Adventures in Infertility II: Doctrines
One of the big problems facing those inflicted with infertility is the lack of clear teaching/doctrine about infertility. The pourpose of this post will be to pose some of the questions we faced and appeal to the bloggernacle for clarification in doctrine, et al. I will also give my understanding of the answers.
1. When does life start? When my wife had her tubal (see previous post), the fallopian tube actually burst, putting her life in danger. When the doctors went in to rectify the situation, they found that the only reason that she didn’t bleed out was that the foetus had lodged against the burst, exerting pressure on the rupture and stemming the bleeding. At the time I knew that I had lost a child, but even in the act of loosing the child, I felt a sense of sacrifice to save my wife.
2-This is related to the first–What happens to those children that are stillborn/miscarried? After some of our miscarriages/ectopic pregnancy, people in church, trying to be comforting, told us we would have the opportunity to raise those children in the millenium. Others told us that those spirits came and got their body and dont need anything else. Other told us that those spirits just wait for the next body. Does anyone have any clarification?
3-Without taking anything from the times and seasons discussion, What is the doctrine of birth control?
4-When we went in for our IVF, we were told by the doctors that they would only implant 4 eggs–MAX. We were faced with the question of what to do with the additional fertilized eggs (actually, in the end only 3 were viable, but we faced the question initially). I went to the Handbook of Instructions on this, and there was nothing there. I went to the Stake President, and he inquired for us. He was referred to a G.A. that was a physician. The response was that every month, fertilized eggs that do not implant in women are flushed out of the system. We should not worry about “flushing” any additional eggs. This was interesting given question 1.
4-I have a family friend who is experiencing infertility who would not consider IVF because of the way the sperm is collected. Any thoughts?
5-I heard that surrogate pregnancies were discouraged by the church. Is this truly the case?
6-This was also covered in the first post, but do some healing blessing fail because of a lack of faith? If so, whose? The Blessor, The Blessee, bystanders? Or do they not really fail, they just happen in a way we don’t expect or understand? I would appreciate clarification.
Thanks to all who have read and responded to this series. I can’t express how this affected our family. My hope is that with understanding it will not onlyhelp us, but others facing the same problem.
1- We don’t know. I’ve never seen anything ‘official’ from any GA on this one.
2- Good question. For me, I guess it depends on the answer to the 1st question, which, of course, is still an unknown. I believe the CHI (Church Handbook of Instruction) has some quidance on stillborn/miscarried children.
3- I believe this one is left up to the individual to decide. The Church, as far as I know, does not have any official doctrine/stand on this one.
4- What, he won’t go in “The Room” and do “The Deed”? *Smirk* I made three visits to “The Room”…thank you very much. As degrading a feeling as it may be, it helped my wife conceive a child. So, in my mind, the end justifies the means.
5- Not sure?
6- I don’t believe so. I received multiple blessings of health on my mission, but still was sent home early due to health problems. Did I lack the faith? I don’t think so. Difficult subject, really. Let’s just say I think sometimes we say things that are not directed by the Spirit. And, as you point out above, I think sometimes blessings are granted in ways that we do not understand or expect.
Just my $0.02.
Comment by Brian Duffin — 1/13/2006 @ 4:46 pm
2. I’m not so sure about the raising them in the millennium idea. Technically our first baby wasn’t even born. He developed up until the ninth or tenth week and by the time my wife miscarried, the only discernible sign she had a baby inside of her was a tiny placenta. Beyond that everything was just a mess of blood and tissue.
Comment by Kim Siever — 1/13/2006 @ 4:54 pm
5. I have never had to masturbate for sperm samples. I’ve always been able to collect a sample through withdrawal after intercourse. I’ve done it twice and both times my sperm count was very healthy, so I don’t put much credit in the claim that intercourse interferes with the sperm count.
I have never donated sperm, so I am unsure if the logistics would lend itself to a similar collection method as above.
Comment by Kim Siever — 1/13/2006 @ 4:58 pm
“Surrogate motherhood is strongly discouraged.” (CHI, p. 160)
Re: birth control policy,
“The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.” (CHI, p. 158)
Re: sperm donation,
“The donation of sperm is strongly discouraged.” (CHI, p. 159) Presumable, this does not include the donation of a husban’s sperm for the process of in vitro fertilization.
Comment by Kim Siever — 1/13/2006 @ 5:05 pm
re: the first 4
That is an interesting analogy that the GA used regarding throwing away fertilized eggs. True, fertilized eggs are naturally discarded by women’s bodies all the time. But women also have natural miscarriages all the time, and this does not mean that fetuses should be thrown away with little thought.
I’d still like to know the answer of when life begins.
re: the second 4
Just get the wife to participate in the donation process. Either she does the handiwork or use withdrawal. It becomes a joint venture like it should be, and the intent of the orgasm is still the same. Can this be done at home or does it need to be at the doctor’s office?
Comment by Matt Jacobsen — 1/13/2006 @ 5:26 pm
Per the instructions in my doctors office (sorry to be graphic), while your wife could help you collect, in the case of the collecting for insemination, she was on her back in another room. Otherwise, the instructions were very specific about no outside substances (lubrication, saliva, etc) could be introduced in order to eliminate any chances of contamination.
Comment by Craig S. — 1/13/2006 @ 5:50 pm
First, let me state plainly that this is where we can really offend those who suffer. Moreover, church policy as been all over the place. Moreover, technology is advancing quickly and the church doesn’t update the CHI, and consequently written instruction, but infrequently, so there is a grand opportunity for confusion. Perhaps my comments may be offensive to some, and I apologize in advance.
Regarding the harvesting of sperm, post coital ejaculate is not, as Craig states, appropriate for fertility procedures. There is a necessity to harvest sperm by auto-stimulation. This is not sinful, anymore than a sexual union with ones spouse.
Surrogacy is rather rare in the church, so it is not a surprise that there is a bit of confusion on the topic. I know both a family that has sought children this way and women that have carried babies. It is my understanding that there are two types of surrogacy: traditional and gestational. The latter involves the embryo of the sponsor couple and is not frowned upon like the former, which requires the surrogate mother to donate her egg.
The birth control teachings of the church have gone from something comparable to the Roman Catholic position to the current policy that responsible family planning is an imperative of the gospel and methods are left between couples and God. Justin has a fabulous write up that documented this shift.
As far as doctrines of spirit-body union…well, the church doesn’t have any. It seems that the real question (unlike our creedal friends who espouse creation ex nihilo) is when a spirit is bound to a specific body and goes to prison (hell/paradise) at the destruction of this body. It is policy that a family can put still born babies on their family group sheet, but also temple work for them is prohibited. With respect to the sensitivities of those who have lost babies this way, I feel that the policy is one of helping people cope with their loss. I like to go with the whole “breath of life” idea, but that is pure speculation.
The idea that we will raise our children who pass away in the millennium seems to smack of this tendency to comfort the morning parents. It was first espoused by Joseph F. Smith and he went around seeking out affidavits that Joseph Smith had taught it, which he eventually procured. In the end, if it makes you feel better, I guess it is fine to believe it.
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/13/2006 @ 6:13 pm
For what it’s worth, I’ve been compiling some policies here. I was planning a fetility one. I’ll have to get on it.
Comment by Jared — 1/13/2006 @ 6:37 pm
I don’t know if we get to raise our children who we lose, but before I miscarried my first I was told first in a blessing that he would be born to us. I have also dreamt of him quite clearly and have had a spiritual confirmation that he was my baby I had lost and also that he would be a part of her family. I don’t know the official doctrine, but I do know he is my child.
Comment by Mary Siever — 1/14/2006 @ 8:54 am
Having never had children or even been married, I feel it both unwelcome for me to comment on many of these questions, as well as perhaps a bit inappropriate, since I can’t even imagine at this point the emotions involved. However, I have a thought as far as priesthood blessings go. Not all priesthood blessings are necessarily words inspired of God, but rather they are pleas for blessings. I know of times I have said things in a blessing that didn’t come to pass, while other blessings I’ve given have. I believe it was largely based on whether or not we (the blessee and blesser) were submitting to the will of God beforehand. In cases like that, it is more like a prayer than the word of the Lord. In those cases, I would refer to the Bible Dictionary:
“Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God” (BD, Prayer).
I don’t want to sound unsympathetic, but perhaps the Lord had something different in mind when he gave you and your wife your challenges. All those who have blessed you, including the GA, are still human. They may have been pleading with the Lord, not speaking on his behalf.
It’s always easier to say this from the perspective of one who’s never been through the same challenges, but I believe that our trials are to bless our faith, to see if we will endure. I refer you to Ether 12:6, where “unseen” can even be God’s purpose for trying us. But even more importantly is to never forget God’s love for you. The Christ has gone through the same trials we have (Alma 7:11-12). He allows bad things to happen to people, but he never leaves them alone. Only he can say to each of us in every personal struggle, “I too have been there.” He will provide you with comfort if you hold steadfast. Good luck.
Comment by Jonathan R. — 1/14/2006 @ 12:35 pm
re breath of life #7 J.–Babies receive the breath of life from their mothers through the navel during gestation. Are you saying it doesn’t count til they breath the air with their lungs rather than receiving life-giving air through their mother’s and then their own blood stream?
Comment by LisaB — 1/15/2006 @ 12:49 pm
As far as “raising in the millenium” goes, I like to use that idea to shut nosey people up by bragging that we get to raise our other three when satan is bound. But my honest belief is that the spirits of my first two miscarried babies went to other families, or were part of the “third” who decided against mortality. By conceiving, we gave them an actually opportunity for mortality–the war and councils in heaven being on-going. I feel peaceful about either of those possibilities. I think the third just waited and is my secondborn.
I think there probably isn’t one answer for every situation.
Comment by LisaB — 1/15/2006 @ 12:55 pm
Actually, I realy have no idea, but the breath of life does reflect the church’s teachings on proxy-work (no still borns). I do imagine though that where such spirits go probably is malleable and changes to fit the needs of the time…but again that is speculation on my part.
Comment by J. Stapley — 1/15/2006 @ 5:44 pm
Just to add gasoline to the fire:
At work I take care of sick newborn infants, some of which were born as early as 23 weeks gestational age (term being 40 weeks). 20 years ago, no attempt would be made to save a baby born before 25 weeks or more. 40 years ago, 28 weeks was a stretch, and 95% of infants born at 28 weeks died (now more than 95% live). Occasionally I am called to attend deliveries of preemies born at an estimated age of 22 weeks or less, with the hope that the dates were wrong and the baby is really older on exam (lung development is such that less than 23 weeks is not viable).
At 22 weeks, the fetus is typically less than one pound, but it is fully formed and when born will often make an attempt at breathing…
So. When does life start? When does the spirit enter the body? What happens to these babies/fetuses when they die/are stillborn? In medicine, the line separating fetal demise and neonatal death is arbitrarily set, and is designated purely for charting purposes. Doctrinally, this is the great gray area surrounding the plan of salvation, and without direct instruction from the source, I tend to leave it alone. Any theories about it are pure speculation. If you have personal revelation concerning the topic, then please keep it personal. I know we all like to comfort one another in times of adversity, and it sounds good to affix a destination to those little ones lost, but as yet I have heard no direct address of the topic from the only source capable of comprehending it. I don’t mean to sound cold, but this is a regular part of my life, and if I dwelt too long on the subject, I would go insane.
This I do know: we have a loving Father in Heaven who loves us so much he has given us complete agency, knowing that to deny us this would condemn us for eternity. This means that crappy stuff happens. Babies die. Infants are born with genetic anomalies or birth defects or develop autism. They also happen to good LDS families and 16 year-old crack addicts alike. It has always bothered me a bit when members of the Church ascribe these horrible events to Heavenly Father’s intervention as part of some test. The test, I believe, is our agency, which requires us to deal with the good and bad as it happens. If the Lord prevented the bad from happening to “good LDS families,” would we really be free?
Sorry, that was a bit off topic…
Anyway, to answer the questions:
1. I don’t know
2. I don’t know
3. It’s up to you
4a. Nice theory, and I don’t have a problem with it, but I don’t know
4b. Eeww…
5. I don’t know
6. Not enough time in the day to even start
Comment by Chris S — 1/16/2006 @ 1:18 pm
When I was finished with my last entry, I realized that I might have come off somewhat uncaring about infertility issues. Craig, as you and yours went through your times of trial with illness and infertility, we prayed for and grieved with you. It broke my heart to hear of your losses. But I must say, that I have been ever proud of you and your dear wife for the sterling way in which you bore your burdens. It could not have been easy, being surrounded by siblings on both sides who “breed like rabbits,” and never once did you begrudge them. Indeed, you rejoiced in their times of joy, despite the inner pain I know it caused. That is true celestial use of agency.
Comment by Chris S. — 1/16/2006 @ 6:32 pm
1) I’ve lost 3 and I believe that all dead children will be raised in the millenium, so mine will be too. (we don’t baptise or endow dead children, just seal to parents- I think that’s because they’ll live to do it themselves.)
but I know some people miscarry and learn it wasn’t there yet, while some get blessings that say the spirit was- so I believe it is diferent in each case. I don’t think the spirit comes into the body at the same day of gestation for everybody- especially not in cases of unhealthy embryos. I think my earliest loss- 5 weeks- maybe didn’t make it, but I know my 6 weeker lives on.
4) some of my catholic friends did semen testing by employing a perforated condom during intercourse. (perforated because in the RCC you can’t use condoms. It lets some through, theoretcially, but still catches enough for testing)
Kim in post 2- When I miscarried both my 6 and 8 weekers, the fetus was felt passing and clear to see. It looked like a bean and we did a simple garden burial.
Comment by cchrissyy — 1/23/2006 @ 12:42 pm
As a reproductive biologist (embryologist) I have some of my own feelings about when life begins based on what we see in biology. Most of these musings are more about when life “doesn’t” begin.
1) At fertilization – Over 70% of all fertilized eggs do not implant or result in a child. To me it would seem very wasteful to have all of these “souls” put into an embryo so that most of them would only experience a few days at most in the woman’s fallopian tube.
2) At the blastocyst stage – This stage of embyo resembles a hollow ball. It contains two types of cells, the inner cell mass which becomes the fetus and trophectoderm which make up part of the placenta. When the embryo hatches out of its flexible “shell”, the zona pellucida, it may be pinched and result into the dividing of the embryo nto two identical twins. If the soul is put into the embryo prior to this stage, does the soul get divided (and so twins only posses a half of a soul), or does only one part of the embryo get a soul leaving one of the twins soul-less, or is new soul quickly put into the newly divided blastocyst (which would mean that beings obtain their souls at two times, one of which would be after the blastocyst stage)?
Once again, I find would find these options as contrived and wasteful and believing in the KISS (keep it simple stupid) theory, I feel that the soul is probably obtained sometime after the blastocyst stage and most likely near either the time of formation of the neural tube or beating of the heart.
To me, none of this should impinge upon the idea that all life and potential life should be treated with utmost respect, to do otherwise would result in our society determining that certain “creations” were less worthy of being humans than others. For this reason alone, I feel that capital punishment should be outlawed. It is not a form of punishment, only a form of revenge. I have a hard time seeing how someone could be pro life and pro capital punishment. They both seem to be incompatible views.
Comment by KPomeroy — 1/31/2006 @ 10:39 pm