Non-Binary gender status

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

Any thoughts on why God hasn't offered doctrine or revelation on the "difficulty and suffering" of non-binary people before? 

Biologically speaking, there will have been non-binary individuals for 1000s of years, but science (and culture) is only just reaching a stage where we're able to understand and acknowledge it. 

Presumably you'd believe that an omniscient God knew, even if we didn't. Why the silence do you suppose? 

Revelation only comes on human request, the request only comes on human recognition, and human recognition of a need for an answer on this particular issue is only quite recent.

Otherwise, we must apply general principles to the question:  Is there  a God, and is He a fair judge?  The Talmudic way has always been to apply Scripture in clever ways to newly understood problems, and the rabbinic responsa has usually found some sort of useful answer(s).

Of course God knew such problems would come along to bedevil us and make us work to deal with them, even though LDS theology denies omniscience.  The practical result is usually something like the encounter between the Lord and the Brother of Jared:  God does not spoon feed him, but interacts with him in respectful fashion to find a solution to various problems.  God lets him suggest solutions, and becomes ever more forthcoming as the conversation goes forward.  This same type of interaction takes place with Abraham at Mamre, with Moses, and with Joseph Smith.

[Johnnie Cake]

On 1/27/2017 at 3:04 PM, JAHS said:

"On Monday, in a Santa Cruz courtroom, Sara Kelly Keenan became the second U.S. citizen—and the first California resident—to legally change her gender from female to "non-binary." Keenan followed in the footsteps of Oregon resident Jamie Shupe, who in June became the first person in the U.S. to successfully petition a court to recognize non-binary as a gender identity.
Keenan was born intersex, with a condition known as Swyer Syndrome that prevents the body from producing sex hormones. When Keenan was a teenager and showed no signs of starting puberty, she was diagnosed and underwent a surgery to remove gonadal tissue—a process that she said was not fully revealed to her by her parents or doctors. Like most parents of babies born intersex, Keenan's mother and father chose her gender without consulting her in the process. After living her entire life as a woman, Keenan visited an endocrinologist seven years ago who confirmed her suspicions that she was born intersex."

Californian Becomes Second US Citizen Granted ‘Non-Binary’ Gender Status

So now people can claim a third gender on their driver's license as being neither male or female? The bigger question is what are we to think of these people who are born intersex when our Proclamation on the Family tells us that  "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."  Were they also intersex in the pre-mortal world? 

Obviously the proclamation got it wrong.  I don't say that to pick a fight, but the PoF just doesn't reflect reality.  Not only are their intersexual but there are also hermaphrodites, people born with both male and female genitalia. So the PoF just doesn't stand up to reality

Edited January 31, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[JAHS]

52 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Obviously the proclamation got it wrong.

Obviously at the time it was written(1995) both God and the church leaders were well aware of the existence of such people, but leaves such special circumstance in the hands of God to handle them in most fair and just way possible. 

In context the proclamation says:
"All human beings - male and female - 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."

It is talking specifically about eternal male and female individuals.  Even though a few may have been born physically different in mortality, they may have male or female spirits in their bodies.

[Johnnie Cake]

36 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Obviously at the time it was written(1995) both God and the church leaders were well aware of the existence of such people, but leaves such special circumstance in the hands of God to handle them in most fair and just way possible. 

In context the proclamation says:
"All human beings - male and female - 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."

It is talking specifically about eternal male and female individuals.  Even though a few may have been born physically different in mortality, they may have male or female spirits in their bodies.

If the PoF is so correct, which gender are hemaphrodites?  Is it ok for them to choose their own gender?  If yes then why can't others choose their own gender If no then is it really right that someone else imposes a gender on someone else?  

The PoF just doesn't account for the full spectrum of human gender variances and sexualities...perhaps it's time for a PoF 2.0 that reflects new data not available when it was written

Edited January 31, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[CMZ]

41 minutes ago, JAHS said:

It is talking specifically about eternal male and female individuals.  Even though a few may have been born physically different in mortality, they may have male or female spirits in their bodies.

Yes.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Yes.

So does a hemaphrodite have a male or female spirit?

[CMZ]

6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

If the PoF is so correct, which gender are hemaphrodites?  Is it ok for them to choose their own gender?  If yes then why can't others choose their own gender If no then is it really right that someone else imposes a gender on someone else?  

The PoF just doesn't account for the full spectrum of human gender variances and sexualities...perhaps it's time for a PoF 2.0 that reflects new data not available when it was written

Best option is for each case to be handled on an individual basis. Despite mortal quirks everyone has a spirit that is either male or female. Beyond that there are individual differences. There are many different kinds of intersexed conditions that exist, some easy to detect, some hard to detect, some probably impossible to detect. Parents may weigh in, religious leaders may weigh in on what they think the gender of a person is, but paramount consideration should be given to the individual themselves.

[CMZ]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So does a hemaphrodite have a male or female spirit?

It's not up to me to judge each individual case. Some will have a male spirit and some will have a female spirit. Some may feel perfectly comfortable not fully identifying with one or the other while in mortality.

[Johnnie Cake]

4 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Best option is for each case to be handled on an individual basis. Despite mortal quirks everyone has a spirit that is either male or female. Beyond that there are individual differences. There are many different kinds of intersexed conditions that exist, some easy to detect, some hard to detect, some probably impossible to detect. Parents may weigh in, religious leaders may weigh in on what they think the gender of a person is, but paramount consideration should be given to the individual themselves.

So you believe in gender choice

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

So you believe in gender choice

Uh... kind of. I believe each eternal soul is either male or female (and there can be great differences within each of those two categories). In cases where a person's mortal gender is ambiguous I believe their feeling of what gender they are should be given more weight than probably anything else, perhaps short of direct and certain revelation to the prophet. So, it's not so much "choosing" what gender to be as maybe clarifying to others what gender you feel you are.

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The PoF just doesn't account for the full spectrum of human gender variances and sexualities...perhaps it's time for a PoF 2.0 that reflects new data not available when it was written

But like I said, the data about such individuals was known when it was written; it's been known for decades before that. We still don't know everything but are confident that all will be corrected at the resurrection if needed. 

[Johnnie Cake]

11 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Uh... kind of. I believe each eternal soul is either male or female (and there can be great differences within each of those two categories). In cases where a person's mortal gender is ambiguous I believe their feeling of what gender they are should be given more weight than probably anything else, perhaps short of direct and certain revelation to the prophet. So, it's not so much "choosing" what gender to be as maybe clarifying to others what gender you feel you are.

I only concern myself with what is real, if there is a pre or post life it's all speculation. So claiming that there are both male and female spirits is mere religious conjecture.  But what is real is that gender identity is complex and often uncertain and the PoF doesn't even begin to address that complexity 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[CMZ]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I only concern myself with what is real, if there is a pre or post life it's all speculation. So claiming that there are both male and female spirits is mere religious conjecture.  But what is real is that gender identity is complex and often uncertain and the PoF doesn't even begin to address that complexity 

The presence or absence of religious conjecture does not negate the complexity you refer to. The Proclamation is not meant to address every individual case; it talks about people's eternal natures and, as you mentioned, does not address quirks that may occur in mortality (even though many people erroneously read things into it that it doesn't actually say). No new Proclamation is needed, just a way to handle individual cases as needed from a well-informed perspective.

[Johnnie Cake]

12 minutes ago, JAHS said:

But like I said, the data about such individuals was known when it was written; it's been known for decades before that. We still don't know everything but are confident that all will be corrected at the resurrection if needed. 

CFR that the complexity of human gender identity was known when the PoF was written. And if it was known why wasn't it addressed in the PoF?

[CMZ]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

CFR that the complexity of human gender identity was known when the PoF was written. And if it was known why wasn't it addressed in the PoF?

I'm not JAHS but the Proclamation came out in 1995; the case I mentioned a page or so back in this thread was from 1980. I don't think intersexed cases are mentioned in the PoF because, as stated earlier, it is more concerned with someone's eternal identity. Yes, you can say it's all about religious conjecture, and that's okay, but it is a religious document.

[Johnnie Cake]

32 minutes ago, CMZ said:

The presence or absence of religious conjecture does not negate the complexity you refer to. The Proclamation is not meant to address every individual case; it talks about people's eternal natures and, as you mentioned, does not address quirks that may occur in mortality (even though many people erroneously read things into it that it doesn't actually say). No new Proclamation is needed, just a way to handle individual cases as needed from a well-informed perspective.

And yet it is being used as an excuse to impose or restrict gender identity on real people with real lives with real concerns and real consequences in this real life not the eternal one claimed to exist. 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[CMZ]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

And yet it is being used as an excuse to impose or restrict gender identity on real people with real lives with real concerns and issues in this real life not the eternal one claimed to exist. 

Yes, that should be cleared up. It doesn't need a change to the PoF, just a better understanding of it.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 minute ago, CMZ said:

Yes, that should be cleared up. It doesn't need a change to the PoF, just a better understanding of it.

 

Fair enough...

[canard78]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

In other words, "Line upon line precept upon precept". 

Also, God was silent for 1800 years before the right person asked Him for further information about which religion was correct. Sometimes it's waiting for the right time and a matter of "Ask and ye shall receive."  Now that we are becoming more aware of the subject, and more people are asking about what can be done about it, our prophets are asking God about it. 

 

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Revelation only comes on human request, the request only comes on human recognition, and human recognition of a need for an answer on this particular issue is only quite recent.

Otherwise, we must apply general principles to the question:  Is there  a God, and is He a fair judge?  The Talmudic way has always been to apply Scripture in clever ways to newly understood problems, and the rabbinic responsa has usually found some sort of useful answer(s).

Of course God knew such problems would come along to bedevil us and make us work to deal with them, even though LDS theology denies omniscience.  The practical result is usually something like the encounter between the Lord and the Brother of Jared:  God does not spoon feed him, but interacts with him in respectful fashion to find a solution to various problems.  God lets him suggest solutions, and becomes ever more forthcoming as the conversation goes forward.  This same type of interaction takes place with Abraham at Mamre, with Moses, and with Joseph Smith.

This is an interesting view on what revelation is. Given I know you've both studied Mormon history and doctrines extensively, I can understand why you've reached those conclusions.

If this is the case, if your description is really the way that revelation is received by the prophets, then that would mean that God's revelation is limited or framed by the questions that mankind (specifically, prophets) are willing or able to ask. 

So it might be, as you suggest, that God has always know about non-binary gender and would have been willing to reveal his will on their situation for 100s of years but because the prophets didn't know about the biological phenomenon, they didn't know to ask.

The only challenge with your approach is that it also looks very much like something else:

Suppose that Mormon prophets receive no more divine revelation than anything else and that what they call heavenly inspiration & guidance is actually just their individual and collective point of view, shaped by culture, personal experience and upbringing. If that were actually the case, what would the process look like?

If prophets are not receiving godly revelation and instead are only expounding their own, deeply considered, personal view on the subject then:

• It would be framed by the questions they were willing/able to ask
• It would be dependent on the prophets personal frame of reference
• It would be influenced by the prophets personal pressures, demands and individual biases

In reality, Mormon prophetic revelation always follows the above pattern. You've acknowledged that and have, understandably, been able to shape that into a framework that leaves the church leaders as still being inspired individuals. The church teaches that "A prophet is a man called by God to be His representative on earth. When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking."

You've described what you believe the process for that speaking for God to look like. The same process is what leads me to the conclusion that they are not inspired at all and, rather, are speaking from their collective personal opinions.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 minutes ago, canard78 said:

 

This is an interesting view on what revelation is. Given I know you've both studied Mormon history and doctrines extensively, I can understand why you've reached those conclusions.

If this is the case, if your description is really the way that revelation is received by the prophets, then that would mean that God's revelation is limited or framed by the questions that mankind (specifically, prophets) are willing or able to ask. 

So it might be, as you suggest, that God has always know about non-binary gender and would have been willing to reveal his will on their situation for 100s of years but because the prophets didn't know about the biological phenomenon, they didn't know to ask.

The only challenge with your approach is that it also looks very much like something else:

Suppose that Mormon prophets receive no more divine revelation than anything else and that what they call heavenly inspiration & guidance is actually just their individual and collective point of view, shaped by culture, personal experience and upbringing. If that were actually the case, what would the process look like?

If prophets are not receiving godly revelation and instead are only expounding their own, deeply considered, personal view on the subject then:

• It would be framed by the questions they were willing/able to ask
• It would be dependent on the prophets personal frame of reference
• It would be influenced by the prophets personal pressures, demands and individual biases

In reality, Mormon prophetic revelation always follows the above pattern. You've acknowledged that and have, understandably, been able to shape that into a framework that leaves the church leaders as still being inspired individuals.

By George, I think you've got it, canard.  That is indeed the process, and we can provide specific instances throughout biblical and LDS history.  Not that everyone on this board would agree -- particularly those who know nothing of biblical history.

4 minutes ago, canard78 said:

The church teaches that "A prophet is a man called by God to be His representative on earth. When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking."

As you might imagine, canard, I would write chapter 9 of the Gospel Principles manual very differently -- tightly in accord with real history and scholarship.  I would want to provide a POV taking the full range of prophetic activity into account, rather than only a very narrow slice of what it might seem to be on the surface.

4 minutes ago, canard78 said:

You've described what you believe the process for that speaking for God to look like. The same process is what leads me to the conclusion that they are not inspired at all and, rather, are speaking from their collective personal opinions.

And that is certainly a fair and potential view -- the view that we create God in our own image, anthropomorphically, and that God is not even a necessary explanation at all, for anything.  However, aside from leaving unexplained things like the Book of Mormon,(from a purely secular POV), it also ignores the key of knowledge in Mormonism:  Revelation, or inspiration as the fundamental basis of a testimony.  It always comes back to epistemics.

[JAHS]

6 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

This is an interesting view on what revelation is. Given I know you've both studied Mormon history and doctrines extensively, I can understand why you've reached those conclusions.

If this is the case, if your description is really the way that revelation is received by the prophets, then that would mean that God's revelation is limited or framed by the questions that mankind (specifically, prophets) are willing or able to ask. 

So it might be, as you suggest, that God has always know about non-binary gender and would have been willing to reveal his will on their situation for 100s of years but because the prophets didn't know about the biological phenomenon, they didn't know to ask.

The only challenge with your approach is that it also looks very much like something else:

Suppose that Mormon prophets receive no more divine revelation than anything else and that what they call heavenly inspiration & guidance is actually just their individual and collective point of view, shaped by culture, personal experience and upbringing. If that were actually the case, what would the process look like?

If prophets are not receiving godly revelation and instead are only expounding their own, deeply considered, personal view on the subject then:

• It would be framed by the questions they were willing/able to ask
• It would be dependent on the prophets personal frame of reference
• It would be influenced by the prophets personal pressures, demands and individual biases

In reality, Mormon prophetic revelation always follows the above pattern. You've acknowledged that and have, understandably, been able to shape that into a framework that leaves the church leaders as still being inspired individuals. The church teaches that "A prophet is a man called by God to be His representative on earth. When a prophet speaks for God, it is as if God were speaking."

You've described what you believe the process for that speaking for God to look like. The same process is what leads me to the conclusion that they are not inspired at all and, rather, are speaking from their collective personal opinions.

You need to add a fourth point in your list. I think we also need to consider God's own timetable as to when he reveals certain things, which He does have control over. Plenty of people before Joseph Smith asked Him which church was the right one. Other prophets before Spencer W. Kimball asked God if the blacks could receive the priesthood. But when those other people asked, it wasn't the right time. Part of the revelatory process is in the asking, but it also depends on when God thinks it is right to reveal the answers to questions.
He wants us to ask, but at what point in time He gives the answer is completely up to Him. And at the right time His answer does come by revelation and inspiration through His prophets.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 6:50 PM, bluebell said:

I looked up the syndrome because i had never heard of it before.  People who have it have male DNA (XY chromosomes) but have female anatomy and sex organs (except for ovaries).  Some are capable of carrying and birthing a child from a donated egg.

You probably know this but just thought I would point it out for others who may not: There is a wide variety of intersex individuals and this is merely one example. It is manifest in people in many different ways and is the "I" in LGBTQI

[Johnnie Cake]

8 hours ago, canard78 said:

Suppose that Mormon prophets receive no more divine revelation than anything else and that what they call heavenly inspiration & guidance is actually just their individual and collective point of view, shaped by culture, personal experience and upbringing. If that were actually the case, what would the process look like?

If prophets are not receiving godly revelation and instead are only expounding their own, deeply considered, personal view on the subject then:

• It would be framed by the questions they were willing/able to ask
• It would be dependent on the prophets personal frame of reference
• It would be influenced by the prophets personal pressures, demands and individual biases

The Proclamation on the Family is a excellent example of this process you've described. A wholly man-made production including the flaws and limitations of the period in which it was drafted that one would expect to find in a man made product.  It was created in the heat of the fight against marriage equality in Hawaii and helped form part of an amicus brief that Kirton McConkie drafted in the Church's fight against marriage equality in Hawaii in the mid-1990s and cooped by the First Presidency...It was never introduced as revelation...it has only taken on that title with the passage of time.  All one as to do is do some research to see the original amicus brief which is tide and tow with the PoF.  So which came first the chicken or the egg?  And since I understand that I will receive some push back on this claim or perhaps a request for a CRF I am more than willing to produce a copy of the original amicus of review...but out of respect for board policy I will withhold until asked by a responsible member of the board.

Never mind I'll save us all some time since I know a CFR is coming any way...so here's the link to the amicus brief  http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/legal/hawaii/baehr/1997/brief.mormons-04.14.97 and an interesting timeline of the proclamation written by Anthropology Professor Richley Crapo  https://www.mormonsocialscience.org/2008/01/04/richley-crapo-chronology-of-mormon-lds-involvement-in-same-sex-marriage-politics/

Edited January 31, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[CMZ]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The Proclamation on the Family is a excellent example of this process you've described. A wholly man-made production including the flaws and limitations of the period in which it was drafted that one would expect to find in a man made product.  It was created in the heat of the fight against marriage equality in Hawaii and helped form part of an amicus brief that Kirton McConkie drafted in the Church's fight against marriage equality in Hawaii in the mid-1990s and cooped by the First Presidency...It was never introduced as revelation...it has only taken on that title with the passage of time.  All one as to do is do some research to see the original amicus brief which is tide and tow with the PoF.  So which came first the chicken or the egg?  And since I understand that I will receive some push back on this claim or perhaps a request for a CRF I am more than willing to produce a copy of the original amicus of review...but out of respect for board policy I will withhold until asked by a responsible member of the board.

Never mind I'll save us all some time since I know a CFR is coming any way...so here's the link to the amicus brief  http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/legal/hawaii/baehr/1997/brief.mormons-04.14.97 and an interesting timeline of the proclamation written by Anthropologist Professor Richley Crapo  https://www.mormonsocialscience.org/2008/01/04/richley-crapo-chronology-of-mormon-lds-involvement-in-same-sex-marriage-politics/

As far as I know the Proclamation is still only referred to as a proclamation, though an inspired one, and not as a revelation. None of the principles in it were particularly new. I remember hearing about it while at a Church bookstore after it was read in the women's conference and before it was mentioned in the general conference the following weekend; the women talking about it at the bookstore said, "Meh, there was nothing really new to it." It is a very broad statement of general principle; it was never trying to be a scientific treatise on every physical/gender/sexual condition that could possibly exist. It didn't set that up as a goal for itself and then somehow miserably fail.

As far as the 'LGBTI' designation goes, I think many people who consider themselves as 'T' may actually be 'I' without knowing it.

[Tacenda]

On 1/28/2017 at 0:55 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

There is nothing new about some children being born with physical characteristics of both genders, and have long been termed hermaphroditic or androgynous.  Some plants and insects are actually normally reproduced in that fashion, but it is a genetic error or other problem in utero in humans, where it is quite rare.  Gender is in any case something which can be defined along a spectrum of hormonal and physical attributes.

They were not androgynous in their pre-mortal existence, nor will they be so after.  Just another human challenge to deal with while on Earth.

So you know the last two sentences how?