Hey Mormon guys and gals! - Nugget #1 from the CHI:

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:24 pm

Boaz & Lidia wrote:Butt outta this thread bud.

You have zero applicable experience in this area.

You need to FIRST follow their strong counsel of "stop hanging around and GET MARRIED".

Let me think about that...no.

Post by **_harmony** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:36 pm

bcspace wrote:
People, people... you're missing the boat here.

A vasectomy is one thing... surrogate motherhood is an entirely different animal. In order to become a surrogate mother, a woman has to be inseminated (via normal or artificial means) with a man's sperm, a man she is not married to. How can this be "discouraged" rather than a case for church sanction, if not excommunication?

Because virtue and carnal knowledge are not involved?

You don't know that, and no one else does either.

What about the Old Testament law of raising up seed unto your deceased brother by taking his wife under your care?

Old Testament laws are culturally based, not God-based. We've had this discussion before, bcspace. You want to go back to an eye for an eye? animal sacrifice? slavery? no bacon????

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:42 pm

Because virtue and carnal knowledge are not involved?

You don't know that, and no one else does either.

I'm quite certain sex does not need to be involved to be or have a surrogate.

What about the Old Testament law of raising up seed unto your deceased brother by taking his wife under your care?

Old Testament laws are culturally based, not God-based.

All laws are spiritual (D&C 29:34)

We've had this discussion before, bcspace.

No, we haven't.

You want to go back to an eye for an eye? animal sacrifice? slavery? no bacon????

You don't seem to understand the law of Moses and it's fulfillment at all. I'm not saying that we should go back to that lesser law, I'm saying there is a principle in here that we can look at to see how God sees such things.

Post by **_bcspace** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:45 pm

Zero Population is the answer my friend. Without it, the rest of us are doomed!

I'd trust a broken leg before I'd trust a dame.

Post by **_skippy the dead** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:49 pm

The Nehor wrote:Zero Population is the answer my friend. Without it, the rest of us are doomed!

Well thanks for putting cheezy Mormon musical numbers into my head for the day.

Post by **_harmony** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:39 pm

bcspace wrote:
Zero Population is the answer my friend. Without it, the rest of us are doomed!

I'd trust a broken leg before I'd trust a dame.

"There is nothing like a dame. Nothing.. in the world... that is anything like a dame."

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:44 pm

Wow. I was an active, devout believer when I had my tubes tied. It never occurred to me to "talk to my bishop" first. I knew if I had another child I'd go stark raving mad.

I knew, through the grapevine, that one sister who already had ten kids and who was at risk of death if she had another went to the bishop for the "ok" to have her tubes tied. But I thought that was ludicrous, and bizarre.

I had heard, at BYU, that one urban Mormon legend was that if you were sterilized in this life, your punishment would be to be resurrected as a sterilized being, but I always thought that was baloney.

Sheesh. Maybe I always was a liberal Mormon and never knew it.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:51 pm

Since the Handbook does not mention seeking out those seeking such a procedure I would suggest that the counsel is to be given to those who seek the Bishop's counsel on this matter. If my wife and I were considering having such a procedure on one of us I would not go to the Bishop unless we both felt we needed counsel to reach a decision.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:53 pm

Well, obviously they're not hunting down those who didn't pray about it, either, but that doesn't change it's what you are supposed to do.

I think that going after those who don't consult the bishop first would result in some pretty dismal PR.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:55 pm

beastie wrote:Well, obviously they're not hunting down those who didn't pray about it, either, but that doesn't change it's what you are supposed to do.

I think that going after those who don't consult the bishop first would result in some pretty dismal PR.

Are you suggesting it's bad that people in a Church where personal revelation is prized should seek revelation regarding such a big decision.