Jump to content

Internal Conflict Over Lgbt Protest By Lds


Buzzard

Recommended Posts

A local television station ran coverage of a protest by the "Mormons building bridges" group on the Utah state capitol grounds yesterday. Here is the link: http://www.abc4.com/...Lr2ysF-XWg.cspx

As I watched, I found myself conflicted, because while I agree with the idea that all of us are God's children, and we all have free agency, here was a mom (you have to watch the video to see this) talking about her "three sons". No, you have two sons and a daughter who has decided to live as a male. If you are a Sunday School teacher, as you profess to be, you should have read the Proclamation on the Family, which makes it clear that gender is an eternal characteristic.

I don't know if the daughter has or is planning to have a sex-change operation, but I do know that to do so is an excommunicable offense against the church, and that those who have had such a procedure are not candidates for baptism. If my child was going to make a change that would disqualify them forever from eternal life, I would hope I would love them enough to make the consequences of such an action crystal clear. Doesn't mean I don't love them, but acceptance of people does not mean acceptance of abominable sin.

Am I being uncharitable, or is there a line here that needs defending?

Link to comment

First, i don't believe that having a gender change operation is always a sin. I think that sometimes nature messes up, per the fallen world we are born into, and that people suffer because of it.

Second, i don't believe that when it is a sin (something i would not want to have to judge), that it is an unrepentable/unforgiveable sin (in other words, changing gender will not disqualify anyone forever from eternal life).

Third, I hope i'm never in the position of that mother, and i don't want to judge her actions. That's nothing against you or anyone else, but just me personally-i'm very happy to leave that situation completely in other people's hands.

Link to comment

I agree with Bluebell. The fact that the Family Proclamation (which isn't even LDS doctrine--but a proclamation) states that "gender is eternal" actually could be interpreted to SUPPORT the idea of transsexual (not to be confused with homosexual) individuals... that their gender was pre-existent, and that through an error or imperfection of biology (or "the thorn of the flesh"), a small percentage of the population is born into a body that doesn't match their pre- and post-mortal existent gender--in the same way that other physical 'deformities' don't match individuals' supposed spiritual bodies (missing limbs or other body variations viewed to be unnatural or in need of correction in the resurrection).

Link to comment

There is a teaching by the church, paraphrased, that to eliminate sin, we have to eliminate sinful behavior. There are those who wish to eliminate sin by changing the definition of what is sinful.

I don't think that we can reinterpret the Proclamation on the Family to suit our own wishes or speculations. Interpretation of the scriptures is the province of God through His oracles. I have yet to see a prophet uter anything that supports bluebell's or daniel2's viewpoint.

Glenn

Link to comment

First, i don't believe that having a gender change operation is always a sin. I think that sometimes nature messes up, per the fallen world we are born into, and that people suffer because of it.

Second, i don't believe that when it is a sin (something i would not want to have to judge), that it is an unrepentable/unforgiveable sin (in other words, changing gender will not disqualify anyone forever from eternal life).

Third, I hope i'm never in the position of that mother, and i don't want to judge her actions. That's nothing against you or anyone else, but just me personally-i'm very happy to leave that situation completely in other people's hands.

Just to be clear, those statements do come straight from the Handbook, not just my own opinion. I realize the Handbook is not canon, and has changed from time to time, but since I have heard GA's refer to it for guidance, it's the best guidance from the church that we currently have.

Link to comment

There is a teaching by the church, paraphrased, that to eliminate sin, we have to eliminate sinful behavior. There are those who wish to eliminate sin by changing the definition of what is sinful.

I don't think that we can reinterpret the Proclamation on the Family to suit our own wishes or speculations. Interpretation of the scriptures is the province of God through His oracles. I have yet to see a prophet uter anything that supports bluebell's or daniel2's viewpoint.

Glenn

But the proclamation isn't cannon, or scripture (at least in the sense that it's officially binding on doctrine of the church). I would submit that suggesting the proclamation condemns transsexual individuals or operations is just as much a 'private interpretation' as the other way around. I don't think the proclamation is very clear, either way. Yes, the handbook prohibits operations--but as has been pointed out, the handbook isn't doctrine, and can change. I understand it's the current guidelines--and I'm not trying to argue that point. However, I don't think it's wise to consider it permanently binding--at least, certainly not as binding as LDS cannon. There still IS room for future revelation on the subject.

Link to comment

There is a teaching by the church, paraphrased, that to eliminate sin, we have to eliminate sinful behavior. There are those who wish to eliminate sin by changing the definition of what is sinful.

I don't think that we can reinterpret the Proclamation on the Family to suit our own wishes or speculations. Interpretation of the scriptures is the province of God through His oracles. I have yet to see a prophet uter anything that supports bluebell's or daniel2's viewpoint.

Glenn

1.There are sinful thoughts.

2. The Proclamation on the Family is not scripture.

3. Is a question. Christ healed the man whom was blind from birth. Should we not fix the defects and errors in our physical bodies?

Link to comment

Some children are born as "both" male and female, and others are born as neither. This is obviously a biological screw-up. So why can't a male being born into a female's body, or vice-versa, be the same thing?

I'm not saying this is always the case, but it's possible that this happens sometimes.

Link to comment

1.There are sinful thoughts.

2. The Proclamation on the Family is not scripture.

3. Is a question. Christ healed the man whom was blind from birth. Should we not fix the defects and errors in our physical bodies?

Just because it's not currently in our canon doesn't make the proclamation any less scriptural.

Link to comment
If my child was going to make a change that would disqualify them forever from eternal life
I have never read anything that suggests repentance isn't possible for sex change and if we are resurrected and our bodies are restored to perfection no matter what injury or disease has done to them, such surely must be the same for any intentional surgery as well.
Link to comment

But the proclamation isn't cannon, or scripture (at least in the sense that it's officially binding on doctrine of the church). I would submit that suggesting the proclamation condemns transsexual individuals or operations is just as much a 'private interpretation' as the other way around. I don't think the proclamation is very clear, either way. Yes, the handbook prohibits operations--but as has been pointed out, the handbook isn't doctrine, and can change. I understand it's the current guidelines--and I'm not trying to argue that point. However, I don't think it's wise to consider it permanently binding--at least, certainly not as binding as LDS cannon. There still IS room for future revelation on the subject.

I fully agree with your last statement.

1.There are sinful thoughts.

2. The Proclamation on the Family is not scripture.

3. Is a question. Christ healed the man whom was blind from birth. Should we not fix the defects and errors in our physical bodies?

1. Sinful thoughts is still behavior.

2. The Proclamation on the Family is Official

3. Yes. From your example it seems we should do so by the power of the priesthood. Sounds good to me.

Glenn

Link to comment

I have never read anything that suggests repentance isn't possible for sex change and if we are resurrected and our bodies are restored to perfection no matter what injury or disease has done to them, such surely must be the same for any intentional surgery as well.

I'm not in a position to have immediate access to the Handbook, but I do know the elective transsexual operations are pretty much an automatic disciplinary council, and that if someone who went through one was not excommunicated, he or she may not be issued a temple recommend. If memory serves, exceptions to the former need to be approved by the office of the First Presidency, There are NO exceptions listed to the temple recommend non-issue rule.

Link to comment

I don't think that we can reinterpret the Proclamation on the Family to suit our own wishes or speculations. Interpretation of the scriptures is the province of God through His oracles. I have yet to see a prophet uter anything that supports bluebell's or daniel2's viewpoint.

Glenn

As has already been stated, the PotF is not scripture. There have been proclamations in the past in the LDS that we don't even remember anymore, and certainly no one uses them as a measuring stick against behavior. While I completely believe that this proclamation is inspired, it seems like trying to make it scripture is very thing you are trying to warn against-interpreting it in a way that God has not.

Since it didn't make it into the new edition of the scriptures which will be coming out in August, it seems unlikely that that will change, though there is always a chance.

Link to comment

I'm not in a position to have immediate access to the Handbook, but I do know the elective transsexual operations are pretty much an automatic disciplinary council, and that if someone who went through one was not excommunicated, he or she may not be issued a temple recommend. If memory serves, exceptions to the former need to be approved by the office of the First Presidency, There are NO exceptions listed to the temple recommend non-issue rule.

No one is arguing against it being an excommunicable offense. What is being stated is that no where is gender change surgery referred to as an unforgiveable sin. In fact, we know there is only one such sin listed in that catagory in scripture, and this definitely doesn't fall under that. At the very least, those who under go such surgeries seem to be suffering from extreme mental anguish/illness, and we seem to teach in the church that God makes allowances for serious altered mental states when people committ suicide or other serious sins.

Given all that, i see no reason to teach or defend a position that such people will forever be excluded from eternal life. The handbook doesn't teach that and neither do the scriptures.

Link to comment

If you are a Sunday School teacher, as you profess to be, you should have read the Proclamation on the Family, which makes it clear that gender is an eternal characteristic.

Apparently you don't know much about biology. Even in humans there are a number of ways physical sex can be quite ambiguous. Gender may or may not be an eternal characteristic, but that doesn't mean it is expressed perfectly during this temporal life.

Link to comment

As has already been stated, the PotF is not scripture. There have been proclamations in the past in the LDS that we don't even remember anymore, and certainly no one uses them as a measuring stick against behavior. While I completely believe that this proclamation is inspired, it seems like trying to make it scripture is very thing you are trying to warn against-interpreting it in a way that God has not.

Since it didn't make it into the new edition of the scriptures which will be coming out in August, it seems unlikely that that will change, though there is always a chance.

That the Proclamation on the Family is not scripture has already been noted. But I also noted that it is an Official declaration and for that, I think that the interpretaion should be left to official oracles.

Glenn

Link to comment

That the Proclamation on the Family is not scripture has already been noted. But I also noted that it is an Official declaration and for that, I think that the interpretaion should be left to official oracles.

Glenn

Just to clarify – in LDS terminology, an "Official Declaration" has a very specific meaning (in that two Official Declarations have been adopted into the LDS cannon in the D&C), and the proclamation on the family is not a "official declaration" in that sense. As has been pointed out, several other First Presidency Proclamations have come and gone, and are no longer remembered, binding, or considered scripture. It's also worth noting that the family proclamation was not sustained to be included in the current revised LDS Scriptures, as previous "Official Declarations" have been.

Daniel2

Link to comment

I'm not in a position to have immediate access to the Handbook, but I do know the elective transsexual operations are pretty much an automatic disciplinary council, and that if someone who went through one was not excommunicated, he or she may not be issued a temple recommend. If memory serves, exceptions to the former need to be approved by the office of the First Presidency, There are NO exceptions listed to the temple recommend non-issue rule.

Since excommunications can be removed after one dies, I still don't see an issue with regards to eternally barring someone from the blessings of temple ordinances eternally.
Link to comment

Just to clarify – in LDS terminology, an "Official Declaration" has a very specific meaning (in that two Official Declarations have been adopted into the LDS cannon in the D&C), and the proclamation on the family is not a "official declaration" in that sense. As has been pointed out, several other First Presidency Proclamations have come and gone, and are no longer remembered, binding, or considered scripture. It's also worth noting that the family proclamation was not sustained to be included in the current revised LDS Scriptures, as previous "Official Declarations" have been.

Daniel2

I'll put this as diplomatically as I can. If you think that doctrine will ever be substantially changed, you're dreaming.

Link to comment

I'll put this as diplomatically as I can. If you think that doctrine will ever be substantially changed, you're dreaming.

To dream the impossible dream

To fight the unbeatable foe

To bear with unbearable sorrow

To run where the brave dare not go

To right the un-rightable wrong

To be better far than you are

To try when your arms are too weary

To reach the unreachable star

This is my quest, to follow that star

No matter how hopeless,

No matter how far

To fight for the right

Without question or pause

To be willing to march into hell

For a heavenly cause

And I know if I'll only be true

To this glorious quest

That my heart will be peaceful and calm

When I'm laid to my rest

And the world would be better for this

That one man scorned and covered with scars

Still strove with his last ounce of courage

To reach the unreachable star

Link to comment

To be quite honest, though the Proclimation isn't scripture, it is treated pretty much as such. You will find references to it in more in Literature made by the Church for Sunday School than almost any other Decleration out there. I think that seperates it from the other Declerations that have been made.

Link to comment

To be quite honest, though the Proclimation isn't scripture, it is treated pretty much as such. You will find references to it in more in Literature made by the Church for Sunday School than almost any other Decleration out there. I think that seperates it from the other Declerations that have been made.

I'm sure that when the other proclamations came out, they were also much more visible in the church than they are now. They were no doubt given at the time they were to fill a specific need that the members of the church had. Obviously, since they were never canonized, that need changed along the way and the proclamations were forgotten as their relevancy lessened.

Not to say that the PotF isn't inspired ir important for us in our day. I very much believe it is.

Link to comment

My guess is that the earthly constricts on transsexual operations has more to do with the church not wanting to become embroiled in whether or not they ordained women to the priesthood, or how families with a mom and a dad who turns into a mom survive, than it does on some eternal punishment for getting so mixed up in mortal life as to do something that drastic.

And in todays world it has to be relatively easy to determine the biological gender of a child with ambiguous genitalia. The science is far enough along to make that choice less than the full on guess it once was for parents. That cannot be the transsexual operations the church handbook is talking about.

Link to comment

To dream the impossible dream

To fight the unbeatable foe

To bear with unbearable sorrow

To run where the brave dare not go

To right the un-rightable wrong

To be better far than you are

To try when your arms are too weary

To reach the unreachable star

This is my quest, to follow that star

No matter how hopeless,

No matter how far

To fight for the right

Without question or pause

To be willing to march into hell

For a heavenly cause

And I know if I'll only be true

To this glorious quest

That my heart will be peaceful and calm

When I'm laid to my rest

And the world would be better for this

That one man scorned and covered with scars

Still strove with his last ounce of courage

To reach the unreachable star

Yeah.. fighting for sin isnt a heavenly cause. I thought it was self-evident.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...