The Eternal Nature Of Gender

[Maidservant]

I don't know how many of you guys have heard about David Reimer.

I just now read a short version of his story since you suggested it.

It definitely flies in the face of those people who believe that boys can start liking boys or think they are girls as a result of environmental factors. It also flies in the face of those people who think gender is completely socialized and we could make a boy into a girl and they wouldn't know the difference.

Forgive me if I don't understand -- but you are not saying that LDS or LDS leaders think this? (Because generally speaking they wouldn't tend to -- some might)

His story only further convinces me that self-identification is probably the most important part of our gender.

I'm surprised you got that out of it. I don't see that he self-identified as the BASIS of his gender. He was always a boy and had traumatic things happen to him by people who didn't know any better to try to force him to be a girl. He was a boy by our 3-pronged test. That was the identification. Femaleness was attempted to be forced over the top of that and it failed miserably -- it was an emotionally and spiritually dangerous experience. There may still be perfectly good examples of self-identification or a better example of spirit/body mismatch, but I don't think this is one.

I agree. The only role that only females can be is Mother. The only role that only males can be is Father. Everything else is a tradition. Some traditions are good or useful for the time one may be in. But traditions can and ought to be changed at new times.

However, roles differ from male/ female attributes and purposes.

[myleague]

That was one of the possibilities I was speculating about. If that were true, however, the Church's position on transsexuals would be totally unfounded (which I believe it is). Thanks for understanding.

Probably just a blanket statement for those who would use the exception to condone their choice. Bad apple spoiling the bunch. My experience with the LDS church is that here are exceptions for almost every commandment; I don't think homosexuality is any different.

It all comes back to the final judgment, it's not my place to say who or what is or what their motives or reasons are, I can only worry about myself and hope I've had enough faith.

[Zoidberg]

I just now read a short version of his story since you suggested it.

Forgive me if I don't understand -- but you are not saying that LDS or LDS leaders think this? (Because generally speaking they wouldn't tend to -- some might)

Well, I can't apeak for them so I won't. However, I do believe that some of their personal opinions find reflections in our Church policies. So my hypothesis is that if they changed their mind about certain issues, some of the Church policies would also change. However, we don't have to determine what a certain GA thinks on a certain issue in order to evaluate the policies (although it might be helpful, but again, I'm trying to avoid personal statements).

I'm surprised you got that out of it. I don't see that he self-identified as the BASIS of his gender. He was always a boy and had traumatic things happen to him by people who didn't know any better to try to force him to be a girl. He was a boy by our 3-pronged test. That was the identification. Femaleness was attempted to be forced over the top of that and it failed miserably -- it was an emotionally and spiritually dangerous experience. There may still be perfectly good examples of self-identification or a better example of spirit/body mismatch, but I don't think this is one.

I'm not saying it was a body/spirit mismatch, as his original body was male, as was his spirit. But, he knew he was a boy despite the lack of a penis and testicles, which were both removed. I also imagine he probably didn't know what his chromosomal composition was (or care at age four, when it was already becoming apparent to him that he was a boy). He didn't know his real story until he was 14. As far as he could tell, he was objectively a girl (although I imagine that those visits to Dr. Money were mighty suspicious, his twin also went, and they never made him question his maleness). So there is no way David (when he was Brenda) could tell that he was, in fact, a male, other than that self-identification. SP would probably say "since I have a normal body, I wouldn't have any basis for questioning the fact that I am male". As far as Brenda could tell (especially in early childhood), her body was just like that of any other girl. Yet she felt she was a male. What I'm saying is that you are claiming his cross-gender identification when he was a girl (as far as he could tell) was normal, as he was really a boy. However, if someone is born without a penis or testicles or the Y chromosome and the only thing that tells them they are male is the fact that they feel they are one (even though they are a woman, as far as they can tell), their self-identification is somehow less valid. Why?

I agree. The only role that only females can be is Mother. The only role that only males can be is Father. Everything else is a tradition. Some traditions are good or useful for the time one may be in. But traditions can and ought to be changed at new times.

Passing on one's genes and the role of a mother are two different things, though. I have already used the example of Turner women with a non-functional Y chromosome. The only reason they are not men is because their Y chromosome has no functional SRY which is a gene that determines masculinization and the development of testes. So in the absense of SRY they developed as females. They have no functional gonads. Some have a uterus, though, so they are able to give birth if an embryo is transferred to their uterus. And be a good mother figure, I imagine. However, the only reason that they developed as a female is because there was no SRY. Also, SP would probably like to know that, as far as chromosomes go, the presence/absense of SRY is more important than the presence/absence of the Y chromosome in order for a person to be male. Although SRY is usually found only on the Y chromosome, there have been cases of X with SRY and Y with no SRY. Like I said, it's not as simple as some people think. (I also can't help but think of grandiose implications of humans learning to suppress the SRY gene; then we can have matriarchy, a mostly female society and disposable males only used for insemination - wouldn't that be cool Please don't think that's how I envision the future, but it could be a possibility).

However, roles differ from male/ female attributes and purposes.

So let's take this hypothetical woman with Turner's above. What is her eternal purpose? Could it be that our experience on Earth might be completely irrelevant to what happens in eternity?

Probably just a blanket statement for those who would use the exception to condone their choice. Bad apple spoiling the bunch. My experience with the LDS church is that here are exceptions for almost every commandment; I don't think homosexuality is any different.

So you are aware of an LDS gay couple that was allowed to get married in the temple because the First Presidency received a confirmation from God that one of those people's eternal gender was different than their genitalia would suggest? Or you actually allow the possibility that it could happen under the current First Presidency? (Or, since Elder Faust has just passed away, let's just say, five years from now). I am pretty sure there are no exceptions for transsexual people who have undergone elective SRS when it comes to priesthood/temple recommend. The reasons are not explained. If it is because it is hard to achieve a consensus on whether they are male or female, then intersex people should also not be allowed the priesthood/temple recommend.

It all comes back to the final judgment, it's not my place to say who or what is or what their motives or reasons are, I can only worry about myself and hope I've had enough faith.

Yes, but Church policies are a separate issue. You don't have to judge any person to judge Church policies. And they are constantly changing. Id they didn't, women still wouldn't be able to pray in Sacrament meetings.

[myleague]

Exception for who or what you are... just because I'm predisposed to drug addiction doesn't excuse me from the sin, only gives reason and more room for understanding. We are all blessed with weaknesses and choices in this life. Just because they are born male and have a female spirit doesn't mean they are excused from their obligation of following the commandments and overcoming their natural desires.

It's all speculation, it was a curious thought I had, and by no means would I use it to allow for immoral unions. Again it's not my place to judge, if they want to be members of the LDS church they have certain standards they must live up to. Others have done it; nothing makes them special as to void the commandments. They would only be the exception of eternal gender, becoming corrupt upon obtaining physical form. They would not be excused from following God's command.

[Zoidberg]

Exception for who or what you are... just because I'm predisposed to drug addiction doesn't excuse me from the sin, only gives reason and more room for understanding. We are all blessed with weaknesses and choices in this life. Just because they are born male and have a female spirit doesn't mean they are excused from their obligation of following the commandments and overcoming their natural desires.

It's all speculation, it was a curious thought I had, and by no means would I use it to allow for immoral unions. Again it's not my place to judge, if they want to be members of the LDS church they have certain standards they must live up to. Others have done it; nothing makes them special as to void the commandments. They would only be the exception of eternal gender, becoming corrupt upon obtaining physical form. They would not be excused from following God's command.

Well, as far as I understand it, a person who we shall name Morgan (whose biological sex is male) who was born in the 70s with a micropenis and on whom a reassignment surgery was performed in infancy to make them a woman (because it was considered "treatment" to make them appear more "normal") can obtain a temple recommend and get sealed to a priesthood holder by the name of, say, Larry Johnson, under current Church policies. Now, if Morgan had no surgery in infancy and identified as a man who is gay and started dating the same Larry Johnson, both Morgan and Larry would be subject to Church discipline. Doesn't really make sense now, does it?

And what do you mean by God's command? Some Church policies are entirely administrative and man-made. Church policy does not equal God's command!

[myleague]

Well, as far as I understand it, a person who we shall name Morgan (whose biological sex is male) who was born in the 70s with a micropenis and on whom a reassignment surgery was performed in infancy to make them a woman (because it was considered "treatment" to make them appear more "normal") can obtain a temple recommend and get sealed to a priesthood holder by the name of, say, Larry Johnson, under current Church policies. Now, if Morgan had no surgery in infancy and identified as a man who is gay and started dating the same Larry Johnson, both Morgan and Larry would be subject to Church discipline. Doesn't really make sense now, does it?

And what do you mean by God's command? Some Church policies are entirely administrative and man-made. Church policy does not equal God's command!

"Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servant it is the same..." As much as one may not agree with church policy, if you believe in the church you believe that the churches government is God's will. I'm not a judge in Israel; I cannot say one way or the other for Morgan and Larry. How are hermaphrodites judged? I have no idea; I hope to never have that experience. I just know that their physical abnormalities are for their experience and their gain. Just as my physical ailments, any anyone elseâ??s. Depending on our handicap determines the trials we will learn to endure in this life.

I believe God loves them very much and has a special reward for those called to endure such hardships, hardships that most people cannot fathom.

[cartoon bluejay]

Well, as far as I understand it, a person who we shall name Morgan (whose biological sex is male) who was born in the 70s with a micropenis and on whom a reassignment surgery was performed in infancy to make them a woman (because it was considered "treatment" to make them appear more "normal") can obtain a temple recommend and get sealed to a priesthood holder by the name of, say, Larry Johnson, under current Church policies. Now, if Morgan had no surgery in infancy and identified as a man who is gay and started dating the same Larry Johnson, both Morgan and Larry would be subject to Church discipline. Doesn't really make sense now, does it?

Forgive me - I don't know that I can truly contribute but this thread is fascinating to me so I keep wanting to contribute. I just can't take away the societal and cultural influences of gender and I know that this thread is focusing more on the biological definition of gender so for me to try and add all the other stuff is probably inappropriate.

Anyway, this example got me thinking about another thread I was on a while ago. Someone brought up the Law of Adoption - I had never heard of this and as I studied it - I was quite surprized by the Law of Adoption. Then I felt quite saddened that it is no longer in use... I mean, for the Morgans and the Larrys and for all the other people that we don't quite fit into the explanations. Morgan and Larry could profess their love and get sealed with the Law of Adoption - not have sex - be under no church discipline - but hold on to the hope of being together for eternity. This whole notion makes me laugh as I'm typing it but I'm being serious.

[Zoidberg]

"Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servant it is the same..." As much as one may not agree with church policy, if you believe in the church you believe that the churches government is God's will. I'm not a judge in Israel; I cannot say one way or the other for Morgan and Larry. How are hermaphrodites judged? I have no idea; I hope to never have that experience. I just know that their physical abnormalities are for their experience and their gain. Just as my physical ailments, any anyone elseâ??s. Depending on our handicap determines the trials we will learn to endure in this life.

I believe God loves them very much and has a special reward for those called to endure such hardships, hardships that most people cannot fathom.

Fist of all, Morgan would not be a hermaphrodite. True hermaphroditism has never been recorded in humans, BTW.

I'm sure that women not being able to pray in the sacrament meeting was not an issue until someone raised it. Was it wrong for them to raise it even though the judges in Israel were subscribing to this policy despite it having no basis whatsoever? Or should we still not be allowed to pray in Sacrament because it was once a policy? Policies (and some would argue, even doctrine) are changing all the time based upon the needs of the people. I believe a lot of LGBT mormons have a need to be LDS while simultaneously being gay/bi/have an SRS. And I have a need for the Church to show consistency and the same amount of tolerance for everybody, as well as a genuine attempt to follow God instead of concern with superficial appearances.

[Zoidberg]

Forgive me - I don't know that I can truly contribute but this thread is fascinating to me so I keep wanting to contribute. I just can't take away the societal and cultural influences of gender and I know that this thread is focusing more on the biological definition of gender so for me to try and add all the other stuff is probably inappropriate.

Anyway, this example got me thinking about another thread I was on a while ago. Someone brought up the Law of Adoption - I had never heard of this and as I studied it - I was quite surprized by the Law of Adoption. Then I felt quite saddened that it is no longer in use... I mean, for the Morgans and the Larrys and for all the other people that we don't quite fit into the explanations. Morgan and Larry could profess their love and get sealed with the Law of Adoption - not have sex - be under no church discipline - but hold on to the hope of being together for eternity. This whole notion makes me laugh as I'm typing it but I'm being serious.

Wow, I have never even considered this possibility... You know there was also that one incident when a person was sealed to a family as a slave. All those different kinds of sealings we no longer have... Crazy. I doubt the Church right now would go even for the option you are proposing. And I don't know how it would really change anything for Morgan and Larry (other than provide consolation for this life) because if they are both male spirits, they can't have eternal increase with just each other so the question is whether or not they will be able to have any kind of sex (since we don't know that even the process through which spirits will be created by men and women is anything like the sex we currently have). They would probably just be friends in the CK and can probably spend a lot of time together whether or not they are sealed under the law of adoption or not, right? And if it turns out that Morgan is a female spirit, then they will have to be sealed as husband and wife anyway. And to think of all those sealings where one or both spouses have been unworthy, etc. Who knows who we'll find ourselves with in the eternities?

I think you are contributing a lot and should keep contributing. When I started this thread I didn't mean to concentrate so much on the biological aspect of gender assignment since I thought that it was already obvious that there is no one size fits all procedure and that makes the existence of rigid biological sexes questionable. However, some people have suggested that gender assignment is super-easy or that there are two rigid biological sexes in 99% of the cases and we should just ignore the other 1%. So I was put to task of showing that it's not such a simple issue, which ended up taking up the whole thread. The thread was intended to be more about the Church's idea of eternal gender and whether or not there is any basis to Church policies on LGBT people/lack of policy or position on intersex people.

[myleague]

One problem with your ideology is that the church is bound by the laws of the land. How would one properly document discerning with the spirit that someone's spirit is either female or male? Making any such considerations would be opening up the door to litigation for discrimination saying that one person qualifies as a female spirit in a male body while someone else does not.

I believe it's not in the best interest of the church as a whole; this is one of those issues that Christ will deal with when that time comes.

[SLC]

Wow, I have never even considered this possibility... You know there was also that one incident when a person was sealed to a family as a slave. All those different kinds of sealings we no longer have... Crazy. I doubt the Church right now would go even for the option you are proposing. And I don't know how it would really change anything for Morgan and Larry (other than provide consolation for this life) because if they are both male spirits, they can't have eternal increase with just each other so the question is whether or not they will be able to have any kind of sex (since we don't know that even the process through which spirits will be created by men and women is anything like the sex we currently have). They would probably just be friends in the CK and can probably spend a lot of time together whether or not they are sealed under the law of adoption or not, right? And if it turns out that Morgan is a female spirit, then they will have to be sealed as husband and wife anyway. And to think of all those sealings where one or both spouses have been unworthy, etc. Who knows who we'll find ourselves with in the eternities?

I think you are contributing a lot and should keep contributing. When I started this thread I didn't mean to concentrate so much on the biological aspect of gender assignment since I thought that it was already obvious that there is no one size fits all procedure and that makes the existence of rigid biological sexes questionable. However, some people have suggested that gender assignment is super-easy or that there are two rigid biological sexes in 99% of the cases and we should just ignore the other 1%. So I was put to task of showing that it's not such a simple issue, which ended up taking up the whole thread. The thread was intended to be more about the Church's idea of eternal gender and whether or not there is any basis to Church policies on LGBT people/lack of policy or position on intersex people.

I think you may have answered your own question with those stats. The number of people that fall into this category is so minute that the First Presidency is likely taking them on a case by case basis rather than issuing a blanket statement that won't sufficiently cover the issues faced by these people. I know that if I were dealing with this set of problems, I wouldn't want a blanket statement that may or may not apply to my specific situation. How would that help anyone?

What about people who were sexually abused as children and are now having issues with pornography or other sexual sins? Do we need a statement on their status before the Lord?

There are thousands of members and millions of others not of our faith that have special situations. The First Presidency can't be expected to issue a statement or a position for every unique individual. I understand your desire to have an answer. But isn't it better to know that the leadership of the church will take each case individually, and prayerfully and lovingly help that soul through the problem? That sounds a lot better to me than a blanket statement that couldn't possibly cover the compexity of each individual case.

[Zoidberg]

One problem with your ideology is that the church is bound by the laws of the land. How would one properly document discerning with the spirit that someone's spirit is either female or male? Making any such considerations would be opening up the door to litigation for discrimination saying that one person qualifies as a female spirit in a male body while someone else does not.

I believe it's not in the best interest of the church as a whole; this is one of those issues that Christ will deal with when that time comes.

Temple sealing does not have to equate a civilly recognized marriage. I'm sure you are aware that in a lot of countries the government does not recognize a temple sealing as a valid marriage. So people get married civilly and then go to the temple (however, in the US if you get married civilly first you can't get sealed until a year has passed, for some reason). So I don't see a big deal with that. Temples already operate in countries that give LDS sealers about as much recognition as they do ministers who solemnize homosexual unions.

The gender of a person does not always have to be recognized by the government. In some countries people can change their legal sex after SRS; in other countries they can't. That doesn't stop them from undergoing SRS. The dicerned gender could be for Church purposes only (they keep track of people pretty well).

Yes, there could be accusations of discrimination. If a Church official did the discerning (assuming they ever allow a possibility there could be a spirt/body mismatch). (I doubt there could be any litigation, though) Since there are already so many "what if"s with sealings and some sealings are probably nullified immidiately after they are performed (if people are not worthy of exaltation, or since a dead woman who is sealed to all her husbands is supposed to only be with one), why not give everyone the benefit of the doubt? If you go to a temple recommend interview and lie through your teeth, you can probably still get a recommend. I know, I know, the power of discernment. But I've never heard of anyone not getting a recommend if they answered all the questions in a satisfactory way and the bishop/stake president didn't already know something about them that would prevent them from getting one. I'm sure most bishops assume that the person interviewed is being honest. If they are dishonest, their endowments/sealings would not be valid anyway. Would someone decide to undergo an expensive and painful surgery for advantages rather than to be perceived in a gender they identify with? Or would a gay person want to have a union solemnized religiously (that is not recognized by the government) if they weren't sincere? In fact, gay people who consider themselves married despite government recognition are probably sincere in every case, while heterosexual people often enter state-recognized marriage for the benefits associated with it; they may not love, know, or want anything to do with the person they're marrying.

Besides, wouldn't that hypothetical scenario I offered you upthread be discrimination? I don't really see any essential difference.

[Zoidberg]

I think you may have answered your own question with those stats. The number of people that fall into this category is so minute that the First Presidency is likely taking them on a case by case basis rather than issuing a blanket statement that won't sufficiently cover the issues faced by these people. I know that if I were dealing with this set of problems, I wouldn't want a blanket statement that may or may not apply to my specific situation. How would that help anyone?

What about people who were sexually abused as children and are now having issues with pornography or other sexual sins? Do we need a statement on their status before the Lord?

There are thousands of members and millions of others not of our faith that have special situations. The First Presidency can't be expected to issue a statement or a position for every unique individual. I understand your desire to have an answer. But isn't it better to know that the leadership of the church will take each case individually, and prayerfully and lovingly help that soul through the problem? That sounds a lot better to me than a blanket statement that couldn't possibly cover the compexity of each individual case.

Can you give me an example of the Church ever getting involved with the determination of an intersex person's gender? I imagine that parents who have an intersex child born to them would counsel with their bishop, etc., but even then, I imagine, the bishop would probably abstain from any absolute pronouncements. Also, look at my hypothetical example of Morgan and Larry upthread. Do you think anyone would even question Larry's right to get married in the temple in the first case? I don't think so. If you have any information that suggests otherwise, please share.

[cartoon bluejay]

Wow, I have never even considered this possibility... You know there was also that one incident when a person was sealed to a family as a slave. All those different kinds of sealings we no longer have... Crazy. I doubt the Church right now would go even for the option you are proposing. And I don't know how it would really change anything for Morgan and Larry (other than provide consolation for this life) because if they are both male spirits, they can't have eternal increase with just each other so the question is whether or not they will be able to have any kind of sex (since we don't know that even the process through which spirits will be created by men and women is anything like the sex we currently have). They would probably just be friends in the CK and can probably spend a lot of time together whether or not they are sealed under the law of adoption or not, right? And if it turns out that Morgan is a female spirit, then they will have to be sealed as husband and wife anyway. And to think of all those sealings where one or both spouses have been unworthy, etc. Who knows who we'll find ourselves with in the eternities?

Okay - but here's the thing. I understand that only exhalted beings can have an eternal increase, as far as creating new spirits (however that's done). I know a lot of people that don't want that. Does a gender role based on your biological sex (male or female) only matter in the eternities if you become exhalted? What would the gender roles be for those who are not exhalted? If I'm not exhalted I can't be a mother but can I still have sex. And if sex is then used for just pleasure and not procreation - does it matter who I have sex with. IF there is sex as we understand it here.

However, some people have suggested that gender assignment is super-easy or that there are two rigid biological sexes in 99% of the cases and we should just ignore the other 1%. So I was put to task of showing that it's not such a simple issue, which ended up taking up the whole thread. The thread was intended to be more about the Church's idea of eternal gender and whether or not there is any basis to Church policies on LGBT people/lack of policy or position on intersex people.

I am under the opinion that gender is not just determined by your chromosomal make-up, there are cultural influences which would make it so that your gender identity is almost determined on a personal level. If you include the cultural influences - the two rigid biological genders doesn't cover 99% - there's a lot more than 1% of the population that is being ignored. I think we don't see what's being ignored because so much of it is a private and personal matter. Like me, for instance, I'm female - my role then in the church is to be a mother and nurturer for my children. (I know I'm simplifying) But nurturing doesn't come natural like I'm taught it's supposed to by my church leaders, I then feel somewhat of a freak and that I don't fit into the mold or the fold. When I was young - I identified with boys and scouting rather than girls and sewing (still simplifying). I was born with an 2 X chromosomes - there's not a problem with my biological assignment. Should I struggle with my gender? I shouldn't - if it was simple but it's not. I have 7 brothers - and a sexist father - maybe the influence of my culture messed with my gender identity. I didn't want to be a girl. Interestly enough - I love being a woman, but there's more options for me now. I think the definition provided in the Proclamation to the World - is too simple. There are so many personal issues that affect way more than just 1%. Don't get me wrong - I know you weren't suggesting that.

[myleague]

I don't know most people get away with the lawsuits that they do. $54 million dollars for a lost pair of pants, no matter how ludicrous we think something maybe it doesn't negate peopleâ??s interpretations and ability to file suit. Ergo avoiding the whole thing all together.

Wouldn't it be nice if this world was fair and perfect?!?! I think most people do the best with what they have. What is abstinence worth in the eternal scheme of things? Sacrificing human companionship in this life for the hope of something better in the next. I wish I had answers, I wish I understood many more things than I currently do, I just leave it up to God to take care of his children, as he has been doing for 1000's of years.

[Zoidberg]

Does a gender role based on your biological sex (male or female) only matter in the eternities if you become exhalted? What would the gender roles be for those who are not exhalted?

I would imagine it wouldn't matter. Then there is the question of whether or not non-exalted people will be servants of exalted people. But if not, anyone non-exalted will be more independent than an exalted woman who is still "presided over" by her husband.

I am under the opinion that gender is not just determined by your chromosomal make-up, there are cultural influences which would make it so that your gender identity is almost determined on a personal level. If you include the cultural influences - the two rigid biological genders doesn't cover 99% - there's a lot more than 1% of the population that is being ignored. I think we don't see what's being ignored because so much of it is a private and personal matter. Like me, for instance, I'm female - my role then in the church is to be a mother and nurturer for my children. (I know I'm simplifying) But nurturing doesn't come natural like I'm taught it's supposed to by my church leaders, I then feel somewhat of a freak and that I don't fit into the mold or the fold. When I was young - I identified with boys and scouting rather than girls and sewing (still simplifying). I was born with an 2 X chromosomes - there's not a problem with my biological assignment. Should I struggle with my gender? I shouldn't - if it was simple but it's not. I have 7 brothers - and a sexist father - maybe the influence of my culture messed with my gender identity. I didn't want to be a girl. Interestly enough - I love being a woman, but there's more options for me now. I think the definition provided in the Proclamation to the World - is too simple. There are so many personal issues that affect way more than just 1%. Don't get me wrong - I know you weren't suggesting that.

I totally agree with you. I also got this new avatar (hopefully, the mods won't consider it pornographic, but there's a naked lady ). Anyway, I saw it while flipping through an art book at Barnes&Noble and thought that's how the Church treats its women sometimes - as if they were subject to their uterus, or as if our best shot at salvation is through childbearing. Which is just wrong.

I don't know most people get away with the lawsuits that they do. $54 million dollars for a lost pair of pants, no matter how ludicrous we think something maybe it doesn't negate peopleâ??s interpretations and ability to file suit. Ergo avoiding the whole thing all together.

Wouldn't it be nice if this world was fair and perfect?!?! I think most people do the best with what they have. What is abstinence worth in the eternal scheme of things? Sacrificing human companionship in this life for the hope of something better in the next. I wish I had answers, I wish I understood many more things than I currently do, I just leave it up to God to take care of his children, as he has been doing for 1000's of years.

God helps those who help themselves I've never heard of someone suing the Church over the denial of a temple recommend. I think it would be nice if they at least stopped disciplining LGBT people. And civil marriage all of a sudden makes it okay to have sex? How is it not a sin after you stood before a judge and listened to some standard words and said yes, but it was ten minutes prior to that?

[cartoon bluejay]

I would imagine it wouldn't matter. Then there is the question of whether or not non-exalted people will be servants of exalted people. But if not, anyone non-exalted will be more independent than an exalted woman who is still "presided over" by her husband.

That's what I was thinking - if my gender only applies to me if I'm exhalted - I might have more options with what I do in the eternities if I'm not exhalted. Hmmmm...

I totally agree with you. I also got this new avatar (hopefully, the mods won't consider it pornographic, but there's a naked lady ). Anyway, I saw it while flipping through an art book at Barnes&Noble and thought that's how the Church treats its women sometimes - as if they were subject to their uterus, or as if our best shot at salvation is through childbearing. Which is just wrong.

I LOVE the new avatar! Great find.

[Zoidberg]

That's what I was thinking - if my gender only applies to me if I'm exhalted - I might have more options with what I do in the eternities if I'm not exhalted. Hmmmm...

More questions arise when you familiarize yourself with the justification of patriarchy in traditional Judaism and other Christian denominations. Since we don't believe that Eve's decision to leave the garden was worthy of punishment and childbearing is a curse, it really puzzles me why we're still holding on to patriarchy. Furthermore, in order to believe that the woman was created for the man, one has to literally believe she was made out of Adam's rib.

[cartoon bluejay]

More questions arise when you familiarize yourself with the justification of patriarchy in traditional Judaism and other Christian denominations. Since we don't believe that Eve's decision to leave the garden was worthy of punishment and childbearing is a curse, it really puzzles me why we're still holding on to patriarchy. Furthermore, in order to believe that the woman was created for the man, one has to literally believe she was made out of Adam's rib.

Which also brings to mind the 2nd AF "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." - except for women still get to have the curse. Unless I'm missing something and that scripture doesn't apply to women. But for me that AF confuses me in other areas as well, like darkened skin color. Anyway...

Patriarchy - it offends me.

[The Dude]

I LOVE the new avatar! Great find.

Yeah, Zoidberg. I commend your find as strongly vaginal. Which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina. Yes, they don't like hearing it and find it diffucult to say. Whereas without batting an eye a man will refer to his ....

[SLC]

Can you give me an example of the Church ever getting involved with the determination of an intersex person's gender? I imagine that parents who have an intersex child born to them would counsel with their bishop, etc., but even then, I imagine, the bishop would probably abstain from any absolute pronouncements. Also, look at my hypothetical example of Morgan and Larry upthread. Do you think anyone would even question Larry's right to get married in the temple in the first case? I don't think so. If you have any information that suggests otherwise, please share.

I cannot give any exapmles. But can you give me an example of the opposite (not a fictional story about Larry and Morgan)? If not then we are all just speculating anyway. I don't understand why there has to be a blanket statement for such a small group of people who obviously have very unique circumstances - so unique in fact that they vary from case to case. It seems that the brethren are being more sensitive to the needs of the individual by not making a sweeping statement that concerns less than 1% of the church. If your husband has ever been a Bishop or Stake President then you know that when faced with a situation for which there are no instructions, the instructions are to call Church Headquarters and be directed to the appropriate person. In a situation such as an intersex individual, I am quite sure that the SP would be directed to the office of the First Presidency. The specifics of that one person's case would be given so that the FP could make an informed decision based on the facts and revelation from the Lord. Wouldn't you rather have the Prophet giving you your answer based on your set of circumstances than a SP interpreting a policy and applying it to you? I don't see how the current way of handling unique situations like this is hurting anyone. In fact I see it just the opposite. I see a church that is concerned about each and every soul. For those that need special care, they don't just issue a policy without knowing the circumstances surrounding the situation.

[Mighty Curelom]

Anyway, I saw it while flipping through an art book at Barnes&Noble and thought that's how the Church treats its women sometimes - as if they were subject to their uterus, or as if our best shot at salvation is through childbearing. Which is just wrong.

You are so on the way out. I'd estimate a 10% chance that you're still Mormon in 5 years.

[selek]

You are so on the way out. I'd estimate a 10% chance that you're still Mormon in 5 years.

I'm not convinced she is now.....especially in light of some of the blatant heresies she seems to endorse.

Then again, there is often a distinction between a cultural Mormon and a faithful one.

[Zoidberg]

Which also brings to mind the 2nd AF "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." - except for women still get to have the curse. Unless I'm missing something and that scripture doesn't apply to women. But for me that AF confuses me in other areas as well, like darkened skin color. Anyway...

Patriarchy - it offends me.

Do you think the Church would fall apart if patriarchy was no longer taught as doctrine? Would all the guys leave? That would be interesting to see. Or switch the roles... Then they would definitely all leave.

Yeah, Zoidberg. I commend your find as strongly vaginal. Which bothers some men. The word itself makes some men uncomfortable. Vagina. Yes, they don't like hearing it and find it diffucult to say.

Well, you've obviously overcome that fear I've heard that you can prevent a rape if you tell the attacker you're on your period and wearing a tampon.

I cannot give any exapmles. But can you give me an example of the opposite (not a fictional story about Larry and Morgan)?

No, I can't. However, what makes you think that this case would even make it to the FP? If the child is even aware that a surgery was performed on them. However, the procedure for transsexuals is outlined in a lot of detail. There is also a blanket statement on them. Like I said, there are even less of them than transsexual people. Transsexuals are also mentioned in the "Unusual Circumstances" section of the chapter on priesthood ordination. The wording is "elective transsexual operation". So if the operation is not "elective", then there shouldn't be any basis for denying a temple recommend.

The specifics of that one person's case would be given so that the FP could make an informed decision based on the facts and revelation from the Lord. Wouldn't you rather have the Prophet giving you your answer based on your set of circumstances than a SP interpreting a policy and applying it to you? I don't see how the current way of handling unique situations like this is hurting anyone. In fact I see it just the opposite. I see a church that is concerned about each and every soul. For those that need special care, they don't just issue a policy without knowing the circumstances surrounding the situation.

Well, what about the people who have undergone SRS BEFORE they got baptized? They had no way of knowing. However, they still can't hold the priesthood/go to the temple. I don't know if any of them would want to do the ordinances in their pre-op gender, but no one is even going to ask them, priesthood/temple is not allowed. No exceptions.

[Zoidberg]

You are so on the way out. I'd estimate a 10% chance that you're still Mormon in 5 years.

hmmm... I'm assuming you've left already. What was the final drop, doctrine/policy-wise (if you don't mind my asking)?

I'm not convinced she is now.....especially in light of some of the blatant heresies she seems to endorse.

Then again, there is often a distinction between a cultural Mormon and a faithful one.

Gee, you are the first person who has ever called me a "cultural" mormon. I had some friends who joined for the "cultural" issues or because they liked the missionaries. They went to Church every Sunday and had callings in YW. And had sex out of wedlock on a regular basis. I actually took what the Church said seriously. Then I started noticing obvious contradictions. And it's very faithful of you to accuse me of lying in a passive-aggressive way (I have stated many times that I am still a member, yet you seem to doubt that).