LDS Freedom Forum

...At least as you've been defining them. Don't bother reading if you can't handle facts. Because your world view is probably about to get challenged. And rightly so.

I recently had the opportunity to start learning more about intersex people, when I went back to school to take some biology (Neuroscience type classes, for example). I decided to take a class that included gender differentiation, that focused on the biological and psychological aspects of gender. I'd never taken a particular interest in the subject, because I've been constantly told that people are always male or female, genetically, even hermaphrodites. THAT's A BIG, FAT, WHOPPING LIE. But nonetheless, I had no reason to learn about intersex people, people with gender incongruence, or transsexuals (those who bring their physical experience in line with their internal gender).

If you don't know what intersex people are, they are people who are on the continuum of gender, who are neither male or female, as usually defined. You've probably been taught religiously that people are only male of female, and eternally so. Well, IF that's true, what sex you are (or gender) is definitely not a universally discernible trait in mortality. There are "girl" genes (XX), and "boy" genes (XY), that you probably know about. There's girl genitals, and boy genitals. You've probably learned about them, too. But you probably didn't know there are millions, upon millions of people that aren't male or female (at least in physical body). (And if their bodies aren't male or female, then you may have to ask them what gender they are, because you cannot tell them).

There's XXY, XXXY, and XY/XXY (Kleinfelter's Syndrome), and XYY, and just XO (Turner Syndrome, they only have one sex chromosome). There's also XXX, XXXX, and XXXXX (Triple-X Syndrome). There's also people that have XX in some cells, and XY in other cells, these are called "chimeras," when they are the result of more than one embryo fusing together, literally they are both male and female.

So, why would you care? Because a lot of things your believe about sex and gender are wrong. People who have no understanding of science make up things like "demonic possession" to explain people that are different. I've seen it on this very forum. In addition to these genetic conditions, there's other condition's that affect gender, such as hormonal issues. People have diseases such as "androgen insensitivity syndrome." This is a peculiar disease, because "genetic males" (those with X and Y chromosomes), can develop and grow up with the body of a woman, complete with female sex organs. All their lives they may be told they are women. This occurs at a frequency of about 1:13,000 births. That may seem insignificant for you, But that's 13,000 people in just the U.S. (and that's one of the more RARE conditions). These "men" (if you accept genetics as being the decider of gender, which is unreliable) often grow up thinking they are women, until they have a fertility test and find out they're not women at all.

Hopefully, by now your interest is piqued. A friend from my ward set me an article written on this subject. This church member, the author of the article, is trying to get people to rectify their un-Christlike treatment of others with the fact that God makes people who are neither male-nor female. His perspective is very diplomatic, and tries to rectify things in a way he thinks is helpful. I don't agree with him on all aspects, but his article is a very good primer for people who are completely ignorant about the world of sex and gender as a science, or even those who just want to understand more about what it is to have conflicting genders in physical body, mind and spirit.

Maybe it's time you consider you've been wrong about what you believe. If gender (and sex) can be irrespective of genetics, maybe you're wrong about a lot of other things. Knowledge is power. Keep learning. Godspeed and good luck.

Sunday, December 14, 2014
Gender Incongruence and the LDS Church: Frontier of Understanding (Parts 1-4)
by Russ Peterson:
http://www.modernmormonmen.com/2014/12/ ... 4.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For a long time, I've been thinking of making a post, but get tired of the ignorant among us making wild claims of demonic possession and debasing others, especially gay people, out of fear, ignorance, and often sheer bigotry. But ultimately, if ignorance is to be dispelled, someone has to start telling the truth. The truth is there's more to sexuality and gender then what the church addresses, or can address.

If they (church leaders) don't know what sex you are (say you're a chimera with xx and xy, who has the sex organs of a male, and attraction to males), they can tell you to be celibate, but they can't say if you're a male or a female. Do you get the priesthood, or don't you? Do you attend Relief Society? Does someone else follow the same path, or another one? If you do marry, either sex, are you sinning? If, as that same chimera, you feel you're a female and have gender reassignment of your male organs, to be a female, have you sinned?

Your opinion actually doesn't matter in any of these cases. And if it doesn't matter in that case of the chimera, why does it matter when someone else has attraction to someone you don't understand? Maybe if you didn't know or care that tens millions of people (some estimates are as high as 1:150 people) aren't distinctly or necessarily male or female, your notions are wrong about other things, too, like sexuality. Not all gay people have been abused (that's a superstitious lie). Those people aren't gay, they have sexual identity conflicts, they're not the same as people who innately have attraction to the same-sex. There's an entire world of facts out there that you can educate yourself on. I implore you to start learning. You can start with the linked article above.

And treat your neighbor with love. You're not God. Love your neighbor, and pretend you have no idea how God will bless or curse them for their benefit. Because your job isn't to punish them because you're ignorant. You job is to treat them lovingly and allow them to exercise their agency, and direct their lives according to THEIR conscience. It's not a suggestion, it's a commandment, and a fundamental tenet of our religion. You're a sinner who struggles and deserves no part of the atonement, either. The atonement is a gift, you didn't earn it, you don't deserve it. And you have no idea how God will bless your trampled neighbor. Beware lest ye trample them, too.

You are not the judge of their worth, or final resting place. So love your neighbor as yourself, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Some additional links to get you started:

(I'll repeat this one since it's a good primer):

Gender Incongruence and the LDS Church: Frontier of Understanding (Parts 1-4)
by Russ Peterson
http://www.modernmormonmen.com/2014/12/ ... 4.html?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How common is intersex?
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...To answer this question in an uncontroversial way, you’d have to first get everyone to agree on what counts as intersex —and also to agree on what should count as strictly male or strictly female...

Intersex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Types of Intersex conditions
http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/i/interse ... btypes.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Human Chromosomal Abnormalities: Sex Chromosome Abnormalities
http://anthro.palomar.edu/abnormal/abnormal_5.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FYI,

From your post:

Maybe if you didn't know or care that tens millions of people (some estimates are as high as 1:150 people) aren't distinctly or necessarily male or female...

The article puts the number at about 3x that:

Considering that we have listed only a few of the more than 30 known disorders of sex development, it should come as no surprise that the overall incidence (1.7%) is fairly high.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the stats.

Edit: From one of the links:

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births

Apparently the stats are hard to pin down because of disagreement as to what constitutes some of these conditions. In any event, it's more frequent than I thought.

I know of at least one guy (now he's a guy, anyway) in my ward like this. Makes sense, statistically.

Thank you for this jdawg. This is something I've been seeking further understanding about. I think that there is a lot we don't understand and I appreciate you putting it out there for us to study and consider and figure out.

jbalm wrote:FYI,

From your post:

Maybe if you didn't know or care that tens millions of people (some estimates are as high as 1:150 people) aren't distinctly or necessarily male or female...

The article puts the number at about 3x that:

Considering that we have listed only a few of the more than 30 known disorders of sex development, it should come as no surprise that the overall incidence (1.7%) is fairly high.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the stats.

Edit: From one of the links:

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births

Apparently the stats are hard to pin down because of disagreement as to what constitutes some of these conditions. In any event, it's more frequent than I thought.

I know of at least one guy (now he's a guy, anyway) in my ward like this. Makes sense, statistically.

You're absolutely right in that the stats are hard to pin down because people do disagree on what is, and is not intersex. The incident is high though, I just used one of the most conservative numbers (1:150) because even then, someone will challenge it. I've seen the 1.7% (which means that the typical ward will have a half dozen or so), Russ Larson (The LDS author of the above article) even mentions there being a few in every ward statistically. Some of these people don't even know that they're intersex. But the rate is common enough that there's probably several in every public place you go: the DMV, Church, the Grocery store. It's really been an eye opener for me.

There is one principle that if applied would cover most if not all such cases:
All who are the recipients of birth defects should only be held accountable to the level that they are not hindered by them.


For example, God will not hold them accountable to hold the priesthood if they aren't clearly and fully male, both body and spirit.

Where it gets problematic is if and when they appeal to government to force a church to give them priesthood.

If anything, the science you are referring to could be a good basis to go ahead and increase the number of people who should NOT be expected (and some not even allowed) to hold priesthood. They should also be given an opportunity to have a special blessing performed wherein they are given hope to be able to be normalized to the gender of their choice in the hereafter.

I believe they should even be allowed to act in some capacities based upon how they commit to identify themselves and start sooner rather than later. We all suffer with one another's infirmities so I think to some extent it wouldn't be out of line to suffer with the infirmities of those who are in the intersex category as well.

I believe there is plenty of room for new revelation to come to make things better for those of this category without opening the doors to the things clearly proscribed in the laws of God.

@ jdawg,

On the statistics,

There are a couple others in my ward who are rumored to be intersex (this thread is the first time I've ever used that word), and by looking at them, it is believable.

The one guy I'm certain of is up front about it. His parents opted for "male" at birth. He is married to a nice woman. But the gender ambiguity is still unmistakable.

It must be hard to deal with such a thing. Especially in an LDS setting (or any ultra-conservative setting). Based on the frequency of these conditions, I am grateful that I haven't had to deal with it in my family.

Cool thread. Thanks.

I used to belong to a discussion forum who's owner was insistent that all such people should be referred to as sodomites. No consideration, just apply the label "SODOMITE". He claimed it was Christ who had labeled them that so he would continue that tradition. At first I was amused, but later it actually grossed me out. Especially since I have been labeled so much of my life (one person on FF called me a Shreck). Go ahead and laugh, must be funny (I quickly changed my self-image avatar of the me in a green shirt after that labeling).

Our test is about loving others despite our differences. I struggle much with this. However, I have become much more understanding of my GBLT neighbors than ever before. Who am I to Judge?

jwharton wrote:There is one principle that if applied would cover most if not all such cases:
All who are the recipients of birth defects should only be held accountable to the level that they are not hindered by them.


For example, God will not hold them accountable to hold the priesthood if they aren't clearly and fully male, both body and spirit.

Where it gets problematic is if and when they appeal to government to force a church to give them priesthood.

If anything, the science you are referring to could be a good basis to go ahead and increase the number of people who should NOT be expected (and some not even allowed) to hold priesthood. They should also be given an opportunity to have a special blessing performed wherein they are given hope to be able to be normalized to the gender of their choice in the hereafter.

I believe they should even be allowed to act in some capacities based upon how they commit to identify themselves and start sooner rather than later. We all suffer with one another's infirmities so I think to some extent it wouldn't be out of line to suffer with the infirmities of those who are in the intersex category as well.

I believe there is plenty of room for new revelation to come to make things better for those of this category without opening the doors to the things clearly proscribed in the laws of God.

The Proclamation on the Family would need some tweaking.

Jules wrote:Thank you for this jdawg. This is something I've been seeking further understanding about. I think that there is a lot we don't understand and I appreciate you putting it out there for us to study and consider and figure out.

You're very welcome. Reading comment boards (Deseret News, KSL, SLTrib, among others), I've found that lots and lots of people are long on opinion and short on understanding of these subjects.

I consider myself fairly familiar with them now (but by no means expert), and even I have trouble with the "now what?" aspect. But I couldn't sit by and not bring to light the fact that we're being told things by church leaders, and church members, that are either being misinterpreted, or are in and of themselves just plain incorrect.

There was one post here that said hermaphrodites shouldn't get married. I've never seen that as doctrine, ANYWHERE, but someone's just spouting that. I have no idea what God would have that person (a potential hermaphrodite) do, but it's unfathomable to me, when people just tell someone to be alone and miserable (it is not meet that man should be alone) and that they should never get married (in this case, the potential hermaphrodite was to marry no one, for no other reason than that they were both male and female).

My hope is not to break people's faith through science, but that they'll understand that this is a great big world, and God has great big plans for ALL of His children, not just the ones that cleanly meet people's personal classifications. Like Nephi, I know that He loveth His children, nevertheless I do not know the meaning of all things. God IS Love. And, of that, I testify, in the Sacred Name of Jesus Christ, amen.

jbalm wrote:

jwharton wrote:There is one principle that if applied would cover most if not all such cases:
All who are the recipients of birth defects should only be held accountable to the level that they are not hindered by them.


For example, God will not hold them accountable to hold the priesthood if they aren't clearly and fully male, both body and spirit.

Where it gets problematic is if and when they appeal to government to force a church to give them priesthood.

If anything, the science you are referring to could be a good basis to go ahead and increase the number of people who should NOT be expected (and some not even allowed) to hold priesthood. They should also be given an opportunity to have a special blessing performed wherein they are given hope to be able to be normalized to the gender of their choice in the hereafter.

I believe they should even be allowed to act in some capacities based upon how they commit to identify themselves and start sooner rather than later. We all suffer with one another's infirmities so I think to some extent it wouldn't be out of line to suffer with the infirmities of those who are in the intersex category as well.

I believe there is plenty of room for new revelation to come to make things better for those of this category without opening the doors to the things clearly proscribed in the laws of God.

The Proclamation on the Family would need some tweaking.

NSS!

Daryl wrote:NSS!

:-\

jbalm wrote:

Daryl wrote:NSS!

:-\

Last ess = Sherlock.
Sorry, just saying.

This is one of the issues that caused me to doubt church leaders were inspired. I learned about this in 9th grade biology. I was wondering, why don't the GAs know what my 9th grade biology class knows.

This was the late seventies when gender surgery was making some news and church leaders talked about gender and how we have always been either male or female and there was no such thing as a man trapped in a woman's body. Homosexuals could be cured by prayer and no one was born with same sex attraction.

I knew that some of the people who we call Lesbians were actually men born with both male and female organs. Doctors in the 50s and 60s chopped of the male parts of the babies and called them girls. Some of those girls grew up being attracted to girls.( big surprise)

In any case, I think we should reserve judgment about the whole gay and gender issue. So many LDS align themselves with the lunatic evangelical anti-gay crowd. They believe everyone is created the same amount man or some amount woman and that God never makes a mistake on a persons gender. Crazy, we can experience all kinds of birth defects but evangelicals don't believe gender birth defects are possible.

jdawg1012 wrote:And treat your neighbor with love. You're not God. Love your neighbor, and pretend you have no idea how God will bless or curse them for their benefit. Because your job isn't to punish them because you're ignorant. You job is to treat them lovingly and allow them to exercise their agency, and direct their lives according to THEIR conscience. It's not a suggestion, it's a commandment, and a fundamental tenet of our religion. You're a sinner who struggles and deserves no part of the atonement, either. The atonement is a gift, you didn't earn it, you don't deserve it. And you have no idea how God will bless your trampled neighbor. Beware lest ye trample them, too.

You are not the judge of their worth, or final resting place. So love your neighbor as yourself, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Amen.

jwharton wrote:There is one principle that if applied would cover most if not all such cases:
All who are the recipients of birth defects should only be held accountable to the level that they are not hindered by them.

For example, God will not hold them accountable to hold the priesthood if they aren't clearly and fully male, both body and spirit.

Where it gets problematic is if and when they appeal to government to force a church to give them priesthood.

If anything, the science you are referring to could be a good basis to go ahead and increase the number of people who should NOT be expected (and some not even allowed) to hold priesthood. They should also be given an opportunity to have a special blessing performed wherein they are given hope to be able to be normalized to the gender of their choice in the hereafter.

I believe they should even be allowed to act in some capacities based upon how they commit to identify themselves and start sooner rather than later. We all suffer with one another's infirmities so I think to some extent it wouldn't be out of line to suffer with the infirmities of those who are in the intersex category as well.

I believe there is plenty of room for new revelation to come to make things better for those of this category without opening the doors to the things clearly proscribed in the laws of God.

As far as I'm concerned, of course the government can't force anyone to be given the priesthood.

And if you think people will be given the choice of their gender in the eternity to come, that means that gender isn't consistently the same from one estate of life to another. In fact, I think that may be true now, because the church has taught that we're all male or female, but that means one of two things: 1) Either our gender is eternal irrespective of our bodies (because not all of our bodies are one or the other, male or female, in fact a great many are both), in which case these gender judgements and expectations by church members are out of line. (You can't tell someone what gender they are based on body, if it's irrespective of body), or 2) Gender is more complicated than mere male and female, in which case the dogma of only male and female would be incorrect. As it stands we can see people who aren't male or female all around us.

It's easy to say, "These things will all be worked out sometime," but I reject that as the cop-out it is. We're not talking about robots, we're talking about real people, with real mental health, real bodies, and real commandments. In addition to other real statements like, "It's not meet that man should be alone." God doesn't want people to be alone, and He has commanded them to work out their own salvation. Not wait for it to come to them. And not to be worked out for them by people who think they know what's best for them. I know that the current painting brush is to "wait till you die and it'll be ok," but I refuse to tell someone (like the hermaphrodite earlier referenced) to live a celibate, lonely life, because the church can't handle the fact that millions of people don't fit into the current public policy.

In fact, that extends to gay people, though there's other threads for that debate, so I'm only going to say one thing. People can say same-sex sexual relations are sinful (I'm fine with people choosing that argument), but they can't tell them that they don't have the rights of association, property, inheritance that everyone else has. And I refuse to believe God wants gay people to live out their lives in lonely huts of isolation, single, celibate and ostracized. God himself said it is not meet that man should be alone. And then he made people with no attraction to the opposite sex, people with no clear gender (or two genders), and people with an attraction to the same-sex. Therefore I have decided to cloak them in a robe of charity, because God will decide how they did with what he gave them, certainly not you or I, or even a church leader. He employeth NO SERVANT there. Our job is to help others. The issue is complicated for our church members only because people have cornered themselves with irrational circular arguments, all leading back to the statement that it's just wrong and God will work it out. If that the case, then people should let Him work it out, without trying to do His job for him. It's no one else's decision who someone marries or associates with. IT IS NOT MEET THAT THEY SHOULD BE ALONE. That's the end of my discussion of the God-given right to marry for gays on this thread.

Thomas wrote:This is one of the issues that caused me to doubt church leaders were inspired. I learned about this in 9th grade biology. I was wondering, why don't the GAs know what my 9th grade biology class knows.

This was the late seventies when gender surgery was making some news and church leaders talked about gender and how we have always been either male or female and there was no such thing as a man trapped in a woman's body. Homosexuals could be cured by prayer and no one was born with same sex attraction.

I knew that some of the people who we call Lesbians were actually men born with both male and female organs. Doctors in the 50s and 60s chopped of the male parts of the babies and called them girls. Some of those girls grew up being attracted to girls.( big surprise)

In any case, I think we should reserve judgment about the whole gay and gender issue. So many LDS align themselves with the lunatic evangelical anti-gay crowd. They believe everyone is created the same amount man or some amount woman and that God never makes a mistake on a persons gender. Crazy, we can experience all kinds of birth defects but evangelicals don't believe gender birth defects are possible.

I learned it in probably 6th grade Biology, too, and then again in 8th grade health. The difference for me, though, is that I was taught by my fairly knowledgable father that all human hermaphrodites were genetically male or female when it came down to it. That clouded my reasoning for several decades, because I could just say to myself, "Oh well, deep down in the genes they're just a boy or a girl, so even if they're confused about their gender they can just get a DNA test and be what God made them genetically." Then I learned that's a big fat lie.

Additionally, I've met and known way too many gay people (I probably know as many or more than anyone on the forum, unless someone is John Dehlin or lives in the Castro District), to ignore the plight they face. I've watched way too many people love and cherish them, until they came out of the closet, and then they were lambasted, ostracized and scapegoated by their LDS families, some thrown out of their homes, like so many in Salt Lake City. And always, always, ALWAYS "the Family Proclamation corporate mission statement" (someone else called it that, and now I'm going to refer to it as that) is cited as the reason they can suddenly abuse their kids. Well, I've read it hundreds of times, and the more I read it, the more I know it's at least misinterpreted. Because not everyone is male or female, so the things people project from it regarding males and females are no longer justifiably universal. And if they're not universal, then I'm not going to give people a pass when they behave badly, couching their bigotry cloaked in the "Family Proclamation" language.

I'm hoping that people learn to balance their beliefs with reason. That's what God would want us to do, else why would He command us to learn. Well, learn I have, and I know that current church policy on some issues is abusive, misinformed, and often destructive to families, and certainly individuals. People kill themselves often in Utah, because of the bigotry they face from their families. Not because they did anything wrong, but because so ingrained in this culture is an aura of intolerance, delusion and ignorance, that young gay or possibly intersex people would rather die than face their family and church's abuse, because they cannot "pray the gay away" (or pray the gender incongruence away, as in the case of this subject matter).

jdawg1012 wrote:And if you think people will be given the choice of their gender in the eternity to come, that means that gender isn't consistently the same from one estate of life to another.

I am talking about those cases where it isn't clear who is what gender due to birth defects, etc. These are exceptional cases that necessitate the individuals and their leaders to get revelation from the Lord as to what is possible for them. Also, what they do here and have sealed on their behalf relative to the hereafter is what they are held accountable to for the entire duration of the hereafter. That which is fore-ordained for a cycle of creation is fixed and unalterable for that cycle of creation. That fact that there are adjustments and alterations made from one cycle as compared to the previous cycle is a given when you consider people are progressing or digressing. I'll say more about this in response to your other statements.

jdawg1012 wrote:In fact, I think that may be true now, because the church has taught that we're all male or female, but that means one of two things: 1) Either our gender is eternal irrespective of our bodies (because not all of our bodies are one or the other, male or female, in fact a great many are both), in which case these gender judgements and expectations by church members are out of line. (You can't tell someone what gender they are based on body, if it's irrespective of body), or 2) Gender is more complicated than mere male and female, in which case the dogma of only male and female would be incorrect. As it stands we can see people who aren't male or female all around us.

My belief is that my spirit has both male and female components that are equally important to cultivate and develop throughout my life. All of my female components are developed and expressed in my relationship with Christ while all of my male components are developed and expressed in my relationship with my family. I don't view myself as being capable of being a functional male to my family if I am not also able or capable of being a functional female to my Lord. In other words, if my female side is lacking then my male side will also be lacking.

What I believe is meant by the Proclamation to the World is that when a round of creation (an "eternity") is organized, all souls are declared normalized, whole and complete and are foreordained to physically manifest in either a male or a female physiological capacity.

So, when we do temple work (in this pre-existence to organize and seal up the future "world to come") the same principles apply. That which was fore-ordained was clear-cut without ambiguity and that those designations that are fore-ordained are not subject to alteration for that entire cycle of creation. We also know that the degree to which fore-ordained blessings are enjoyed is subject to not just our own individual faithfulness, but we are also subject to the faithfulness of those who come before us, etc. We are also subject to the infirmities and imperfections of the material world where problems can and do happen. Things don't always go as they are fore-ordained to go but it is the mutual goal of all those souls united in covenant to bring it all about. If something is "out of kilter" with that which has been fore-ordained, we are all oath-bound to nurture it to correction rather than pervert the plan.

jdawg1012 wrote:It's easy to say, "These things will all be worked out sometime," but I reject that as the cop-out it is. We're not talking about robots, we're talking about real people, with real mental health, real bodies, and real commandments. In addition to other real statements like, "It's not meet that man should be alone." God doesn't want people to be alone, and He has commanded them to work out their own salvation. Not wait for it to come to them. And not to be worked out for them by people who think they know what's best for them. I know that the current painting brush is to "wait till you die and it'll be ok," but I refuse to tell someone (like the hermaphrodite earlier referenced) to live a celibate, lonely life, because the church can't handle the fact that millions of people don't fit into the current public policy.

Presently, for whatever reason, people who have transgendered are disallowed from receiving their temple ordinances. Perhaps the day will come when special provisions, nurturing and corrective provisions, will be made available, as distinct from coddling and perverting provisions, which perverting provisions seems to be what most sympathizers are pushing for. Unfortunately, this is likely what is holding back wholesome and sensible provisions to become adopted.

jdawg1012 wrote:In fact, that extends to gay people, though there's other threads for that debate, so I'm only going to say one thing. People can say same-sex sexual relations are sinful (I'm fine with people choosing that argument), but they can't tell them that they don't have the rights of association, property, inheritance that everyone else has. And I refuse to believe God wants gay people to live out their lives in lonely huts of isolation, single, celibate and ostracized. God himself said it is not meet that man should be alone. And then he made people with no attraction to the opposite sex, people with no clear gender (or two genders), and people with an attraction to the same-sex. Therefore I have decided to cloak them in a robe of charity, because God will decide how they did with what he gave them, certainly not you or I, or even a church leader. He employeth NO SERVANT there. Our job is to help others. The issue is complicated for our church members only because people have cornered themselves with irrational circular arguments, all leading back to the statement that it's just wrong and God will work it out. If that the case, then people should let Him work it out, without trying to do His job for him. It's no one else's decision who someone marries or associates with. IT IS NOT MEET THAT THEY SHOULD BE ALONE. That's the end of my discussion of the God-given right to marry for gays on this thread.

God is actually pretty clear on the matter. The Law of Moses leaves no room for doubt or equivocation on the matter of who is eligible to marry who and that homosexual relations are punishable on the equivalent as adultery. I highly recommend you keep your sympathies and compassions within the bounds of the laws that Jesus gave a full 100% endorsement of.

jwharton wrote:Perhaps so. I am talking about those cases where it isn't clear who is what gender due to birth defects, etc. These are exceptional cases that necessitate the individuals and their leaders to get revelation from the Lord as to what is possible for them.

My belief is that my spirit has both male and female components that are equally important to cultivate and develop throughout my life. All of my female components are developed and expressed in my relationship with Christ while all of my male components are developed and expressed in my relationship with my family. I don't view myself as being capable of being a functional male to my family if I am not also able or capable of being a functional female to my Lord. In other words, if my female side is lacking then my male side will also be lacking.

What I believe is meant by the Proclamation to the World is that when a round of creation (an "eternity") is organized, all souls are declared normalized, whole and complete and are foreordained to physically manifest in either a male or a female physiological capacity.

So, when we do temple work (in this pre-existence to organize and seal up the future "world to come") the same principles apply. That which was fore-ordained was clear-cut without ambiguity and that those designations that are fore-ordained are not subject to alteration for that entire cycle of creation. We also know that the degree to which fore-ordained blessings are enjoyed is subject to not just our own individual faithfulness, but we are also subject to the faithfulness of those who come before us, etc. We are also subject to the infirmities and imperfections of the material world where problems can and do happen. Things don't always go as they are fore-ordained to go but it is the mutual goal of all those souls united in covenant to bring it all about. If something is "out of kilter" with that which has been fore-ordained, we are all oath-bound to nurture it to correction rather than pervert the plan.

Presently, for whatever reason, people who have transgendered are disallowed from receiving their temple ordinances. Perhaps the day will come when special provisions, nurturing and corrective provisions, will be made available, as distinct from coddling and perverting provisions, which perverting provisions seems to be what most sympathizers are pushing for. Unfortunately, this is likely what is holding back wholesome and sensible provisions to become adopted.

God is actually pretty clear on the matter. The Law of Moses leaves no room for doubt or equivocation on the matter of who is eligible to marry who and that homosexual relations are punishable on the equivalent as adultery. I highly recommend you keep your sympathies and compassions within the bounds of the laws that Jesus gave a full 100% endorsement of.

You certainly have some theories and philosophies that are outside the box, which is fine with me, but I won't take them as doctrine, hopefully you understand.

God is actually pretty clear on the matter. The Law of Moses leaves no room for doubt or equivocation on the matter of who is eligible to marry who and that homosexual relations are punishable on the equivalent as adultery. I highly recommend you keep your sympathies and compassions within the bounds of the laws that Jesus gave a full 100% endorsement of.

The law of Moses has absolutely no bearing on secular civil law, and it was filled in any event. Otherwise you're breaking the Sabbath every Friday from Sundown to Saturday at sundown and are worthy of the same punishments proscribed under that law of Moses, right?
And if you're basing the marriage laws on prophetic statements and temple ordinances, A) No one is "married" who isn't sealed, including straights, they're fornicating under gospel law. And if the secular marriage is recognized then: B) No one is breaking the law of chastity who is legally and lawfully married, including gays, as lizzy pointed out on another thread. The Ordinance (TWICE!), says husband(s) OR wife/wives to whom they are legally and lawfully married. That ordinance may change, but there's no "respectively" in the law, where it's used in other parts of the ordinance.

I highly recommend you keep your sympathies and compassions within the bounds of the laws that Jesus gave a full 100% endorsement of.

Thanks for the recommendation. The law is to Love God, and Love your neighbor as yourself. That's the law He gave. Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality, unless you equate eunuchs with gays (which is logical, given the varying classifications of eunuchs He gave), in which case He praised them. But none of what other prophets have said in any canonized scripture (the bar to which we measure) said anything about gays marrying, and certainly not secularly, outside the theocracy of Israel, so your assertion is irrelevant to me.

jdawg1012 wrote:You certainly have some theories and philosophies that are outside the box, which is fine with me, but I won't take them as doctrine, hopefully you understand.

Yes, of course.

jdawg1012 wrote:

God is actually pretty clear on the matter. The Law of Moses leaves no room for doubt or equivocation on the matter of who is eligible to marry who and that homosexual relations are punishable on the equivalent as adultery. I highly recommend you keep your sympathies and compassions within the bounds of the laws that Jesus gave a full 100% endorsement of.

The law of Moses has absolutely no bearing on secular civil law, and it was filled in any event. Otherwise you're breaking the Sabbath every Friday from Sundown to Saturday at sundown and are worthy of the same punishments proscribed under that law of Moses, right?
And if you're basing the marriage laws on prophetic statements and temple ordinances, A) No one is "married" who isn't sealed, including straights, they're fornicating under gospel law. And if the secular marriage is recognized then: B) No one is breaking the law of chastity who is legally and lawfully married, including gays, as lizzy pointed out on another thread. The Ordinance (TWICE!), says husband(s) OR wife/wives to whom they are legally and lawfully married. That ordinance may change, but there's no "respectively" in the law, where it's used in other parts of the ordinance.

I highly recommend you keep your sympathies and compassions within the bounds of the laws that Jesus gave a full 100% endorsement of.

Thanks for the recommendation. The law is to Love God, and Love your neighbor as yourself. That's the law He gave. Jesus said NOTHING about homosexuality, unless you equate eunuchs with gays (which is logical, given the varying classifications of eunuchs He gave), in which case He praised them. But none of what other prophets have said in any canonized scripture (the bar to which we measure) said anything about gays marrying, and certainly not secularly, outside the theocracy of Israel, so your assertion is irrelevant to me.

As I suspected... You are pushing for coddling and perverting provisions.

What I see coming is a time when the world will force gay marriage even into LDS temples. I have said this before and it bears repeating. I can think of no greater punishment for disobedience than to go ahead and seal them up to their perversions.

jwharton wrote:As I suspected... You are pushing for coddling and perverting provisions.

What I see coming is a time when the world will force gay marriage even into LDS temples. I have said this before and it bears repeating. I can think of no greater punishment for disobedience than to go ahead and seal them up to their perversions.

Sticks and stones.

No one can "force" gay marriage into a temple. No one can make a priesthood holder perform an ordinance. Fear mongering at it's finest.

I can think of no greater punishment for disobedience than to go ahead and seal them up to their perversions.

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

Best of luck to you. I'll get back to the topic of the thread with or without your on-topic, participation now. Thanks for contributing your piece.

jdawg1012 wrote:

jwharton wrote:As I suspected... You are pushing for coddling and perverting provisions.

What I see coming is a time when the world will force gay marriage even into LDS temples. I have said this before and it bears repeating. I can think of no greater punishment for disobedience than to go ahead and seal them up to their perversions.

Sticks and stones.

No one can "force" gay marriage into a temple. No one can make a priesthood holder perform an ordinance. Fear mongering at it's finest.

Take a look at history and you will see that there is no end to what a determined mob can attempt to accomplish.

Look at the history of what happened with the plural marriage issue. Either the LDS people completely discontinued that practice or the entire church would have been destroyed. How would it have been destroyed? The government was going to imprison its entire upper leadership, confiscate all of the church's property and punish all who attempted to stand in the way of those actions.

Do you mean to tell me that gays will be content to have a continuation of discrimination of LDS marriage policy based solely on the fact that they are gay once they have the full force and power of the government declaring them as equals in every respect?

What I speak of is a completely feasible possibility so it is truth telling at it's finest.

jdawg1012 wrote:

I can think of no greater punishment for disobedience than to go ahead and seal them up to their perversions.

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

This is the exact principle upon which my point rests. They shall reap the results of what they themselves have judged.

On the other hand, by them, I am judged as bigoted, unloving, uncaring, spiteful, etc. because I decline to coddle sexual disorder that is highly disruptive to a patriarchal/matriarchal society.

I say what I am saying completely free of hate, callousness and spite.
I wish to see that which causes pain to be nurtured to wellness.
I say what I have said out of love and true compassion.
I say what I say because I believe Jesus said the Law and the Prophets represents to us the means by which we are best able to love God and our neighbors as ourselves. This "golden rule" is what all the laws and the prophets hang upon, engineered by the intelligence of our Heavenly Father and offered to us in love and sincerity.
I say what I say because I do not believe the world and the Luciferian counterfeit agenda it is falling for is superior to the Father's Plan.

jdawg1012 wrote:Best of luck to you. I'll get back to the topic of the thread with or without your on-topic, participation now. Thanks for contributing your piece.

It's pretty clear the direction you are heading with this post and it really ought to be spotlighted.

Hopefully, however, there will yet be some productive discussion on how to address these anomalous circumstances that do merit sensible attention.

I have often felt (do to my circumstances) that there would someday be a big revelation on this subject. I think we as a people should humble ourselves and ask our Heavenly Father to please speak with His prophet and give him a revelation on this matter.

SmallFarm wrote:I have often felt (do to my circumstances) that there would someday be a big revelation on this subject. I think we as a people should humble ourselves and ask our Heavenly Father to please speak with His prophet and give him a revelation on this matter.

Yep, lots and lots of people have felt the same, that there'd be a big revelation soon.

My track record is pretty good if you check my posting history, with regard to the secular laws, and even moreso in my personal revelations, though those aren't posted, so you can take it with a grain of salt.

(I'm paraphrasing here), But John Dehlin (if you believe him) specifically stated that in his meetings with Elder Holland, that Elder Holland stated that there was a desire among many of the general authorities to have a "big tent" church, but that we're not there yet, because of certain philosophies in the hierarchy. Whether or not he is to be believed, God has already spoken to me in regards to my personal stewardship, and I refuse to condone the persecution and scapegoating of God's children who happen to be gay, intersex or just don't meet people's gender norms.

I forget the year, but I think it was in the late 1970's when the church was on it's oral sex witch hunt, they eventually decided that it was none of their business to tell married couples how to have sex. They used to withhold temple recommends from married people who had oral sex, because they were "offenders." Then they decided it wasn't within their scope to question married couples, because of the absolute backlash. But some people still rail about it today. Right or wrong, it's between those people and the Lord, not any church members or priesthood leaders. And the First Presidency rescinded their witch hunt, though it took a while for some to catch up.

I even had a friend just eleven years ago get asked in a temple recommend interview, "Do you and your husband have oral sex?" After a second she (my friend) recovered from the initial shock and replied, "What's your wife's favorite sex position?" The Bishop stammered and stuttered before finally exclaiming, "That's none of your business!" To which she replied, "That's absolutely right, it's none of my business, and that's exactly why we don't ask these kind of questions." She told the Stake president, and the Bishop never asked her again.

If the church can stop overextending it's reach and decide to let God, Himself, judge a straight couple based on their sexual actions (sinful in the eyes of the church or not), between legally and lawfully wedded parties, then they can do it again. I suspect they will, again. In the meantime, elements of the old guard may get upset, but I'm certain, that one way or another, eventually it will come to a place where ALL legally and lawfully wedded couples will decide things between them and God, without the church butting into their private lives. They can take any moral stand they wish, through preaching, influence and statements, but just as they realized that how straight couples have sex (if they do at all) is not their job to police, so too, I believe it'll come to the same with married gay people.

I ardently believe the fight against same-sex marriage was for this very reason (not the "for the children" legal nonsense that was belatedly proclaimed), because certain of the general authorities were prolonging the reach they had up until now. By saying the gay couples weren't married, they said that they couldn't have sex and keep their temple covenants. But now that gay people are legally and lawfully married, they're no longer breaking the law of chastity by definition of the temple covenant, as lizzy pointed out. Maybe the church will change the covenant wording, but that only affects new endowment recipients and the dead, not those who already received their endowments. And maybe they're still sinning, just as the church asserted that straight people having oral sex were sinning, in the 1970's. But I surely believe that like they recognized before, it's not their job to police, but God's.

But who knows, sometimes I'm wrong. We'll find out soon enough.

jdawg1012 wrote:But who knows, sometimes I'm wrong. We'll find out soon enough.

You are right in much of what you have said but in the most critical points you are under serious delusion.

I am not the least bit surprised to hear that the "old guard" is being broken down.

Lucifer is who wants a "big tent" by way of pleasing the world.

The war in heaven is most certainly deepening.

The Father's Celestial Plan as given to Joseph Smith is becoming ever more distant from the mainstream and the Luciferian "wrecking ball" takes blow after blow upon an unrepentant church that is still under condemnation for rejecting the "former commandments" of the Father's Plan.

John Dehlin has become an agent of "Paradise Lost".