Non-Binary gender status

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 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.

After 22 years these so-called "flaws" have not been corrected yet and I doubt they ever will be. It is good sound doctrine, consistent with the teachings of the Church. What flaws and limitations are you referring to? We have already adequately discussed and answered the issue of non-binary gender and other similar conditions, which were known at he time the proclamation was written. 

[CMZ]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So you know the last two sentences how?

Guessing he's getting it from the scriptures and the Proclamation and other inspired teachings.
 

Quote

 

Genesis 1:27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&type=verse&query=male+female+created

Edited January 31, 2017 by CMZ

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, CMZ said:

Guessing he's getting it from the scriptures and the Proclamation and other inspired teachings.
 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&type=verse&query=male+female+created

Okay, not to sound snarky, but male and female..could be in one body when looking at that scripture in Genesis. But I believe much of the Bible is man made. I just don't think anyone knows for sure. 

[CMZ]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, not to sound snarky, but male and female..could be in one body when looking at that scripture in Genesis. But I believe much of the Bible is man made. I just don't think anyone knows for sure. 

This is why we use the scriptures as springboards to personal revelation, to help us understand the full and true meaning behind any passage. It's why we also bring other teachings to bear when trying to interpret an isolated passage.
 

Quote

 

Genesis 2:22

22 And [from] the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

 

There wouldn't be much sense to having a man and a woman, and identifying them as something different from each other, if they were actually each a man and a woman.

Edited January 31, 2017 by CMZ

[Ken Madsen]

Doesn't Jesus Christ touch on this when referring to some eunuchs who were so born from their mother's womb?

Aren't we told the reason people are born blind (presumably born with any imperfection) was that the works of God should be made manifest?

Aren't we told that there should be no disputations?

Shouldn't we learn from each other, and seek knowledge through the Spirit of the Holy Ghost rather than getting angry with each other's ideas?

I believe the people who are born blind will not be blind in the resurrection.

On the surface, I would expect most people with two of the same sex (XX) chromosomes would be considered female or of homogametic sex, and most people with distinct sex chromosomes (XY) would be considered male or of heterogametic sex. 

Until we make this into a modern condition and create new laws, we might attempt to be as patient and kind with these people as we can.  If we will be judged by God on this, I would hope that I neither mock God, the church of God, nor any children of God; rather allow that the works of God be made manifest.

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, Ken Madsen said:

Doesn't Jesus Christ touch on this when referring to some eunuchs who were so born from their mother's womb?

Aren't we told the reason people are born blind (presumably born with any imperfection) was that the works of God should be made manifest?

Aren't we told that there should be no disputations?

Shouldn't we learn from each other, and seek knowledge through the Spirit of the Holy Ghost rather than getting angry with each other's ideas?

I believe the people who are born blind will not be blind in the resurrection.

On the surface, I would expect most people with two of the same sex (XX) chromosomes would be considered female or of homogametic sex, and most people with distinct sex chromosomes (XY) would be considered male or of heterogametic sex. 

Until we make this into a modern condition and create new laws, we might attempt to be as patient and kind with these people as we can.  If we will be judged by God on this, I would hope that I neither mock God, the church of God, nor any children of God; rather allow that the works of God be made manifest.

Agree with most of what you say. Regarding disputations, mostly we are just discussing these issues. But there are those on this board who don't exactly agree with what is stated in scripture so there will be disputations and a little anger sometimes.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

So you know the last two sentences how?

Based on all references in Scripture never suggesting eternal androgyny, but the consistent male or female gender identity in all of Scripture -- including all LDS discussions of life beyond the veil.  Aside from that, it is my belief that we are all here under similar circumstances and promise -- to carry on throughout eternity just as we were in our pre-mortal state, male or female only.  I don't know why some spirit children are male and others female (perhaps in their basic atomistic spark -- intelligence).

[CMZ]

5 hours ago, Ken Madsen said:

On the surface, I would expect most people with two of the same sex (XX) chromosomes would be considered female or of homogametic sex, and most people with distinct sex chromosomes (XY) would be considered male or of heterogametic sex.

That does make a good general rule. However, there are exceptions both ways. With androgen insensitivity syndrome the subject has male (XY) DNA but appears outwardly to be female, and most such people report feeling female.

[canard78]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Based on all references in Scripture never suggesting eternal androgyny, but the consistent male or female gender identity in all of Scripture -- including all LDS discussions of life beyond the veil.  Aside from that, it is my belief that we are all here under similar circumstances and promise -- to carry on throughout eternity just as we were in our pre-mortal state, male or female only.  I don't know why some spirit children are male and others female (perhaps in their basic atomistic spark -- intelligence).

Wouldn't it be fair to say, given our earlier discussion about how revelation works, that the Scriptures are not a reliable source on non-binary gender and its status in the eternities?

According to our earlier conversation, prophets can only receive revelations that are framed by the concepts they can conceive and the questions they are willing or able to ask. All of the scriptural references to gender were made by people who had no concept of non-binary gender. As such they could only conceive of binary (male/female) gender. Therefore, isn't the entire cannon on gender based on the revelations on people who couldn't have had anything related to eternal androgyny given the limitations of their frameworks?

It's possible that a modern prophet could comment on non-binary gender, given it's now something he, science and society is starting to understand. You could call on them for reference but, if the process of receiving revelation is as you've proposed, the ancient prophets are not a reliable source on eternal gender given their revelations on such would be limited.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

Wouldn't it be fair to say, given our earlier discussion about how revelation works, that the Scriptures are not a reliable source on non-binary gender and its status in the eternities?

Scriptures only have the reliability which we grant unto them.  And which we are able to extrapolate from them, if we choose.  We have volition, free agency.

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

According to our earlier conversation, prophets can only receive revelations that are framed by the concepts they can conceive and the questions they are willing or able to ask. All of the scriptural references to gender were made by people who had no concept of non-binary gender. As such they could only conceive of binary (male/female) gender. Therefore, isn't the entire cannon on gender based on the revelations on people who couldn't have had anything related to eternal androgyny given the limitations of their frameworks?

Truly.  However, the Scriptural Canon can be interpreted in a rabbinic way to provide guidance for those of us who deal with such perplexing questions.  The Jews have survived for a long time in such fashion.

3 hours ago, canard78 said:

It's possible that a modern prophet could comment on non-binary gender, given it's now something he, science and society is starting to understand. You could call on them for reference but, if the process of receiving revelation is as you've proposed, the ancient prophets are not a reliable source on eternal gender given their revelations on such would be limited.

We can adopt a wait-and-see attitude.  Meantime, we re not entirely bereft of knowledge, canard.  The Holy Spirit guides.

[canard78]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scriptures only have the reliability which we grant unto them.  And which we are able to extrapolate from them, if we choose.  We have volition, free agency.

Truly.  However, the Scriptural Canon can be interpreted in a rabbinic way to provide guidance for those of us who deal with such perplexing questions.  The Jews have survived for a long time in such fashion.

We can adopt a wait-and-see attitude.  Meantime, we re not entirely bereft of knowledge, canard.  The Holy Spirit guides.

To re-cap, you'd earlier made an assertion that spirits are not androgynous and there will only be male or female spirits in heaven. We'd also had a discussion about how a prophet can only receive revelation in their own context and questions. That it was dependent on the questions and concerns they had. As such, a specific question about non-binary spirits appears to have never been a concern or question for the ancient prophets and is only just getting onto the table as a question today.

When Tacenda asked how you could know or assert with such confidence that spirit genders are binary, you made an appeal to the scriptures. When I pointed out that the people you're appealing to had never considered non-binary humans, let alone non-binary spirits you've acknowledged that but have added that you feel there's enough in the scriptures to extrapolate that there is still available ancient revelation that answers this modern question. 

Isn't biblical extrapolation, rabbinic interpretation and personal inspiration the very reason there are so many christian sects? So, where you finish is in a position of not having any particular strong scriptural basis for your conclusion about spirit gender, but instead a wait and see attitude combined with your person interpretation of what you feel is inspiration on the question from the holy spirit?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, canard78 said:

Therefore, isn't the entire cannon on gender based on the revelations on people who couldn't have had anything related to eternal androgyny given the limitations of their frameworks?

I don't think mankind was ever limited in this regard; non-binary people have always been part of the framework, and when upon the earth, the revealed covenants would have been extended to them much as they are today. Some covenants (priesthood ordination, marriage, etc.) are gender-specific. Now as in primitive times, inspiration is sought when questions arise about properly entering the right covenant for individual circumstances. I think in some rare instance someone might decide to wait in faith.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, canard78 said:

To re-cap, you'd earlier made an assertion that spirits are not androgynous and there will only be male or female spirits in heaven. We'd also had a discussion about how a prophet can only receive revelation in their own context and questions. That it was dependent on the questions and concerns they had. As such, a specific question about non-binary spirits appears to have never been a concern or question for the ancient prophets and is only just getting onto the table as a question today.

When Tacenda asked how you could know or assert with such confidence that spirit genders are binary, you made an appeal to the scriptures. When I pointed out that the people you're appealing to had never considered non-binary humans, let alone non-binary spirits you've acknowledged that but have added that you feel there's enough in the scriptures to extrapolate that there is still available ancient revelation that answers this modern question. 

Isn't biblical extrapolation, rabbinic interpretation and personal inspiration the very reason there are so many christian sects? So, where you finish is in a position of not having any particular strong scriptural basis for your conclusion about spirit gender, but instead a wait and see attitude combined with your person interpretation of what you feel is inspiration on the question from the holy spirit?

Actually i understood you very well the first and second time around, canard.  We seem to be talking past each other.

I do not take the Protestant approach to Scripture as the normative control (sola scriptura).  So, although you are correct to say that prophets only ask for answers to questions that come up within their cultural and thought-world (and God generally waits for that and interacts with it), the answers can be expansive and generic in nature and far-reaching in application.  Rabbinic responsa has been so fertile precisely for that reason, and that has very important survival value.  Such progressive interpretation can take place without always engendering sectarian splits, but it is a considerable danger (as you note).  The Mormon missionary typically (and correctly) observes that absent prophetic power to ground those wild interpretations, we do indeed end up with rampant denominationalism.  The Mormon advantage is in having a man who is prophet, seer, revelator,  Church President, and President of the High Priesthood of God on Earth all rolled into one.  Kind of like the Pope, who provides central supervision of the faith as well as the physical facilities of the church, the LDS President is not simply a seeker after prophetic information, but also the CEO of a huge corporation.  As such, even the horizontal and decentralized LDS sructure can retain a basically common view of the meaning of Scripture.  Why and How?  Via the Holy Spirit., without which it could not be done.

Thus, even though we have no specific comment from prophets on possible eternal impoications of transgender or intersex issues, we do have a consistent Scriptural array of very gender specific norms and boundaries.  I adopt a wait and see attitude only because I don't want to set myself up as all-knowing, nor to foreclose future revelation on the subject.  I think that only fair.  The principle of continuing revelation is more powerful than rabbinic responsa, but not at all a predictor of the future.

[canard78]

On 1/28/2017 at 7:55 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

-snip-

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.

 

On 1/31/2017 at 4:23 PM, Tacenda said:

So you know the last two sentences how?

 

On 1/31/2017 at 9:28 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Based on all references in Scripture never suggesting eternal androgyny, but the consistent male or female gender identity in all of Scripture -- including all LDS discussions of life beyond the veil.  Aside from that, it is my belief that we are all here under similar circumstances and promise -- to carry on throughout eternity just as we were in our pre-mortal state, male or female only.  I don't know why some spirit children are male and others female (perhaps in their basic atomistic spark -- intelligence).

 

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

-snip-

Thus, even though we have no specific comment from prophets on possible eternal impoications of transgender or intersex issues, we do have a consistent Scriptural array of very gender specific norms and boundaries.  I adopt a wait and see attitude only because I don't want to set myself up as all-knowing, nor to foreclose future revelation on the subject.  I think that only fair.  

Perhaps we are talking past each other, that wasn't my intention. You've said you adopt a wait and see attitude. The reason we're having this conversation was as a tangent to your earlier statement on page 1 (quoted at the top). You've stated that non-binary gender is "just another human challenge" and that "they were not androgynous in their pre-mortal existence, nor will they be so after." Your original statement doesn't sound like a very "wait and see attitude." How can you make assertive and absolute statements about what their gender will be in the hereafter if you're taking a wait and see attitude.

Quote

I do not take the Protestant approach to Scripture as the normative control (sola scriptura).  So, although you are correct to say that prophets only ask for answers to questions that come up within their cultural and thought-world (and God generally waits for that and interacts with it), the answers can be expansive and generic in nature and far-reaching in application.  Rabbinic responsa has been so fertile precisely for that reason, and that has very important survival value.  Such progressive interpretation can take place without always engendering sectarian splits, but it is a considerable danger (as you note).  The Mormon missionary typically (and correctly) observes that absent prophetic power to ground those wild interpretations, we do indeed end up with rampant denominationalism.  The Mormon advantage is in having a man who is prophet, seer, revelator,  Church President, and President of the High Priesthood of God on Earth all rolled into one.  Kind of like the Pope, who provides central supervision of the faith as well as the physical facilities of the church, the LDS President is not simply a seeker after prophetic information, but also the CEO of a huge corporation.  As such, even the horizontal and decentralized LDS sructure can retain a basically common view of the meaning of Scripture.  Why and How?  Via the Holy Spirit., without which it could not be done.

-SNIP-

...The principle of continuing revelation is more powerful than rabbinic responsa, but not at all a predictor of the future.

 

First, thanks for the reference to the rabbinic responsa. I've just enjoyed a couple of hours of diversion reading up on it. I agree that it's a useful reference point for comparison to Mormon prophetic revelation.

Is the outcome of Mormonism's claim to continuing revelation really any more powerful than rabbinic responsa? My observation of the process of continuing revelation is that it's essentially the same thing. A group of religious leaders (in this case, Mormon) are interpreting scripture and precedent to make ethical, procedural and theological rulings on pressing questions and issues. The Mormon religious leaders only answer questions that are live and relevant, just like the responsa. They aren't able to answer questions that haven't been raised yet, because the question hasn't occurred to them either. 

I agree with you that the fundamental difference, rests on whether the Holy Spirit is involved in the continuing revelation and not involved in rabbinic responsa. It's problematic that the only apparent way of concluding whether mormon prophets receive guidance via the Holy Spirit is to seek personal confirmation that they from the same source yourself, the Holy Spirit. Can you see why some might see it as a flawed model?

[thesometimesaint]

I don't see it as a flawed process. When asking questions of God, what better is to go to God for the answer?

IE; If you want to know what I believe who better to ask than me?

Edited February 2, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[CV75]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

Can you see why some might see it as a flawed model?

There are so many ways to see it as a flawed model, resulting from flawed observation and description.

[canard78]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

There are so many ways to see it as a flawed model, resulting from flawed observation and description.

What was flawed in my observation and description?

[Benjamin McGuire]

For me, I appreciate the fact that the Proclamation on the Family spells out the idea that there is a gender in the pre-existence. Our challenge with gender ambiguous children, with the occurrence of gender reassignment surgery that is regularly used for those children points to the reality that our biological gender is not identical with our spiritual gender in every instance. And so this provides us with a doctrinal point of entrance into the discussion of how to address those with biologically linked gender issues of all sorts. This kind of discussion will be necessary for us to find ways to be more inclusive in the Gospel for those who experience (through no choice of their own) challenges that the Church really has no adequate response for right now.

At least we have stopped blaming it on poor parenting, or progressive sinfulness, or all of the other past justifications used to to explain how "unnatural" these conditions are.

Ben McGuire

[CV75]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

What was flawed in my observation and description?

The model is that responsa is one thing, and revelation is another.

In religious applications, responsa are for practical policy and instruction based on concurrent or prior revelation, and revelations are for fundamental doctrine, and as opposed to formulating policy to meet a contingency, it is discovering previously unknown spiritual information. You can’t have responsa without revelation, but you can have revelation without responsa (exmples are the revealed covenants such as baptism, priesthood and marriage). I think it is flawed to consider them, in this model, to be the same thing.

A case in point is the priesthood ban. Church policy was based on an understanding of the extant revelations, and the new revelation in 1978 changed the responsa. The prophets could not rightly undo the policy without a revelation. The subject was upon a narrow and previously unknown matter, simply because “the long-promised day [had not yet] come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood.” There is a flaw in observing that the fundamental oath and covenant of the priesthood, given by revelation, had changed.

The Church has made some responsa (statements and policies) recently on various gender and sexuality issues to meet the contingencies of the day, based on the revelations (canon). But the saints of God have faced these life conditions and circumstances all along without the same responsa, and probably at about the same rate of incidence as we do now, but without the external political and media influences we have today. There is a flaw in assuming that the fundamental, gender-specific covenants (such as priesthood, temple and marriage) would change by revelation to suit external forces (as do responsa, and inspired just the same), as explained below:

It could be said the revelation resulting in “The Manifesto” came about due to political influences, but it could be as easily said that the saints were simply not prepared to overcome the world, just as the United Order was retracted before they destroyed the Church. So there is a flaw in the observation that revelation and not responsa can arise from political and media exigencies.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, canard78 said:

Perhaps we are talking past each other, that wasn't my intention. You've said you adopt a wait and see attitude. The reason we're having this conversation was as a tangent to your earlier statement on page 1 (quoted at the top). You've stated that non-binary gender is "just another human challenge" and that "they were not androgynous in their pre-mortal existence, nor will they be so after." Your original statement doesn't sound like a very "wait and see attitude." How can you make assertive and absolute statements about what their gender will be in the hereafter if you're taking a wait and see attitude.

First, thanks for the reference to the rabbinic responsa. I've just enjoyed a couple of hours of diversion reading up on it. I agree that it's a useful reference point for comparison to Mormon prophetic revelation.

Is the outcome of Mormonism's claim to continuing revelation really any more powerful than rabbinic responsa? My observation of the process of continuing revelation is that it's essentially the same thing. A group of religious leaders (in this case, Mormon) are interpreting scripture and precedent to make ethical, procedural and theological rulings on pressing questions and issues. The Mormon religious leaders only answer questions that are live and relevant, just like the responsa. They aren't able to answer questions that haven't been raised yet, because the question hasn't occurred to them either. 

I agree with you that the fundamental difference, rests on whether the Holy Spirit is involved in the continuing revelation and not involved in rabbinic responsa. It's problematic that the only apparent way of concluding whether mormon prophets receive guidance via the Holy Spirit is to seek personal confirmation that they from the same source yourself, the Holy Spirit. Can you see why some might see it as a flawed model?

My comments were not intended as a master's thesis or profound disquisition on the issue you raised, canard, but only as conversational responses to it.  And I don't consider the rabbinic responsa as being absent the Holy Spirit (in which the rabbis sincerely believe).  I spent years in orthodox (and other) synagogues, and have often felt the power of the Holy Spirit there.  The Jews are not to be taken lightly.

I see no flaw at all in requiring that all know for themselves whether a particular doctrine is true, although some doctrines are so exotic and undeveloped as to be indefinable.  That is why I adopt a wait and see attitude.  We could have carried on a discussion of the scientific/biological facts, but it didn't seem relevant.  We simply know too little.

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

For me, I appreciate the fact that the Proclamation on the Family spells out the idea that there is a gender in the pre-existence. Our challenge with gender ambiguous children, with the occurrence of gender reassignment surgery that is regularly used for those children points to the reality that our biological gender is not identical with our spiritual gender in every instance. And so this provides us with a doctrinal point of entrance into the discussion of how to address those with biologically linked gender issues of all sorts. This kind of discussion will be necessary for us to find ways to be more inclusive in the Gospel for those who experience (through no choice of their own) challenges that the Church really has no adequate response for right now.

At least we have stopped blaming it on poor parenting, or progressive sinfulness, or all of the other past justifications used to to explain how "unnatural" these conditions are.

Ben McGuire

I would say the Church hasn't  many public responses on these matters, but that is not due to a lack of revelation or inspiration on the part of priesthood leaders who have managed these questions with the saints from the beginning. I believe the disconnect between inspired individual counseling and "public" / "handbook"  policy on the subject has been artificially created by the media and politicians making the exceptional popular, for their own ends and not for the welfare of Zion or the children of God on teh whole.

[Benjamin McGuire]

No CV75 - we don't have a real response.

It's not about a public response - its about how to place these individuals into the gospel as we understand it. We speak about how important family is, how important being sealed in the temple is, how important it is to have that special relationship with your spouse, and your children - and for this group - well, you don't get any of this in this life - you have to wait until it all gets sorted out later. It's just too bad that you crave human intimacy as much as the rest of us. You just can't have it.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

No CV75 - we don't have a real response.

It's not about a public response - its about how to place these individuals into the gospel as we understand it. We speak about how important family is, how important being sealed in the temple is, how important it is to have that special relationship with your spouse, and your children - and for this group - well, you don't get any of this in this life - you have to wait until it all gets sorted out later. It's just too bad that you crave human intimacy as much as the rest of us. You just can't have it.

This life is terribly unfair.  The gospel gives hope to those who feel like justice doesn't exist.  People are born blind who want to see, people are born deaf who want to hear, people are born with rare disabilities/deformities which prevent them from human intimacy and are viewed as "freaks" by the public at large, people are born into horrendous poverty and starvation, some are born in the atrocities of war, some people have life long debilitating disease, others are abused, some are sold kidnapped and sold into human trafficking.  Many will never be married or have children though they desperately crave it, others will be married and have children against their will.  From a temporal perspective, it is difficult to say where do these people fit in the gospel.  The hope and faith that "it will all get sorted out later" is what makes this gospel remarkable.  It is what gives every displaced, disabled, and maltreated member of society a hope for justice, a hope for healing, a hope for redemption, a hope for wholeness.  The gospel gives a hope and a home to/for all because it gives us an eternal perspective.  Don't limit your vision.    

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

No CV75 - we don't have a real response.

It's not about a public response - its about how to place these individuals into the gospel as we understand it. We speak about how important family is, how important being sealed in the temple is, how important it is to have that special relationship with your spouse, and your children - and for this group - well, you don't get any of this in this life - you have to wait until it all gets sorted out later. It's just too bad that you crave human intimacy as much as the rest of us. You just can't have it.

But they are placed into the Gospel as we understand it. The Gospel is that Christ came into the world to do the will of the Father. The presence in one's life of any of the important things you mention are only as meaningful and worthwhile as our faith in Christ. Faith in Christ is arguably the most real thing we can have in this life, along with a body, and is what makes the impact of lacking any of these important things pale in comparison to His promises*. There is nothing wrong with waiting; that is what faith is designed for, along with trust in the past and hope in the future. There is nothing wrong with craving if you have faith; it takes on a different sheen.

* I just happened to be reading this today (and it doesn't matter why or how one is single in this life): https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-gordon-b-hinckley/chapter-10-nurturing-the-eternal-partnership-of-marriage?lang=eng

“You are just as important as any others in the scheme of our Father in Heaven, and under His mercy no blessing to which you otherwise might be entitled will forever be withheld from you.

“Permit me now to say a word to those who have never had the opportunity to be married. I assure you that we are sensitive to the loneliness that many of you feel. Loneliness is a bitter and painful thing. I suppose all people have felt it at one time or another. Our hearts reach out to you with understanding and love. …

“… This season of your lives can be wonderful. You have maturity. You have judgment. Most of you have training and experience. You have the physical, mental, and spiritual strength to lift and help and encourage.

“There are so many out there who need you. … Keep your spiritual batteries at full charge and light the lamps of others.”

There’s a lot more:

“God has given you talents of one kind or another. He has given you the capacity to serve the needs of others and bless their lives with your kindness and concern. Reach out to someone in need. …

“There are tremendous opportunities for you if you are prepared to take advantage of them. … Do not feel that because you are single, God has forsaken you. The world needs you. The Church needs you. So very many people and causes need your strength and wisdom and talents.

“Be prayerful, and do not lose hope. … Live the very best life of which you are capable, and the Lord in his greater wisdom and in his eternal season will give you answer to your prayers.

“The Lord will not deny you nor turn you away. The answers to your prayers may not be dramatic; they may not be readily understood or even appreciated. But the time will come when you will know that you have been blessed.”

[Storm Rider]

On 1/27/2017 at 5:54 PM, JAHS said:

So are you saying that ultimately God knows which gender they were in the pre-mortal world and which one they were supposed to be in this life, but something went wrong in the womb? And that He can make them what they were supposed to be in the resurrection? Sure makes for a confusing life while on earth.

I would sure hate for Jesus' atonement to make me something I am not in mortal life.  It just makes for so much confusion in this life that I will somehow be "perfected" in the afterlife.  I think you are on to something big here....you do sense my sarcasm here, yes?

This entire life is about becoming one with God; we don't see him and yet we follow after him.  Are we supposed to set aside wisdom because this is topic on gender?  We have become blind in our search for political correctness and to be accepted by the world.