The Eternal Nature Of Gender

[Mighty Curelom]

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

I was raised in a Mormon family--it just didn't take with me. To the extent that I ever believed it at all, any belief evaporated as soon as I was old enough to consciously evaluate what I was taught. It's sort of like how you've heard over and over that 90% of your body's heat escapes through the head. You don't really have any reason to question it; you don't really care enough to think about it at all. But as soon as you stop to analyze it, you see how absurd it is. If 90% of the body's heat escaped through the head, we could walk around completely nude all winter with nothing but a cozy hat.

[selek]

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

Actually, exit stories are verboten. Perhaps he might relate it to you in a PM.

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).

The term "Cultural Mormon" tends to refer to those who are members because they were raised that way (and their great, great,..........grandparents crossed the plains with Brigham Young, etc, etc, etc), or because that is their chosen lifestyle rather than because they have a testimony of the Church.

And for the record, I wasn't calling you a liar (at least not intentionally). You seem to espouse a number of views and interpretations that are - to put it mildly- at odds with conventional LDS thought.

And you'd be amazed how many "loyal, faithful members" post the most ridiculous anti-Mormon bilge on these boards. We are warned about such people- and how inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Rather than make any assumptions, I posited that you were a member, as opposed to a believer.

[Zoidberg]

I was raised in a Mormon family--it just didn't take with me.

The ironic thing is that I was trying to get my husband to go, but he had to work every Sunday and just generally hated it. Now my pending postacy has scared him straight and he's going. Logic...

[Zoidberg]

Actually, exit stories are verboten. Perhaps he might relate it to you in a PM.

The term "Cultural Mormon" tends to refer to those who are members because they were raised that way (and their great, great,..........grandparents crossed the plains with Brigham Young, etc, etc, etc), or because that is their chosen lifestyle rather than because they have a testimony of the Church.

And for the record, I wasn't calling you a liar (at least not intentionally). You seem to espouse a number of views and interpretations that are - to put it mildly- at odds with conventional LDS thought.

And you'd be amazed how many "loyal, faithful members" post the most ridiculous anti-Mormon bilge on these boards. We are warned about such people- and how inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Rather than make any assumptions, I posited that you were a member, as opposed to a believer.

A believer in what? I still believe in a lot of the things the Church espouses. And I joined for the doctrinal issues and because I felt the Holy Ghost was telling me to. I don't know if you would say I ever had a testimony; I felt that I did. I did have a problem with bearing testimony of things I wasn't sure were true and the general "conventional" idea that the more you bear your testimony the stronger it gets. It's like saying "the more you say you know x is true, the more you know x is true". You either know x is true or you don't. And I'm just expressing my own private opinions (I'm not expressing them at Church, BTW, so I don't know what your problem with me is, since it's a message board, not a testimony meeting). I don't know what the purpose is of your rant about members who post anti-mormon stuff. I don't think I've posted anything that said the Church was bad and awful or anything that was not factual. I also always cite my sources and try to be accurate. I indicate when something is merely my opinion. Besides, you seemed to consider me a believer on another thread where you were constantly asking me if I, "as a believer", think this or that.

[cartoon bluejay]

I just think sometimes it's assumed that a true believer wouldn't have the questions that you do - I think if I had found someone willing to discuss my questions - I might still be a believer. It's the questions and assumptions we make (accurate or not) that increases our intelligence - sometimes just accepting that it will all work out later is not enough. There are certain things that don't make sense and I don't see the harm in questioning to try and make sense of it - broadening knowledge and expanding understanding - that's it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You are welcome! Thoughts? (when you're done puking )

My position is that we are male/female in the pre-exsistence...I not sure when Biology goes wrong. But I dod believe we will be restored to our orginal state.

Pa Pa

[Deborah]

I just think sometimes it's assumed that a true believer wouldn't have the questions that you do - I think if I had found someone willing to discuss my questions - I might still be a believer. It's the questions and assumptions we make (accurate or not) that increases our intelligence - sometimes just accepting that it will all work out later is not enough. There are certain things that don't make sense and I don't see the harm in questioning to try and make sense of it - broadening knowledge and expanding understanding - that's it.

It's not that a true believer doesn't have such questions; it's that such questions aren't used as a stumbling block preventing one from moving forward in faith. I think it shows a lack of faith and trust in God and the Atonement. There is no way that all the questions of this life will be answered. Not even the prophets know everything, for not everything has been revealed except as the questions are asked and the answers are necessary for the salvation of the saints. And yes sometimes just accepting that it will all work out later should be sufficient if one trusts in God. It is ok to question but don't let the questions be the single issue that destroys faith.

[Zoidberg]

I just think sometimes it's assumed that a true believer wouldn't have the questions that you do - I think if I had found someone willing to discuss my questions - I might still be a believer. It's the questions and assumptions we make (accurate or not) that increases our intelligence - sometimes just accepting that it will all work out later is not enough. There are certain things that don't make sense and I don't see the harm in questioning to try and make sense of it - broadening knowledge and expanding understanding - that's it.

I hope you have found a way to resolve your questions on your own. I think it usually is the best way to go - in the Church, at least I used to ask my branch president a lot about why there has to be polygyny in the CK. He kept giving me all the standard rationalizations that obviously don't make sense, and when I pointed that out, he quoted D&C 132 where God tells Emma she would be destroyed if she didn't accept all the other JS's wives. That's about when I stopped asking questions at Church (unless I was teaching a lesson). It's amazing that people here often try to apply the same tactic. It's a discussion board, isn't it? Is only "faith-promoting" discussion encouraged?

[myleague]

Cordial discussion is out of the question!!! It's or the highway.

Only question I have that puzzles my mind is if God and wife(s) have physical bodies, do they have physical God children? As we are spiritual children we aren't created in the same fashion as physical beings. Which also bodes the question of physical relationships in the CK. It's not testimony shaking stuff, but throws a wrench in the ideas of Celestial sex if physical procreation isn't the means by which God has children.

As far as the gender question the whole mountain big enough God canâ??t move it kind of applies, if God is all powerful can he then become a woman? Where are the limits of omnipotence? Or is that a natural law by which God is bound?

Baaa itâ??s nice outside, what am I doing hereâ?¦

[cartoon bluejay]

I hope you have found a way to resolve your questions on your own.

Thank you! I have. I have peace with God. I have found some conclusions but mostly not - I like the questions and the discussions. I feel like it's opened my mind again.

It's not that a true believer doesn't have such questions; it's that such questions aren't used as a stumbling block preventing one from moving forward in faith. I think it shows a lack of faith and trust in God and the Atonement. There is no way that all the questions of this life will be answered. Not even the prophets know everything, for not everything has been revealed except as the questions are asked and the answers are necessary for the salvation of the saints. And yes sometimes just accepting that it will all work out later should be sufficient if one trusts in God. It is ok to question but don't let the questions be the single issue that destroys faith.

Thank you. I probably worded it so that it would seem that I'm not a believer over the questions. (this is another thread topic). I agree - no question should act as a stumbling block. I think sometimes the lack of an answer can be a stumbling block for a time. Moving forward in faith - that's exactly what I'm doing. I think I have tremendous faith - it wasn't the questions that almost detroyed my faith - I don't expect anyone to know everything - except for God. Do I have sufficient trust in God? Hmmm - that's on repair - and it took leaving the church to do that. Don't ask me why - I just know it's what I needed to do.

Eternal nature of gender - anyone?

[Helmuth]

Helmuth, let me tell you this: I think the government sucks probably just as much as you think.

That's nice. Though you may not not actually think it "just as much" as I, not fully appreciating the depths of my hatred.

You need not read any posts on anything other than this thread. I thought I didn't have to spell out that it is very restrictive in nature and that the marriage amendment would limit people's freedom MORE than it is currently limited.

Despite not thinking that you had to, you did in fact spell this out a few times already. But I do not think this campaign for this amendment is "very restrictive in nature", nor seeking to "limit people's freedom". I do not believe that is the First Presidency's motive. I think that this amendment campaign is a curiousity, perhaps a pastime to some, and almost entirely irrelevant to life, freedom, or anything.

As in, if all other things remain a constant, that would limit their free agency. I was never saying that it would prevent them from living together or professing undying love or anything of the sort. I also never said the Church was trying to TAKE AWAY their free agency altogether. I said it attempted to limit it.

To take away parts of it, then. To take away a degree of it.

If there weren't government restrictions in place already that prevented people from having consenting children from living with whomever they like (since children are often deemed unable to give consent, again, by the government, so that point you made about gays "procuring" children who were willing to live with them amounts to nothing in the current situation).

Yes, we live under a messed up government. But the First Presidency and the rest of the apostles are not primarily political philosophers. I don't expect they will come out with a statement condemning state custody of children, which is the fundamental problem not the giving or non-giving of strange marriage certificates to people who are not, in a traditional sense, even married!

If there were no government regulations, people would be able to travel freely and immigration would not be an issue at all. If we didn't have to pay taxes for some hypothetical "protection" to the government, nobody would care for a tax-break. But WE HAVE A GOVERNMENT RIGHT NOW! And let me remind you that the Church wants us to be law-abiding. So, then, someone with your mentality about the government, for instance, if they could not find a legal way to live in the same country as their girlfriend/boyfriend, would go live with them anyway, since they realize immigration laws are stupid. However, if they were found out, there would be punishment. As in: the person who immigrated illegally could be deported and denied any chance to enter the country in the future (which there could be a remote hope for otherwise or unless they are willing to risk their life sneaking through the border if they get a chance to go to a bordering country). So who in their right mind would ignore the legal ramifications of certain actions in this case? It's like saying that a woman told by a man who broke into her home that she should either do a certain sexual favor or he will shoot her, freely has sex with him.

You are making several points about civil disobedience, risk calculation, and the nature of consent. None of these are essentially related to the question at hand: is the First Presidency seeking to take away / limit people's free agency by supporting this goofy constitutional amendment. So let's get back to that. You've given 3 alleged rights relating to: adoption, slightly-lower-taxation, and immigration. None of these are rights. But let's stipulate that they are. Even if these things are rights, the proposed amendment does not necessarily affect these rights in any way. Congress could tack on a sentence to a 2300 page budget bill saying "We're going to treat gays as if they were married for purposes of immigration". I'm confident they can manage to make the tax code even more byzantine than it is by adding deductions, rules, and exceptions for gay couples. And some unelected bureaucrat can make whatever policy she pleases for her social worker staff to follow regarding adoptions.

In short, there are no lasting legally binding consequeces to said amendment whatsoever, except for the government's "official" "definition" of marriage.

About liberty: the forceful interference is with the Constitution,

What? The Constitution was made to be amended. It's, uhh, right there in the document. Are you an American?

that, for the sake of the argument, we will consider to be benign in nature and serve the interests of society (BTW, D&C 101 says that God established it, or are you forgetting that? Or should it never has been amended in the first place?). The amendments that gave certain rights to certain individuals contribute to their freedom [if you disregard the fact that having a government is, in itself, restrictive]. Do you disagree with that?

Only the parts that I can understand. To wit: I have not forgotten it; the first 10 amendments are the best and noblest part of the whole document; and the amendments do not give rights to anyone, rather they prohibit Congress from doing a whole list of junk that would infringe on rights which the people already had by virtue of being human beings. Respectively.

However, if you make same-sex marriages unconstitutional, it would be impossible to make them legally permitted without first repealing that amendment.

Any benefits which can be given legislatively to same-sex couples who marry can be given to same-sex couples who do not marry. This amendment would pose no barrier to those benefits. I explained this earlier in this post, also.

Would you agree that having a government somewhat limits people's free agency?

Coercive government limits their liberty / freedom.

In this case, you have to agree that making the Constitution it's established upon more restrictive also limits people's free agency.

The Constitution restricts the things the government can do, not the people. At least, that was the idea. The people in government no longer feel particularly bound by the Constitution. Hopefully we Americans can change that.

Let me once again clarify: I don't give a fat rat's butt about marriage licenses. I'm talking about the benefits [read: ways to get around government restrictions] that are associated with marriage granted by the State.

Once again, giving or not giving someone the status of "married" does not hinder or enhance the ability of the state to restrict them in any way whatsoever.

I read that link that you provided.

That was not necessary; I certainly didn't (other than the first part)! I hope it was informative. I was just giving it to you so you'd understand what I meant by "negative". What you really should read is the book I recommended (which I have read!).

I guess the main point of difference in our debate is the definition of free agency. You define it as negative liberty.

I'm not sure I do. You could define it as "free will", which is probably more doctrinally accurate. Free agency in that sense cannot be taken away except by God, who refuses to do so.

I also am aware of some research that suggests that free agency is not as free as we have come to believe.

You've lost me again.

I believe transsexualism is in the DSM now.

What is the DSM? Dragon-Seeker's Manual?

[Zoidberg]

My position is that we are male/female in the pre-exsistence...I not sure when Biology goes wrong. But I dod believe we will be restored to our orginal state.

Pa Pa

But what is to be done in the meantime? Obviously, when someone is disabled either mentally or physically, we can imagine WHAT they will be restored to. But, as bluejay has pointed out, gender is inseparable from gender roles and cultual and social perceptions. So if an intersex person is regarded (or views themselves, although it doesn't happen that often) as neither male nor female, or simultaneously male and female, or some "third gender", that creates a plethora of social problems for them (hopefully, it's obvious why). Besides, as I have already said, modern medicine can make a vagina better than a penis. If it was equally easy to make the two, a lot of babies born with a tiny penis would grow up to be boys, and not girls, as is often happening now. The parents/doctors desires for them to be/look "normal" is the primary drive here. Which I don't think is right. The question is more about the Church's positions and how to be able to tell what you were "originally" and what you will be "restored to". And whether or not it should affect your mortal life.

It's not that a true believer doesn't have such questions; it's that such questions aren't used as a stumbling block preventing one from moving forward in faith. I think it shows a lack of faith and trust in God and the Atonement. There is no way that all the questions of this life will be answered. Not even the prophets know everything, for not everything has been revealed except as the questions are asked and the answers are necessary for the salvation of the saints. And yes sometimes just accepting that it will all work out later should be sufficient if one trusts in God. It is ok to question but don't let the questions be the single issue that destroys faith.

Just to make it clear, I'm not trying to destroy anyone's faith. I'm just trying to have a discussion. Discussions can increase faith. I'm sure you would agree with me that questioning certain practices as they exist in the Church today does not constitute as faith-shaking. Imagine the distant future, when we will all wear sleek silver bodysuits. People will wear them everywhere because they will be superior clothing in all aspects. But when they go to church on Sunday they will take off their awesome bodysuits and put on a shirt and tie (or a skirt) because that's the way it has been done for the past few centuries. Even though nobody outside of the Church even own suits, ties and skirts, and regards them as something hopelessly outdated and inferior to the silver bodysuits. Then some Church member will say: "Hey, wait a minute! Why are we all wearing this anachronistic clothing to Church? Isn't it kinda stupid? Why can't we just wear our awesome silver bodysuits?" And some people will say "Well, the policies now are that suits and ties must be worn, which means they are God-given. Don't question them. It is wrong and detrimental to people's faith.". And other people will say; "Hey yeah, you're right. It is stupid." Then everyone will wear awesome silver bodysuits to Church. So I think of myself as that Church member. You can regard me however you want, though. But for the purposes of discussion, let's just refrain from statements like "I don't know and it's none of my business, all will be revealed, and Zoidberg is trying to lead people astray". If you don't want to speculate about what we were pre-mortally or what we will be in the afterlife, you can speak strictly in terms of the implications of the idea of "eternal gender" on this life only.

Cordial discussion is out of the question!!! It's or the highway.

Only question I have that puzzles my mind is if God and wife(s) have physical bodies, do they have physical God children? As we are spiritual children we aren't created in the same fashion as physical beings. Which also bodes the question of physical relationships in the CK. It's not testimony shaking stuff, but throws a wrench in the ideas of Celestial sex if physical procreation isn't the means by which God has children.

Brother Brigham certainly thought there was "Celestial sex", didn't he? However, it was probably his personal opinion. Celestial sex not in the sense it's being used today by polyamorous families, but sex in the CK, rather. And yes, it is kind of limiting to God to only be able to be of one gender. It's a good question about physical God children though, too. Although I would imagine that if you see us right now as God embryos, that would mean that we will only be truly "born" when we are resurrected in our perfect eternal bodies. Mortal life could be just a stage in the development of a God fetus.

That's nice. Though you may not not actually think it "just as much" as I, not fully appreciating the depths of my hatred.

Well, I would like to learn from you, then, because I thought my hatred was already abysmal

Despite not thinking that you had to, you did in fact spell this out a few times already. But I do not think this campaign for this amendment is "very restrictive in nature", nor seeking to "limit people's freedom". I do not believe that is the First Presidency's motive. I think that this amendment campaign is a curiousity, perhaps a pastime to some, and almost entirely irrelevant to life, freedom, or anything.

I've always thought that the FP made it clear that they didn't even want civil unions and the associated "benefits" to exist. So I must conclude that their motives were to place some limitations on gay people. I can agree that limiting the definition of marriage does not necessarily preclude all these "benefits" from occurring, but I imagine that it did in the minds of the FP, or they regarded it as the first step. It's not like they said "as long as gay people don't call it "marriage", they can get all the benefits currently associated with marriage". On the contrary, I think they don't care about whether or not gay people or anyone else define their unions as marriages (as they will do it anyway if they want to), but they think that if gay people don't get the "benefits" of marriage, it will somehow be beneficial to society as a whole. The latest version of the amendment allowed some space for civil unions, but currently civil unions don't have all the "benefits" associated with marriage. Again, I might be wrong about the FP's motives, but this picture makes the most sense to me. I certainly don't think they supported it out of "curiosity". Whether or not this amendment would influence anything (or my opinion on whether it would or not) had it been passed is irrelevant; but I'm pretty sure the FP's motives were founded on the belief that it would. Hence "attempt to limit" and "trying to limit". Whether or not it would actually "limit", is another question.

To take away parts of it, then. To take away a degree of it.

I fail to see how "taking away a degree" is not "limiting".

Yes, we live under a messed up government. But the First Presidency and the rest of the apostles are not primarily political philosophers. I don't expect they will come out with a statement condemning state custody of children, which is the fundamental problem not the giving or non-giving of strange marriage certificates to people who are not, in a traditional sense, even married!

No they won't, especially since the current state laws favor heterosexual married couples.

You are making several points about civil disobedience, risk calculation, and the nature of consent. None of these are essentially related to the question at hand: is the First Presidency seeking to take away / limit people's free agency by supporting this goofy constitutional amendment. So let's get back to that. You've given 3 alleged rights relating to: adoption, slightly-lower-taxation, and immigration. None of these are rights. But let's stipulate that they are. Even if these things are rights, the proposed amendment does not necessarily affect these rights in any way. Congress could tack on a sentence to a 2300 page budget bill saying "We're going to treat gays as if they were married for purposes of immigration". I'm confident they can manage to make the tax code even more byzantine than it is by adding deductions, rules, and exceptions for gay couples. And some unelected bureaucrat can make whatever policy she pleases for her social worker staff to follow regarding adoptions.

See above.

What? The Constitution was made to be amended. It's, uhh, right there in the document. Are you an American?

No I'm not (I thought it was already obvious by now from my lousy English). I did study the Constitution and could probably still recite the preamble, but a lot of things have escaped my mind. I was talking more about D&C 101 though and that it seems that the constitution was given by God in its "original" form, which poses a question of whether or not any of the existing amendments would be approved by Him. I guess calling it "forceful interference" was not really accurate.

Only the parts that I can understand. To wit: I have not forgotten it; the first 10 amendments are the best and noblest part of the whole document; and the amendments do not give rights to anyone, rather they prohibit Congress from doing a whole list of junk that would infringe on rights which the people already had by virtue of being human beings. Respectively.

Coercive government limits their liberty / freedom.

The Constitution restricts the things the government can do, not the people. At least, that was the idea. The people in government no longer feel particularly bound by the Constitution. Hopefully we Americans can change that.

And we non-Americans (especially once we get our citizenship and can vote).

Once again, giving or not giving someone the status of "married" does not hinder or enhance the ability of the state to restrict them in any way whatsoever.

At this point in our disagreement I am willing to admit that my language could have been sloppy and I didn't properly differentiate between the intentions of the FP to get involved in supporting the amendment (as I perceive them) and THEIR idea of what it might accomplish and what it would actually accomplish. Pehaps it would accomplish nothing (which is probably the key reason why it didn't pass, since it was obviously ridiculous). That said, if the FP, in fact, did think that the amendment would enable the government to restrict gay people more than it currently does (which I'm pretty sure they did), that still qualifies as an attempt to limit people's free agency (or freedom, if you want to be nit-picky, and since we have not yet come to a consensus of what constitutes free agency).

That was not necessary; I certainly didn't (other than the first part)! I hope it was informative. I was just giving it to you so you'd understand what I meant by "negative". What you really should read is the book I recommended (which I have read!).

okay.

You've lost me again.

Some recent research in neuroscience suggests that impulses to perform an action (including the ones we would describe as "choices" or "decisions") are formed subconsciously and "free will" is excercised in vetoing or not vetoing these subconscious impulses.

What is the DSM? Dragon-Seeker's Manual?

ha ha. It's the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is published by the American Psychiatric Association to be used by mental health professionals. It is revised every once in a while (which is often accompanied by adding/removing certain disorders; when a " mental disorder" is removed, it means it's no longer considered a mental disorder). Transsexualism, or Gender Identity Disorder, is currently in the DSM-IV and considered a mental disorder. Which by no means indicates it being a mental disorder in "objective reality". Homosexuality no longer being in the DSM, even though it used to be there, is one example of this.

[Helmuth]

Well, I would like to learn from you, then, because I thought my hatred was already abysmal

Check out http://mises.org . They may even have some free online books in your native language, whatever that may be.

I've always thought that the FP made it clear that they didn't even want civil unions and the associated "benefits" to exist.

If so, they did not make it clear to me!

No, Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Wickman explained why the Church was supporting this amendment in a recent Ensign magazine article:

ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like â??homophobic.â? In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor

threatened with prison for preaching

from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue â?? ultimately it may be a test of our most

basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach

.

...

QUESTION: Why not just say, â??We donâ??t agree with it doctrinally for our own peopleâ?? and leave it at that.

Why fight to get a Constitutional amendment

[in the United States], for example?

ELDER WICKMAN:

Weâ??re not trying to regulate people

, but this notion that â??what happens in your house doesnâ??t affect what happens in my houseâ?? on the subject of the institution of marriage may be the ultimate sophistry of those advocating same-gender marriage.

Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one

definition

without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as

defined by the Lord

, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. (emphases added by me)

As you can see, they are concerned about the definition of marriage and its continuance as an institution. They think adding the traditional definition into the Constitution as the "official" definition would help buttress the traditional definition. They are probaby right, though I think the effect would be very minor.

The General Authorities also don't want preaching against homosexuality to become illegal "hate speech". I can support them on that, for sure.

So I must conclude that their motives were to place some limitations on gay people.

By their own account, that is NOT their motive.

I fail to see how "taking away a degree" is not "limiting".

Right, they are exactly the same. I think we were just misunderstanding each other.

No I'm not (I thought it was already obvious by now from my lousy English).

Lousy english would make us think you are American! It's one of the tell-tale signs. . Your English seems to me to be actually quite good.

...the constitution was given by God in its "original" form, which poses a question of whether or not any of the existing amendments would be approved by Him.

For one thing, you may be over-analyzing the statements in D&C 101. I think it's basically saying the ideals that brought about the Declaration of Independence and Constitution -- individual liberty, freedom from oppresion, no taxation, self-determination, the limited role of government, etc. -- that these ideals are divine. I don't think that it is saying the Constitution was actually given by revelation and is perfect and cannot be improved. Frankly, the Constitution was a counter-coup carried out by the so-called Federalists (the bad guys in this story) who wanted a big central government. In other words, they wanted to destroy pretty much everything the revolution was about. Yes, there's a reason they had their convention when Thomas Jefferson (and Ben Franklin) were safely out of the country in France. So, I have mixed feelings about the Constitution: it is not that great compared to, say, the Articles of Confederation, but the USA government would be much, much, much, 1000% better than the present reality if those in power were forced to follow the Constitution.

Second, the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, really should be considered part of the original Constitution. The Constitution would never have been ratified (even by the highly questionable, dead-of-winter, in point of fact illegal ratification process that it got through) if there was not a Bill of Rights promised. The Anti-Federalists insisted on a Bill of Rights. There is no Constitution without the Bill of Rights! The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are a package deal. Without the Bill of Rights, the whole deal is off.

Some recent research in neuroscience suggests that impulses to perform an action (including the ones we would describe as "choices" or "decisions") are formed subconsciously and "free will" is excercised in vetoing or not vetoing these subconscious impulses.

Ahh, yes, I have heard about this.

Which by no means indicates it being a mental disorder in "objective reality".

The whole term "mental illness" is metaphorical only, and not objective. In fact, the entire field of psychiatry is unscientific. As Thomas Szasz points out, the mind is not an organ, and thus cannot become diseased. No pathologist has ever seen a mind. To quote him: "No further evidence is needed to show that 'mental illness' is not the name of a biological condition whose nature awaits to be elucidated, but is the name of a concept whose purpose is to obscure the obvious." (more quotes here)

___

In the end, let me tell you that I personally do not support amending the Constitution to define marriage. Yes, I disagree with the First Presidency on that. One can disagree with this and still be a good member of the Church and the Church can still be true! It IS True! Most people are wrong about politics most of the time. The General Authorities (except for Ezra Taft Benson ) are no exception. It's not worth leaving the Church over! I don't see any reason for it to even shake your faith.

As for your concern about intersex: President Hinckley is not going to receive revelation about each one of them and then let them know what to do. That's just not how things work in the orderly way of the Lord. It is up to the affected as individuals to seek revelation. Intersexed individuals are not the only exceptions to a gospel rule. They don't know what gender they are; what about people who don't know who they are at all? Why would God allow someone to live their whole life as a vegetable? Doesn't that seem even more problematic? Or why would God command you not to swear and then give you Teret's Syndrome? There are many people with an "exception to a rule" they must deal with.

As for your concern about changing sex: Changing your sex simply isn't allowed. It's against the comandments, I guess you could say. Why is it forbidden? Because following this commandment will lead to more ultimate happiness for us. That's the purpose for all Heavenly Father's counsel.

[Zoidberg]

If so, they did not make it clear to me!

No, Dallin H. Oaks and Elder Wickman explained why the Church was supporting this amendment in a recent Ensign magazine article:

ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like â??homophobic.â? In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor

threatened with prison for preaching

from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue â?? ultimately it may be a test of our most

basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach

.

I definitely agree that there should be freedom of speech. However, as I'm sure you realize, the amendment had nothing to do with freedom of speech whatsoever. The pastor got threatened with prison for speaking out against homosexuality in general, not against allowing gay people to marry (or else DHO is not telling us the whole story).

QUESTION: Why not just say, â??We donâ??t agree with it doctrinally for our own peopleâ?? and leave it at that.

Why fight to get a Constitutional amendment

[in the United States], for example?

ELDER WICKMAN:

Weâ??re not trying to regulate people

, but this notion that â??what happens in your house doesnâ??t affect what happens in my houseâ?? on the subject of the institution of marriage may be the ultimate sophistry of those advocating same-gender marriage.

Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one

definition

without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as

defined by the Lord

, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. (emphases added by me)

As you can see, they are concerned about the definition of marriage and its continuance as an institution. They think adding the traditional definition into the Constitution as the "official" definition would help buttress the traditional definition. They are probaby right, though I think the effect would be very minor.

I'm surprised you still don't see it. "The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution." It is clear that the reason they are concerned with the definition is because they think the whole institution would be affected. They are convinced that allowing gay people to marry would somehow negatively influence those who have nothing to do whatsoever with married gay people. Which I'm sure you realize is not true. Unless one makes a leap and assumes that restricting free speech will somehow logically follow from allowing gay marriage, which it totally doesn't have to. I'm sure there are some fanatic gay activists (although I have not met any). There are also atheists like Dawkins who think the world would be so much better if we replaced religious oppression with obliging people to accept natural selection as the only plausible explanation of the Universe, which is exactly the same thing. A small fanatic minority is not representative of the general population. If they were, in fact, afraid their freedom of speech would be restricted, it was only one of the reasons. There is also clear concern about some perceived danger to "the institution of marriage".

The General Authorities also don't want preaching against homosexuality to become illegal "hate speech". I can support them on that, for sure.

Me too. However, the amendment had nothing to do with homosexuality itself, just gay marriage, so their fear is not very well founded.

Lousy english would make us think you are American! It's one of the tell-tale signs. . Your English seems to me to be actually quite good.

Thanks I do hate it when people write "your" instead of "you're". The difference should be obvious to any elementary schol student.

The whole term "mental illness" is metaphorical only, and not objective. In fact, the entire field of psychiatry is unscientific. As Thomas Szasz points out, the mind is not an organ, and thus cannot become diseased. No pathologist has ever seen a mind. To quote him: "No further evidence is needed to show that 'mental illness' is not the name of a biological condition whose nature awaits to be elucidated, but is the name of a concept whose purpose is to obscure the obvious." (more quotes here)

I'm not sure I agree psychiatry is unscientific. You can experimentally research the impact of any medication, including anti-depressants. Sure, there are the side effects and some negative long-term effects, but that has to do with unscrupulous pharmacological companies rather than psychiatry. If you want to dispute the effectiveness of individual therapy, that's another question. Mental disorders can have very measurable impact on our health; depression can actually reduce the size of your brain etc. I would say that the mind is the interaction between heredity and the environment.

In the end, let me tell you that I personally do not support amending the Constitution to define marriage. Yes, I disagree with the First Presidency on that. One can disagree with this and still be a good member of the Church and the Church can still be true! It IS True! Most people are wrong about politics most of the time. The General Authorities (except for Ezra Taft Benson ) are no exception. It's not worth leaving the Church over! I don't see any reason for it to even shake your faith.

My faith in God and His love and mercy is not shaken at all. However, the current position of the FP is that members with the greatest amount of faith will align themselves with the FP's position on whatever issue, as mentioned by President Hinckley in his talk on loyalty. So I don't feel like I can currently be as good a member as I want to. If I stay in the Church despite my obvious disagreements with so many things, I will just end up being a "cultural Mormon" (which selek is already accusing me of). And who wants that? I guess I could be a "good member", but not a "good enough member", if you know what I mean. If the FP's position on what constitutes loyalty changes, I would have no problem becoming active again. Ditto if the FP's position on supporting legal restrictions for whatever group of people changes. But not when they simultaneously set forth both positions. I envy your ability to reconcile all these issues and remain a member of the Church without feeling inadequate.

As for your concern about changing sex: Changing your sex simply isn't allowed. It's against the comandments, I guess you could say. Why is it forbidden? Because following this commandment will lead to more ultimate happiness for us. That's the purpose for all Heavenly Father's counsel.

You keep thinking of it as "changing sex". People with gender identity disorder (whether or not it is, in fact, a disorder) don't feel that they are changing their sex. They feel that they are making their appearance/body conform to their true sex. I still believe that "self-diagnosis" in terms of determining one's gender is as valid (if not more) than any other ways of gender assignment (they are not failproof and very arbitrary, as has already been demonstrated).

[cartoon bluejay]

I've been thinking a lot about this topic and I'm trying to put something together but we'll see...

First going to the FP's Proclamation to the World it state "All human beingsâ??male and femaleâ??are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Gender is an interesting choice of words - it would have been clearer to say "sex", but they didn't say "sex", they said "gender". To me, to use the word sex means there are two sexes (male and female) but to use the word gender means there are more than two because gender also takes into account societal and cultural influences. Gender can refer to ones' sexual identity in relation to their society and culture.

So - I look closely at how this is worded "gender is an essential characteristic of... eternal identity and purpose". This can also become a nature vs. nurture discussion. I personally am convinced that a person becomes who and what they are through both influences - one does not occur without the other. That being said, I also think that gender is more than just the biological sex - I realize I can't claim to know what the FP meant when they chose to use the word gender but I would assume they would know that it can mean more than just biological sex.

When it comes to ones' eternal identity - how is that formed? I'm thinking it is not just through what chromosomes you happen to have. I would assume the formation of identity begins in the premortal existence - so when our spirit is joined with our body there is already some kind of identity. It gets me thinking about sexual identity as being a part of that eternal identity. Our sexual identity, undoubtedly (to me), begins in premortal life. Is it possible that same-sex attractions or homosexual identities have their beginnings in the premortal world? Is that why so many claim to know they were born homosexual? If it's something that was formed in the premortal world and with them in the mortal world, could it also be their eternal identity? Maybe there is a purpose for homosexuality in the eternities. Maybe it's one of those things we have not received revelation about yet - just a thought...

[Mighty Curelom]

I realize I can't claim to know what the FP meant when they chose to use the word gender but I would assume they would know that it can mean more than just biological sex.

I don't think you can assume that at all. For most people, sex and gender are synonymous. I highly doubt the first presidency--a collection of conservative, elderly men--would use the term "gender" the way it has come to be used by liberal sociologists to describe sex roles among varying cultures. I would even suggest that the term "gender" was used instead of "sex" for the simple reason of avoiding the salacious connotations associated with the word "sex."

[cartoon bluejay]

I don't think you can assume that at all. For most people, sex and gender are synonymous. I highly doubt the first presidency--a collection of conservative, elderly men--would use the term "gender" the way it has come to be used by liberal sociologists to describe sex roles among varying cultures. I would even suggest that the term "gender" was used instead of "sex" for the simple reason of avoiding the salacious connotations associated with the word "sex."

yeah - you're probably right.

[CMZ]

Was this revelation communicated by a vision or, perhaps, in some other words?

The proclamation is a proclamation, not a revelation, although its principles are inspired.

I have heard of one case where the "FP" allowed SRS, apparently for an intersexed individual. I don't have any problem with "boys are boys, and girls are girls" and allowing the very few remaining cases of vagary to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Leaving the Church because "it doesn't define gender strictly enough" is silly . . . embarrassingly, pedantically silly.

[Zoidberg]

Is it possible that same-sex attractions or homosexual identities have their beginnings in the premortal world? Is that why so many claim to know they were born homosexual? If it's something that was formed in the premortal world and with them in the mortal world, could it also be their eternal identity?

I think it could. But then again, if the greatest glory of God is to have eternal increase through some kind of a male-female collaboration, that leaves gay people in a less than favorable position.

I don't think you can assume that at all. For most people, sex and gender are synonymous. I highly doubt the first presidency--a collection of conservative, elderly men--would use the term "gender" the way it has come to be used by liberal sociologists to describe sex roles among varying cultures. I would even suggest that the term "gender" was used instead of "sex" for the simple reason of avoiding the salacious connotations associated with the word "sex."

I'll bet you're exactly right. I also found a quote by Elder Faust that sheds some light on the FP's own understanding of what they said in the Proclamation: "Our designation as men or women began before this world was."- Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil. So that nullifies the possibility of the existence of more than two eternal sexes (if not genders). Another interesting quote from the same talk: "These so-called alternative life-styles must not be accepted as right, because they frustrate Godâ??s commandment for a life-giving union of male and female within a legal marriage as stated in Genesis." (emphasis added). So the mildest way this can be taken is that God couldn't care less for the marriages of infertile people or people past the child-bearing age. Other than to ensure exaltation, I suppose.

The proclamation is a proclamation, not a revelation, although its principles are inspired.

So you allow that there could be a possibility that it could be partially wrong about something?

I have heard of one case where the "FP" allowed SRS, apparently for an intersexed individual. I don't have any problem with "boys are boys, and girls are girls" and allowing the very few remaining cases of vagary to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Leaving the Church because "it doesn't define gender strictly enough" is silly . . . embarrassingly, pedantically silly.

1. That's not exactly why I'm contemplating leaving the Church.

2. I think the Church defines gender too strictly at times, based on arbitrary and unsupported judgements. They also often show inconsistency, which I'm worried about more than their definition of gender or lack thereof.

3. Me leaving the Church should not be the topic of the discussion nor is it really relevant.

Hopefully, you can share with us a little more of the details of that case you mentioned. What kind of a condition does this person have? Your answer can be vague, the only reason I'm asking if because, like I said already, sometimes the only reason SRS is performed on people that would otherwise grow up as boys is because modern science makes vaginas better than penises. True hermaphroditism has not been seen in humans, so the characteristics of one gender are usually more strongly present than that of the other. Furthermore, does this person have an opportunity to receive the priesthood or have a temple recommend in their post-op gender?

[CMZ]

So you allow that there could be a possibility that it could be partially wrong about something?

Possibility? Yes. And if you want you can take that and run with it. We all have questions about things but you seem to flatter yourself by thinking you're the only one who has questions. "Hey, everyone! Look at all these concerns I can bring up! I bet none of you ever thought of stuff like this before!"

if the greatest glory of God is to have eternal increase through some kind of a male-female collaboration, that leaves gay people in a less than favorable position.

Not if the trial of experiencing homosexual tendencies eventually evaporates, whether in this life or the next.

modern science makes vaginas better than penises

I think we've got your point by now.

Me leaving the Church should not be the topic of the discussion nor is it really relevant.

Except that you brought it up.

So that nullifies the possibility of the existence of more than two eternal sexes.

Oh, no! Whatever shall we do?

I think the Church defines gender too strictly at times

How do you want them to handle the matter? Would you prefer them to say, "We don't want to offend anybody by defining gender too strictly so you are all better off pretending there is no gender distinction at all."?

Hopefully, you can share with us a little more of the details of that case you mentioned. What kind of a condition does this person have? Your answer can be vague.

A friend told me he had read about this case in a book. The whole thing was related to me rather vaguely but involved somebody born as a male (apparently) who I guess found out they had an intersex condition and received FP approval to go ahead with an SRS. I don't know how the intersex condition was discovered but I guess it was brought up to the local bishop who then referred it to the FP as a difficult case. Whether this story was true or not is almost completely irrelevant since we know the CHI states that the FP allows such difficult cases to be referred to them, rather than simply dictating excommunication as in times past.

[Zoidberg]

A friend told me he had read about this case in a book. The whole thing was related to me rather vaguely but involved somebody born as a male (apparently) who I guess found out they had an intersex condition and received FP approval to go ahead with an SRS. I don't know how the intersex condition was discovered but I guess it was brought up to the local bishop who then referred it to the FP as a difficult case. Whether this story was true or not is almost completely irrelevant since we know the CHI states that the FP allows such difficult cases to be referred to them, rather than simply dictating excommunication as in times past.

I am aware of that. That's why I was asking if the person could hold the priesthood (which I now see wouldn't be applicable as they identified as a female) or receive a temple recommend and perform temple ordinances in the post-op gender (as a woman). I see now you cannot provide an answer. The problem is that the CHI uses the term "elective transsexual operation" which nobody else uses. So it's not really clear if they mean elective as in "non-corrective" or "something you chose to have". In this case, if an SRS is performed on an intersex baby, it is not elective (unless you make a stretch and say the baby's parents "elected" it). However, if the parents decide to wait and the same baby grows up and chooses to have a surgery, as opposed to not have it, it could be classified as elective. I interpret it as "non-corrective" (whatever opinion I may have about whether or not a surgery on an intersex person corrects anything in terms of the appearance of their genitalia) until I see some eveidence to the contrary. So I'm assuming the person your friend told you about COULD get a temple recommend. I might be wrong, but I feel it's the most logical thing to assume in the absense of any position on intersex people.

I don't think I'm the only one who has questions. The questions are not my stumbling block, either. It is the practices coupled with the discouragement of questions in the Church. You are free to express your aggression toward me, but it bothers me very little, frankly, so don't waste your breath. If you have anything constructive to contribute to the discussion, you are welcome to do so.

[CMZ]

You are free to express your aggression toward me, but it bothers me very little, frankly, so don't waste your breath.

I don't have any aggression towards you, no more than you do towards me (which is very likely none), and I'm not trying to bother you. We're just talking here. Hope you don't mind upfront answers. And I hope you don't mistake confidence as aggression. I do know a little about these matters. You can derail your whole discussion by crying "aggression!" when there is none.

It is the practices coupled with the discouragement of questions in the Church.

That's why we have forums like this. You can ask any question you want. You can even claim that the Church discourages questions and the most aggressive thing that will happen to you is that someone will say, "That's not so!" You can even wait around for the Church to take action against this board due to so many questions being posed. I've asked people and leaders all sorts of questions during my time in the Church and never was told to stop asking questions and was never made to feel as though my membership was in question.

So I'm assuming the person your friend told you about COULD get a temple recommend.

From what I gathered this person absolutely did have a temple recommend and qualified in every way as a faithful member of the Church (without claiming perfection, of course).

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as though you're hoping to put the Church in an impossible position: "I can always come up with a gender-vague case that I think you might not know how to handle or that I can have a problem over your handling of . . . even though none of these cases involve me. So, there! Try to get out of that!"

[Zoidberg]

I don't have any aggression towards you, no more than you do towards me (which is very likely none), and I'm not trying to bother you. We're just talking here. Hope you don't mind upfront answers. And I hope you don't mistake confidence as aggression. I do know a little about these matters. You can derail your whole discussion by crying "agression!" when there is none.

That's why we have forums like this. You can ask any question you want. You can even claim that the Church discourages questions and the most aggressive thing that will happen to you is that someone will say, "That's not so!" You can even wait around for the Church to take action against this board due to so many questions being posed. I've asked people and leaders all sorts of questions during my time in the Church and never was told to stop asking questions and was never made to feel as though my membership was in question.

From what I gathered this person absolutely did have a temple recommend and qualified in every way as a faithful member of the Church (without claiming perfection, of course).

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as though you're hoping to put the Church in an impossible position: "I can always come up with a gender-vague case that I think you might not know how to handle or that I can have a problem over your handling of . . . even though none of these cases involve me. So, there! Try to get out of that!"

Sorry for misinterpreting your confidence. I'm not hoping to put the Church in an impossible position. But you have to agree that it's quite hard to define what one should base their gender identity upon. And since there is evidence that there can be all kinds of gender-vague cases, I don't see why self-identification should not have the same validity as those other characteristics. The Church would find this idea of mine laughable, however, which I'm sure you understand. Your example (for which I am very grateful, BTW) has confirmed my assumption that the cases of intersex persons are handled differently than those of transsexual persons, for whom there is a blanket policy (in terms of priesthood/temple, at least). And I really see no reason for this distinction because I do not see any evidence that self-identification is any less valid than other factors.

I have had experiences with Church leaders (and on this board with other posters) in which questions were discouraged (especially if I didn't consider the first answer satisfactory). I am not necessarily asserting that the policy of the Church as an organization is to discourage questions, I'm saying that it seems to be a tendency that exists within the Church and that stalls the Church's progress and reaching new limits of understanding. Not that I flatter myself with having more understanding than anybody else.

[CMZ]

I don't see why self-identification should not have the same validity as those other characteristics. The Church would find this idea of mine laughable, however, which I'm sure you understand.

I'm not entirely sure how the First Presidency would handle a case referred to them where somebody simply self-identified as being the gender opposite to that of their apparent biological gender (however that may be defined) but since, as you have been reminding us, the nature of gender is not always a simple matter I suspect that the First Presidency would not handle such a case as a simple matter but would try to look at other factors as well and I suspect the first thing they would look into would be the possibility of an intersexed condition. There's other factors that I could imagine coming into play.

I have had experiences with Church leaders (and on this board with other posters) in which questions were discouraged (especially if I didn't consider the first answer satisfactory).

I'm aware that there are people like that who have been called into leadership positions largely because they have an administrative capability and not because of any special depth or breadth of gospel knowledge (or testimony for that matter). In one sense they may be a leader to you but in another sense they are just another member of the Church doing the best they can. We are free to write their behavior off as their own individual behavior, and if they are negative examples, we can still choose for ourselves to be positive examples.

[Zoidberg]

I'm not entirely sure how the First Presidency would handle a case referred to them where somebody simply self-identified as being the gender opposite to that of their apparent biological gender (however that may be defined) but since, as you have been reminding us, the nature of gender is not always a simple matter I suspect that the First Presidency would not handle such a case as a simple matter but would try to look at other factors as well and I suspect the first thing they would look into would be the possibility of an intersexed condition. There's other factors that I could imagine coming into play.

I'm sure it would happen the way you are describing. However, we have already determined that the term "intersex" is arbitrary enough (as well as "boy" and "girl"). Who's to say that self-identification alone is not sufficient enough evidence for one's intersex condition? Yet there is a blanket policy concerning the priesthood/temple recommend for people who undergo SRS without having what has been arbitrarily termed "an intersex condition".

I'm aware that there are people like that who have been called into leadership positions largely because they have an administrative capability and not because of any special depth or breadth of gospel knowledge (or testimony for that matter). In one sense they may be a leader to you but in another sense they are just another member of the Church doing the best they can. We are free to write their behavior off as their own individual behavior, and if they are negative examples, we can still choose for ourselves to be positive examples.

I know and that's why I could handle leadership by men who knew very little what they were doing. My Sunday School pres. would always sit in on my lessons and completely disrupt them, interrupt me (the teacher), speak to the students in a condescending manner and lecture them (I was trying to encourage discussion). There were other examples. I could show them respect and still think they are wrong. There were things that the FP was saying that I thought were wrong, but I could still respect them as my spiritual leaders, right? But, as I have already explained to Helmuth, when the FP sets forth both the positions I consider wrong (legally banning gay marriage, for instance) and the position that the most faithful members will align themselves with the FP's position on whatever issue, I don't really think that people like me are very welcome in the Church. Not that I think the Church owes me anything. I just don't see how I and people like me could fully fit in into the Church under the current paradigm. If I try to be an example to the FP by publicly subscribing to positions the FP is convinced come from Satand himself, I'll probably end up in a disciplinary council. So, in order to be consistent, I should either leave the Church or somehow contribute to shift the paradigm. Perhaps if a few more people understand the complexity of the gender issue more, it will contribute a little to the shift of paradigm in the Church as a whole. Perhaps having discussions like this one with Church members will contribute to me feeling that there is no way I could fit in and calling it quits and leaving the Church because we disagree on too many issues. I see that you have been able to find a niche where you can hold on to your convictions that disagree with the positions of the leadership and yet wholeheartedly support this leadership. I don't feel I'm going to be able to do that without cognitive dissonance.