelators. If they say, "Hey, what I'm about to say is NOT prophesy" then they are allowed to do that.

Nephi also had prayerful attempts to impart knowledge. They became scripture. Alma wrote things with much prayer and meditation that are well worth our careful consideration. You know what I'm going to say next, right?

THEY BECAME SCRIPTURE.

[Hemidakota]

At times I do marvel over the women of the church and the corrections to us males in not heeding to the prompings.

[Fiannan]

Here is something interesting:

Egg donation clinic with available egg donors - Chicago IL, Milwaukee, WI

California Cryobank - The Leading Donor Sperm Bank

For those interested in the science of donor programs.

[jenblen1]

I was wondering if anyone could lead me in the right direction on being a surrogate mother. My SIL is seriously think of doing this (3 times to be exact for the money). Please help.

Here is a link of the LDS Church handbook ************************. It does state that the Church STRONGLY DISCOURAGE'S Surrogacy. It doesn't say you can't or that it's a sin. I would say this is something to strongly pray and fast and talk to a Stake President about or writing to a GA.

Just my humble opinions. :)

Edited to remove copyrighted link ~ Canuck Mormon

[Fiannan]

burns, if you are healthy and fit the criteria for egg donation perhaps you should check out donating eggs. You'd be helping people have families to an even greater degree than being a surrogate.

[Fiannan]

Here is a link of the LDS Church handbook *************. It does state that the Church STRONGLY DISCOURAGE'S Surrogacy. It doesn't say you can't or that it's a sin. I would say this is something to strongly pray and fast and talk to a Stake President about or writing to a GA.

Just my humble opinions. :)

Thanks for the link. I have wanted my own copy of the CHI for a long time but couldn't find it in its entire version on the net.

Removed link ~ Canuck Mormon

[Hemidakota]

Here is a link of the LDS Church handbook **************. It does state that the Church STRONGLY DISCOURAGE'S Surrogacy. It doesn't say you can't or that it's a sin. I would say this is something to strongly pray and fast and talk to a Stake President about or writing to a GA.

Just my humble opinions. :)

We already explained to her the position of the church and the handbook is clearly outdated since there is a 2008 version.

Removed link ~ Canuck Mormon

[Gwen]

hummm wonder if that link to the church handbook is violating a copyright law. if the chruch wanted it out there like that it would be on lds.org. not sure they have permission or support from the church on that one.

but then i guess that's off topic. sorry

[Hemidakota]

You are correct! Church leaders’ frown in placing any church manual material of this nature; including temple ordinances. Though, they have their free agency to choose.

[NeuroTypical]

Here is a link of the LDS Church handbook

A few notes:

* This material is posted illegally. It is indeed a violation of copyright. The church takes action against such sites, and will against this one as well if it ever figures out this site has posted it.

* The posted version is the 1998 version. I believe there have been two or even three newer versions issued since then - the latest was 2006 or '07.

LM

[Canuck Mormon]

I have deleted the link because of the copyright violation. Please refrain from posting copyrighted links.

Thank you.

[jenblen1]

I read somewhere else that it was posted on the net. So I typed it in to google just to see and that was the link I had found. I just thought it may help the first poster. Sorry if this upset anyone that I posted it in here. I wasn't trying to cause a stir. ) It probably was outdated, and there probably is another version and that probably it shouldn't be on the net, but yet there it was just by googling it which I was surprised but shouldn't have been since so many things that shouldn't be out there are. Anyway, I am glad I found it, it answered a few of my questions so I don't feel bad that I looked it up.

[Hemidakota]

Again, there is a 2008 version that GA's, MPs, SPs, Bishops, and Branch Presidents should be reading.

Jen, if there is something you need to know from a church stance. a few here have the materials to help you in seeking an naswer.

[Fiannan]

No problem, before the link was removed I added it to my favorites.

Actually, this illustrates why people should not take materials in the General Handbook as Gospel because they aren't. If they were then they would not be kept from the general membership.

[NeuroTypical]

Actually, this illustrates why people should not take materials in the General Handbook as Gospel because they aren't. If they were then they would not be kept from the general membership.

I understand your first point and agree - the General Handbook is not scripture, it's not the Gospel. It's an aid to local church leaders in applying the Gospel.

But your 2nd claim is kind of odd. I can't think of anything in the general handbook that is "kept from the general membership" - can you? Anything in this book is available to the anyone - just go ask your Bishop about it. There's a difference between handing out limited copies, and hiding information.

A big difference.

LM

[Guest Zoey]

Some people have said they think the Church discourages surrogacy. But does the Church discourage "gestational surrogacy," where the carrier does not use her own eggs. In this type of surrogacy, the intended parent's use egg & sperm separate from the carrier. Embryos are transferred via IVF.

So I can't see why the Church would frown on someone carrying someone else's baby--completely someone else's. It's a good way to help out a couple who cannot carry a baby.

Does the Church frown upon couple's using IVF? I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

[peanutgallery]

Does the Church frown upon couple's using IVF? I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

I believe the church handbook says IVF is ok as long as the egg and the sperm are from the couple. They discourage donor sperm and/or egg.

[ruthiechan]

The hand book online is indeed out dated. They just came out with a newer, and thinner, one. I saw it a couple months ago when speaking with my Bishop.

Also, there is no way to be sure that the online version has not been modified in some way. So read with care.

[Hemidakota]

IVF, using semen from anyone but the husband or an egg from anyone but the wife is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED. However, this is a personal matter that ultimately must be left to the judgment of the husband and wife. Responsibility for the decision rests sorely upon them.

[Hemidakota]

The hand book online is indeed out dated. They just came out with a newer, and thinner, one. I saw it a couple months ago when speaking with my Bishop.

Also, there is no way to be sure that the online version has not been modified in some way. So read with care.

2008 version is the current copy - white.

[Fiannan]

Some people have said they think the Church discourages surrogacy. But does the Church discourage "gestational surrogacy," where the carrier does not use her own eggs. In this type of surrogacy, the intended parent's use egg & sperm separate from the carrier. Embryos are transferred via IVF.

So I can't see why the Church would frown on someone carrying someone else's baby--completely someone else's. It's a good way to help out a couple who cannot carry a baby.

Does the Church frown upon couple's using IVF? I don't think so, but I'm not sure.

You are likely not to get into any trouble for getting donor egg or sperm -- the only time it could be an issue is when a single woman gets pregnant and has to explain to her bishop that no fornication was involved but I don't think she'd get in trouble. And if it's a couple then who would know?

As for donation, again, who would know? And even if they did there is nothing that would happen to you. A couple of years back I read an article about an Australian businessman who was Mormon who was strongly encouraging men to donate (he and his wife had gone several years without conception before finally getting pregnancies, and the family they desired, and so he understood the plight many people face in desiring kids but not being able to conceive on their own). Seems like a Christian act. I also have seen a few documentaries on this subject and I can say that people who make families possible for others are doing a great service to their fellow brothers and sisters.