Gender Is Eternal

[jkwilliams]

From the Proclamation on the Family:

 

Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

 

I was reading the other day about children born with both male and female genitalia. According to the World Health Organization, about 5 such children are born every day in the United States (about 1 in 2000 births). Almost always, such children are "assigned" to be males, with attendant surgical removal of internal and external female genitalia, and this is usually based on the arbitrary decision of the parents. Some studies have shown that basing such gender assignment on visible external genitalia is problematic and that, more often than not, the hormonal and other makeup of the person is actually female.

 

This more or less arbitrary decision to assign gender can have major effects in a person's life. In the LDS church, it creates other issues, which may affect the eternities. Maxine Hanks mentions one interesting and sad case (IMO) from the late 1980s:

A former missionary elder underwent medical tests and was discovered to possess the complete reproductive and sexual organs of a female beneath a superficial, non-functional male organ. She had surgery to restore femaleness. Her temple marriage was annulled. It was decided that her priesthood would not be revoked, but she was told she could not exercise it. It was also decided that the priesthood ordinances she performed on her mission, including several baptisms, confirmations, and blessings, would stand as valid ordinances. When she was presumed to be male, she was allowed to exercise priesthood. People accepted her authority, felt the spirit of God, and considered her administration of saving ordinances to be valid. Yet she had the reproductive organs of a woman, not a man.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=981

So, my question is this: if a premortal female spirit is given a body with male and female genitalia, and the parents decide to make her a "boy," how does this affect the child's eternal destiny? Say the boy grows up, is ordained to the priesthood, serves a mission, and is married in the temple? Does the female spirit then become a male spirit? Is this "corrected" in the afterlife, with the sealing canceled and the priesthood withdrawn?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Dunno about anyone else, but personally I think it just shows that the Proclamation is only a proclamation, and not some capital-R Revelation. I think we've treated it with more reverence than we should. There's some good stuff in there, but I also disagree with it in several places, and think the King Follett Discourse and related D&C verses contradict it - I think uncreated Intelligence, the human mind, is only "gendered" when breathed into our physical bodies. I think the Church is going to have to reexamine a lot of these sorts of gender issues in the coming years. 

[Buckeye]

I saw a similar post on another board.  If you are the same poster as there, just let me say, you are one of my favorites all time. 

 

As to your specific question, I don't have a clue.  I would expect most members, including leaders, to fall back to the "it will get sorted out in the next life" answer.  I'm ok with that to a point.  We are a work in progres and it's expected that there will be some (many) things we don't have answers to yet.  At the same time, I don't think answers will ever come just by waiting.  Patience is required.  But so is work.  So we should be actively working to find an answer to this and all other challenges.

 

As to the general question of what it means to have an eternal gender, I also don't know what that means.  Most every agrees with it.  Just like most everyone agrees with the statement "men and women are different."  But apart form obvious biological differences it's hard to pin down anything that is universally different between the "identify and purpose" of all men and all women.  At least anything of eternal significance. 

 

One example of this confusion can be found in the following statement from Elder Christofferson's Oct. 2013 address:

 

Former Young Women general president Margaret D. Nadauld taught: “The world has enough women who are tough; we need women who are tender. There are enough women who are coarse; we need women who are kind. There are enough women who are rude; we need women who are refined. We have enough women of fame and fortune; we need more women of faith. We have enough greed; we need more goodness. We have enough vanity; we need more virtue. We have enough popularity; we need more purity.”¹⁰In blurring feminine and masculine differences, we lose the distinct, complementary gifts of women and men that together produce a greater whole.

 

I understand and agree with Elder Christofferson's quote of Sister Nadauld.  But for the life of me I can't figure out what that quote has to do with Elder Christofferson's warning (underline) against  "blurring feminine and masculine differences."  Surely he is not suggesting that men should be coarse, rude, greedy, vain, etc - i.e., the opposite of women.  Men are to have the same virtues.  Christ is the same example  for both men and women. 

 

So at the end of the day, it is definitely a church teaching that men and women have different roles and purposes.  But apart from biological functions (and currently priesthood stewardship), there is nothing I can point to and say "only women do that" or "only men do that."  Whatever differences exist, the sameness between men and women's roles and purposes are much, much greater.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

Dunno about anyone else, but personally I think it just shows that the Proclamation is only a proclamation, and not some capital-R Revelation. I think we've treated it with more reverence than we should. There's some good stuff in there, but I also disagree with it in several places, and think the King Follett Discourse and related D&C verses contradict it - I think uncreated Intelligence, the human mind, is only "gendered" when breathed into our physical bodies. I think the Church is going to have to reexamine a lot of these sorts of gender issues in the coming years. 

 

Very well said.  IMO, the Proclamation is fundamentally flawed because it did not receive the input of female leadership.  As Sister Okasaki said in a 2005 interview (http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf), the General RS Presidency was very disappointed that they were not consulted about something to be read in their meeting.  And, if they had been consulted, the wording of the Proclamation would have been different.  That is very telling. 

[jkwilliams]

My question is more about specific people. Suppose, for example, that the person Maxine Hanks cited never discovered that she was a female and had lived and died as a priesthood-holding male sealed to a woman. Presumably that couple would want to spend the eternities together, having spent their lives here together, but that would be impossible given LDS doctrine.

I don't know what the answer is, but I am curious as to what others think.

[Stone holm]

Dunno about anyone else, but personally I think it just shows that the Proclamation is only a proclamation, and not some capital-R Revelation. I think we've treated it with more reverence than we should. There's some good stuff in there, but I also disagree with it in several places, and think the King Follett Discourse and related D&C verses contradict it - I think uncreated Intelligence, the human mind, is only "gendered" when breathed into our physical bodies. I think the Church is going to have to reexamine a lot of these sorts of gender issues in the coming years.

The Proclamation has always baffled me slightly, although I believe it to be largely truth. The best explanation I have heard of it was that it was written by the Church's legal department in order to clearly stake out a position for Constitutional defense of certain practices in the event that SSM and non discrimination against homosexuals became the law of the land. But they cited no authority for that. I suppose it could also be viewed as a culmination of our political alliances with the Christian Right. Be that as it may, God will sort out the gender issues attendant genetic and hormonal abnormalities involved with mortal birth, there is no reason to conclude that the gender ambiguities date back to the premortal stage of our existence.

[Buckeye]

My question is more about specific people. Suppose, for example, that the person Maxine Hanks cited never discovered that she was a female and had lived and died as a priesthood-holding male sealed to a woman. Presumably that couple would want to spend the eternities together, having spent their lives here together, but that would be impossible given LDS doctrine.

I don't know what the answer is, but I am curious as to what others think.

 

Again, I have nothing but an educated guess. If the discovery is made post-mortem, then the church (on this side of the veil) really has nothing to say about it. We'd just let those with authority in the next life resolve the situation. Now, assuming that teaching/practices are the same there as they are (currently) here, then I imagine the answer would be the same as for homosexual saints - your love for one another may be genuine, but God knows better and has given you a gender/role that excludes the possibility of you being married.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Buckeye: thanks for the interview, I hadn't read that one before. Gosh, I miss Sister Okazaki.

[Buckeye]

Buckeye: thanks for the interview, I hadn't read that one before. Gosh, I miss Sister Okazaki.

 

Now that is surprising.  I will save a copy of this thread as likely the only time I knew a source that you did not.

 

I miss Sister Okazaki too. 

[CV75]

So, my question is this: if a premortal female spirit is given a body with male and female genitalia, and the parents decide to make her a "boy," how does this affect the child's eternal destiny? Say the boy grows up, is ordained to the priesthood, serves a mission, and is married in the temple? Does the female spirit then become a male spirit? Is this "corrected" in the afterlife, with the sealing canceled and the priesthood withdrawn?

In my opinion, it is the Lord's priesthood, so when it is mistakenly conferred, the Lord honors the ordinances rendered through His grace. I see no need to revoke anything that wasn't correctly given, only that which is intentionally misued (D&C 121:37).

 

I also believe that people will be resurrected into their "perfect form... and proper frame..." (Alma 11:43) according to their spirits. Given that the purpose of mortlaity is to change our spirits for the better, but that gender is defined prior to mortality, the Lord will mercifully restore in the afterlife any aspect of gender that may have been lost or disrupted in mortality.

 

The same would go with sealings. While the Lord graces the blessings of marriage sealings mistakenly entered into, He will mercifully restore the "proper order" to everyone's satisfaction (Alma 41:2-4).

[CV75]

Presumably that couple would want to spend the eternities together, having spent their lives here together, but that would be impossible given LDS doctrine.

They will spend time together as we all will with all of those we love, but in the "proper order" where they will be happier.

[jkwilliams]

They will spend time together as we all will with all of those we love, but in the "proper order" where they will be happier.

That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. If I am sealed to the person I love and want to spend eternity with him or her, I would expect that being "fixed" and assigned someone else would be a huge disappointment.

[CV75]

That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. If I am sealed to the person I love and want to spend eternity with him or her, I would expect that being "fixed" and assigned someone else would be a huge disappointment.

Not if it's done right! Plus, we will spend eternity with everyone we love anyway, whether sealed in this life or not.

[Darren10]

jk williams;

 

I actually don't see any eternal dilema. Nothing will be affected eternally.

 

1)  "In the LDS church, it creates other issues, which may affect the eternities." - I don't see how it would affect anything eternally.

2)  "if a premortal female spirit is given a body with male and female genitalia, and the parents decide to make her a "boy," how does this affect the child's eternal destiny?" - I don't think it will.

3) "Say the boy grows up, is ordained to the priesthood, serves a mission, and is married in the temple?" - Then I say the "boy" grew up, served a mission, and married in the temple.

4) " Does the female spirit then become a male spirit?" - Why should she? The body's corrupt, not the spirit.

5) "Is this "corrected" in the afterlife, with the sealing canceled and the priesthood withdrawn?" - I'd imagine the sealing's cancelled but i don't know about the priesthood.

 

A former missionary elder underwent medical tests and was discovered to possess the complete reproductive and sexual organs of a female beneath a superficial, non-functional male organ. She had surgery to restore femaleness. Her temple marriage was annulled. It was decided that her priesthood would not be revoked, but she was told she could not exercise it. It was also decided that the priesthood ordinances she performed on her mission, including several baptisms, confirmations, and blessings, would stand as valid ordinances. When she was presumed to be male, she was allowed to exercise priesthood. People accepted her authority, felt the spirit of God, and considered her administration of saving ordinances to be valid. Yet she had the reproductive organs of a woman, not a man.

 

I find the decisions made in part of the Church appropriate. Interesting that the priesthood was not revoked but that she could not excercise it.

[jkwilliams]

5) "Is this "corrected" in the afterlife, with the sealing canceled and the priesthood withdrawn?" - I'd imagine the sealing's cancelled but i don't know about the priesthood.

So, having one's sealing canceled has no eternal effects? And if the person is "corrected" to a female in the afterlife, that means no priesthood authority; are you saying loss of priesthood authority has no eternal effect, either? Not sure what you mean here.

[bluebell]

Very well said.  IMO, the Proclamation is fundamentally flawed because it did not receive the input of female leadership.  As Sister Okasaki said in a 2005 interview (http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V45N01_CO.pdf), the General RS Presidency was very disappointed that they were not consulted about something to be read in their meeting.  And, if they had been consulted, the wording of the Proclamation would have been different.  That is very telling. 

 

Did Sis. Okasaki believe the proclamation to be flawed because the RS wasn't consulted?

[jkwilliams]

Did Sis. Okasaki believe the proclamation to be flawed because the RS wasn't consulted?

Here's what she said [emphasis mine]:

 

In contrast, in 1995 when “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was written, the Relief Society presidency was asked to come to a meeting. We did, and they read this proclamation. It was all finished. The only question was whether they should present it at the priesthood meeting or at the Relief Society meeting. It didn’t matter to me where it was presented. What I wanted to know was, “How come we weren’t consulted?”

Greg Prince: You didn’t even know it was in the works?

Chieko Okazaki: No. They just asked us which meeting to present it in, and we said, “Whatever President Hinckley decides is fine with us.” He decided to do it at the Relief Society meeting. The apostle who was our liaison said, “Isn’t it wonderful that he made the choice to present it at the Relief Society meeting?” Well, that was fine, but as I read it I thought that we could have made a few changes in it.

[Buckeye]

Did Sis. Okasaki believe the proclamation to be flawed because the RS wasn't consulted?

 

I doubt it.  I read the transcript several months ago so I'd have to consult it to be sure.  But to be clear, the "flawed" conclusion is mine, not hers.  What she did say was that the General RS Presidency was discouraged about not being consulted and that the wording would be different if they had been.  That is the basis for my conclusion that the document is flawed.  If done today, I'm sure the sisters would be consulted and we'd have a better document.  And by "flawed," I don't mean worthless or bad.  Just that we could have done better.  There's a whole lot I like in the Proclamation, and not just the wholesome recreation.

[CV75]

I find the decisions made in part of the Church appropriate. Interesting that the priesthood was not revoked but that she could not excercise it.

I think this is because, from the Lord's persepctive He needn't revoke something that isn't actually held. And if not held, it cannot be exercised. But the Lord holds the priesthood over everyone, and exercises it, so that the ordinances that were perfomed are not revoked from the recipients, whose faith was in the power of the Lord's priesthood that blessed them.

[CV75]

So, having one's sealing canceled has no eternal effects? And if the person is "corrected" to a female in the afterlife, that means no priesthood authority; are you saying loss of priesthood authority has no eternal effect, either? Not sure what you mean here.

I think I and my loved ones would be eternally grateful if the truth about ousrselves were revealed and we could act in good faith on what really is, with true liberty, freedom and agency--what more or greater eternal potential can be attained than that?

[bluebell]

I doubt it.  I read the transcript several months ago so I'd have to consult it to be sure.  But to be clear, the "flawed" conclusion is mine, not hers.  What she did say was that the General RS Presidency was discouraged about not being consulted and that the wording would be different if they had been.  That is the basis for my conclusion that the document is flawed.  If done today, I'm sure the sisters would be consulted and we'd have a better document.  And by "flawed," I don't mean worthless or bad.  Just that we could have done better.  There's a whole lot I like in the Proclamation, and not just the wholesome recreation.

 

Thanks for the clarication. 

 

And thanks jkwilliams for the exact quote.  I've read it before but it's nice to have it as a part of the thread.

[BCSpace]

So, my question is this: if a premortal female spirit is given a body with male and female genitalia, and the parents decide to make her a "boy," how does this affect the child's eternal destiny? Say the boy grows up, is ordained to the priesthood, serves a mission, and is married in the temple? Does the female spirit then become a male spirit? Is this "corrected" in the afterlife, with the sealing canceled and the priesthood withdrawn?

 

The resurrection will correct all physical problems so yes, I'd say this is the case in the case you specified.

[Sleeper Cell]

Dunno about anyone else, but personally I think it just shows that the Proclamation is only a proclamation, and not some capital-R Revelation. I think we've treated it with more reverence than we should. There's some good stuff in there, but I also disagree with it in several places, and think the King Follett Discourse and related D&C verses contradict it - I think uncreated Intelligence, the human mind, is only "gendered" when breathed into our physical bodies. I think the Church is going to have to reexamine a lot of these sorts of gender issues in the coming years. 

 

Perhaps the Church will also have to reexamine the need for a Heavenly Mother, and, while we are at it, the need for eternal marriage.  After all, if gender is not an eternal attribute, why would the thought of single parents in heaven  “make reason stare?”

[Freedom]

We get hung up on gender and sexual orientation because of the cultural leanings of the day. What about children that are born without eyes, or limbs, or hair follicles? If the glory of God is intelligence, what about those who are mentally disabled? Genitalia are physical features and any genetic errors can be corrected. If a person is female and born with male genitalia, they are just as likely to be corrected in the resurrection as a person born without arms. And why would anyone assume that women were not consulted prior to writing the proclamation? Since when are the general RS, PM and YM presidencies qualified to speak on women's issues? They are are no more qualified then any other woman. They have an ecclesiastical and administrative role, not a socio-political role.

[Buckeye]

... And why would anyone assume that women were not consulted prior to writing the proclamation? Since when are the general RS, PM and YM presidencies qualified to speak on women's issues? They are are no more qualified then any other woman. They have an ecclesiastical and administrative role, not a socio-political role.

 

It's not an assumption. Sister Okazaki said the General RS presidency was not consulted. Apparently she thought that her role should include providing counsel on the wording of the Proclamation because she said she would have made changes. And as for "socio-political roles," I'm pretty sure the RS was very involved in the church's efforts to kill the ERA in the late 1970s.