Romney grandchildren & surrogate motherhood ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

This was mentioned on RFM and I found it interesting. Mitt Romney's son, Tagg, and his wife recently had twin sons via a surrogate. I think that's great and wish them the best. But, as with many things that should be simple, the LDS Church mucks it up -- a policy that "strongly discourages" the use of a surrogate mother to have children. Here is the policy from Section 17.3.16 in the current Handbook 1 of the CHI:

The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood. If parents want a child who was born to a surrogate mother to be sealed to them, the stake president refers the matter to the Office of the First Presidency.

So, not only does the Church "strongly discourage" surrogate motherhood, but in order to have your brand new baby (born via a surrogate) be part of your eternal family, the highest LDS council must first say it's ok with them. I have no doubt the FP will approve this for Tagg and his wife, but I wonder if the FP ever says no to this request.

by the way, here's the link to the story about Tagg and his new sons:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... surrogate/

Note in the article that the Church spokesman simply states that surrogate motherhood is "discouraged," while the CHI states it is "strongly discouraged." As I suspected, perhaps the Romneys do get special treatment.

[_Yoda]

I don't understand how this sealing process should be any different than the sealing process for an adopted child. If the child can't be sealed to the birth parents, who should the child be sealed to? The surrogate is carrying the baby, but the egg and sperm are contributed by the couple. Genetically, the baby is theirs. The surrogate housed the baby, and served as an "outer womb".

Also, there are plenty of medical cases where a woman simply can't carry a baby full term. This is, most likely the case in their situation. I seriouly doubt they are using a surrogate simply for convenience.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I don't understand how this sealing process should be any different than the sealing process for an adopted child.

Here's the current policy in the CHI: legally adopted children can be sealed to their adoptive parents without approval of the FP. Note, however, that a member can be sealed to his/her foster parents only with approval by the FP.

[_Yoda]

I don't understand how this sealing process should be any different than the sealing process for an adopted child.

Here's the current policy in the CHI: legally adopted children can be sealed to their adoptive parents without approval of the FP. Note, however, that a member can be sealed to his/her foster parents only with approval by the FP.

I am surprised the foster parent/child sealing is allowed at all. Foster care is normally temporary.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I am surprised the foster parent/child sealing is allowed at all. Foster care is normally temporary.

I read it to mean that the foster child, once an adult, can choose to be sealed to his/her foster parents; the way it was worded indicated to me that a foster parent cannot be sealed to a foster child until that child is grown (probably because a foster relationship often times is temporary). But that's just the way I read it.

[_The Mighty Builder]

You don't know that, Nobody knows for sure, You weren't there.