Thinking 30 Years Ahead?

Most of the email forwards I receive I delete pretty quickly because they are over sensationalized, but this one emphasized the final intent of my previous post.

It was given in 1978 by Elder Neal A. Maxwell...

"Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had 'never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or
political life.'

"This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ. . . . Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. . . . This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.

"Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.... Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes
will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself. Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, 'summer is nigh.' Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat."

--- Elder Neal A. Maxwell

And, as a doctor myself, I couldn't help feeling some resonation with this article. Although I can't forsee any similar circumstances for my profession, if I had to consider changing 21 years of school because of a new ruling similar to prop-8 failure, it would be a very hard pill to swallow.

Politics

I hate politics. I brings out the three negative attributes I hate most about human nature: unkindness, misrepresentation (positioning statements over facts) and the mob mentality. I can't stand getting emails about Obama being a dirty Muslim or the media trying to show Palin as having no experience. How much better would the world be if people would honestly admit their opponents strengths and not try to sensationalize or blow out of proportion their weaknesses? How much easier would our ability be to choose who is really better for the country if we didn't get distorted or unresearched or knowingly false facts?

Despite that, I like thinking over and figuring out philosophical dilemmas. I have been thinking a lot lately about two hot political topics here on the west coast: Proposition 8 in California (prohibiting same-sex marriages) and Initiative 1000 in Washington (allowing assisted suicide). Both are difficult because you can't EASILY make an argument against gay marriage or assisted suicide on the stance that it hurts your personal rights, especially with I-1000.

As usual I try to pull my religion into the decision process to help me see where I stand. The end all, be all for me is the Book of Mormon. I can think of one main passage that is related to this subject:

Alma 30:7, 9, 11

7 Now there was no law against a man's belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.

9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.

11 For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.

The eleventh Article of Faith also is similar, but neither it nor the above scripture gives an obvious statement that helps with this situation. I do think that the spirit of these two snippets of church doctrine is that we shouldn't make a law that punishes someone for their belief if their action doesn't harm another person or group.

So does voting for I-1000 or against Prop-8 create a situation where someone can make a personal choice that will hurt another person or group? I don't think so with I-1000, but the sanctity of life argument is difficult as well. I don't think there is enough evidence right now to say one way or another on Prop-8. Although they haven't always been perfect, I think I'll side with my ecclesiastical leaders for now on this one. In gray areas I would rather error and find out I was following the Lord's mouthpieces than error and find out I went against them and they were right. Before you drag me through the coals, I do think there is a just middle ground on Prop-8.

Choosing your child's sex

Is it wrong to do things that will increase the odds of your child's gender? Female sperm live longer than their Y counterparts. Purposely trying to have fertilization occur a few days before ovulation so that more X's are around than Y's for conception is a mild form of "gender control." What about centrifuging those X's and Y's when you have to use artificial insemination to greatly increase the odds of which chromosome type fertilizes the egg? Even further, what about selecting an X and doing in-vitro to have a 99.9% success rate with gender selection? Is there any difference between any of these examples and if so, where do you draw the line, if there is one?

My wife and I have thought about this frequently considering that we have three boys and really would like to have a girl. For us it is more of an adoption question. We really want to adopt and we really would like a girl. Is choosing to adopt to get a desired gender wrong, even if our intentions are good? What if you adopt 60% because you can select the gender and 40% for the right reasons. Knowing that we have these personal questions, a close friend recently asked us if we knew the Church's official position and what our personal opinion was on the matter.

I'm familiar with the church's position on most matters for two reasons. The first comes from reading the Church's General Handbook of Instructions a couple of times. During bishopric meetings every Sunday during dental school (I was ward clerk) we would go through a section of the handbook to make sure we were aware of the proper methods of carrying out church activities. Secondly, as part of our biology major in undergrad at BYU Marisa and I had a class called bio-ethics. We went over the major ethical issues involved with biology from genetically modified food to euthanasia (yes, the children in Asia are doing fine!). Because it was a class at BYU we also were fortunate to receive the Church's official position where it had one. I loved this class because we had group sessions where we would decide what was the most ethical thing to do, both for the general public and ourselves as Mormons. There were very interesting times when these two didn't coincide.

I don't remember anything specific from that class on artificial insemination. So I did a Google search. Although you can't blatantly copy (hard or electronic) the handbook, it is ok to have sections copied and given to people for clarification. In that spirit I avoided looking for the handbook online, but don't mind copying a section found on a webpage that shows our policy towards a couple difficult issues such as this:

Artificial insemination is defined as placing semen into the uterus or oviduct by artificial rather than natural means. The Church does not approve of artificial insemination of single women. It also discourages artificial insemination of married women using semen from anyone but the husband. "However, this is a personal matter that ultimately must be left to the husband and wife, with the responsibility for the decision resting solely upon them" (_General Handbook of Instructions,_ 11-4). Children conceived by artificial insemination have the same family ties as children who are conceived naturally. The _General Handbook of Instructions_ (1989) states: "A child conceived by artificial insemination and born after the parents are sealed in the temple is born in the covenant. A child conceived by artificial insemination before the parents are sealed may be sealed to them after they are sealed."

That all seems pretty benign and doesn't tackle this issue of gender selection. I couldn't find anything specific to this issue from the church so if you do, please make a comment. My personal opinion on many things that happen in this life is that we get to choose and then we suffer/enjoy the consequences. This life isn't totally mapped out. I don't think that all people were preordained to be in the exact family that they ended up in. If a 16 year old girl chooses to give in to her boyfriend's wishes and gets pregnant then that spirit will end up with her as the mother. If she chooses to wait until later in her life when she is married to a different man than her previous boyfriend then that spirit will probably have headed to another family. The family the spirit goes to isn't 100% random either. Kind of like a happy medium between the two possible ends of the spectrum. If this is the case, then choosing your child's gender (and how many children you have for that matter) doesn't break down the perfect cosmic tapestry pre-woven in the life before this.

The similar subject of how many children to have can potentially help give perspective on this issue. There are probably many times when a family wasn't "supposed to" have another child, ie-some spirit waiting up in heaven for just this family. They end up getting pregnant. This then gives them the consequence and the joy of getting another spirit in their family. Choosing to (intentionally or not) have another child is totally up to them. So, I guess you can tell which way I lean on the main subject at hand, but I have to admit...I'm not totally comfortable one way or the other. If it came down to actually having the opportunity/necessity to make this decision I would have to go with the standard practice and one recommended in the handbook, together with your spouse take the question up with the Lord. When you get an answer from him you know you are in the right. The tough thing there is what to do when you don't get the 100% obvious answer...