Church's Policy on Surrogacy - Looking for Input

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Aren't we told that we chose to come to this earth and have a mortal probation?  How then is any of us "forced {} into existence?"

Exactly.  We are told this, we don’t typically know it automatically.  It is part of our cultural programming.  It may be an intellectual belief, but it may not be emotionally accepted and therefore not be much of a or even any part of a child’s motivation through their life.  It therefore may not have much effect on a child except to induce guilt, because they are told they should feel grateful but they don’t, or makes them feel manipulated.

Even if it is true, it doesn’t mean the child consented to the way a parent chose to have them or bring them up.  Their existence is still forced in that sense.

Edited 20 hours ago by Calm

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Certainly tongue in cheek.  Still quite unseemly and troubling.

To you. That's an important part of the equation that I think probably needs to be said more.  Not about your opinions specifically but about all of our opinions.  Feeling strongly about something, and having arguments that show it's reasonable and which back us up, doesn't make opinions canon.   You feel a certain way about their choices.  100% valid.  Also 100% not fact.

Quote

If he were not presenting himself as an active Latter-day Saint, I would be broadly indifferent.  But he is, so I'm not.

I don't think anyone is saying that you should be indifferent.  I just think that it's good to remember that no one else should care about our indifference regarding their choices.  You can think he's very much in the wrong and he equally can know that what you think (or what I think) doesn't matter.

Quote

From Elder Holland:

True words.  I would guess that Charlie Bird also agrees with them.  

Quote

 

I'll leave divine judgment to God, but I think Latter-day Saints need to be on guard against the sorts of things Charlie Bird is trying to present as compatible and in alignment with the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

You can definitely advocate for whatever interpretation of the gospel that you believe is most correct.  Charlie and everyone else can do the same.

[Chum]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I get that aligns more with our doctrine in the sense that we need to come to earth to get bodies, but our brains typically don’t have a sense of the preexistence,

I've thought about this. But that part of the Gospel is tied to the non-existence of any memory of those events.  The notion of holding one accountable to an agreement made in an existence that no one has 1st hand knowledge of - this seems problematic at best.
Binding my own children to it doesn't feel at all like good parenting to me.  Personally, it feels like leverage and exploitation.

[Chum]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I feel like the commandment to honor thy father and mother is a reminder that the relationship is meant to go both ways.

To be clear, your sentiment is especially honorable. 
To address the OT sentiment, shouldn't there be a corresponding commandment - or at least shouldn't this one include the two-way obligation?

I personally suspect that OT adults more comfortable (than I am) with seeing their children as material.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Certainly tongue in cheek.  Still quite unseemly and troubling.

To you.

Well, yes.  We are all here sharing our opinions.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's an important part of the equation that I think probably needs to be said more. 

I think I made it pretty clear:

Quote

I find this troubling.  Charlie wanting to be a father is understandable. What I cannot call consistent with what the Church teaches about family is treating a child’s mother as optional—or as merely one of a panel of potential “Egg Donors” to be evaluated based on "egg yield," "beauty," educational achievements, "genetics," and so on.

The Church teaches that a child is entitled to a father and a mother in a covenant marriage, and that a husband and wife are the appointed pattern for giving bodies to God’s children. Charlie's plan specifically and intentionally chooses a course of action in which a child will not have that, and he then assembles a genetic mother and a separate birth mother as parts.

If a married man and woman, or a lesbian couple, lined people up the same way, I would find it unseemly too.

As Latter-day Saints, I think we must speak on behalf of the Restored Gospel.  That may sometimes include saying something unpopular.  I think there is sort of a trend amongst some members of the Church in which they conflate the not condemning the sinner with championing sin or championing behavior that doesn't lead to, or is incompatible with, a covenant relationship with the Savior.  I think there is a lot of good will and goon intentions in there.  We want to be kind and warm and welcoming, and that is all well and good. But I also think there is some measure of fear.  We don't want to say things that go against popular sociopolitical worldviews.  And we really don't want to be the subject of character assassination simply for speaking reasoned, but unpopular, thoughts.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Not about your opinions specifically but about all of our opinions.  Feeling strongly about something, and having arguments that show it's reasonable and which back us up, doesn't make opinions canon.   You feel a certain way about their choices.  100% valid.  Also 100% not fact.

I wasn't presenting my opinion as fact, just as my opinion.  I think what Charlie Bird is doing is profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel, both as to his marriage and as to his "Egg Donor" pageant.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

If he were not presenting himself as an active Latter-day Saint, I would be broadly indifferent.  But he is, so I'm not.

I don't think anyone is saying that you should be indifferent. 

I think since Nehor and SeekingUnderstanding are in this thread, the "Bigot!" accusations are a matter of when, not if.

That they go draw water from the ad hominem well so immediately and so often is, to me, an indication of some things.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I just think that it's good to remember that no one else should care about our indifference regarding their choices. 

The ad hominem stuff in this thread is, in my view, an effort to squelch viewpoints.  Toe the line or shut up.  I don't think that's a healthy state of affairs.  We ought to be able to express an interested viewpoint on a topic, or else be indifferent to it.  We ought to be able to have a discussion about the topic without being diverted by ad hominems.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You can think he's very much in the wrong and he equally can know that what you think (or what I think) doesn't matter.

I think it matters a bit.  Charlie Bird is trying to influence people to a particular set of principles relating to the Restored Gospel.  I find some of the more important principles he is presenting are profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel.  He is trying to influence people, and that matters.  Others ought to be able to attempt to persuade and influence people away from the problematic things Charlie is advancing.

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

At the zenith of His mortal ministry, Jesus said, “Love one another, as I have loved you.” To make certain they understood exactly what kind of love that was, He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” and “whosoever … shall break one of [the] least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be … the least in the kingdom of heaven.” Christlike love is the greatest need we have on this planet in part because righteousness was always supposed to accompany it. So if love is to be our watchword, as it must be, then by the word of Him who is love personified, we must forsake transgression and any hint of advocacy for it in others. Jesus clearly understood what many in our modern culture seem to forget: that there is a crucial difference between the commandment to forgive sin (which He had an infinite capacity to do) and the warning against condoning it (which He never ever did even once).

True words.  I would guess that Charlie Bird also agrees with them.  You can definitely advocate for whatever interpretation of the gospel that you believe is most correct.  Charlie and everyone else can do the same.

Charlie seems to be advocating for, and seeking from others condoning treatment of, violations of the Church's teachings relative to marriage and the Law of Chastity.  On these points I feel we must choose to listen to the cumulative counsel of the leaders of the Church (such as Elder Holland), or we can choose to listen to Charlie Bird.  It's one or the other.  Charlie has set himself up as a voice alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, and is, I think, implicitly asking other Latter-day Saints to listen to him more than to the Lord's anointed, at least in regards to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

I think we should listen to the Brethren, and to set aside, and not endorse or condone or advocate for, the problematic things for which Charlie is seeking - and is getting - notoriety and influence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, Chum said:

I have reconciled this in a way that seems to be driving the extraordinarily good relationship I have with (all 5 of) my sons.  

It is my choices that forced them into existence.

This is an interesting thought.  Aren't we told that we chose to come to this earth and have a mortal probation?  How then is any of us "forced {} into existence?"

Even when I was active, I found this an extraordinarily insufficient reasoning. It seems like a super thin justification for imposing life impacting obligations on my kids - particularly obligations that all flow to me.

There isn't anything in my experience that supports the notion (that my kids owe me because of the premortal existence). 

 

[Chum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, Chum said:

I had all the power of consent and due to this extremely one-sided arrangement, I remain in their debt for the rest of my life.  I reside in a permanent state of servitude to them.  These are the defaults, our starting points. 

That's another interesting thought.  What debt do you owe them?  

I don't know the name of my debt but I pay it by helping them achieve happiness.

Secondarily, I strive to encourage my kids to help others achieve happiness (which enriches their world). 

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Chum said:

The notion of holding one accountable to an agreement made in an existence that no one has 1st hand knowledge of - this seems problematic at best.

Yep.  Would you trust someone who insisted you agreed to pay them for a product you didn’t like or even hated when you don’t remember agreeing to buy it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What debt do you owe them?  

The debt of using them to fulfill my own purpose and happiness.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What debt do you owe them?  

The debt of using them to fulfill my own purpose and happiness.

This works.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Quote

This is an interesting thought.  Aren't we told that we chose to come to this earth and have a mortal probation?  How then is any of us "forced {} into existence?"

Even when I was active, I found this an extraordinarily insufficient reasoning.

I can appreciate that perspective.  For my part, I find the "forced {} into existence" difficult to reconcile with my worldview.

1 hour ago, Chum said:

It seems like a super thin justification for imposing life impacting obligations on my kids - particularly obligations that all flow to me.

There isn't anything in my experience that supports the notion (that my kids owe me because of the premortal existence). 

I was not referring to a "my kids owe me" notion.  Sorry if I gave that impression.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was not referring to a "my kids owe me" notion.  Sorry if I gave that impression.

The notion of "kids owing parents" is on the table somewhere here but I'm not ascribing it to you.  I think you're maybe exploring the cave it happens to live in. 

And as long as we're here, I'd like to drag the notion into the sunlight and pummel it a bit. 

[Chum]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Even when I was active, I found this an extraordinarily insufficient reasoning.

I can appreciate that perspective.  For my part, I find the "forced {} into existence" difficult to reconcile with my worldview.

My phrasing is admittedly pointed. But every way I tried to soften it, it wandered away from the reality that kids face. Which is that they had no say so in getting existed. I strongly believe we have no call to impose a debt on them for that; I feel it shifts the whole circumstance toward unethical territory.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Which is that they had no say so in getting existed.

Even if we assume they chose to be born and were joyous about that because of LDS doctrine, as far as I aware there is nothing but folklore that suggests that we were aware of the specifics of our actual birth and were okay with those.   When it comes to ‘well, accept you will be abused and tortured from the moment of your existence until your dying breath, but I promise that when it’s over there will be no lasting harm or trauma or existing as an eternity as a spirit, I can see why we would say ‘sure, let’s do it, it’s only for a moment after all, over before we know it even’.  Could we have really understood the level of pain we were accepting?  Not saying we wouldn’t accept it just saying not sure how it could have been true informed consent rather than trust in God given we had never experienced physical bodies before apparently.

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Even if we assume they chose to be born and were joyous about that because of LDS doctrine, as far as I aware there is nothing but folklore that suggests that we were aware of the specifics of our actual birth and were okay with those.   When it comes to ‘well, accept you will be abused and tortured from the moment of your existence until your dying breath, but I promise that when it’s over there will be no lasting harm or trauma or existing as an eternity as a spirit, I can see why we would say ‘sure, let’s do it, it’s only for a moment after all, over before we know it even’.  Could we have really understood the level of pain we were accepting?  Not saying we wouldn’t accept it just saying not sure how it could have been true informed consent rather than trust in God given we had never experienced physical bodies before apparently.

This is a topic on which quite a few near-death experiencers have weighed in.  Their reports are pretty consistent.  I come away with the impression that we are not victims; rather, we ourselves are intense experiencers of mortality and the unique opportunities for growth it offers us.  I also come away with the impression that we simply do not have enough information to reliably sit in judgment.  

Here are two compilation videos wherein NDEers (and a few others) talk about planning our lives.  While not everything on the videos aligns with current LDS thought, imo there are too many parallels with LDS doctrine and/or folklore for it to be mere coincidence.  Each video is cued up to a clip that stood out to me, but imo all of the clips offer valuable insights.

I think we are now living in one of the most amazing times in all of human history, having literally at our fingertips hundreds of first-hand accounts from otherwise ordinary people who have been on the other side and returned to report for the benefit of the rest of us:

 

 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by manol

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Even if we assume they chose to be born and were joyous about that because of LDS doctrine, as far as I aware there is nothing but folklore that suggests that we were aware of the specifics of our actual birth and were okay with those.   When it comes to ‘well, accept you will be abused and tortured from the moment of your existence until your dying breath, but I promise that when it’s over there will be no lasting harm or trauma or existing as an eternity as a spirit, I can see why we would say ‘sure, let’s do it, it’s only for a moment after all, over before we know it even’.  Could we have really understood the level of pain we were accepting?

No.  This is something I've always struggled with.  If we understood then we wouldn't "need" it.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

 Not saying we wouldn’t accept it just saying not sure how it could have been true informed consent rather than trust in God given we had never experienced physical bodies before apparently.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

While not everything on the videos aligns with current LDS thought, imo there are too many parallels with LDS doctrine and/or folklore for it to be mere coincidence.

The problem here is experience dictates language and both affects perception.  Testimony meetings are a great example of this,

Even if not Western NDEs, the fact we have massive global communication for some time now means we cannot discount influence.  NDEs from times when civilizations were more isolated….commonalities then would be more impressive to me.

Certain ideas about ghosts likely never existed until film portrayals of ghosts were shown and then they became common.  The floating immaterial ghost is a result of Victorian era technology…the artifacts of early cameras.

https://www.boredpanda.com/origin-idea-ghosts-floating-translucent/

Pirates never were thought to talk that way until a certain actor did it in Treasure Island.

https://www.historyextra.com/period/stuart/english-pirates-accent-west-country-blackbeard/

There are commonalities, but as far as I am aware these could be explained by what is happening to the brain. (I am agnostic in this, it would be fascinating if it’s not shared culture driving these and something more than brain states, but because it would be extraordinary, seems like there should be clear evidence before assuming it’s not culture or brain, but actual experience).

Quote

having literally at our fingertips hundreds of first-hand accounts from otherwise ordinary people who have been on the other side 

Exactly….

Added:  I don’t have the years or intense interest that would drive this, so lazily resorted to Chat and asked if the idea of choosing to be born (present in many NDEs apparently, though not considered one of the universal or even more common themes) or an idea of a life planned by us were hinted at in any ancient or medieval likely NDE accounts (there were cultures who believed in a preexistence).  Chat says no.  I would be very interested if anyone (manol or anyone else) has come across possibles from non modern examples.

Edited 12 hours ago by Calm

[manol]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

The problem here is experience dictates language and both affects perception.  Testimony meetings are a great example of this,

Even if not Western NDEs, the fact we have massive global communication for some time now means we cannot discount influence.  NDEs from times when civilizations were more isolated….commonalities then would be more impressive to me.

Apologies for being dense... are you saying that NDE accounts likely influenced/instigated LDS folklore, and/or vice-versa, or something else? 

8 hours ago, Calm said:

There are commonalities, but as far as I am aware these could be explained by what is happening to the brain. (I am agnostic in this, it would be fascinating if it’s not shared culture driving these and something more than brain states, but because it would be extraordinary, seems like there should be clear evidence before assuming it’s not culture or brain, but actual experience).

Well my brain state seems to be one of density... it sounds to me like you're saying, in effect, that extraordinary claims (such as NDEs and/or LDS folklore on pre-birth planning) require extraordinary proof... am I misunderstanding you?

Edited 4 hours ago by manol

[Calm]

3 hours ago, manol said:

Apologies for being dense... are you saying that NDE accounts likely influenced/instigated LDS folklore, and/or vice-versa, or something else? 

It could work either way or both were influenced by something else. I think it’s a feedback system or whatever you call the back and forth of influences.  Betty Eadie was a major voice in the NDE community for awhile.  Drew quite a bit of criticism from more traditional Christians, but her  book Embraced by the Light was extremely popular.  She then modified her account to make it more palatable to nonLDS Christians.  Then there’s Raymond Moody. I would love to collect accounts and map content and language in collected accounts against a timeline of the most highly publicized accounts over the decades, see what changes and what doesn’t.  I had chat come up with others. 
 

Timeline of Major Bestselling NDE Books

• 1975: Life After Life by Raymond A. Moody
  • The Impact: Coined the term "near-death experience" and set the modern standard for studying the phenomenon. It became a massive cultural bestseller and introduced NDEs to the mainstream public. [1, 2, 3]

• 1990: Closer to the Light by Melvin Morse
  • The Impact: A pediatrician expanded the field by researching and documenting near-death experiences specifically reported by children, achieving significant bestseller status. [1]

• 1992: Embraced by the Light by Betty J. Eadie
  • The Impact: A deeply personal, widely read account that stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for years, becoming one of the most commercially successful NDE books ever published. [1, 2, 3]

• 1994: Saved by the Light by Dannion Brinkley
  • The Impact: Detailed the author's dramatic account of being struck by lightning and clinically dead, capturing massive public attention and topping bestseller lists. [1]

• 2004: 90 Minutes in Heaven by Don Piper
  • The Impact: A Baptist minister's story of a horrific car crash and his subsequent heavenly experience, which sold millions of copies and spent years on bestseller lists. [1, 2]

• 2006: Heaven is for Real by Todd Burpo
  • The Impact: The extraordinary account of a 4-year-old boy's emergency surgery and trip to heaven, becoming a global publishing phenomenon and feature film. [1]

• 2012: Proof of Heaven by Eben Alexander
  • The Impact: Written by an academic neurosurgeon who experienced a severe case of bacterial meningitis, lending high-profile mainstream and scientific curiosity to the debate over consciousness. [1, 2]

• 2012: Dying to Be Me by Anita Moorjani
  • The Impact: A profound personal recovery story detailing an NDE from end-stage cancer, which became a prominent international bestseller. [1, 2]

• 2016: Imagine Heaven by John Burke
  • The Impact: Synthesizes hundreds of NDE accounts with scriptural parallels, remaining a top seller on digital audiobook and book charts. [1, 2]

I do believe we should have evidence that such ideas first appeared independent of the most likely influences if the claim is independence.

Edited 1 hour ago by Calm