Vasectomy ZOMG

The church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.

Source: Handbook 2: Adminstering the Church

So now we know: vasectomies are evil! But...why?

As you probably know if you know me, I can't stand any organization that expects its members to obey without question. Church, government and company alike. I loathe a command given without a second thought for explaining the reasons behind it. Why shouldn't that couple raising ten kids on $40,000 a year (who have finally decided they just could not afford that eleventh child and continue to pay the church's salvation tax) have the freedom to pursue whatever birth control means they find most applicable?

This stance is especially surprising when considering that in the church's new handbook they appear to have actually finally made an official statement with regard to birth control that borders on the sane. Decades ago, birth control was openly decried from the pulpit. But in recent years it has been hovering in the "don't talk about it for a while" phase of the church's long and drawn-out doctrine-change process. Now they've apparently felt the time is right for that first tentative reacknowledgement, and their new handbook states that the number of children a couple decides to have is “extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord.”

It's strange: if I had been made to guess which one birth control method the LDS church would forbid, I'd have pegged the IUD, given that it actually allows union of sperm and egg. But no, when personhood begins still seems to be one of those questions on which they are as yet unwilling to take an official stand. Instead, it's the vasectomy that gets the condemnation.

So why the hate for surgical contraception? One reason I can imagine is that perhaps they disapprove of its permanence? A man who undergoes the procedure is permanently giving up his ability to impregnate a woman. Well, so? Given that they finally seem almost willing to acknowledge that the earth is good and "replenished" and that (maybe) making as many babies as possible isn't universally a couple's only mode of righteous existence, why not allow a couple this option? If they truly do recognize that each couple needs to choose what they can handle, shouldn't they realize that some couples are better off never reproducing and allow surgical sterilization? Instead it is roundly condemned with nary an explanation as to what's so dangerous about it.

Perhaps they don't like that it alters the body, akin to the prohibition of tattoos? Well then, why not say so?

If not altering the body to prevent conception, or avoiding permanently preventing conception, or whatever theological motive they have for this policy is so important, why not disclose the reasons to the members so they know God's will for certain and can more effectively follow it? But no, the Mormon's lot is simply to follow when commanded.

I don't know, maybe the reasons for this are talked about in church these days and therefore a mystery to no one who still attends. If so, why not tell the world? The church has not traditionally been shy about broadcasting its views on morality (see Missionary Work; also, Proposition 8). So tell me, LDS church, why should I be ashamed of my vasectomy?