Ex-fertility Doctor, Former Mission & Temple President Facing Lawsuit

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps. There are so many other things of great consequence going on. We could let those involved settle things with some privacy and dignity. An acquaintance in a gay marriage is taking turns with her partner being the mother by AI. The kids do not have the same mother and have different unknown fathers. Are they brother and sister? Who knows? But, hey, they’re a family. What a world we live in.

Is a familial relationship, in your eyes, based solely on genetic ties? Because it’s not in mine. Are Orphans placed with loving adopted parents, their children?

We live in a world where hopelessly childless couples can now either conceive or adopt, where people whose loving relationship would have been ostracised, victimised, even legislated against, can now openly be together...can love each other...can raise families together. What a world we live in, indeed! It’s called progress. It’s why it’s now societally acceptable for a black person to be in a relationship with a white person, why women can vote etc.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Jeanne, more than anything this sounds more like the "eweee" factor (that we all seem to have) than anything else.  Couple wanted baby, they got baby.....and now what?  You aren't happy with the baby or is it something else.  

If anyone has gone through fertility problems it is not a fun process.  I still remember when Shauna's OBGYN, who also acted as our initial fertility guy, called me up one day and said, "Well, you know you got 50% are are nonmotile 25% that (cannot remember the word off hand) messed up, and the rest are just really slow. So, you are basically sterile.  He may have been great with women, but let me tell you he sucked talking to men.  It is always fun to say, "Here you go, we need this sample, go right there and then bring back in the bag."  That just does not work for little Mormon guy that did all he could to live the law of Chastity.  I went home and then had to hurry back.  When a couple goes through this kind of trials - I promise you, we are just happy to have the baby.  I don't care where it came from.

I understand better your thoughts on this...thank you for clarifying.  Experience is everything in one's perspectives. 

[readstoomuch]

I had infertility problems with my first wife.  She had endometriosis.  I have four in-laws with fertility problems.  We have 17 adopted children in our extended family.  They are of every race and situation you could imagine.  Most of them are from the foster system.  We are very grateful to have so many wonderful children to interact with.  

During the fertility workup, men do have to submit a sample.  Then you get this meeting where you get told about sperm count, motility, hardiness of the "swimmers" and other sorted details.  This was all in the mid 80s where infertility work was just really coming to fruition.  Its quite interesting, but can be humiliating if you're the couple.  Also, expensive.  Some of the drugs were 800-1000 dollars a month.  This is 30 years ago.  

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps. There are so many other things of great consequence going on.

Not for those involved, I'd imagine .  Others are interested in this story as well and it is in the news.  I get that it doesn't mean much to you (and many others) and it doesn't personally touch your life (or mine either ).

 

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

An acquaintance in a gay marriage is taking turns with her partner being the mother by AI. The kids do not have the same mother and have different unknown fathers. Are they brother and sister? Who knows?

Yes, they are brother and sister.  Just as much as adopted children are brothers and sisters within the same family unit.

Edited April 7, 2018 by ALarson

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

 

It sounds like it may be the daughter more than the parents.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kelli-rowlette-dna-fertility-doctor-dad-gerald-mortimer_us_5ac55f80e4b056a8f59812f0

"The results were more surprising than she expected: The 36-year-old discovered she had been conceived via fertility treatments, something her parents never told her.

But Rowlette and her parents were shocked by another finding from the results: Her real father was actually the fertility doctor who performed the artificial insemination, according to The Washington Post.

Now Rowlette and her divorced parents, Sally Ashby and Howard Fowler, are suing retired Dr. Gerald E. Mortimer and his former employer, Obstetrics and Gynecology Associates of Idaho Falls, Idaho, for $10 million.

The family filed the lawsuit in Idaho last week, accusing both parties of medical negligence, fraud, battery, negligent infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract, according to NPR."

"The couple had the treatment nine times during the summer of 1980, but say they didn’t know that Mortimer ― whose physical characteristics did not match Fowler ― was donating his own sperm until their daughter got her DNA results last July."

Hmm...I wonder if he broke contract because it wasn't working.  He might have even put minimal dad and mostly himself in the contribution.

-----

"The parents were “devastated,” and “struggled to cope with their own anguish and had difficulty contemplating the torment the discovery would cause their daughter when she found out,” according to the lawsuit.

Rowlette found out the truth on her own in October when she noticed Mortimer’s signature on her birth certificate."

The parents sound like they were hoping it would be dropped as they didn't tell her the result was for real, but she found out later.

I think these are really tough, complex situations for parents. There is an argument that honesty is the best medicine and be open about everything. In this situation it would have prevented the daughter from being overly surprised and her parents would not have been put in the position to worry over her finding out.  Yet, the other side is to move forward and not release intimate details to your daughter (and the world).  

I think that we should strive to be honest with these types of things. It puts a stronger foundation down upon which to build a parental relationship.  However, I don't begrudge any parent that feels that it is better to keep some things private from everyone.  

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not for those involved, I'd imagine .  Others are interested in this story as well and it is in the news.  I get that it doesn't mean much to you (and many others) and it doesn't personally touch your life (or mine either ).

 

Yes, they are brother and sister.  Just as much as adopted children are brothers and sisters within the same family unit.

Um, no, but that’s the newspeak we have to live with. 

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Is a familial relationship, in your eyes, based solely on genetic ties? Because it’s not in mine. Are Orphans placed with loving adopted parents, their children?

We live in a world where hopelessly childless couples can now either conceive or adopt, where people whose loving relationship would have been ostracised, victimised, even legislated against, can now openly be together...can love each other...can raise families together. What a world we live in, indeed! It’s called progress. It’s why it’s now societally acceptable for a black person to be in a relationship with a white person, why women can vote etc.

The eyes have it. As you wish. 

[Jeanne]

37 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Um, no, but that’s the newspeak we have to live with. 

I so respect you Bernard..but sometimes I feel sorry for you..

Are your brothers and sisters only those in your ward..??  The STake??  The LDS family??  How sad that sounds..Hopefully, I have misinterpreted what you mean. There are all kinds of families..they are the ones that just take care and love one another.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Jeanne

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Um, no, but that’s the newspeak we have to live with. 

So you think parents who are unable to conceive and then adopt several children aren’t mother and father to children who are brothers and sisters?

That because the children are not blood related, they are not brothers and sisters?

Edited April 7, 2018 by JulieM

[Stargazer]

On 4/5/2018 at 11:14 PM, katherine the great said:

Good points. Other than feeling emotionally betrayed and totally creeped out, what are the actual actionable damages?

That's a helluva good question. I'm just glad I'm not the one who gets to adjudicate this one. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/7/2018 at 1:21 PM, JulieM said:

So you think parents who are unable to conceive and then adopt several children aren’t mother and father to children who are brothers and sisters?

That because the children are not blood related, they are not brothers and sisters?

No.

[Bernard Gui]

On 4/7/2018 at 9:26 AM, Jeanne said:

I so respect you Bernard..but sometimes I feel sorry for you..

Are your brothers and sisters only those in your ward..??  The STake??  The LDS family??  How sad that sounds..Hopefully, I have misinterpreted what you mean. There are all kinds of families..they are the ones that just take care and love one another.

Feel sorry for me? Thanks, but no need. I’m just fine. We live in odd times.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Marginal Gains]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Feel sorry for me? Thanks, but no need. I’m just fine. We live in odd times.

We live in odd times...

More odd than when black people weren’t allowed to ride public transport alongside white people, nor eat in the same restaurants?

More odd than when Blood letting was a legitimate medical treatment?

More odd than when plural marriage was a commandment and requirement for exaltation?

More odd than when women weren’t allowed to vote?

More odd than when people felt it worth fighting to protect their right to own slaves?

More odd than when Black people weren’t allowed to hold the Priesthood because...well...they were black?

 

Let’s go back to the good old days when things weren’t so odd, right?

Edited April 9, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[HappyJackWagon]

At some point there needs to be some reasonable expectation of discernment when it comes to these high level callings. Yes, they are people and people are imperfect. Yes, the people issuing the callings are imperfect too, so we can't expect perfection. But, IF these callings are truly coming by revelation to God's servants to issue these callings, shouldn't there be some expectation that God would not allow unworthy, or in some cases lecherous individuals to be in positions of authority and trust? Does God not care? Should we blame him for all the scoundrels who are called or should we blame the individuals issuing the calls for not utilizing the spiritual gift of discernment?  Or do we just go with the flow and accept every person in every calling? Something has gotta give. Is the church just like every other church, with individuals doing the best they can, or is there something unique and special about it? Is there, or is there not revelation when considering what kinds of individuals will serve as mission and temple presidents? These callings are issued (or at least approved) from the very top. We should be able to expect more. All the claims I see/hear that I am just expecting too much sounds an awful lot like excuses and a desire for some to hold on to a semblance of testimony even though they know these are huge problems and gaps in God's church. But to admit that would be disloyal so obviously it is the critics fault for even raising the issue.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

At some point there needs to be some reasonable expectation of discernment when it comes to these high level callings. Yes, they are people and people are imperfect. Yes, the people issuing the callings are imperfect too, so we can't expect perfection. But, IF these callings are truly coming by revelation to God's servants to issue these callings, shouldn't there be some expectation that God would not allow unworthy, or in some cases lecherous individuals to be in positions of authority and trust? Does God not care? Should we blame him for all the scoundrels who are called or should we blame the individuals issuing the calls for not utilizing the spiritual gift of discernment?  Or do we just go with the flow and accept every person in every calling? Something has gotta give. Is the church just like every other church, with individuals doing the best they can, or is there something unique and special about it? Is there, or is there not revelation when considering what kinds of individuals will serve as mission and temple presidents? These callings are issued (or at least approved) from the very top. We should be able to expect more. All the claims I see/hear that I am just expecting too much sounds an awful lot like excuses and a desire for some to hold on to a semblance of testimony even though they know these are huge problems and gaps in God's church. But to admit that would be disloyal so obviously it is the critics fault for even raising the issue.

I'm guessing that sometimes the calls just aren't as inspired as we think they are.  However, I think we also have to consider that Christ called Judas to be an apostle, and ponder what that implies about callings from God and 'worthiness'.  We have to acknowledge that God's ways are not our ways.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

We live in odd times...

More odd than when black people weren’t allowed to ride public transport alongside white people, nor eat in the same restaurants?

More odd than when Blood letting was a legitimate medical treatment?

More odd than when plural marriage was a commandment and requirement for exaltation?

More odd than when women weren’t allowed to vote?

More odd than when people felt it worth fighting to protect their right to own slaves?

More odd than when Black people weren’t allowed to hold the Priesthood because...well...they were black?

 

Let’s go back to the good old days when things weren’t so odd, right?

Wrong. Recognizing current problems does not imply approval of previous problems. For example, let’s go back to the good old days when children were not being shot in their classrooms, when fewer children were born to single parents, when abortion didn’t kill millions of babies, when heroin addiction was uncommon, and when there was no rap music.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm guessing that sometimes the calls just aren't as inspired as we think they are.  However, I think we also have to consider that Christ called Judas to be an apostle, and ponder what that implies about callings from God and 'worthiness'.  We have to acknowledge that God's ways are not our ways.

You're correct that this is the only answer to this, but it isn't a very satisfying one. It's the best we can do, though. I think that this concern (why/how does God allow horrific things to be done by some priesthood leaders) is hand-down the most difficult concern to address for those who are concerned with it. The answer (the only answer) as you and Robert F. Smith and many others have pointed out, is that God does allow horrific things to happen so that agency, learning, and growth can happen, but it is a hard answer for people who are hurt, and it is further made unsatisfactory when, as HappyJack pointed out, one wonders if there is to be no line  or minimum standard of discernment or inspiration in the extreme, egregious cases. And it's even worse for people who believe in absolute omniscience, because that means that God knew in advance exactly what these leaders would do, and he didn't communicate with other leaders to stop it. 

It is definitely the most difficult question, next to which all other issues pale in comparison. 

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

You're correct that this is the only answer to this, but it isn't a very satisfying one. It's the best we can do, though. I think that this concern (why/how does God allow horrific things to be done by some priesthood leaders) is hand-down the most difficult concern to address for those who are concerned with it. The answer (the only answer) as you and Robert F. Smith and many others have pointed out, is that God does allow horrific things to happen so that agency, learning, and growth can happen, but it is a hard answer for people who are hurt, and it is further made unsatisfactory when, as HappyJack pointed out, one wonders if there is to be no line  or minimum standard of discernment or inspiration in the extreme, egregious cases. And it's even worse for people who believe in absolute omniscience, because that means that God knew in advance exactly what these leaders would do, and he didn't communicate with other leaders to stop it. 

It is definitely the most difficult question, next to which all other issues pale in comparison. 

And yet, I don't think that had to be as big of a difficulty as you think. When i think that Christ atoned for all sins, and suffered every mistreatment we may experience, I can only imagine how ready and willing He is to rush to intercede and heal when that mistreatment is at the hands of those acting in His name. 

I think a lot of our problems and suffering come from rejecting (even implicitly) Christ. If Christ is not compensating us for our pain and providing Grace through difficulty, then the circumstances of life are absolutely unfair. Leaving the atonement out of the equation will definitely result in an unbalanced outcome. 

That is why I can understand why non-believers feel so outraged about situations like this, and yet not personally feel anything other than empathy for everyone involved. I know that anyone who is hurting can turn to Christ and receive the Balm of Gilead. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

And yet, I don't think that had to be as big of a difficulty as you think. When i think that Christ atoned for all sins, and suffered every mistreatment we may experience, I can only imagine how ready and willing He is to rush to intercede and heal when that mistreatment is at the hands of those acting in His name. 

I think a lot of our problems and suffering come from rejecting (even implicitly) Christ. If Christ is not compensating us for our pain and providing Grace through difficulty, then the circumstances of life are absolutely unfair. Leaving the atonement out of the equation will definitely result in an unbalanced outcome. 

That is why I can understand why non-believers feel so outraged about situations like this, and yet not personally feel anything other than empathy for everyone involved. I know that anyone who is hurting can turn to Christ and receive the Balm of Gilead. 

This is all very true. It really is. But take the extreme examples (a bishop who forcibly rapes children, while a bishop). If God knew he would do that, and inspired the call, and didn't inspire leaders and others to prevent it, I hope you can see why this could be a very troubling testimony shaker, and without charging those troubled by it with lack of faith in the atonement. 

It is a troubling concern. It is one I would love for the Brethren to directly address something like this in a talk some time, but it would be a very difficult talk. "We grow through affliction, agency is *that* important, the atonement heals everything, and leaders aren't infallible" --- while the best answer that can be given --- is very unsatisfactory for a lot of good people who are not looking for a pretext to rage against the Church. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm guessing that sometimes the calls just aren't as inspired as we think they are.  However, I think we also have to consider that Christ called Judas to be an apostle, and ponder what that implies about callings from God and 'worthiness'.  We have to acknowledge that God's ways are not our ways.

I agree that we (including our leaders) aren't inspired as much as we think we are.

That's an interesting point. When I came to the realization a few years ago that my idea of worthiness (as I was taught by the church) really has little to do with how God views worthiness and/or his ability to utilize even the "unworthy" in major positions of trust and authority, it shook my foundations of testimony. On one hand we preach worthiness to death. On the other we say, "but it doesn't really matter". It implies there is a rule book for life that can't really be trusted. Thus, I have very little trust in the church or its leaders any more, even though I believe they are good people doing their best. If I can't expect the church and its leaders to be more special or holy than any other earthly organization, the pull of the organization to motivate my life is gone. Without the organization, one is then left only with their personal belief and standards of behavior and character.

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Wrong. Recognizing current problems does not imply approval of previous problems. For example, let’s go back to the good old days when children were not being shot in their classrooms, when fewer children were born to single parents, when abortion didn’t kill millions of babies, when heroin addiction was uncommon, and when there was no rap music.

But here’s the thing. And please correct me if I’m reading your posts wrong. You seem to be saying that the lack of marriage equality in the past was a ‘problem’, but the expansion of marriage equality in the present is a ‘problem’. Your disapproval of marriage equality now does not imply your disapproval of marriage equality in the past.

Do I have that about right?

Edited April 9, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is all very true. It really is. But take the extreme examples (a bishop who forcibly rapes children, while a bishop). If God knew he would do that, and inspired the call, and didn't inspire leaders and others to prevent it, I hope you can see why this could be a very troubling testimony shaker, and without charging those troubled by it with lack of faith in the atonement. 

It is a troubling concern. It is one I would love for the Brethren to directly address something like this in a talk some time, but it would be a very difficult talk. "We grow through affliction, agency is *that* important, the atonement heals everything, and leaders aren't infallible" --- while the best answer that can be given --- is very unsatisfactory for a lot of good people who are not looking for a pretext to rage against the Church. 

I think you are right in that these kinds of answers are unsatisfactory sometimes, usually because we are forced to confront a reality that we don't often want to confront:  If the gospel is true when horrible things are happening to someone else, then there is no reason for it to cease being true when horrible things happen to us.  We. Are. Not. Special.  

We are loved and we are blessed, but we are not immune to heartache and evil and that can be a very unsatisfactory realization because pain is never easy, nor is it usually rational.  

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think you are right in that these kinds of answers are unsatisfactory sometimes, usually because we are forced to confront a reality that we don't often want to confront:  If the gospel is true when horrible things are happening to someone else, then there is no reason for it to cease being true when horrible things happen to us.  We. Are. Not. Special.  

We are loved and we are blessed, but we are not immune to heartache and evil and that can be a very unsatisfactory realization because pain is never easy, nor is it usually rational.  

And yet we operate within a culture where it has become accepted to state that God intervenes in even the smallest of things (e.g. finding car keys).  Given the level of perceived intervention by the Divine, logically, it makes sense to ask the following kinds of questions - Was God too busy to inspire leaders to remove Bishop? Was God too busy to hear our pleas for a quick end when my dad was diagnosed with cancer? Was God too busy to hear me when I plead for help with the collapse of my testimony? 

You see how that goes for the struggling member?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

And yet we operate within a culture where it has become accepted to state that God intervenes in even the smallest of things (e.g. finding car keys).  Given the level of perceived intervention by the Divine, logically, it makes sense to ask the following kinds of questions - Was God too busy to inspire leaders to remove Bishop? Was God too busy to hear our pleas for a quick end when my dad was diagnosed with cancer? Was God too busy to hear me when I plead for help with the collapse of my testimony? 

You see how that goes for the struggling member?

These are the classic religious questions of the ages. The idea of suffering. The nature and role of God in our daily lives. These are things philosophers have struggled with throughout the ages. It shouldn't be a surprise that we have these same questions in the church. Yet it is. IMO- it's a surprise because of teachings and culture that has been built up around the idea that God will answer ALL questions and that we have a FULLNESS of the gospel (which is often misconstrued as a fullness of knowledge/understanding). The truth is, as members of the church we don't have answers that are any more satisfactory than any other church

[bluebell]

47 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that we (including our leaders) aren't inspired as much as we think we are.

That's an interesting point. When I came to the realization a few years ago that my idea of worthiness (as I was taught by the church) really has little to do with how God views worthiness and/or his ability to utilize even the "unworthy" in major positions of trust and authority, it shook my foundations of testimony. On one hand we preach worthiness to death. On the other we say, "but it doesn't really matter". It implies there is a rule book for life that can't really be trusted. Thus, I have very little trust in the church or its leaders any more, even though I believe they are good people doing their best. If I can't expect the church and its leaders to be more special or holy than any other earthly organization, the pull of the organization to motivate my life is gone. Without the organization, one is then left only with their personal belief and standards of behavior and character.

I think we do speak to much of worthiness and discernment without teaching (especially our youth) that the priesthood does not automatically bestow either.  

We need to teach them that some people are not honest, with themselves or their leaders. Some leaders begin their callings worthy but then sin without real repentance.  Not every member or leader has the gift of discernment (either because they have never sought it or because they don't understand that they actually need to seek it).  God will allow unrighteous people to deceive and use their agency to commit evil in order that His judgements of them will be just.  Sometimes leaders are themselves deceived or just wrong.  And, the hardest to understand, sometimes God uses the wicked to bring about a greater purpose.

More than that though, I think if we taught our youth from a young age that worthiness is between the person and God, then it is much less of a trauma when they learn that the worthiness of other people really doesn't matter.  God will deal with them.  Vengeance is His and He will repay.  When our leaders declare someone (or us) 'worthy' all they are doing is declaring that as far as the church is concerned and knows, they are good enough.  It is not an endorsement by God until or unless the Spirit confirms to us personally that such is the case.  

We have a duty to seek that confirmation, but I don't think that many of us do, rather preferring to treat a calling or an ordination itself as a confirmation. These situations (leaders abusing members) are an example of us reaping what we have sowed.  We have been lazy and left ourselves and others vulnerable.